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 |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She wont last and osborne is right, when he said she is a dead woman walking." Osborne, when does he ever get anything right, he is the biggest snake | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here we go a former Tory cabinet minster is calling for May to resign....his words "shes dead in the water"" Frankly.. He's a piece of shit who won't flush away. May at least comez across as a lot more human | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here we go a former Tory cabinet minster is calling for May to resign....his words "shes dead in the water" Frankly.. He's a piece of shit who won't flush away. May at least comez across as a lot more human" You set a low bar for your definition of 'human' lol -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here we go a former Tory cabinet minster is calling for May to resign....his words "shes dead in the water" Frankly.. He's a piece of shit who won't flush away. May at least comez across as a lot more human You set a low bar for your definition of 'human' lol -Matt" Lol | |||
| 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 |
"Labour gave the impression of being anti brexit in some remain voting seats. It was a deliberate tactic of McDonald and momentum. It seems to have worked in the election and certainly fooled a lot of voters. However, since Chukkas defeated amendment, and Corbin sacking members of his front bench team then Labours true colours have been more clearly revealed. They won't fool as many people next time." You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that "I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings? You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings. It's unsustainable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that
I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings?
You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings.
It's unsustainable"
It doesn't really work like that, does it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What nice people you socialists are" Don't point out their anger issues. It only makes them worse | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that
I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings?
You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings.
It's unsustainable"You're right it is...but you can raise the revenues from elsewhere....do you know everytime i fill my car up...i give the Inland Revenue £50...and when i buy a pouch of tobacco... i give them at least £15... and when i buy most things they charge me 20% on top....to say theres not enough money raised in this country is ridiculous tbh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What nice people you socialists are Don't point out their anger issues. It only makes them worse "... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that
I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings?
You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings.
It's unsustainable"In a one dimensional world you are right, but society is not one dimensional. Economies work when ordinary people spend money and that spending causes production elsewhere and there is an across the board improvement in the tax take at both the production and retail points. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that "Really? I see evidence of how much we are all in it (the shit) together... 70% of the country has seen its income and wealth reduced by 10% in real terms over the last 7 years while the top 1% has seen its income and wealth double. Just to put a little flesh on these statistics, to be in the top 1% you require an annual income of over £258,000 net (after deductions) for every individual in your home and accets to the value of 2,500,000 net (thats after deducting mortgages, debentures and loans). Against that you are in the 70% if you r individual earnings are less than £70,000 net (so most doctors, nurses, police, military (in fact most people of working age) and have assets worth less than £250,000 net. Maybe easyas69 and janeish are part of the 1%, they may even be part of the 29% but as that is mostly pensioners I have a feeling they both fall are part of the 70% and rather than disapprovingly wagging their finger at the angry socialists they should be getting just as angry as us. But they wont because the Torygraph, Excess, Fail and Scum have convinced them we (yes I am a socialist) are the enemy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that
I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings?
You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings.
It's unsustainable
In a one dimensional world you are right, but society is not one dimensional. Economies work when ordinary people spend money and that spending causes production elsewhere and there is an across the board improvement in the tax take at both the production and retail points."That of course is true but its government debt that is the problem, it doesnt matter on the big scale if individuals go bust (of course to them it does) but if the government goes bust it cant afford health, education or any other service. If ukplc or most other countries were companies or indivduals we would be bankrupt and up in front the beak. As the labour chap put it, there is no money left. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that
I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings?
You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings.
It's unsustainable
It doesn't really work like that, does it?"I really really hope you dont believe your post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that
I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings?
You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings.
It's unsustainable
In a one dimensional world you are right, but society is not one dimensional. Economies work when ordinary people spend money and that spending causes production elsewhere and there is an across the board improvement in the tax take at both the production and retail points.
That of course is true but its government debt that is the problem, it doesnt matter on the big scale if individuals go bust (of course to them it does) but if the government goes bust it cant afford health, education or any other service. If ukplc or most other countries were companies or indivduals we would be bankrupt and up in front the beak.
As the labour chap put it, there is no money left. "Oh lordy the tories still clinging on to this theres no money left from 9 years ago good grief....there was bloody money left for them to give the DUP to keep them in power 1billion i heard it reported and probably more if they want to stay in power.....stop looking in the past look to the future | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that
I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings?
You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings.
It's unsustainable
In a one dimensional world you are right, but society is not one dimensional. Economies work when ordinary people spend money and that spending causes production elsewhere and there is an across the board improvement in the tax take at both the production and retail points.
That of course is true but its government debt that is the problem, it doesnt matter on the big scale if individuals go bust (of course to them it does) but if the government goes bust it cant afford health, education or any other service. If ukplc or most other countries were companies or indivduals we would be bankrupt and up in front the beak.
As the labour chap put it, there is no money left. "Government debt is the problem, indeed - but like in the one dimensional example quoted there is another option instead of reducing the £800 spend and that is to increase the £500 income - or better still, do both. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that
I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings?
You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings.
It's unsustainable
It doesn't really work like that, does it?"Well actually it is exactly like that. However there is a third alternative, which is find ways to earn more money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that
I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings?
You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings.
It's unsustainable
It doesn't really work like that, does it?
I really really hope you dont believe your post."Who, Me? In which case, yes I do. State economics is rather more complex than that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that
I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings?
You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings.
It's unsustainable
It doesn't really work like that, does it?
I really really hope you dont believe your post.
Who, Me?
In which case, yes I do. State economics is rather more complex than that. "Ah the jeremy corbyn school of economics, borrow more and more and then borrow again to pay interest on the borrowing until you cant borrow anymore. While it is true a country can borrow far more than any individual can, it still has to be paid back or written off, in either case it is the citizen that will suffer, basic rule, you have to generate wealth before you can tax it and distribute it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Ah the jeremy corbyn school of economics, borrow more and more and then borrow again to pay interest on the borrowing until you cant borrow anymore. While it is true a country can borrow far more than any individual can, it still has to be paid back or written off, in either case it is the citizen that will suffer, basic rule, you have to generate wealth before you can tax it and distribute it " Are you really so one dimensional that you can't see that there are three solutions to the current predicament and not just the one that the Mail, Express and Sun want you to see? 1) Cut costs below income. 2) Increase income to exceed costs 3) Increase income and cut costs in a managed way to provide a balanced economy The conservative austerity policy of cutting costs has also reduced income and that income is falling even more now due to Brexit related uncertainty. Austerity alone will not balance the books in the next decade at least and may take another 20 years or more with falling tax receipts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Ah the jeremy corbyn school of economics, borrow more and more and then borrow again to pay interest on the borrowing until you cant borrow anymore. While it is true a country can borrow far more than any individual can, it still has to be paid back or written off, in either case it is the citizen that will suffer, basic rule, you have to generate wealth before you can tax it and distribute it Are you really so one dimensional that you can't see that there are three solutions to the current predicament and not just the one that the Mail, Express and Sun want you to see? 1) Cut costs below income. 2) Increase income to exceed costs 3) Increase income and cut costs in a managed way to provide a balanced economy The conservative austerity policy of cutting costs has also reduced income and that income is falling even more now due to Brexit related uncertainty. Austerity alone will not balance the books in the next decade at least and may take another 20 years or more with falling tax receipts." Totally wrong I have just checked total income figures and its still rising the problem is expenditure is also rising. Government take is rising as a percent of gdp, thats a worldwide problem and it simply cant continue. No government can spend its way out of trouble during a downturn UNLESS its saves during the good times, the trouble is they dont. For your information I dont read any newspapers they all talk bollocks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Ah the jeremy corbyn school of economics, borrow more and more and then borrow again to pay interest on the borrowing until you cant borrow anymore. While it is true a country can borrow far more than any individual can, it still has to be paid back or written off, in either case it is the citizen that will suffer, basic rule, you have to generate wealth before you can tax it and distribute it Are you really so one dimensional that you can't see that there are three solutions to the current predicament and not just the one that the Mail, Express and Sun want you to see? 1) Cut costs below income. 2) Increase income to exceed costs 3) Increase income and cut costs in a managed way to provide a balanced economy The conservative austerity policy of cutting costs has also reduced income and that income is falling even more now due to Brexit related uncertainty. Austerity alone will not balance the books in the next decade at least and may take another 20 years or more with falling tax receipts. Totally wrong I have just checked total income figures and its still rising the problem is expenditure is also rising. Government take is rising as a percent of gdp, thats a worldwide problem and it simply cant continue. No government can spend its way out of trouble during a downturn UNLESS its saves during the good times, the trouble is they dont. For your information I dont read any newspapers they all talk bollocks." Please provide the data to back this up....because most financial analysts say different....that is unless its from the Daily fail or the scum | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Ah the jeremy corbyn school of economics, borrow more and more and then borrow again to pay interest on the borrowing until you cant borrow anymore. While it is true a country can borrow far more than any individual can, it still has to be paid back or written off, in either case it is the citizen that will suffer, basic rule, you have to generate wealth before you can tax it and distribute it Are you really so one dimensional that you can't see that there are three solutions to the current predicament and not just the one that the Mail, Express and Sun want you to see? 1) Cut costs below income. 2) Increase income to exceed costs 3) Increase income and cut costs in a managed way to provide a balanced economy The conservative austerity policy of cutting costs has also reduced income and that income is falling even more now due to Brexit related uncertainty. Austerity alone will not balance the books in the next decade at least and may take another 20 years or more with falling tax receipts. Totally wrong I have just checked total income figures and its still rising the problem is expenditure is also rising. Government take is rising as a percent of gdp, thats a worldwide problem and it simply cant continue. No government can spend its way out of trouble during a downturn UNLESS its saves during the good times, the trouble is they dont. For your information I dont read any newspapers they all talk bollocks. Please provide the data to back this up....because most financial analysts say different....that is unless its from the Daily fail or the scum " Google uk public revenue breakdown,2012 500 billion 2017 730 billion. Can you read ? I said I dont read ANY newspapers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Ah the jeremy corbyn school of economics, borrow more and more and then borrow again to pay interest on the borrowing until you cant borrow anymore. While it is true a country can borrow far more than any individual can, it still has to be paid back or written off, in either case it is the citizen that will suffer, basic rule, you have to generate wealth before you can tax it and distribute it Are you really so one dimensional that you can't see that there are three solutions to the current predicament and not just the one that the Mail, Express and Sun want you to see? 1) Cut costs below income. 2) Increase income to exceed costs 3) Increase income and cut costs in a managed way to provide a balanced economy The conservative austerity policy of cutting costs has also reduced income and that income is falling even more now due to Brexit related uncertainty. Austerity alone will not balance the books in the next decade at least and may take another 20 years or more with falling tax receipts. Totally wrong I have just checked total income figures and its still rising the problem is expenditure is also rising. Government take is rising as a percent of gdp, thats a worldwide problem and it simply cant continue. No government can spend its way out of trouble during a downturn UNLESS its saves during the good times, the trouble is they dont. For your information I dont read any newspapers they all talk bollocks. Please provide the data to back this up....because most financial analysts say different....that is unless its from the Daily fail or the scum Google uk public revenue breakdown,2012 500 billion 2017 730 billion. Can you read ? I said I dont read ANY newspapers" Why 2012 ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Why 2012 ? " was just the way the figures came up but everytime I moved the year on the tax take was up, which is good as long as it isnt at the cost of a higher % of gdp, the problem is the rising cost of interest of the debt, it will soon overtake the cost of health IIRC, NO ONE can consider that to be a good thing, it simply has tobe brought down, the longer we continue to stick out heads in the sand the worse it will be for our kids | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You need to look at the polls....people didnt vote just on Brexit...they voted on a whole range of things....me im against Brexit but its happening and i accept it....but id rather see end of this austerity and start investing in the country for the good of all not just a few...didnt the Conservatives say were all in together...tbh im not seeing much evidence of that
I'd like to ask a question to all of those who call for 'and end to austerity' and it's this - If you were earning £500 per month and all your household outgoings came to £800 per month, would you borrow more or find a way to reduce your outgoings?
You can either reduce your spending to something more affordable, or, by borrowing to meet the cost, you end up in an even bigger hole having to borrow more and more and more, adding loan interest and repayments to your outgoings.
It's unsustainable
It doesn't really work like that, does it?
I really really hope you dont believe your post.
Who, Me?
In which case, yes I do. State economics is rather more complex than that.
Ah the jeremy corbyn school of economics, borrow more and more and then borrow again to pay interest on the borrowing until you cant borrow anymore.
While it is true a country can borrow far more than any individual can, it still has to be paid back or written off, in either case it is the citizen that will suffer, basic rule, you have to generate wealth before you can tax it and distribute it "Eh? All I said that economics was more complex than that. The original analogy is one based on personal finance really. To use a livestock farming analogy - "You can't starve a profit out of them". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Why 2012 ? was just the way the figures came up but everytime I moved the year on the tax take was up, which is good as long as it isnt at the cost of a higher % of gdp, the problem is the rising cost of interest of the debt, it will soon overtake the cost of health IIRC, NO ONE can consider that to be a good thing, it simply has tobe brought down, the longer we continue to stick out heads in the sand the worse it will be for our kids" Well your figures have just justified why austerity should be stopped and people paid what they deserve thank you very much for that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Why 2012 ? was just the way the figures came up but everytime I moved the year on the tax take was up, which is good as long as it isnt at the cost of a higher % of gdp, the problem is the rising cost of interest of the debt, it will soon overtake the cost of health IIRC, NO ONE can consider that to be a good thing, it simply has tobe brought down, the longer we continue to stick out heads in the sand the worse it will be for our kids Well your figures have just justified why austerity should be stopped and people paid what they deserve thank you very much for that " Exactly how do you work that out? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Why 2012 ? was just the way the figures came up but everytime I moved the year on the tax take was up, which is good as long as it isnt at the cost of a higher % of gdp, the problem is the rising cost of interest of the debt, it will soon overtake the cost of health IIRC, NO ONE can consider that to be a good thing, it simply has tobe brought down, the longer we continue to stick out heads in the sand the worse it will be for our kids Well your figures have just justified why austerity should be stopped and people paid what they deserve thank you very much for that Exactly how do you work that out?" By the nature of your figures on the increase in the tax take since 2012....i do believe that what you were getting at...theres plenty of money in the economy to give people a decent rise...and tbh by giving them one would further increase the tax take....and maybe just maybe take some out of the benefit system....which will also have a knock on effect of lowering what we have to borrow | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Why 2012 ? was just the way the figures came up but everytime I moved the year on the tax take was up, which is good as long as it isnt at the cost of a higher % of gdp, the problem is the rising cost of interest of the debt, it will soon overtake the cost of health IIRC, NO ONE can consider that to be a good thing, it simply has tobe brought down, the longer we continue to stick out heads in the sand the worse it will be for our kids Well your figures have just justified why austerity should be stopped and people paid what they deserve thank you very much for that Exactly how do you work that out? By the nature of your figures on the increase in the tax take since 2012....i do believe that what you were getting at...theres plenty of money in the economy to give people a decent rise...and tbh by giving them one would further increase the tax take....and maybe just maybe take some out of the benefit system....which will also have a knock on effect of lowering what we have to borrow " So you are saying that if the government pay public sector workers more they will pay some of that back in tax, fair enough thats true but where is the gov getting ALL the increased pay from? It hasnt got any cash it will have to borrow it to give the wage increase to get some of it back and if the wage increase removes some from benefits the money is still borrowed so no sorry it doesnt reduce total borrowing. However I do believe that the lower paid public sector workers do deserve an increase, perhaps say 3% this year on the lowest level for everyone, the top earners dont need 3% on their high salaries, IE a flat increase for everyone | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Why 2012 ? was just the way the figures came up but everytime I moved the year on the tax take was up, which is good as long as it isnt at the cost of a higher % of gdp, the problem is the rising cost of interest of the debt, it will soon overtake the cost of health IIRC, NO ONE can consider that to be a good thing, it simply has tobe brought down, the longer we continue to stick out heads in the sand the worse it will be for our kids Well your figures have just justified why austerity should be stopped and people paid what they deserve thank you very much for that Exactly how do you work that out? By the nature of your figures on the increase in the tax take since 2012....i do believe that what you were getting at...theres plenty of money in the economy to give people a decent rise...and tbh by giving them one would further increase the tax take....and maybe just maybe take some out of the benefit system....which will also have a knock on effect of lowering what we have to borrow So you are saying that if the government pay public sector workers more they will pay some of that back in tax, fair enough thats true but where is the gov getting ALL the increased pay from? It hasnt got any cash it will have to borrow it to give the wage increase to get some of it back and if the wage increase removes some from benefits the money is still borrowed so no sorry it doesnt reduce total borrowing. However I do believe that the lower paid public sector workers do deserve an increase, perhaps say 3% this year on the lowest level for everyone, the top earners dont need 3% on their high salaries, IE a flat increase for everyone " And for one i agree with you on this so it is possible ...and you know that can be done so so simple if the government wants...and they can turn around and say sorry but the top earners are going to have to sacrifice theres for the lower earners....oh wait isnt that what JC's saying in essence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Why 2012 ? was just the way the figures came up but everytime I moved the year on the tax take was up, which is good as long as it isnt at the cost of a higher % of gdp, the problem is the rising cost of interest of the debt, it will soon overtake the cost of health IIRC, NO ONE can consider that to be a good thing, it simply has tobe brought down, the longer we continue to stick out heads in the sand the worse it will be for our kids Well your figures have just justified why austerity should be stopped and people paid what they deserve thank you very much for that Exactly how do you work that out? By the nature of your figures on the increase in the tax take since 2012....i do believe that what you were getting at...theres plenty of money in the economy to give people a decent rise...and tbh by giving them one would further increase the tax take....and maybe just maybe take some out of the benefit system....which will also have a knock on effect of lowering what we have to borrow " Problem is is that increasing public pay only increases the tax take by about probably less than 1/3 of the cost. There would be a possible decrease in spending on benefits and also an increase in VAT take and corporation tax as they spent some of that money, but I doubt it would cover the cost. The only real way to solve the problem is to have a more productive private sector, that way there is only an increase in tax take with no additional cost to the exchequer. We can't buy our way out of the deficit with more public spending. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... And for one i agree with you on this so it is possible ...and you know that can be done so so simple if the government wants...and they can turn around and say sorry but the top earners are going to have to sacrifice theres for the lower earners....oh wait isnt that what JC's saying in essence " The top earners shouldnt need to make sacrifces as they earn more but dont think JC would want an even rise. It is a difficult balance between creating incentive to take on more responsibility etc and making it fair lower down the pay scale, IMVHO the problem is too many managers etc get rid of the deadwood and give that cash to the lower paid, K works in the NHS and there are more managers but less frontline compared to when she moved here, starngely since virgin took over they have a policy of allowing natural wastage to reduce managers and using IT to reduce frontline redtape,record keeping to allow those staff to do more, its a win win but the left cry the nhs is for sale despite the improving servicewhich surely the point of the nhs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... And for one i agree with you on this so it is possible ...and you know that can be done so so simple if the government wants...and they can turn around and say sorry but the top earners are going to have to sacrifice theres for the lower earners....oh wait isnt that what JC's saying in essence The top earners shouldnt need to make sacrifces as they earn more but dont think JC would want an even rise. It is a difficult balance between creating incentive to take on more responsibility etc and making it fair lower down the pay scale, IMVHO the problem is too many managers etc get rid of the deadwood and give that cash to the lower paid, K works in the NHS and there are more managers but less frontline compared to when she moved here, starngely since virgin took over they have a policy of allowing natural wastage to reduce managers and using IT to reduce frontline redtape,record keeping to allow those staff to do more, its a win win but the left cry the nhs is for sale despite the improving servicewhich surely the point of the nhs " But you just said they do...make up your mind either the top earners need a pay rise or they dont....and its exactly what JC's is advocating that the top 5% pay more in income tax to balance it out....Virgin are a business right....and as a business there in it to make money....i dont care that Virgin are making money i dont believe its right...i do care that they should be able to pay there employees a living wage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Problem is is that increasing public pay only increases the tax take by about probably less than 1/3 of the cost. There would be a possible decrease in spending on benefits and also an increase in VAT take and corporation tax as they spent some of that money, but I doubt it would cover the cost. The only real way to solve the problem is to have a more productive private sector, that way there is only an increase in tax take with no additional cost to the exchequer. We can't buy our way out of the deficit with more public spending." Not so... Increasing pay for the majority of public sector workers would not cost as much as you believe. Firstly as you rightly point out income tax and NI will claw back about a third of any rise but then as the majority of public sector employees earn relatively little the remaining money will be spent attracting VAT at 20% and some of that money will be spent on transport and fuel attracting more tax. Of course the extra money circulating in the economy will also stimulate more spending attracting more tax. As for your claim that we cant buy our way out of the deficit with more public spending again you are totally wrong. If you open your eyes and mind and actually look around you and around the world and back through history you will notice that the economies that grow and boom are the ones where there is investment in infrastructure, the ones that decline are the ones that stop investing. But hey, what do I know... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... But you just said they do...make up your mind either the top earners need a pay rise or they dont....and its exactly what JC's is advocating that the top 5% pay more in income tax to balance it out....Virgin are a business right....and as a business there in it to make money....i dont care that Virgin are making money i dont believe its right...i do care that they should be able to pay there employees a living wage " What I said is the top earners should get the same rise in £ that the low earners get which would be a lower % based on eachs basic wages,but and it is a big but how far can that go before people lose the incentive to take top jobs and the extra stress that goes with them(alledgedly), a bit like the 50% tax rate where even labour had to admit it took less tax in so JC's idea wont work his party tried it and admitted it didnt so why repeat the idea. Virgin pay the same salaries as before the tender for contracts the same as the different parts of the nhs do, they do it cheaper by working smarter and cutting costs from overheads, they have to provide the same service or pay a fine. The nhs HAS to change, we have an ageing population and new treatments cost more and more, everyone needs to take more responsibilty for looking after themselves and not run to the quack for every cough or cold, if we dont then free health care is finished | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... But you just said they do...make up your mind either the top earners need a pay rise or they dont....and its exactly what JC's is advocating that the top 5% pay more in income tax to balance it out....Virgin are a business right....and as a business there in it to make money....i dont care that Virgin are making money i dont believe its right...i do care that they should be able to pay there employees a living wage What I said is the top earners should get the same rise in £ that the low earners get which would be a lower % based on eachs basic wages,but and it is a big but how far can that go before people lose the incentive to take top jobs and the extra stress that goes with them(alledgedly), a bit like the 50% tax rate where even labour had to admit it took less tax in so JC's idea wont work his party tried it and admitted it didnt so why repeat the idea. Virgin pay the same salaries as before the tender for contracts the same as the different parts of the nhs do, they do it cheaper by working smarter and cutting costs from overheads, they have to provide the same service or pay a fine. The nhs HAS to change, we have an ageing population and new treatments cost more and more, everyone needs to take more responsibilty for looking after themselves and not run to the quack for every cough or cold, if we dont then free health care is finished " Yeah we do have to all pay more on basic tax i agree to pay for it....and Labour's manifesto was costed out...i dont think i saw that from any of the other parties | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Yeah we do have to all pay more on basic tax i agree to pay for it....and Labour's manifesto was costed out...i dont think i saw that from any of the other parties" The whole point is health spending has gone up year on year,chucking money at it hasnt and wont solve the problem, it HAS to reform the longer we kick the can down the road the worse it will get | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Yeah we do have to all pay more on basic tax i agree to pay for it....and Labour's manifesto was costed out...i dont think i saw that from any of the other parties The whole point is health spending has gone up year on year,chucking money at it hasnt and wont solve the problem, it HAS to reform the longer we kick the can down the road the worse it will get" why change the subject wasn't we talking about wages ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"......... Yeah we do have to all pay more on basic tax i agree to pay for it....and Labour's manifesto was costed out...i dont think i saw that from any of the other parties The whole point is health spending has gone up year on year,chucking money at it hasnt and wont solve the problem, it HAS to reform the longer we kick the can down the road the worse it will get why change the subject wasn't we talking about wages ?" Thats what happens in discussions they move OT, anyway I thought we had agreed that lower paid public workers are due a better rise | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Problem is is that increasing public pay only increases the tax take by about probably less than 1/3 of the cost. There would be a possible decrease in spending on benefits and also an increase in VAT take and corporation tax as they spent some of that money, but I doubt it would cover the cost. The only real way to solve the problem is to have a more productive private sector, that way there is only an increase in tax take with no additional cost to the exchequer. We can't buy our way out of the deficit with more public spending. Not so... Increasing pay for the majority of public sector workers would not cost as much as you believe. Firstly as you rightly point out income tax and NI will claw back about a third of any rise but then as the majority of public sector employees earn relatively little the remaining money will be spent attracting VAT at 20% and some of that money will be spent on transport and fuel attracting more tax. Of course the extra money circulating in the economy will also stimulate more spending attracting more tax. As for your claim that we cant buy our way out of the deficit with more public spending again you are totally wrong. If you open your eyes and mind and actually look around you and around the world and back through history you will notice that the economies that grow and boom are the ones where there is investment in infrastructure, the ones that decline are the ones that stop investing. But hey, what do I know..." I did actually mention about VAT corporation tax take going up and I still don't believe that that would cover the cost. There is a good argument that limited capital spending on infrastructure, even with borrowed money, can boost economic activity (things like HS2, CrossRail, road improvements, shopping centres etc.) Unfortunately public sector pay doesn't fall under capital spending and even capital spending on infrastructure in the NHS, or nearly any other public service, actually has much effect on economic activity out side of the immediate economic activity created by the infrastructure project itself or, when it does, It's a generation or more for that impact to be felt. More and more government spending really isn't the answer unless it's backed by a strong growing economy. And, for the record, my eyes are fully open but, a bit like BREXIT, I'm not convinced by voo-doo economics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
