| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ed Miliband will destroy Britain; David Cameron warns the electorate of Labour danger | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 18 2014, 11:37 PM (2,552 Views) | |
| Heinrich | Oct 18 2014, 11:37 PM Post #1 |
|
Regular Guy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron, flushed with his success at scaring the Scottish about Alex Salmond, declares that Britain’s prosperity is at stake in the most important election “for a generation”. He warns today that "Mortgages will rise, businesses will be crushed and the international markets will take fright if Ed Miliband wins power in the general election in 200 days’ time." The Sunday Telegraph Readers of The Sunday Telegraph might be frightened away from supporting New Labour after reading this. Edited by Heinrich, Oct 18 2014, 11:38 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Rich | Oct 24 2014, 12:04 AM Post #121 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good evening Major, Let us look at what the CEO of the NHS has to say on the matter, and let us see if the spite and envy brigade agree or disagree. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/23/nhs-boss-simon-stevens-defends-privatisation |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Oct 24 2014, 08:05 AM Post #122 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Early on in NL's period in government they used the private sector (and the French health system) in order to reduce the excessive waiting times for some operations. All paid for by the NHS. If as the article suggests this system should/could be used today in order to avoid an increase in waiting times, while at the same time using the NHS for most of our health needs then I see no problem. The argument between private health and the NHS is the possibility of creating a two tier system where the only real delivery of health services is in the private sector and everything else is decidedly second class. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Oct 24 2014, 08:21 AM Post #123 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A Tory minister at the Tory conference did not deny that low paid people are £300 a year worse off than in 2008. People caught in the bedroom tax are in a position where they are either expected to pay more in rent or to move to a smaller property. While you defend those sitting on a £2m fortune I wonder if in "fairness" you felt or feel the need to defend those mentioned above? |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Oct 24 2014, 08:31 AM Post #124 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Labour said pensioners would be protected - but Ed Balls admitted this week that pensioners will have to pay the tax after they die. I know everybody SAYS Mandelson is the Prince of Darkness but I take my hat off to Ed if he's got him roped in to levy a poll tax for the cooler seats ... |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Oct 24 2014, 08:34 AM Post #125 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How does one pay a tax if they are dead? |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Oct 24 2014, 09:53 AM Post #126 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There was a time when GP's surgeries were not by appointment, when it was turn up and wait. The appointment system did away with much that you say here. And what used to be a couple of days wait, could at one time be nearer a week ...... but it's my experience that these criticisms have lessened in recent years. There have been more GP places, more surgeries opening. Edited by Affa, Oct 24 2014, 09:55 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Oct 24 2014, 10:09 AM Post #127 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Perhaps we could try looking at this in a different way. There are children in this country who live in poverty, not just relative poverty but real poverty. If you were living in a house that cost 2m and earning 43K would you object to paying more tax so that these children’s living conditions were improved? |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Oct 24 2014, 10:19 AM Post #128 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What's in the public domain, what is the evidence? You claim small government saves tax payer's money, increases REAL job creation. The evidence is exactly the opposite - Privatisation of public services caused rising unemployment, no reduction in taxation and very often poorer more costly services. On the NHS, all the evidence is that it performs well, is compared favourably with those services in other countries - but here it is said to be failing, is in crisis, is too costly - on costs alone the NHS is best VFM. I argue that being minimalistic (small government), operating essential public services on a low budget is in the realm of it MORE costly. We saw it with cuts to the environment budget that reduced flood defences leading to areas being under water for months and a cost in £bns when losses to business are weighed in. It's not I refuting what's in the public domain. I understand that Privatisation did not save the tax payer a penny, did not deliver world class services or restore flagging industries to competitiveness as was claimed it would. I know that privatisation of public services does reduce the size of the public service and does increase the size of the private sector - but I do not agree that in doing so there is a shift where these services stop being a burden on the tax payer and become wealth creating assets to the nation. btw - I do not claim you are stupid. That would excuse you. |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Oct 24 2014, 10:48 AM Post #129 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Affa, I think you are right about the NHS representing VFM and that this is borne out by international comparisons. I do not think that constantly increasing its budget is the answer and much of what RJD says about the spend on keeping the old alive should be looked at in a more grown up way by everyone. I don’t consider privatising public services as reducing the size of the public sector. It’s just a change of provider. So I agree that it doesn’t result in wealth creation or reduce the size of the public sector. It might reduce the bill a bit but I suspect it really is a bit when all aspects are considered. A minimalist government, in terms of reducing what the government does, may well be better for the economy and we should look at what the government does and what it needs to do. |
![]() |
|
| somersetli | Oct 24 2014, 01:36 PM Post #130 |
|
somersetli
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
you have a point here, but first I would like to be given more information. First I would like to know why these children were living in extreme poverty (i.e. not just poor). Secondly even if I was in the financial circumstances that you describe, I would like to know for sure, that my contribution to these children was going to be used to alleviate their plight, and not be used to provide feckless parents with money for booze, fags, large flat screen televisions, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and computer games. |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Oct 24 2014, 01:52 PM Post #131 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Buccaneer, I agree. One of the things I was thinking as I typed was that people would be more willing to take the financial hit if they knew their money was helping people in real need. I also agree with the point about real as opposed to relative poverty. For me the thing is not so much the difference between real and relative poverty but the interchangeable use of poverty and relative poverty by those with a vested interest. Even so I would suggest if you were the "relative poor" kid in the playground the difference between real and relative poverty would be lost on you. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Oct 24 2014, 04:38 PM Post #132 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi ACH; and thank you for a good response. Increasing health expenditure is a worry. That is because people are living longer, and medicine is very good at keeping these active for a lot longer. The answer isn't (yet) to limit access to what the profesion can deliver. A lot more can be done to prevent people needing medical intervention ..... on things like smoking, obesity, drug use, and alcohol excesses. Some would want to start charging for interventions relating to these, for myself I see a change in culture, education, and awareness being more productive - and of course a better regulation of the source of these harmful life choices. Taxes has been done, but tobacco for instance could be made available only through tobacconists and licenses limited in each town. On Public owned services - my contention is that there is no reason why the government cannot own them and be competitive, better even, than the private sector. It does after all have a huge advantage in having much greater influence on the mechanisms of control and infrastructure. What I realise is that no Conservative government could ever be expected to do so - their ideology is against behaving such - Capitalists in charge of Socialist held business just isn't a recipe' for success. Minimalist means running services at rock bottom price at lowest permissible quality. And this too is a false efficiency method ..... "cuts cost money", and often much more money 'in the long run'. Schools is a good example ....... lower spend, lower standards has a knock-on effect of poorer quality school leavers entering the job market such that industry cannot find the skills it needs - unless it either trains them itself or looks abroad. Inward investment dries up because the country lacks any advantage in the skills required. When the Government tells it is aiming for this country to be "the best place to set up a business" it should include making sure that it aims to provide the best people through our own higher education system - and put money where the mouth is. Minimalism is a race to the bottom! imo Edited by Affa, Oct 24 2014, 04:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Oct 24 2014, 06:05 PM Post #133 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My gp does not run an appointment system. You turn up and book in and wait your turn. He runs 3 surgeries a day in three different villages. He is adamant that you should be seen on the day you fall ill, not made to wait several days. If all doctors were of the same opinion, how much pressure might be taken off the hospital a&e departments? |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 25 2014, 07:52 AM Post #134 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
At this moment in time the mansion tax the tax of envy hate and desperation to encourage votes from the class warriors will not effect me, but if it comes about once they have hit the rich who are all Tories of course according to some in here and spent the money, they will lower there sights then more and more will be squeezed dry before we die or after we die. Best thing to do if you have a large house is sell it buy a small place sign that over to the kids now and divide the money up among your children if you have any now, then piss the rest up against the wall take long holidays and leave Nanny bugger all, she does not care about you why should you care about her. If you spend it all before you die and are unwell no worries Nanny will give you everything if you have savings and property you will have to pay until you have nothing left anyway so enjoy it before Nanny gets it, just leave them your will saying being of sound mind and body I have spent the lot. Better still last line should read the same as Labours note they left when booted out of office " There is no money left all gone"
|
![]() |
|
| C-too | Oct 25 2014, 08:53 AM Post #135 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Taking money from the poor doesn't seem to bother you. To suggest taking money from the wealthy always seems to get under your skin. IMO you would do well to ask yourself why? |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 25 2014, 03:38 PM Post #136 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Or Taking money from the wealthy doesn't seem to bother you. Ask yourself why? Its a simple matter of fairness CToo. Why should we think that constantly taking money off the better off , their own money legitimately aquired, to satisfy a political agenda is fair and acceptable? They already pay more in taxes than those lower down the scale and are less of a burden to the rest of society in nearly every respect being generally self sufficient. Income tax is designed to take more off those with the biggest incomes in a more calculating way unlike the Council tax or the mansion tax which just presumes that those in bigger homes have the larger incomes. To keep taking other peoples money off them, worked for and saved for and calculated and amed for destroys all incentives to work and save There is no doubt in my mind which attitude is the nastiest. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 25 2014, 03:56 PM Post #137 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Try death duties,. Thats a tax on a residue of ones estate over £325 000 The ballance is taxed at 40% That is £675,000 tax which should please you enourmously. So all those people in London with a so called mansion, eligable for a mansion tax due to the surge in London house prices that have turned many a home bought for £10 000 on a modest income, into a million pounds property through no fault of their own, are to be screwed with a mansion tax of £3000 a year on their pensions , and death duties they would never have dreamed of. Screwed twice for being prudent. |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 25 2014, 04:11 PM Post #138 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No argument on that one Ty working hard to earn more and being prudent in this country is punished not rewarded, as usual the cart before the horse I will be paying income tax on my pensions income until the day I die. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 25 2014, 04:15 PM Post #139 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Join the club. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 25 2014, 04:23 PM Post #140 |
|
Deleted User
|
How the well heeled squeal when the tax man cometh. |
|
|
| Stan Still | Oct 25 2014, 04:40 PM Post #141 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Only a fool enjoys paying taxes
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 25 2014, 04:52 PM Post #142 |
|
Deleted User
|
True. Some even make lame excuses to justify their exemption. |
|
|
| Stan Still | Oct 25 2014, 04:57 PM Post #143 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Unfortunately I don't know any lame or good excuses so I pay as usual |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 25 2014, 04:59 PM Post #144 |
|
Deleted User
|
You do have a good stab at them on this forum Stan |
|
|
| Stan Still | Oct 25 2014, 05:10 PM Post #145 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Being hit by the top rate of tax tends to make one rather tetchy these days with those who advocate the only solution to every problem is to tax the workers more and more.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Oct 25 2014, 05:29 PM Post #146 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
NOBODY on the top rate of tax pays the headline amount the newspapers claim. Anyone who does should sack their accountant immediately. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 25 2014, 05:38 PM Post #147 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Every right to complain when their expected planed for standard of living is reduced and eroded by the demands of the lgovernments. Those on fixed pensions are thehardest hit, for the value of their incomes is reduced by inflation year on year. I dont thin ,k it is the rich complaining only the comfortably off who prepared their way for retirement. the ones expected to pay for their own care in care homes. They are fortunately in the majority , enabling the poor and the fectless to get theirs for free. Fectless Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective. 2. Careless and irresponsible. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 25 2014, 06:05 PM Post #148 |
|
Deleted User
|
See post #142
|
|
|
| Affa | Oct 25 2014, 10:03 PM Post #149 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Income taxes were introduced to keep the 'well healed' well healed. Not enough that their livelihood was protected by the sacrifices of the commoner (his life) fighting the invader, but the money needed to feed and equip this cobbled army. The Times, in its 1874 election coverage, said 'It is now evident that whoever is Chancellor when the Budget is produced, the income tax will be abolished'. Disraeli won the election, Northcote was his Chancellor and the tax remained. At the time it was contributing about £6 million of the Government's £77 million revenue, while Customs and Excise contributed £47 million. It could have been ended, but at the rate at which it was applied (less than 1%) and with most of the population exempt, it was not a priority. With worsening trade conditions, including the decline of agriculture as a result of poor harvests and North American imports, the opportunity never arose again And my point is ..... that what started out as a tax on the rich only, has become a tax on everyone, such that business now pays the least (once near all taxation was from business), and employees pay near all (>90%) http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis1.htm |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 26 2014, 07:26 AM Post #150 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We have a well established tradition of taxing measured income not perceived wealth. If I own house with a perceived market price of £2m with a loan from a Bank of £500,000 then my wealth in this property is only around £1,500,000. The fact that I have a. Cellar full of gold ingots appears to be not relevant. So it is the perception of wealth that is to be taxed. Calculations show that this ubiquitous tax will bring in less than £1b so it is not designed to save our economy or the NHS. It exists for one reason only and that is to pander to the base instincts of the spite and envy brigade. Once established it will be expanded. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 26 2014, 07:35 AM Post #151 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That does not mean it can't be changed. A tax on "homes" worth more than £2 million could like any other tax have exemptions. People who are other asset poor or income poor could easily be exempted in any legislation. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 26 2014, 12:20 PM Post #152 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Really? I think not. Change "exempted" to "deferred". Just take a close look at what this sort of tax has done for France. Just take a look at the revenue anticipation and you will find it is <£1b. Now if this tax was to bring in £20b PA to pay down some of our national debt it could be understood, but a piddling £800m to get lost in the roundup errors takes the biscuit. It's just a sop to the Usuals. |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 26 2014, 01:02 PM Post #153 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Even accountants cannot ignore the legislation they submit the return and HMRC tells them what the bill is, if you have an accountant that ignores the regulations then you should sack them instantly |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 26 2014, 01:06 PM Post #154 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As said the tax if it comes in can be deferred not avoided or withdrawn whoever inherits the house gets the bill |
![]() |
|
| CharlieandRufus | Oct 26 2014, 04:20 PM Post #155 |
|
New Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In the same way inheritance tax was originally intended to apply to the very wealthy - with inflation ( particularly in the housing market ) very many people who never anticipated having to pay it are caught. The same thing is likely to happen with the proposed 'mansion tax' over time. |
![]() |
|
| Boxter | Oct 26 2014, 04:40 PM Post #156 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are also running a story that Tony Blair has stated that as long as Ed is in charge it will guarantee that Mr Cameron will win the election http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11187285/Tony-Blair-Miliband-has-failed-to-connect-with-voters-and-is-doomed-to-election-defeat.html |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Oct 26 2014, 04:43 PM Post #157 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well we need to change that. We need to shift the tax burden away from productive work and onto assets to free them up and cut back on an economic system that encourages rent seeking and idle speculation. We need asset deflation and wage rises from increased productivity, neither are feasible while we molly coddle those feckless asset holders who virtually speculated the country down the pan. It is no accident several large companies issued profit warnings yesterday, we are rapidly creating a consumer economy where fewer and fewer people are able to consume, and as you also know but choose to ignore the IMF has stated numerous times that nations with a widening wealth gap do less well economically. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Oct 26 2014, 04:51 PM Post #158 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One way to make this tax fair would be to link it to inflation, it's almost as if politicians overlooked this incredibly obvious flaw............ The nation simply could not afford the county estates of the post WW2 era hence the punitive taxes which were primarily designed to make these bastions of privilege actually pay for themselves, the deliberate act of the political classes in not upping the threshold is entirely deliberate, a country estate valued at a million in 1945 would not buy you a flat in central London these days. |
![]() |
|
| CharlieandRufus | Oct 26 2014, 05:05 PM Post #159 |
|
New Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree - but originally inheritance tax was linked to the housing market until the level was pegged at £325,000. Inheritance tax is a fairer way of taxing wealth held in property than the mansion tax, which doesn't take into account ability to pay. If levied as proposed ( and the details are very sketchy ) the loss to the revenue in Stamp Duty and the fact that payment could be deferred until death, reducing further the tax take from IT, could well mean there is no overall gain in revenue to HMRC. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Oct 26 2014, 05:17 PM Post #160 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We need to discourage storing wealth in property it is economically damaging, a house just sits there looking pretty but does absolutely nothing economically worthwhile. I think I'm right in saying that two thirds of the money lent by British banks is secured against land or property, this starves productive areas of the economy of investment, most continental banks have very little by comparison backed by these two asset classes. Take steps to lower property values and the problem solves itself, btw I have a six bedroomed house...... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




7:33 PM Jul 11