Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 ) it will be the one that disproportionately hits those on the lowest incomes...
So if the Tories win be prepared for 1,2 or maybe 3 or 4% on National Insurance.
And for those who think I am wrong it's the tax they have said they have no plans to increase which is what they have done prior to the last 2 elections and in March just prior to attempting to put it up in the last budget. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No confusion what so ever! If an income based tax has to be increased (it has ) it will be the one that disproportionately hits those on the lowest incomes...
So if the Tories win be prepared for 1,2 or maybe 3 or 4% on National Insurance.
And for those who think I am wrong it's the tax they have said they have no plans to increase which is what they have done prior to the last 2 elections and in March just prior to attempting to put it up in the last budget." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On another thread pretty much everyone was in favour of raising taxes. " I would be happy to pay more taxes if they went towards funding public services, not lining the pockets of May and Murdochs mates. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On another thread pretty much everyone was in favour of raising taxes. " Raising the tax take in total to better fund services is a very different prospect to raising the tax of lower income earners to fund a tax break for the wealthy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On another thread pretty much everyone was in favour of raising taxes. Raising the tax take in total to better fund services is a very different prospect to raising the tax of lower income earners to fund a tax break for the wealthy." This.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"it actually in effect even worse... what they are also proposing is that the level in which higher rate tax kicks in be raised from 45000 to 50000....... which basically means everyone who earns over 45000 essentially gets a tax cut of up to 1000 pounds a year..... " There you go... There is the bribe elect us and if you earn over £870 a week we will let you keep a little more... Now elect us and we will flog off all NHS property to our mates who will then charge high rents so we can give away whats left of it to the yank medical insurance companies and 1 in 4 of you can go without healthcare because you wont be able to afford it... By the way if your in social housing we are going to take that from you too (we told you that as soon as we get a big enough majority were taking it, so if you have forgotten that's your fault). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom." but we are being told this is an austerity election... so then cutting back on everything, whilst giving back to your perceived chums at the top doesn't scream "all in it together!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom." Absolute crap spread by those greedy shits who want to leach! When we had a high income tax economy with a base rate of 40% we were able to afford to build hospitals roads schools houses free dentistry for all free education for all maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds and have nearly 100% employment. Admittedly you had the likes of the Beatles complaining and pissing off. But most people do not have that option so gritted their teeth paid. Now after nearly 40 years of reducing income tax nearly everything has been sold off! And still greedy pigs come out with the same shit about reducing taxation raises more revenue! You sir are either wilfully blind to what is happening in this country, delusional or giving that you live in Germany and Spain one of the those with their snouts in the trough getting fat off the proceeds of asset stripping the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom." You're wrong. The Tories cutting corporation tax from 28% to 19% costs us 9.7 billion a year. Cutting it to 17% as they plan to will cost us a further 6.8 billion a year. Mr | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom." Tax rates and tax takes work on a bell curve normally so increasing tax rates will increase tax take up to a point. The UK is nowhere near that point as can be seen in historical tax rates vs revenues in the last 17 years and longer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It appears that the Tories are confused over this issue. A case of the rich getting richer again?" Ironically higher rate tax payers pay more than their fair share of tax and it is difficult to see any valid reasons for asking then to pay even more . The top 50 % of all taxpayers pay 90.3 % of the total income tax bill. Luckily a considerable number of the population are not fully paid up members of the something for nothing brigade and do not expect higher rate tax payers to subsidize them. By Friday morning the electorate will have confirmed which policies are best for the country overall. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. You're wrong. The Tories cutting corporation tax from 28% to 19% costs us 9.7 billion a year. Cutting it to 17% as they plan to will cost us a further 6.8 billion a year. Mr" Not sure how you get to those figures. FY 16/17 corporation tax intake was a little over £55bn compared to around £37bn in 2010. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure how you get to those figures. FY 16/17 corporation tax intake was a little over £55bn compared to around £37bn in 2010. " Nice to see you pick the year when we were in the middle of the biggest recession (remember double dip and the fear that it would become triple dip and the emergency austerity budget?) How about you pick 2005/6 or 6/7 figures to quote? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure how you get to those figures. FY 16/17 corporation tax intake was a little over £55bn compared to around £37bn in 2010. Nice to see you pick the year when we were in the middle of the biggest recession (remember double dip and the fear that it would become triple dip and the emergency austerity budget?) How about you pick 2005/6 or 6/7 figures to quote? " No i just pick the year the conservatives started setting the rate. The rates gone down, the take has gone up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. You're wrong. The Tories cutting corporation tax from 28% to 19% costs us 9.7 billion a year. Cutting it to 17% as they plan to will cost us a further 6.8 billion a year. Mr Not sure how you get to those figures. FY 16/17 corporation tax intake was a little over £55bn compared to around £37bn in 2010. " Don't think I can post links so... Its from the IFS, an article called 'what's happening with corporation tax'. Mr | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. You're wrong. The Tories cutting corporation tax from 28% to 19% costs us 9.7 billion a year. Cutting it to 17% as they plan to will cost us a further 6.8 billion a year. Mr Not sure how you get to those figures. FY 16/17 corporation tax intake was a little over £55bn compared to around £37bn in 2010. Don't think I can post links so... Its from the IFS, an article called 'what's happening with corporation tax'. Mr" Thanks, it's a good article. I also quote from it: "Corporate tax is top of an OECD ranking of the most damaging types of tax. One concern may be over the distributional consequences of lower corporation taxes. Corporation tax can reduce the return to company shareholders (for example through lower dividends). This will affect not only individuals with direct holdings but also those with private pensions since most pension funds will be at least somewhat invested in UK corporate equities (i.e. shares). However, an important feature of corporation tax is that the ultimate burden is not necessarily entirely borne by company shareholders. It can be borne by workers. In short, if firms decide to respond to higher corporation tax rates by doing less investment in the UK, that leaves UK employees with fewer job opportunities and lower average wages. Evidence suggests that, because capital tends to be much more mobile than workers, a significant share of the burden of corporation tax tends to get shifted to labour. Corporation tax can also be borne by consumers if firms respond by increasing the prices they charge. Overall, because of these factors, the distributional impact of a cut to corporation tax is not clear. In addition, what matters for welfare is the distributional consequences of the whole tax and benefit system, not any individual part of it" The article also notes the effective tax rate for companies in the UK is still "uncompetitive" because of all the other stealth taxes politicians love. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. You're wrong. The Tories cutting corporation tax from 28% to 19% costs us 9.7 billion a year. Cutting it to 17% as they plan to will cost us a further 6.8 billion a year. Mr Not sure how you get to those figures. FY 16/17 corporation tax intake was a little over £55bn compared to around £37bn in 2010. Don't think I can post links so... Its from the IFS, an article called 'what's happening with corporation tax'. Mr Thanks, it's a good article. I also quote from it: "Corporate tax is top of an OECD ranking of the most damaging types of tax. One concern may be over the distributional consequences of lower corporation taxes. Corporation tax can reduce the return to company shareholders (for example through lower dividends). This will affect not only individuals with direct holdings but also those with private pensions since most pension funds will be at least somewhat invested in UK corporate equities (i.e. shares). However, an important feature of corporation tax is that the ultimate burden is not necessarily entirely borne by company shareholders. It can be borne by workers. In short, if firms decide to respond to higher corporation tax rates by doing less investment in the UK, that leaves UK employees with fewer job opportunities and lower average wages. Evidence suggests that, because capital tends to be much more mobile than workers, a significant share of the burden of corporation tax tends to get shifted to labour. Corporation tax can also be borne by consumers if firms respond by increasing the prices they charge. Overall, because of these factors, the distributional impact of a cut to corporation tax is not clear. In addition, what matters for welfare is the distributional consequences of the whole tax and benefit system, not any individual part of it" The article also notes the effective tax rate for companies in the UK is still "uncompetitive" because of all the other stealth taxes politicians love. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On another thread pretty much everyone was in favour of raising taxes. I would be happy to pay more taxes if they went towards funding public services, not lining the pockets of May and Murdochs mates. -Matt" What tax money goes directly into the pockets of May and Murdoch? I"m interested to know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On another thread pretty much everyone was in favour of raising taxes. Raising the tax take in total to better fund services is a very different prospect to raising the tax of lower income earners to fund a tax break for the wealthy." Ah, so its ok to raise taxes......as long as it isn't yours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It appears that the Tories are confused over this issue. A case of the rich getting richer again? Ironically higher rate tax payers pay more than their fair share of tax and it is difficult to see any valid reasons for asking then to pay even more . The top 50 % of all taxpayers pay 90.3 % of the total income tax bill. Luckily a considerable number of the population are not fully paid up members of the something for nothing brigade and do not expect higher rate tax payers to subsidize them. By Friday morning the electorate will have confirmed which policies are best for the country overall. " Well said. Every party will raise taxes in one way or another and it will always come from the same sources, but only one party gets vilified for it. I read that 47% of tax is directly raised by the 5% richest population. Makes perfect sense to drive them out, then the tax can be replaced by those lower down the ladder  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. Absolute crap spread by those greedy shits who want to leach! When we had a high income tax economy with a base rate of 40% we were able to afford to build hospitals roads schools houses free dentistry for all free education for all maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds and have nearly 100% employment. Admittedly you had the likes of the Beatles complaining and pissing off. But most people do not have that option so gritted their teeth paid. Now after nearly 40 years of reducing income tax nearly everything has been sold off! And still greedy pigs come out with the same shit about reducing taxation raises more revenue! You sir are either wilfully blind to what is happening in this country, delusional or giving that you live in Germany and Spain one of the those with their snouts in the trough getting fat off the proceeds of asset stripping the UK." Oh yes the swinging sixties. What a great period that was. Wilson and his cronies chucking the cash around like a bunch of d*unken sailors. Gave the public everything they wanted until............ Oh yes that was it. The money ran out and the country finished up in hock to the IMF. "The pound in your pocket" Etc. My parents generation voted for that lot and my generation had to pick up the tab. NEVER AGAIN. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. Absolute crap spread by those greedy shits who want to leach! When we had a high income tax economy with a base rate of 40% we were able to afford to build hospitals roads schools houses free dentistry for all free education for all maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds and have nearly 100% employment. Admittedly you had the likes of the Beatles complaining and pissing off. But most people do not have that option so gritted their teeth paid. Now after nearly 40 years of reducing income tax nearly everything has been sold off! And still greedy pigs come out with the same shit about reducing taxation raises more revenue! You sir are either wilfully blind to what is happening in this country, delusional or giving that you live in Germany and Spain one of the those with their snouts in the trough getting fat off the proceeds of asset stripping the UK." I would just add to my earlier reply that your last paragraph sums up one of the reasons I left the UK 14 years ago. There is no other country I know of where the politics of envy are so strong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"it actually in effect even worse... what they are also proposing is that the level in which higher rate tax kicks in be raised from 45000 to 50000....... which basically means everyone who earns over 45000 essentially gets a tax cut of up to 1000 pounds a year..... There you go... There is the bribe elect us and if you earn over £870 a week we will let you keep a little more... Now elect us and we will flog off all NHS property to our mates who will then charge high rents so we can give away whats left of it to the yank medical insurance companies and 1 in 4 of you can go without healthcare because you wont be able to afford it... By the way if your in social housing we are going to take that from you too (we told you that as soon as we get a big enough majority were taking it, so if you have forgotten that's your fault). " Difficult to flog NHS property when they don't own most of it. It is already owned by the PFI companies thanks to Blairs great re-building plans. It is already rented out at extortionate rates which is where massive amounts of NHS spending is going (rather than on patients). That and crazy "maintenance " contracts that trusts are tied into where it typically costs £300 to change a bulb. The Tiries can't sell the properties off....Blair already did it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. Absolute crap spread by those greedy shits who want to leach! When we had a high income tax economy with a base rate of 40% we were able to afford to build hospitals roads schools houses free dentistry for all free education for all maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds and have nearly 100% employment. Admittedly you had the likes of the Beatles complaining and pissing off. But most people do not have that option so gritted their teeth paid. Now after nearly 40 years of reducing income tax nearly everything has been sold off! And still greedy pigs come out with the same shit about reducing taxation raises more revenue! You sir are either wilfully blind to what is happening in this country, delusional or giving that you live in Germany and Spain one of the those with their snouts in the trough getting fat off the proceeds of asset stripping the UK. I would just add to my earlier reply that your last paragraph sums up one of the reasons I left the UK 14 years ago. There is no other country I know of where the politics of envy are so strong." And nobody can find a fuck to give.When expats bitch like little girls from outside the UK.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theres about $30 trillion in tax havens in the carribean.If your looking for a money tree .Look no further. Lets shake that motherfucking tree.. "Source? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theres about $30 trillion in tax havens in the carribean.If your looking for a money tree .Look no further. Lets shake that motherfucking tree..
Source? "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theres about $30 trillion in tax havens in the carribean.If your looking for a money tree .Look no further. Lets shake that motherfucking tree..
Source? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097"Interesting. But that isn't the same thing as $30tn owed to the UK HMRC. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theres about $30 trillion in tax havens in the carribean.If your looking for a money tree .Look no further. Lets shake that motherfucking tree..
Source? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097
Interesting. But that isn't the same thing as $30tn owed to the UK HMRC. "Nor does it address the practical issue that HMRC think that the maximum they could posssibly collect from that would be £36bn a year. A figure that every government since 1997 has been chasing, albeit the tax gap has reduced recently despite labours protests to the contrary. Are HMRC in on the conspiracy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theres about $30 trillion in tax havens in the carribean.If your looking for a money tree .Look no further. Lets shake that motherfucking tree..
Source? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097
Interesting. But that isn't the same thing as $30tn owed to the UK HMRC.
Nor does it address the practical issue that HMRC think that the maximum they could posssibly collect from that would be £36bn a year. A figure that every government since 1997 has been chasing, albeit the tax gap has reduced recently despite labours protests to the contrary. Are HMRC in on the conspiracy? "The goverment can impose direct rule on our over seas territories that heavily involved .In fact corbyn has suggested we do this.If we dont do it then yes its a conspiracy.Because we have the power and we aren't using it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On another thread pretty much everyone was in favour of raising taxes. Raising the tax take in total to better fund services is a very different prospect to raising the tax of lower income earners to fund a tax break for the wealthy. Ah, so its ok to raise taxes......as long as it isn't yours." Not what I said at all so let me repeat myself. Paying extra for better services for people is one thing, poor people paying extra so the rich can throw more money in their carribbean accounts is not beneficial to the country or society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theres about $30 trillion in tax havens in the carribean.If your looking for a money tree .Look no further. Lets shake that motherfucking tree..
Source? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097
Interesting. But that isn't the same thing as $30tn owed to the UK HMRC.
Nor does it address the practical issue that HMRC think that the maximum they could posssibly collect from that would be £36bn a year. A figure that every government since 1997 has been chasing, albeit the tax gap has reduced recently despite labours protests to the contrary. Are HMRC in on the conspiracy? The goverment can impose direct rule on our over seas territories that heavily involved .In fact corbyn has suggested we do this.If we dont do it then yes its a conspiracy.Because we have the power and we aren't using it."But as i say, all the money isn't owed in tax, the money that is owed isn't all owed to us and not every tax have is a British protectorate. So it is still an academic point and money tree I'm afraid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. Absolute crap spread by those greedy shits who want to leach! When we had a high income tax economy with a base rate of 40% we were able to afford to build hospitals roads schools houses free dentistry for all free education for all maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds and have nearly 100% employment. Admittedly you had the likes of the Beatles complaining and pissing off. But most people do not have that option so gritted their teeth paid. Now after nearly 40 years of reducing income tax nearly everything has been sold off! And still greedy pigs come out with the same shit about reducing taxation raises more revenue! " I don't know where you lived in 70's but it definitely wasn't in the Britain I lived in. I remember doctors and nurses being beaten up by left wing thugs for crossing picket lines to treat patients. I remember benefits, education and health services being cut in actual real money terms while inflation was running at 25%. I remember the Chancellor (Denis Healy) having to go begging to the US, EEC and IMF because the country had run out money. I remember not being able to burry my dead grandfather. You may be able to fool the young who weren't there with your lies that the 70's were some sort of socialist utopia but those of us who lived through the 70's and were there know it's total bullshit. " You sir are either wilfully blind to what is happening in this country, delusional or giving that you live in Germany and Spain one of the those with their snouts in the trough getting fat off the proceeds of asset stripping the UK." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure how you get to those figures. FY 16/17 corporation tax intake was a little over £55bn compared to around £37bn in 2010. Nice to see you pick the year when we were in the middle of the biggest recession (remember double dip and the fear that it would become triple dip and the emergency austerity budget?) How about you pick 2005/6 or 6/7 figures to quote? " Why don't you quote them for us? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. Absolute crap spread by those greedy shits who want to leach! When we had a high income tax economy with a base rate of 40% we were able to afford to build hospitals roads schools houses free dentistry for all free education for all maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds and have nearly 100% employment. Admittedly you had the likes of the Beatles complaining and pissing off. But most people do not have that option so gritted their teeth paid. Now after nearly 40 years of reducing income tax nearly everything has been sold off! And still greedy pigs come out with the same shit about reducing taxation raises more revenue! You sir are either wilfully blind to what is happening in this country, delusional or giving that you live in Germany and Spain one of the those with their snouts in the trough getting fat off the proceeds of asset stripping the UK. Oh yes the swinging sixties. What a great period that was. Wilson and his cronies chucking the cash around like a bunch of d*unken sailors. Gave the public everything they wanted until............ Oh yes that was it. The money ran out and the country finished up in hock to the IMF. "The pound in your pocket" Etc. My parents generation voted for that lot and my generation had to pick up the tab. NEVER AGAIN." U totally agree with your sentiments on the 60's and 70's. Never, ever again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. Absolute crap spread by those greedy shits who want to leach! When we had a high income tax economy with a base rate of 40% we were able to afford to build hospitals roads schools houses free dentistry for all free education for all maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds and have nearly 100% employment. Admittedly you had the likes of the Beatles complaining and pissing off. But most people do not have that option so gritted their teeth paid. Now after nearly 40 years of reducing income tax nearly everything has been sold off! And still greedy pigs come out with the same shit about reducing taxation raises more revenue! I don't know where you lived in 70's but it definitely wasn't in the Britain I lived in. I remember doctors and nurses being beaten up by left wing thugs for crossing picket lines to treat patients. I remember benefits, education and health services being cut in actual real money terms while inflation was running at 25%. I remember the Chancellor (Denis Healy) having to go begging to the US, EEC and IMF because the country had run out money. I remember not being able to burry my dead grandfather. You may be able to fool the young who weren't there with your lies that the 70's were some sort of socialist utopia but those of us who lived through the 70's and were there know it's total bullshit. You sir are either wilfully blind to what is happening in this country, delusional or giving that you live in Germany and Spain one of the those with their snouts in the trough getting fat off the proceeds of asset stripping the UK." You forgot the electricity black outs but otherwise | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. Tax rates and tax takes work on a bell curve normally so increasing tax rates will increase tax take up to a point. The UK is nowhere near that point as can be seen in historical tax rates vs revenues in the last 17 years and longer." Remind me again off corporation tax in Ireland and how many companies base themselves there? To those others remind me of the tax free allowance now compared to the last labour gov level, that rise has saved a lot of the poorer paid a lot of cash | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. Absolute crap spread by those greedy shits who want to leach! When we had a high income tax economy with a base rate of 40% we were able to afford to build hospitals roads schools houses free dentistry for all free education for all maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds and have nearly 100% employment. Admittedly you had the likes of the Beatles complaining and pissing off. But most people do not have that option so gritted their teeth paid. Now after nearly 40 years of reducing income tax nearly everything has been sold off! And still greedy pigs come out with the same shit about reducing taxation raises more revenue! I don't know where you lived in 70's but it definitely wasn't in the Britain I lived in. I remember doctors and nurses being beaten up by left wing thugs for crossing picket lines to treat patients. I remember benefits, education and health services being cut in actual real money terms while inflation was running at 25%. I remember the Chancellor (Denis Healy) having to go begging to the US, EEC and IMF because the country had run out money. I remember not being able to burry my dead grandfather. You may be able to fool the young who weren't there with your lies that the 70's were some sort of socialist utopia but those of us who lived through the 70's and were there know it's total bullshit. You sir are either wilfully blind to what is happening in this country, delusional or giving that you live in Germany and Spain one of the those with their snouts in the trough getting fat off the proceeds of asset stripping the UK. You forgot the electricity black outs but otherwise "We had plenty of money for holidays. In 1971, British tourists took some four million holidays abroad - which then seemed an awful lot. But by 1973 that figure had jumped to nine million and by 1981 it was more than 13 million. Lets not forget Bagpuss, space hoppers and Curly Wurlies .Every kid had a space hopper. #Goodtimes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. Absolute crap spread by those greedy shits who want to leach! When we had a high income tax economy with a base rate of 40% we were able to afford to build hospitals roads schools houses free dentistry for all free education for all maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds and have nearly 100% employment. Admittedly you had the likes of the Beatles complaining and pissing off. But most people do not have that option so gritted their teeth paid. Now after nearly 40 years of reducing income tax nearly everything has been sold off! And still greedy pigs come out with the same shit about reducing taxation raises more revenue! I don't know where you lived in 70's but it definitely wasn't in the Britain I lived in. I remember doctors and nurses being beaten up by left wing thugs for crossing picket lines to treat patients. I remember benefits, education and health services being cut in actual real money terms while inflation was running at 25%. I remember the Chancellor (Denis Healy) having to go begging to the US, EEC and IMF because the country had run out money. I remember not being able to burry my dead grandfather. You may be able to fool the young who weren't there with your lies that the 70's were some sort of socialist utopia but those of us who lived through the 70's and were there know it's total bullshit. You sir are either wilfully blind to what is happening in this country, delusional or giving that you live in Germany and Spain one of the those with their snouts in the trough getting fat off the proceeds of asset stripping the UK. You forgot the electricity black outs but otherwise We had plenty of money for holidays.
In 1971, British tourists took some four million holidays abroad - which then seemed an awful lot. But by 1973 that figure had jumped to nine million and by 1981 it was more than 13 million.
Lets not forget Bagpuss, space hoppers and Curly Wurlies .Every kid had a space hopper. #Goodtimes "Good point. It wasn't all bad but your post just reminded me we also had currency controls back then. The maximum amount anyone could take out of the country in cash was £25 per person and all purchases of foreign currency had to be registered and was recorded on your passport. It was really great back then!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As is nearly always the case. Higher tax rate = lower tax take. The best way forward would be to reduce the number of tax takers and increase the number of (real) tax payers. Punishing success only fuels the race to the bottom. Absolute crap spread by those greedy shits who want to leach! When we had a high income tax economy with a base rate of 40% we were able to afford to build hospitals roads schools houses free dentistry for all free education for all maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds and have nearly 100% employment. Admittedly you had the likes of the Beatles complaining and pissing off. But most people do not have that option so gritted their teeth paid. Now after nearly 40 years of reducing income tax nearly everything has been sold off! And still greedy pigs come out with the same shit about reducing taxation raises more revenue! I don't know where you lived in 70's but it definitely wasn't in the Britain I lived in. I remember doctors and nurses being beaten up by left wing thugs for crossing picket lines to treat patients. I remember benefits, education and health services being cut in actual real money terms while inflation was running at 25%. I remember the Chancellor (Denis Healy) having to go begging to the US, EEC and IMF because the country had run out money. I remember not being able to burry my dead grandfather. You may be able to fool the young who weren't there with your lies that the 70's were some sort of socialist utopia but those of us who lived through the 70's and were there know it's total bullshit. You sir are either wilfully blind to what is happening in this country, delusional or giving that you live in Germany and Spain one of the those with their snouts in the trough getting fat off the proceeds of asset stripping the UK. You forgot the electricity black outs but otherwise We had plenty of money for holidays.
In 1971, British tourists took some four million holidays abroad - which then seemed an awful lot. But by 1973 that figure had jumped to nine million and by 1981 it was more than 13 million.
Lets not forget Bagpuss, space hoppers and Curly Wurlies .Every kid had a space hopper. #Goodtimes
Good point. It wasn't all bad but your post just reminded me we also had currency controls back then. The maximum amount anyone could take out of the country in cash was £25 per person and all purchases of foreign currency had to be registered and was recorded on your passport. It was really great back then!!"In 1971 the limit was £50 per person. The equivalent of about £700 per person now. (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1969/jun/30/foreign-travel-allowance-lb50-limit) Of course, the pound was much stronger than it is now. So money went a lot further abroad. The limit was brought in by Labour and abolished by the Tories under Thatcher's first government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 They've cut 19,000 already and a further 16,000 is planned over the next 5 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read today.A Vote for the tories is a vote for a police force the same size as in 1978. They've cut 19,000 already and a further 16,000 is planned over the next 5 years."There's basically no correlation between crime and police numbers. Although the reporting methods and stats are so badly collected it's hard to know what they mean. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read today.A Vote for the tories is a vote for a police force the same size as in 1978. They've cut 19,000 already and a further 16,000 is planned over the next 5 years.
There's basically no correlation between crime and police numbers. Although the reporting methods and stats are so badly collected it's hard to know what they mean. "I guess in some ways it comes down to 'what is is worth?'. I mean, what are we willing to pay? Would we be happy with a few people killed each year in terrorist attacks for the sake of 20,000 police officers? Is that a fair trade? I think most people would emotionally say no it's not and any life lost is worth an infinite number of police officers. But where is the realistic line? Someone on here said something like 'if the police got there in 8 minutes surely we have enough officers'. Someone else said 8 minutes is appalling response time. Some people are calling for all officers to be armed. Yet I see armed police all over the place currently. Alas some people don't realise that policing involves more than just shooting bad guys after the event. The police are saying that more officers would mean more community intelligence, which they are badly missing. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read today.A Vote for the tories is a vote for a police force the same size as in 1978. They've cut 19,000 already and a further 16,000 is planned over the next 5 years.
There's basically no correlation between crime and police numbers. Although the reporting methods and stats are so badly collected it's hard to know what they mean.
I guess in some ways it comes down to 'what is is worth?'. I mean, what are we willing to pay? Would we be happy with a few people killed each year in terrorist attacks for the sake of 20,000 police officers? Is that a fair trade? I think most people would emotionally say no it's not and any life lost is worth an infinite number of police officers. But where is the realistic line?
Someone on here said something like 'if the police got there in 8 minutes surely we have enough officers'. Someone else said 8 minutes is appalling response time. Some people are calling for all officers to be armed. Yet I see armed police all over the place currently.
Alas some people don't realise that policing involves more than just shooting bad guys after the event. The police are saying that more officers would mean more community intelligence, which they are badly missing.
-Matt"But there's no correlation between the numbers and the crimes. Basically there's a huge time lag on these things, a lot like economic growth. For example, if you have an underclass growing up in poverty without good male role models (men committ most violent crime) then there's about 14 years from the start of that trend to it showing up in the figures. It's a famous example, in america crime was rising as police numbers were rising, if you look at the stats that way you might interpret that the police were causing the crime! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read today.A Vote for the tories is a vote for a police force the same size as in 1978. They've cut 19,000 already and a further 16,000 is planned over the next 5 years.
There's basically no correlation between crime and police numbers. Although the reporting methods and stats are so badly collected it's hard to know what they mean.
I guess in some ways it comes down to 'what is is worth?'. I mean, what are we willing to pay? Would we be happy with a few people killed each year in terrorist attacks for the sake of 20,000 police officers? Is that a fair trade? I think most people would emotionally say no it's not and any life lost is worth an infinite number of police officers. But where is the realistic line?
Someone on here said something like 'if the police got there in 8 minutes surely we have enough officers'. Someone else said 8 minutes is appalling response time. Some people are calling for all officers to be armed. Yet I see armed police all over the place currently.
Alas some people don't realise that policing involves more than just shooting bad guys after the event. The police are saying that more officers would mean more community intelligence, which they are badly missing.
-Matt
But there's no correlation between the numbers and the crimes. Basically there's a huge time lag on these things, a lot like economic growth. For example, if you have an underclass growing up in poverty without good male role models (men committ most violent crime) then there's about 14 years from the start of that trend to it showing up in the figures. It's a famous example, in america crime was rising as police numbers were rising, if you look at the stats that way you might interpret that the police were causing the crime! "So if we cut the force in half there would be no change in crime.No change in response time . She promised she could cut police budgets without affecting frontline policing – and then she cut 12,000 frontline officers and 6,000 Police Community Support Officers.A vote for may is a return to 70s policing levels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read today.A Vote for the tories is a vote for a police force the same size as in 1978. They've cut 19,000 already and a further 16,000 is planned over the next 5 years.
There's basically no correlation between crime and police numbers. Although the reporting methods and stats are so badly collected it's hard to know what they mean.
I guess in some ways it comes down to 'what is is worth?'. I mean, what are we willing to pay? Would we be happy with a few people killed each year in terrorist attacks for the sake of 20,000 police officers? Is that a fair trade? I think most people would emotionally say no it's not and any life lost is worth an infinite number of police officers. But where is the realistic line?
Someone on here said something like 'if the police got there in 8 minutes surely we have enough officers'. Someone else said 8 minutes is appalling response time. Some people are calling for all officers to be armed. Yet I see armed police all over the place currently.
Alas some people don't realise that policing involves more than just shooting bad guys after the event. The police are saying that more officers would mean more community intelligence, which they are badly missing.
-Matt
But there's no correlation between the numbers and the crimes. Basically there's a huge time lag on these things, a lot like economic growth. For example, if you have an underclass growing up in poverty without good male role models (men committ most violent crime) then there's about 14 years from the start of that trend to it showing up in the figures. It's a famous example, in america crime was rising as police numbers were rising, if you look at the stats that way you might interpret that the police were causing the crime! "So, what you saying? That we'll be even more fucked in 14 years time? Great. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read today.A Vote for the tories is a vote for a police force the same size as in 1978. They've cut 19,000 already and a further 16,000 is planned over the next 5 years.
There's basically no correlation between crime and police numbers. Although the reporting methods and stats are so badly collected it's hard to know what they mean.
I guess in some ways it comes down to 'what is is worth?'. I mean, what are we willing to pay? Would we be happy with a few people killed each year in terrorist attacks for the sake of 20,000 police officers? Is that a fair trade? I think most people would emotionally say no it's not and any life lost is worth an infinite number of police officers. But where is the realistic line?
Someone on here said something like 'if the police got there in 8 minutes surely we have enough officers'. Someone else said 8 minutes is appalling response time. Some people are calling for all officers to be armed. Yet I see armed police all over the place currently.
Alas some people don't realise that policing involves more than just shooting bad guys after the event. The police are saying that more officers would mean more community intelligence, which they are badly missing.
-Matt
But there's no correlation between the numbers and the crimes. Basically there's a huge time lag on these things, a lot like economic growth. For example, if you have an underclass growing up in poverty without good male role models (men committ most violent crime) then there's about 14 years from the start of that trend to it showing up in the figures. It's a famous example, in america crime was rising as police numbers were rising, if you look at the stats that way you might interpret that the police were causing the crime! So if we cut the force in half there would be no change in crime.No change in response time .
She promised she could cut police budgets without affecting frontline policing – and then she cut 12,000 frontline officers and 6,000 Police Community Support Officers.A vote for may is a return to 70s policing levels."You can answer your own question but posing it another way, if we have 140,000 police officers spending 80% of their time sat indoors, filling out paperwork by hand all day because there's zero investment in IT. Will they prevent / solve more or less crime than 75,000 officers who spend less than 20% of their time on admin and 80% actually doing what police are supposed to do. I've been arrested before, the interview took around 4 hours because they had to write everything i was saying by hand and stop to change cassette tapes about 3 times. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read today.A Vote for the tories is a vote for a police force the same size as in 1978. They've cut 19,000 already and a further 16,000 is planned over the next 5 years.
There's basically no correlation between crime and police numbers. Although the reporting methods and stats are so badly collected it's hard to know what they mean.
I guess in some ways it comes down to 'what is is worth?'. I mean, what are we willing to pay? Would we be happy with a few people killed each year in terrorist attacks for the sake of 20,000 police officers? Is that a fair trade? I think most people would emotionally say no it's not and any life lost is worth an infinite number of police officers. But where is the realistic line?
Someone on here said something like 'if the police got there in 8 minutes surely we have enough officers'. Someone else said 8 minutes is appalling response time. Some people are calling for all officers to be armed. Yet I see armed police all over the place currently.
Alas some people don't realise that policing involves more than just shooting bad guys after the event. The police are saying that more officers would mean more community intelligence, which they are badly missing.
-Matt
But there's no correlation between the numbers and the crimes. Basically there's a huge time lag on these things, a lot like economic growth. For example, if you have an underclass growing up in poverty without good male role models (men committ most violent crime) then there's about 14 years from the start of that trend to it showing up in the figures. It's a famous example, in america crime was rising as police numbers were rising, if you look at the stats that way you might interpret that the police were causing the crime!
So, what you saying? That we'll be even more fucked in 14 years time?
Great.
-Matt"The majority of crime comes from 180,000 "troubled families" as the government likes to call them. They breed quickly... The problem is getting worse not better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read today.A Vote for the tories is a vote for a police force the same size as in 1978. They've cut 19,000 already and a further 16,000 is planned over the next 5 years.
There's basically no correlation between crime and police numbers. Although the reporting methods and stats are so badly collected it's hard to know what they mean.
I guess in some ways it comes down to 'what is is worth?'. I mean, what are we willing to pay? Would we be happy with a few people killed each year in terrorist attacks for the sake of 20,000 police officers? Is that a fair trade? I think most people would emotionally say no it's not and any life lost is worth an infinite number of police officers. But where is the realistic line?
Someone on here said something like 'if the police got there in 8 minutes surely we have enough officers'. Someone else said 8 minutes is appalling response time. Some people are calling for all officers to be armed. Yet I see armed police all over the place currently.
Alas some people don't realise that policing involves more than just shooting bad guys after the event. The police are saying that more officers would mean more community intelligence, which they are badly missing.
-Matt
But there's no correlation between the numbers and the crimes. Basically there's a huge time lag on these things, a lot like economic growth. For example, if you have an underclass growing up in poverty without good male role models (men committ most violent crime) then there's about 14 years from the start of that trend to it showing up in the figures. It's a famous example, in america crime was rising as police numbers were rising, if you look at the stats that way you might interpret that the police were causing the crime! So if we cut the force in half there would be no change in crime.No change in response time .
She promised she could cut police budgets without affecting frontline policing – and then she cut 12,000 frontline officers and 6,000 Police Community Support Officers.A vote for may is a return to 70s policing levels.
You can answer your own question but posing it another way, if we have 140,000 police officers spending 80% of their time sat indoors, filling out paperwork by hand all day because there's zero investment in IT. Will they prevent / solve more or less crime than 75,000 officers who spend less than 20% of their time on admin and 80% actually doing what police are supposed to do.
I've been arrested before, the interview took around 4 hours because they had to write everything i was saying by hand and stop to change cassette tapes about 3 times."Ok. So why have they not invested in IT then? I'm guessing because they've had their budgets slashed. In my last job I was supplying IT services to a police force. Their budget had been cut so badly that they were almost literally looking down the back of the sofa for funds to pay us. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so much for anecdotal evidence being irrelevant then "Looks like we've found another long word you don't understand. Check the definition... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read today.A Vote for the tories is a vote for a police force the same size as in 1978. They've cut 19,000 already and a further 16,000 is planned over the next 5 years.
There's basically no correlation between crime and police numbers. Although the reporting methods and stats are so badly collected it's hard to know what they mean.
I guess in some ways it comes down to 'what is is worth?'. I mean, what are we willing to pay? Would we be happy with a few people killed each year in terrorist attacks for the sake of 20,000 police officers? Is that a fair trade? I think most people would emotionally say no it's not and any life lost is worth an infinite number of police officers. But where is the realistic line?
Someone on here said something like 'if the police got there in 8 minutes surely we have enough officers'. Someone else said 8 minutes is appalling response time. Some people are calling for all officers to be armed. Yet I see armed police all over the place currently.
Alas some people don't realise that policing involves more than just shooting bad guys after the event. The police are saying that more officers would mean more community intelligence, which they are badly missing.
-Matt
But there's no correlation between the numbers and the crimes. Basically there's a huge time lag on these things, a lot like economic growth. For example, if you have an underclass growing up in poverty without good male role models (men committ most violent crime) then there's about 14 years from the start of that trend to it showing up in the figures. It's a famous example, in america crime was rising as police numbers were rising, if you look at the stats that way you might interpret that the police were causing the crime! So if we cut the force in half there would be no change in crime.No change in response time .
She promised she could cut police budgets without affecting frontline policing – and then she cut 12,000 frontline officers and 6,000 Police Community Support Officers.A vote for may is a return to 70s policing levels.
You can answer your own question but posing it another way, if we have 140,000 police officers spending 80% of their time sat indoors, filling out paperwork by hand all day because there's zero investment in IT. Will they prevent / solve more or less crime than 75,000 officers who spend less than 20% of their time on admin and 80% actually doing what police are supposed to do.
I've been arrested before, the interview took around 4 hours because they had to write everything i was saying by hand and stop to change cassette tapes about 3 times.
Ok. So why have they not invested in IT then? I'm guessing because they've had their budgets slashed. In my last job I was supplying IT services to a police force. Their budget had been cut so badly that they were almost literally looking down the back of the sofa for funds to pay us.
-Matt"Lots of reasons really, governments are terrible at investing in things with long-term pay offs since they have to manage annual budgets religiously and there's simply no point looking past two years when a new minister will probably change everything. The trade unions generally oppose anything that makes people more efficient since that would require less jobs. Government IT projects tend to go wrong and overbudget. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so your anecdote about being arrested which you used as evidence to bolster your argument isn't anecdotal then .... your dictionary is broken lady" Man. It's hard to know which part you were referring to since you haven't located the reply button. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read today.A Vote for the tories is a vote for a police force the same size as in 1978. They've cut 19,000 already and a further 16,000 is planned over the next 5 years.
There's basically no correlation between crime and police numbers. Although the reporting methods and stats are so badly collected it's hard to know what they mean.
I guess in some ways it comes down to 'what is is worth?'. I mean, what are we willing to pay? Would we be happy with a few people killed each year in terrorist attacks for the sake of 20,000 police officers? Is that a fair trade? I think most people would emotionally say no it's not and any life lost is worth an infinite number of police officers. But where is the realistic line?
Someone on here said something like 'if the police got there in 8 minutes surely we have enough officers'. Someone else said 8 minutes is appalling response time. Some people are calling for all officers to be armed. Yet I see armed police all over the place currently.
Alas some people don't realise that policing involves more than just shooting bad guys after the event. The police are saying that more officers would mean more community intelligence, which they are badly missing.
-Matt
But there's no correlation between the numbers and the crimes. Basically there's a huge time lag on these things, a lot like economic growth. For example, if you have an underclass growing up in poverty without good male role models (men committ most violent crime) then there's about 14 years from the start of that trend to it showing up in the figures. It's a famous example, in america crime was rising as police numbers were rising, if you look at the stats that way you might interpret that the police were causing the crime! So if we cut the force in half there would be no change in crime.No change in response time .
She promised she could cut police budgets without affecting frontline policing – and then she cut 12,000 frontline officers and 6,000 Police Community Support Officers.A vote for may is a return to 70s policing levels.
You can answer your own question but posing it another way, if we have 140,000 police officers spending 80% of their time sat indoors, filling out paperwork by hand all day because there's zero investment in IT. Will they prevent / solve more or less crime than 75,000 officers who spend less than 20% of their time on admin and 80% actually doing what police are supposed to do.
I've been arrested before, the interview took around 4 hours because they had to write everything i was saying by hand and stop to change cassette tapes about 3 times."Ok so the force is now more effective due to advances in IT and now officers spend less time on paper work .Has this happened since 20,000 were cut? There has been 27% rise is violent crime in 2016 at the same time we've lost officers .I think its fair for the public to draw this conclusion.We all know how the numbers get spun. It'll be down to recording crime better because in 2015 they missed the 27% increase...Come. .on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... but seeing as how anecdotal is now allowed, my cousin was arrested and detained and eventually released before trial because when the details of the investigation were passed to the CPS, they pretty quickly discovered from the rigorous paper trail, which the feds are required to adhere to, it was obvious that he couldn't possibly have committed the alleged offence. the poolice managed to find the perpertrator of the crime when they decided to stop being lazy fucks and follow ppp (proper poolice procedure).... by the way ... . this is purely anecdotal and should not be used as evidence ... for anything .... ever" So your point is that the evidence needed to be hand written otherwise your cousin would have been charged for a crime he didn't commit? Who are the feds by the way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... but seeing as how anecdotal is now allowed, my cousin was arrested and detained and eventually released before trial because when the details of the investigation were passed to the CPS, they pretty quickly discovered from the rigorous paper trail, which the feds are required to adhere to, it was obvious that he couldn't possibly have committed the alleged offence. the poolice managed to find the perpertrator of the crime when they decided to stop being lazy fucks and follow ppp (proper poolice procedure).... by the way ... . this is purely anecdotal and should not be used as evidence ... for anything .... ever So your point is that the evidence needed to be hand written otherwise your cousin would have been charged for a crime he didn't commit? Who are the feds by the way? " slang for the police force .... and no, the point is that the paper trail is needed or it ends up with the levels of corruption in the police forces that were endemic in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s ... that's why rigorous record keeping started in the first place | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... but seeing as how anecdotal is now allowed, my cousin was arrested and detained and eventually released before trial because when the details of the investigation were passed to the CPS, they pretty quickly discovered from the rigorous paper trail, which the feds are required to adhere to, it was obvious that he couldn't possibly have committed the alleged offence. the poolice managed to find the perpertrator of the crime when they decided to stop being lazy fucks and follow ppp (proper poolice procedure).... by the way ... . this is purely anecdotal and should not be used as evidence ... for anything .... ever So your point is that the evidence needed to be hand written otherwise your cousin would have been charged for a crime he didn't commit? Who are the feds by the way? slang for the police force .... and no, the point is that the paper trail is needed or it ends up with the levels of corruption in the police forces that were endemic in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s ... that's why rigorous record keeping started in the first place" I dont have an issue with the trail, i dont see why it needs to be hand written. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... but seeing as how anecdotal is now allowed, my cousin was arrested and detained and eventually released before trial because when the details of the investigation were passed to the CPS, they pretty quickly discovered from the rigorous paper trail, which the feds are required to adhere to, it was obvious that he couldn't possibly have committed the alleged offence. the poolice managed to find the perpertrator of the crime when they decided to stop being lazy fucks and follow ppp (proper poolice procedure).... by the way ... . this is purely anecdotal and should not be used as evidence ... for anything .... ever So your point is that the evidence needed to be hand written otherwise your cousin would have been charged for a crime he didn't commit? Who are the feds by the way? slang for the police force .... and no, the point is that the paper trail is needed or it ends up with the levels of corruption in the police forces that were endemic in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s ... that's why rigorous record keeping started in the first place I dont have an issue with the trail, i dont see why it needs to be hand written. " it was proven that several layers of investigation recording was need to corroborate that evidence hasn't been tampered with .... hand written recording being a cornerstone of the entire process, right through from personal note books, custody records, charge sheets and statements etc. ... basically that's how bad the corruption was | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... but seeing as how anecdotal is now allowed, my cousin was arrested and detained and eventually released before trial because when the details of the investigation were passed to the CPS, they pretty quickly discovered from the rigorous paper trail, which the feds are required to adhere to, it was obvious that he couldn't possibly have committed the alleged offence. the poolice managed to find the perpertrator of the crime when they decided to stop being lazy fucks and follow ppp (proper poolice procedure).... by the way ... . this is purely anecdotal and should not be used as evidence ... for anything .... ever So your point is that the evidence needed to be hand written otherwise your cousin would have been charged for a crime he didn't commit? Who are the feds by the way? slang for the police force .... and no, the point is that the paper trail is needed or it ends up with the levels of corruption in the police forces that were endemic in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s ... that's why rigorous record keeping started in the first place I dont have an issue with the trail, i dont see why it needs to be hand written. it was proven that several layers of investigation recording was need to corroborate that evidence hasn't been tampered with .... hand written recording being a cornerstone of the entire process, right through from personal note books, custody records, charge sheets and statements etc. ... basically that's how bad the corruption was" I find that to be an implausible arguement made up to justify not changing anything. You could make the same arguements for DNA evidence that gets sent off to a lab. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... but seeing as how anecdotal is now allowed, my cousin was arrested and detained and eventually released before trial because when the details of the investigation were passed to the CPS, they pretty quickly discovered from the rigorous paper trail, which the feds are required to adhere to, it was obvious that he couldn't possibly have committed the alleged offence. the poolice managed to find the perpertrator of the crime when they decided to stop being lazy fucks and follow ppp (proper poolice procedure).... by the way ... . this is purely anecdotal and should not be used as evidence ... for anything .... ever So your point is that the evidence needed to be hand written otherwise your cousin would have been charged for a crime he didn't commit? Who are the feds by the way? slang for the police force .... and no, the point is that the paper trail is needed or it ends up with the levels of corruption in the police forces that were endemic in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s ... that's why rigorous record keeping started in the first place I dont have an issue with the trail, i dont see why it needs to be hand written. it was proven that several layers of investigation recording was need to corroborate that evidence hasn't been tampered with .... hand written recording being a cornerstone of the entire process, right through from personal note books, custody records, charge sheets and statements etc. ... basically that's how bad the corruption was I find that to be an implausible arguement made up to justify not changing anything. You could make the same arguements for DNA evidence that gets sent off to a lab. " that's just as rigorously recorded ... and it's fact. my wife presented it as part of her masters as it happens | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... but seeing as how anecdotal is now allowed, my cousin was arrested and detained and eventually released before trial because when the details of the investigation were passed to the CPS, they pretty quickly discovered from the rigorous paper trail, which the feds are required to adhere to, it was obvious that he couldn't possibly have committed the alleged offence. the poolice managed to find the perpertrator of the crime when they decided to stop being lazy fucks and follow ppp (proper poolice procedure).... by the way ... . this is purely anecdotal and should not be used as evidence ... for anything .... ever So your point is that the evidence needed to be hand written otherwise your cousin would have been charged for a crime he didn't commit? Who are the feds by the way? slang for the police force .... and no, the point is that the paper trail is needed or it ends up with the levels of corruption in the police forces that were endemic in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s ... that's why rigorous record keeping started in the first place I dont have an issue with the trail, i dont see why it needs to be hand written. it was proven that several layers of investigation recording was need to corroborate that evidence hasn't been tampered with .... hand written recording being a cornerstone of the entire process, right through from personal note books, custody records, charge sheets and statements etc. ... basically that's how bad the corruption was I find that to be an implausible arguement made up to justify not changing anything. You could make the same arguements for DNA evidence that gets sent off to a lab. that's just as rigorously recorded ... and it's fact. my wife presented it as part of her masters as it happens" I mean it's just as easy to tamper with as an electronic statement. Perhaps ask yourself how the private sector is able to conduct trillions of pounds of deals every year without hand writting documents, are they greater risk of fraud? I don't think so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years" What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? " the rest of the world can do what the fuck it wants, but in britain the police being corrupt made the system what it is ... deal with it and move on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? the rest of the world can do what the fuck it wants, but in britain the police being corrupt made the system what it is ... deal with it and move on" This post is entered into evidence in response to the question above about why government departments never keep up to date with IT systems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? the rest of the world can do what the fuck it wants, but in britain the police being corrupt made the system what it is ... deal with it and move on This post is entered into evidence in response to the question above about why government departments never keep up to date with IT systems. " go for a shit, you clearly need one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? " The nhs still do lots via paper and in four or five different bits, mental | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? The nhs still do lots via paper and in four or five different bits, mental " Because of things like The National Programme for IT (NPfIT), a £12bn IT system that didn't work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? The nhs still do lots via paper and in four or five different bits, mental Because of things like The National Programme for IT (NPfIT), a £12bn IT system that didn't work. " Which largely failed due to NPfIT not actually engaging clinicians to work out what they actually wanted so attempted to deliver something with little clinical value. That and CSC and Accenture were shit. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? The nhs still do lots via paper and in four or five different bits, mental Because of things like The National Programme for IT (NPfIT), a £12bn IT system that didn't work. Which largely failed due to NPfIT not actually engaging clinicians to work out what they actually wanted so attempted to deliver something with little clinical value. That and CSC and Accenture were shit. -Matt" They were shit but there were at least five seperate stakeholder groups who couldn't agree on anything about how they wanted the system to work | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? The nhs still do lots via paper and in four or five different bits, mental Because of things like The National Programme for IT (NPfIT), a £12bn IT system that didn't work. Which largely failed due to NPfIT not actually engaging clinicians to work out what they actually wanted so attempted to deliver something with little clinical value. That and CSC and Accenture were shit. -Matt They were shit but there were at least five seperate stakeholder groups who couldn't agree on anything about how they wanted the system to work" That's pretty much like every IT project I've worked on
I contracted 2 days a week for about 18 months for part of the NHS working on an intranet upgrade project. As far as I'm aware *none* of the work I did in that 18 months ever went live as both my 'boss' there and the position above them both became vacant whilst I was there. So in effect there was no-one to actually sign off the completed work. Disheartening and a waste of money.
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? The nhs still do lots via paper and in four or five different bits, mental Because of things like The National Programme for IT (NPfIT), a £12bn IT system that didn't work. Which largely failed due to NPfIT not actually engaging clinicians to work out what they actually wanted so attempted to deliver something with little clinical value. That and CSC and Accenture were shit. -Matt They were shit but there were at least five seperate stakeholder groups who couldn't agree on anything about how they wanted the system to work That's pretty much like every IT project I've worked on
I contracted 2 days a week for about 18 months for part of the NHS working on an intranet upgrade project. As far as I'm aware *none* of the work I did in that 18 months ever went live as both my 'boss' there and the position above them both became vacant whilst I was there. So in effect there was no-one to actually sign off the completed work. Disheartening and a waste of money.
-Matt"Yet you'll vote for the party that thinks the only thing needed to fix the problem is more money? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? The nhs still do lots via paper and in four or five different bits, mental Because of things like The National Programme for IT (NPfIT), a £12bn IT system that didn't work. Which largely failed due to NPfIT not actually engaging clinicians to work out what they actually wanted so attempted to deliver something with little clinical value. That and CSC and Accenture were shit. -Matt They were shit but there were at least five seperate stakeholder groups who couldn't agree on anything about how they wanted the system to work That's pretty much like every IT project I've worked on
I contracted 2 days a week for about 18 months for part of the NHS working on an intranet upgrade project. As far as I'm aware *none* of the work I did in that 18 months ever went live as both my 'boss' there and the position above them both became vacant whilst I was there. So in effect there was no-one to actually sign off the completed work. Disheartening and a waste of money.
-Matt
Yet you'll vote for the party that thinks the only thing needed to fix the problem is more money? "No, quite the opposite. I want the party out of office that is privatising everything they can get their hands on and selling it to their mates. I mean, they even attempted to privatise the Land Registry for fuck's sake! Can you think of a less suitable service to be privatised?! -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? The nhs still do lots via paper and in four or five different bits, mental Because of things like The National Programme for IT (NPfIT), a £12bn IT system that didn't work. Which largely failed due to NPfIT not actually engaging clinicians to work out what they actually wanted so attempted to deliver something with little clinical value. That and CSC and Accenture were shit. -Matt They were shit but there were at least five seperate stakeholder groups who couldn't agree on anything about how they wanted the system to work That's pretty much like every IT project I've worked on
I contracted 2 days a week for about 18 months for part of the NHS working on an intranet upgrade project. As far as I'm aware *none* of the work I did in that 18 months ever went live as both my 'boss' there and the position above them both became vacant whilst I was there. So in effect there was no-one to actually sign off the completed work. Disheartening and a waste of money.
-Matt
Yet you'll vote for the party that thinks the only thing needed to fix the problem is more money?
No, quite the opposite. I want the party out of office that is privatising everything they can get their hands on and selling it to their mates. I mean, they even attempted to privatise the Land Registry for fuck's sake! Can you think of a less suitable service to be privatised?!
-Matt"Except labour privatised more of the NHS than conservatives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The military..." Yeah that's the first thing that comes into my mind that you don't want privatised. Followed quickly by emergency services. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? The nhs still do lots via paper and in four or five different bits, mental Because of things like The National Programme for IT (NPfIT), a £12bn IT system that didn't work. Which largely failed due to NPfIT not actually engaging clinicians to work out what they actually wanted so attempted to deliver something with little clinical value. That and CSC and Accenture were shit. -Matt They were shit but there were at least five seperate stakeholder groups who couldn't agree on anything about how they wanted the system to work That's pretty much like every IT project I've worked on
I contracted 2 days a week for about 18 months for part of the NHS working on an intranet upgrade project. As far as I'm aware *none* of the work I did in that 18 months ever went live as both my 'boss' there and the position above them both became vacant whilst I was there. So in effect there was no-one to actually sign off the completed work. Disheartening and a waste of money.
-Matt
Yet you'll vote for the party that thinks the only thing needed to fix the problem is more money?
No, quite the opposite. I want the party out of office that is privatising everything they can get their hands on and selling it to their mates. I mean, they even attempted to privatise the Land Registry for fuck's sake! Can you think of a less suitable service to be privatised?!
-Matt
Except labour privatised more of the NHS than conservatives. "Yes, but I really don't see this labour government as being anything like the red-tories of the previous labour government. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The military... Yeah that's the first thing that comes into my mind that you don't want privatised. Followed quickly by emergency services. " OK, OK, all good suggestions. I kinda feel like I'm in the 'what have the Romans ever done for us sketch now' lol I really don't get how the privatised ambulance service in the US works. You have private medical insurance that covers you only for *certain* private ambulance services that are a part of their network. If you are lying unconscious on the street after just being knocked down by a car and someone dials 911/999 for an ambulance. As far as I know, if the one that turns up is out of your network then you are not covered and you are then facing a bill for it! -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"well just because a random economist on a sex site has got constipation over these facts i don't see them changing any time soon especially since the PM has been busy giving the pigs a good kicking for the last 7 years What facts? The fact that the police force is the last organisation in the world still recording all it's most vital information by hand and the rest of the world is wrong? The nhs still do lots via paper and in four or five different bits, mental Because of things like The National Programme for IT (NPfIT), a £12bn IT system that didn't work. Which largely failed due to NPfIT not actually engaging clinicians to work out what they actually wanted so attempted to deliver something with little clinical value. That and CSC and Accenture were shit. -Matt They were shit but there were at least five seperate stakeholder groups who couldn't agree on anything about how they wanted the system to work That's pretty much like every IT project I've worked on
I contracted 2 days a week for about 18 months for part of the NHS working on an intranet upgrade project. As far as I'm aware *none* of the work I did in that 18 months ever went live as both my 'boss' there and the position above them both became vacant whilst I was there. So in effect there was no-one to actually sign off the completed work. Disheartening and a waste of money.
-Matt
Yet you'll vote for the party that thinks the only thing needed to fix the problem is more money?
No, quite the opposite. I want the party out of office that is privatising everything they can get their hands on and selling it to their mates. I mean, they even attempted to privatise the Land Registry for fuck's sake! Can you think of a less suitable service to be privatised?!
-Matt
Except labour privatised more of the NHS than conservatives.
Yes, but I really don't see this labour government as being anything like the red-tories of the previous labour government.
-Matt"Every left wing party rebrands itself constantly because their track records are so unpalatable. Thats why there's so many different words for left wingers: socialist, marxist, communist, democratic socialist, leninist bla bla - all just ways to justify spending other peoples money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The military... Yeah that's the first thing that comes into my mind that you don't want privatised. Followed quickly by emergency services. OK, OK, all good suggestions. I kinda feel like I'm in the 'what have the Romans ever done for us sketch now' lol I really don't get how the privatised ambulance service in the US works. You have private medical insurance that covers you only for *certain* private ambulance services that are a part of their network. If you are lying unconscious on the street after just being knocked down by a car and someone dials 911/999 for an ambulance. As far as I know, if the one that turns up is out of your network then you are not covered and you are then facing a bill for it! -Matt" It doesnt work is the answer. It's a shite system but there are better ones than ours too, if we're willing to pay for them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The military... Yeah that's the first thing that comes into my mind that you don't want privatised. Followed quickly by emergency services. " west berkshire council .... although that would be interesting | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so if you earned just 43000 pa then your annual take home is 32,407 .... aw shucks dude you must be rally struggling " I have worked dam hard to get into the position of earning this amount of money it was not just given to me. So are you saying middle earners need more taxation ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"wouldn't hurt would it" I just hope you are in the position of paying this extra rate of tax and we will see if you are happy to pay it. Obviously you like the snp don't understand fiscal drag either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"wouldn't hurt would it I just hope you are in the position of paying this extra rate of tax and we will see if you are happy to pay it. Obviously you like the snp don't understand fiscal drag either. " Left wing ideology is that people are born with certain abilities which they will utilise largely irrespective of motivation. This is like the horse in animal farm who was born strong and works their ass off constantly for the greater good. Unfortunately for them, most people aren't like the horse and as it happens people respond very well to incentives. But they think it's fair because they assume what you see as 'hard work' is just you utilising gifts that you happened to be born with and they deny that taxing the fuck of your gifts will reduce your motivation. Put those things together and logically a person without any 'gifts' will feel justified to be the pig to your horse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just hope you are in the position of paying this extra rate of tax and we will see if you are happy to pay it. Obviously you like the snp don't understand fiscal drag either. " so is that a yes or a no to you struggling on 32½ big ones? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just hope you are in the position of paying this extra rate of tax and we will see if you are happy to pay it. Obviously you like the snp don't understand fiscal drag either. so is that a yes or a no to you struggling on 32½ big ones? " Whilst in the Welsh valleys you can buy a house for that, in london you wouldn't get a mortgage on a shed with that salary. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst in the Welsh valleys you can buy a house for that, in london you wouldn't get a mortgage on a shed with that salary. " what's your point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst in the Welsh valleys you can buy a house for that, in london you wouldn't get a mortgage on a shed with that salary. what's your point?" It's not a big salary. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst in the Welsh valleys you can buy a house for that, in london you wouldn't get a mortgage on a shed with that salary. what's your point? It's not a big salary. " are you speaking for the OP and saying that they're struggling on 32½ G's? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst in the Welsh valleys you can buy a house for that, in london you wouldn't get a mortgage on a shed with that salary. what's your point? It's not a big salary. are you speaking for the OP and saying that they're struggling on 32½ G's?" Are you saying you want to tax everyone to the level just above struggling? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst in the Welsh valleys you can buy a house for that, in london you wouldn't get a mortgage on a shed with that salary. what's your point? It's not a big salary. are you speaking for the OP and saying that they're struggling on 32½ G's?" and if you are, then considering that it's 50% higher than the average salary, it can be regarded as big for those who live in the real world innit guy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst in the Welsh valleys you can buy a house for that, in london you wouldn't get a mortgage on a shed with that salary. what's your point? It's not a big salary. are you speaking for the OP and saying that they're struggling on 32½ G's? Are you saying you want to tax everyone to the level just above struggling? " no, that's just a dumb-arsed thing to infer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... but seeing as how anecdotal is now allowed, my cousin was arrested and detained and eventually released before trial because when the details of the investigation were passed to the CPS, they pretty quickly discovered from the rigorous paper trail, which the feds are required to adhere to, it was obvious that he couldn't possibly have committed the alleged offence. the poolice managed to find the perpertrator of the crime when they decided to stop being lazy fucks and follow ppp (proper poolice procedure).... by the way ... . this is purely anecdotal and should not be used as evidence ... for anything .... ever So your point is that the evidence needed to be hand written otherwise your cousin would have been charged for a crime he didn't commit? Who are the feds by the way? slang for the police force .... and no, the point is that the paper trail is needed or it ends up with the levels of corruption in the police forces that were endemic in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s ... that's why rigorous record keeping started in the first place I dont have an issue with the trail, i dont see why it needs to be hand written. it was proven that several layers of investigation recording was need to corroborate that evidence hasn't been tampered with .... hand written recording being a cornerstone of the entire process, right through from personal note books, custody records, charge sheets and statements etc. ... basically that's how bad the corruption was I find that to be an implausible arguement made up to justify not changing anything. You could make the same arguements for DNA evidence that gets sent off to a lab. that's just as rigorously recorded ... and it's fact. my wife presented it as part of her masters as it happens I mean it's just as easy to tamper with as an electronic statement. Perhaps ask yourself how the private sector is able to conduct trillions of pounds of deals every year without hand writting documents, are they greater risk of fraud? I don't think so. " nope they just get hacked | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have to admit ive never quite got the high rate tax bracket. So for example i leave school and go to work at the local factory along with sveral others from school, i work my arse off for five yearsand get promotion and after another five years hard graft become supervisor , this takes my salary over 45,000 can somebody please explain why i should pay any more tax than the shirker who started on the same day as me?" Well I presume you are paying higher tax than the 'shirker' because you are doing a better job and being paid a higher salary as a result. But I guess you are wondering why if you have worked so hard you should pay higher tax? You see that higher tax as some kind of punishment? So let's look at it this way. Lets assume everyone in the country paid *exactly* the same amount of tax. That would mean that currently the 'rich' would pay less and the 'poor' would pay more. So how is the minimum wage worker going to afford to pay that? They are not. They simply won't be able to afford to. So the only way is if they pay less. Which means someone has to pay more. This is known as 'progressive taxation'. In that the tax rate rises with the income level. At the end of the day it is trying to create a 'fair' system. The problem is your definition of 'fair' may differ to mine. It also attempts to lessen the differential between the highest and the lowest earners. However tax avoidance/evasion can scupper this at the high end. Income tax, is all about taxing *income*. Though instead we could tax *wealth* more. This is where alternative tax schemes such as Land Value Tax that is mention as an aside in the Labour manifesto could come in. Again, whether you think that is fair or not is likely going to depend on whether you end up paying more or not. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have to admit ive never quite got the high rate tax bracket. So for example i leave school and go to work at the local factory along with sveral others from school, i work my arse off for five yearsand get promotion and after another five years hard graft become supervisor , this takes my salary over 45,000 can somebody please explain why i should pay any more tax than the shirker who started on the same day as me? Well I presume you are paying higher tax than the 'shirker' because you are doing a better job and being paid a higher salary as a result. But I guess you are wondering why if you have worked so hard you should pay higher tax? You see that higher tax as some kind of punishment? So let's look at it this way. Lets assume everyone in the country paid *exactly* the same amount of tax. That would mean that currently the 'rich' would pay less and the 'poor' would pay more. So how is the minimum wage worker going to afford to pay that? They are not. They simply won't be able to afford to. So the only way is if they pay less. Which means someone has to pay more. This is known as 'progressive taxation'. In that the tax rate rises with the income level. At the end of the day it is trying to create a 'fair' system. The problem is your definition of 'fair' may differ to mine. It also attempts to lessen the differential between the highest and the lowest earners. However tax avoidance/evasion can scupper this at the high end. Income tax, is all about taxing *income*. Though instead we could tax *wealth* more. This is where alternative tax schemes such as Land Value Tax that is mention as an aside in the Labour manifesto could come in. Again, whether you think that is fair or not is likely going to depend on whether you end up paying more or not. -Matt" Can i ask why not increase the tax free allowance to the living wage and then evryone pays 25% of anything over that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I will concede that a single jump from basic rate income tax to top rate income tax is wrong. Income tax rates should be progressive. But there is a basic truth to income tax... You have to earn it to pay it! So I have no sympathy for those earning many times more than the national mean average rather than the mode or meridian average as the excess at the top artificially inflate the mean average figure." They'd settle for your admiration rather than sympathy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have to admit ive never quite got the high rate tax bracket. So for example i leave school and go to work at the local factory along with sveral others from school, i work my arse off for five yearsand get promotion and after another five years hard graft become supervisor , this takes my salary over 45,000 can somebody please explain why i should pay any more tax than the shirker who started on the same day as me?" You will pay more TAX because, even if there was only the basic TAX rate of 20%, 20% of a higher salary would be more. Maybe the question you should ask is why should you have to pay tax at a higher rate just because you earn more money? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have to admit ive never quite got the high rate tax bracket. So for example i leave school and go to work at the local factory along with sveral others from school, i work my arse off for five yearsand get promotion and after another five years hard graft become supervisor , this takes my salary over 45,000 can somebody please explain why i should pay any more tax than the shirker who started on the same day as me? You will pay more TAX because, even if there was only the basic TAX rate of 20%, 20% of a higher salary would be more. Maybe the question you should ask is why should you have to pay tax at a higher rate just because you earn more money?" Thats the question he did ask, you didnt read what he said properly, you must be one of those old thick racist brexit voters | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
