Not Papa Noel

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:

Pages:
1
2
3

Not Papa Noel
Topic Started: Dec 1 2014, 07:37 AM (1,090 Views)
RJD	Dec 1 2014, 07:37 AM Post #1
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	With the richest 10% paying 59% of all income taxes how are we seriously going to increase revenues without broadening the tax base? The UK is still one the highest taxed countries in the EU and needs to reduce not spend more, Osborne needs to be a Scrooge not a Papa Noel, he needs to show he is at heart one of those tough Tories the left love to label as nasty. Public Spending since the last GE has hardly been reduced. According to the IFS instead of being nasty this Gov. has improved the lot of Pensioners and as we have seen adjustments in benefits have been extremely modest with those, quiet rightly, that are disabled obtaining improvements. Welfare, OAP and Debt Interest are now along with that black hole, the NHS, three top ticket items. Demography means that the OAP budget will need to rise by ~£13b PA by 2020. Where is the additional money going to come from. Productivity is in decline and as we have prioritised current consumption over investment in infrastructure there is no sign this is likely to reverse. Our level of productivity relative to Germany is 31% lower. We need to cut payroll taxes in order to boost wages, but how? We need to borrow less, but how? Those that think that additional revenues of sufficient magnitude can be had by; the Mansion Tax, increasing the top income tax threshold to 50P or more and chasing international criminals that defraud the HMRC are delusional, it is chicken feed. Those that thought that GDP growth would be the solution have found that this now comes without any increases in tax revenues, because at the same time the tax base was narrowed. There is no other way, Osborne needs to get on with cutting the Public Sector spend asap and this £2b for the NHS should not be without strings, productivity gains have to match. Osborne needs to become a young Ebenezer again, now, next week and promise more swinging Public Sector cuts in the Tory Manifesto as we cannot expect Labour to concern itself on matters that relate to rebalancing the economy, creating real jobs or cutting the burden we bequeath our children as such is for serious Gov. for nasty Politicians. Please Mr Osborne stop using Gordon Brown as a role model.



Lewis	Dec 1 2014, 08:19 AM Post #2
Senior Member Posts: 3,478 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Enough of this right wing Tory Propaganda and lies. Time has come for a redistribution of wealth in this country and 56% wish that according to this poll: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/27/voters-back-redistribution-wealth/



papasmurf	Dec 1 2014, 08:24 AM Post #3
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 1 2014, 07:37 AM With the richest 10% paying 59% of all income taxes how are we seriously going to increase revenues without broadening the tax base? Collecting the £Billions in uncollected tax promptly and the £billions in evaded tax, there is no need for any tax rises.



Heinrich	Dec 1 2014, 08:56 AM Post #4
Regular Guy Posts: 2,920 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: Jul 22, 2014	papasmurf Dec 1 2014, 08:24 AM RJD Dec 1 2014, 07:37 AM With the richest 10% paying 59% of all income taxes how are we seriously going to increase revenues without broadening the tax base? Collecting the £Billions in uncollected tax promptly and the £billions in evaded tax, there is no need for any tax rises. Indeed, the stinking wealthy and big corporations need to shell out or get out.



Steve K	Dec 1 2014, 09:14 AM Post #5
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Heinrich Dec 1 2014, 08:56 AM papasmurf Dec 1 2014, 08:24 AM RJD Dec 1 2014, 07:37 AM With the richest 10% paying 59% of all income taxes how are we seriously going to increase revenues without broadening the tax base? Collecting the £Billions in uncollected tax promptly and the £billions in evaded tax, there is no need for any tax rises. Indeed, the stinking wealthy and big corporations need to shell out or get out. and then we could become the all new Albania People should do some basic maths about who is paying for and who is gaining from our mixed economy before trying to dogmatically make it one extreme or the other.



Montjoie	Dec 1 2014, 09:32 AM Post #6
Regular Member Posts: 1,205 Group: Members Member #7 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 1 2014, 09:14 AM Heinrich Dec 1 2014, 08:56 AM papasmurf Dec 1 2014, 08:24 AM RJD Dec 1 2014, 07:37 AM With the richest 10% paying 59% of all income taxes how are we seriously going to increase revenues without broadening the tax base? Collecting the £Billions in uncollected tax promptly and the £billions in evaded tax, there is no need for any tax rises. Indeed, the stinking wealthy and big corporations need to shell out or get out. and then we could become the all new Albania People should do some basic maths about who is paying for and who is gaining from our mixed economy before trying to dogmatically make it one extreme or the other. This comment of yours works both ways. That's a good question... who is gaining most from your economy? The top 10% or the rest? Who is "paying" most, labour wise again, the top 10%, or the rest?



Curious Cdn	Dec 1 2014, 12:55 PM Post #7
Frozen Member Posts: 4,818 Group: Members Member #41 Joined: Jul 1, 2014	I'll bet that the richest 10% mentioned in the first post also control about 80% of the wealth.



AndyK	Dec 1 2014, 01:13 PM Post #8
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	Lewis Dec 1 2014, 08:19 AM Enough of this right wing Tory Propaganda and lies. Time has come for a redistribution of wealth in this country and 56% wish that according to this poll: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/27/voters-back-redistribution-wealth/ What's more amazing is that its not 90%. Who didn't vote for money for themselves?



Montjoie	Dec 1 2014, 01:23 PM Post #9
Regular Member Posts: 1,205 Group: Members Member #7 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Dec 1 2014, 01:13 PM Lewis Dec 1 2014, 08:19 AM Enough of this right wing Tory Propaganda and lies. Time has come for a redistribution of wealth in this country and 56% wish that according to this poll: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/27/voters-back-redistribution-wealth/ What's more amazing is that its not 90%. Who didn't vote for money for themselves? (Too) many people believe they've somehow managed better than the average (and they did on a relative scale, just not to the extent it should be in a more equal society). Therefore if you ask them if they want wealth to be distributed more equally, they believe they'll lose some feathers in the process. Kind of like circumcised American people who are in denial when they are told that they lost their most sensible part. They'll swear to you they're more than fine the way they are. It's just because they've never been given the chance to experience any different. Edited by Montjoie, Dec 1 2014, 01:23 PM.



Affa	Dec 1 2014, 01:50 PM Post #10
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	Curious Cdn Dec 1 2014, 12:55 PM I'll bet that the richest 10% mentioned in the first post also control about 80% of the wealth. Exactly CDN, they pay more in taxes because they 'earn' more, a lot more. If wealth were distributed wider then the proportions of tax paid would widen also - RJD posts a recognition of a widening gap where the rich are getting richer and argues it is unfair on the rich. lol



Alberich	Dec 1 2014, 01:52 PM Post #11
Alberich Posts: 1,695 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD's message is basically the right one. The NHS in its present form, with the huge additional demands on its services through GPs opting out of basic care, and the massive increase in immigration, is simply not viable in the long run. It is a black hole which will swallow any "new" monies that successive chancellors throw at it, and then keep coming back for more. It needs a re-structuring, and this should include some form of insurance, or client payment. I can hear the loud squeals already, but it needs to be addressed now. We should stop ring fencing foreign aid. It is a nonsense to commit successive governments to spend a fixed percentage of GDP, when need varies year on year, and much of it is wasted anyway. The overall welfare bill is massive, and hardly dented after five years of coalition effort. ALL welfare should be means tested, and there are still far too many different branches of welfare. IDS is on the right lines in combining the four main ones into one over-arching payment, but much still needs to be done. Another area ripe for re-evaluating is defence. Do we really need nuclear submarines and trident missiles which we can never use? Did we really need two huge aircraft carriers (apart from providing jobs for Gordon Browns lot). We should stop pretending we are a world super power, and cut our cloth.... And I won't even get started on what the E.U. costs us each and every year!!!



Affa	Dec 1 2014, 02:35 PM Post #12
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	Alberich Dec 1 2014, 01:52 PM RJD's message is basically the right one. The NHS in its present form, with the huge additional demands on its services through GPs opting out of basic care, and the massive increase in immigration, is simply not viable in the long run. It is a black hole which will swallow any "new" monies that successive chancellors throw at it, and then keep coming back for more. It needs a re-structuring, and this should include some form of insurance, or client payment. I can hear the loud squeals already, but it needs to be addressed now. We should stop ring fencing foreign aid. It is a nonsense to commit successive governments to spend a fixed percentage of GDP, when need varies year on year, and much of it is wasted anyway. The overall welfare bill is massive, and hardly dented after five years of coalition effort. ALL welfare should be means tested, and there are still far too many different branches of welfare. IDS is on the right lines in combining the four main ones into one over-arching payment, but much still needs to be done. Another area ripe for re-evaluating is defence. Do we really need nuclear submarines and trident missiles which we can never use? Did we really need two huge aircraft carriers (apart from providing jobs for Gordon Browns lot). We should stop pretending we are a world super power, and cut our cloth.... And I won't even get started on what the E.U. costs us each and every year!!! Why after identifying many of the demands being made on the NHS do you opt for 'reforms' of the NHS instead of addressing these issues (immigration eg) that put the strain on it. Are you not making the wrong decision to restrict access to care to all instead of specifically to those that arrive here having made no previous contributions? btw, the NHS is still recognised internationally as among the most efficient and successful providers. And costs less than most other systems. People become welfare dependant when they have no paid work, or the pay is insufficient to provide them with basic needs ......... the solution to reducing the bill is reverse this situation, to invest in jobs (creation), improved wages, and lower cost-of-living (rents for eg). Things that do make a difference! Edited by Affa, Dec 1 2014, 02:36 PM.



Alberich	Dec 1 2014, 04:11 PM Post #13
Alberich Posts: 1,695 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Dec 1 2014, 02:35 PM Alberich Dec 1 2014, 01:52 PM RJD's message is basically the right one. The NHS in its present form, with the huge additional demands on its services through GPs opting out of basic care, and the massive increase in immigration, is simply not viable in the long run. It is a black hole which will swallow any "new" monies that successive chancellors throw at it, and then keep coming back for more. It needs a re-structuring, and this should include some form of insurance, or client payment. I can hear the loud squeals already, but it needs to be addressed now. We should stop ring fencing foreign aid. It is a nonsense to commit successive governments to spend a fixed percentage of GDP, when need varies year on year, and much of it is wasted anyway. The overall welfare bill is massive, and hardly dented after five years of coalition effort. ALL welfare should be means tested, and there are still far too many different branches of welfare. IDS is on the right lines in combining the four main ones into one over-arching payment, but much still needs to be done. Another area ripe for re-evaluating is defence. Do we really need nuclear submarines and trident missiles which we can never use? Did we really need two huge aircraft carriers (apart from providing jobs for Gordon Browns lot). We should stop pretending we are a world super power, and cut our cloth.... And I won't even get started on what the E.U. costs us each and every year!!! Why after identifying many of the demands being made on the NHS do you opt for 'reforms' of the NHS instead of addressing these issues (immigration eg) that put the strain on it. Are you not making the wrong decision to restrict access to care to all instead of specifically to those that arrive here having made no previous contributions? btw, the NHS is still recognised internationally as among the most efficient and successful providers. And costs less than most other systems. People become welfare dependant when they have no paid work, or the pay is insufficient to provide them with basic needs ......... the solution to reducing the bill is reverse this situation, to invest in jobs (creation), improved wages, and lower cost-of-living (rents for eg). Things that do make a difference! I only wish we could address the issue you identify, but as long as we remain shackled to the E.U. we cannot do a thing about it. But the NSH is in trouble, and while immigration contributes to that trouble in no small measure, reforms are needed in any case. I'm not knocking the NSH. In fact, I am a huge admirer. But it will HAVE to be reformed in the matter of its financing, sooner or later. Nor am I against investing in jobs, but NOT public service jobs (and here I expect we can disagree) We should do all we can to foster private industry by lowering its onerous tax regime, and encouraging entrepreneurship when and where we can. Make hiring and firing easier, for it is the private sector that creates the wealth; not the public sector. If we do that, wages will increase as firms prosper. As for lower rents, I'm not sure how you would go about this, without government control. And that simply would be counter productive; nor would it work. There are huge savings to be made in our annual spending reviews; had we the will to prioritise the things that really matter to the people of this nation, and cut spending on vanity projects, and things that don't matter. And isn't that the main task of the governments we elect?



ACH1967	Dec 1 2014, 04:17 PM Post #14
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	Affa Dec 1 2014, 02:35 PM Alberich Dec 1 2014, 01:52 PM RJD's message is basically the right one. The NHS in its present form, with the huge additional demands on its services through GPs opting out of basic care, and the massive increase in immigration, is simply not viable in the long run. It is a black hole which will swallow any "new" monies that successive chancellors throw at it, and then keep coming back for more. It needs a re-structuring, and this should include some form of insurance, or client payment. I can hear the loud squeals already, but it needs to be addressed now. We should stop ring fencing foreign aid. It is a nonsense to commit successive governments to spend a fixed percentage of GDP, when need varies year on year, and much of it is wasted anyway. The overall welfare bill is massive, and hardly dented after five years of coalition effort. ALL welfare should be means tested, and there are still far too many different branches of welfare. IDS is on the right lines in combining the four main ones into one over-arching payment, but much still needs to be done. Another area ripe for re-evaluating is defence. Do we really need nuclear submarines and trident missiles which we can never use? Did we really need two huge aircraft carriers (apart from providing jobs for Gordon Browns lot). We should stop pretending we are a world super power, and cut our cloth.... And I won't even get started on what the E.U. costs us each and every year!!! Why after identifying many of the demands being made on the NHS do you opt for 'reforms' of the NHS instead of addressing these issues (immigration eg) that put the strain on it. Are you not making the wrong decision to restrict access to care to all instead of specifically to those that arrive here having made no previous contributions? btw, the NHS is still recognised internationally as among the most efficient and successful providers. And costs less than most other systems. People become welfare dependant when they have no paid work, or the pay is insufficient to provide them with basic needs ......... the solution to reducing the bill is reverse this situation, to invest in jobs (creation), improved wages, and lower cost-of-living (rents for eg). Things that do make a difference! When you say invest what you actually mean is borrow isn't it? Borrow then invest then cross your fingers. Improved wages! I agree. Especially for those on the lowest pay. Increase the NMW. Lower the cost of living. Absolutely. Lets have some anti trust organisations that are actually say antitrust.



papasmurf	Dec 1 2014, 04:25 PM Post #15
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Alberich Dec 1 2014, 01:52 PM The overall welfare bill is massive, and hardly dented after five years of coalition effort. That is because the Tories believed their own scrounger propaganda and Iain Duncan Smith has wasted £billions in the process. Only 2% of the welfare budget is JSA.



RJD	Dec 1 2014, 04:26 PM Post #16
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Dec 1 2014, 01:50 PM Curious Cdn Dec 1 2014, 12:55 PM I'll bet that the richest 10% mentioned in the first post also control about 80% of the wealth. Exactly CDN, they pay more in taxes because they 'earn' more, a lot more. If wealth were distributed wider then the proportions of tax paid would widen also - RJD posts a recognition of a widening gap where the rich are getting richer and argues it is unfair on the rich. lol Show where I argued such a thing? I have posed the question at least a dozen times; "if there is a moral case to shift £20b PA from the top to the bottom then how in a sustainable manner without damaging the economy"? The left are good at anger and easily have their envy and spite revved up, but where is the answer to this question? All I hear is half a £billion or so extra to go on Labour's favourite black hole the NHS, but not one Dicky-bird about redistribution of wealth. Why? Claiming that tax fraudsters are easily found and brought to book is just silly as much of this is beyond the reach of HMRC and what is within reach is the Nickels and Dimes of the Black Economy. It is very easy to sit in ones armchair and groan "rich getting richer", but what are you able to do about it? What is the moral imperative beyond ones Christian duty? Yes skills and capital are making the money and zero skills are in abundance, in over supply, so what are you going to do about it? I do not believe that NL's solution of paying out welfare benefits for fit people to sit at home and no nothing is longer acceptable, so what is your alternative(s). Doing the anger bit without providing sensible solutions is, if you do not mind me saying such, pathetic and lazy.



RJD	Dec 1 2014, 04:45 PM Post #17
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Dec 1 2014, 02:35 PM Alberich Dec 1 2014, 01:52 PM RJD's message is basically the right one. The NHS in its present form, with the huge additional demands on its services through GPs opting out of basic care, and the massive increase in immigration, is simply not viable in the long run. It is a black hole which will swallow any "new" monies that successive chancellors throw at it, and then keep coming back for more. It needs a re-structuring, and this should include some form of insurance, or client payment. I can hear the loud squeals already, but it needs to be addressed now. We should stop ring fencing foreign aid. It is a nonsense to commit successive governments to spend a fixed percentage of GDP, when need varies year on year, and much of it is wasted anyway. The overall welfare bill is massive, and hardly dented after five years of coalition effort. ALL welfare should be means tested, and there are still far too many different branches of welfare. IDS is on the right lines in combining the four main ones into one over-arching payment, but much still needs to be done. Another area ripe for re-evaluating is defence. Do we really need nuclear submarines and trident missiles which we can never use? Did we really need two huge aircraft carriers (apart from providing jobs for Gordon Browns lot). We should stop pretending we are a world super power, and cut our cloth.... And I won't even get started on what the E.U. costs us each and every year!!! Why after identifying many of the demands being made on the NHS do you opt for 'reforms' of the NHS instead of addressing these issues (immigration eg) that put the strain on it. Are you not making the wrong decision to restrict access to care to all instead of specifically to those that arrive here having made no previous contributions? btw, the NHS is still recognised internationally as among the most efficient and successful providers. And costs less than most other systems. People become welfare dependant when they have no paid work, or the pay is insufficient to provide them with basic needs ......... the solution to reducing the bill is reverse this situation, to invest in jobs (creation), improved wages, and lower cost-of-living (rents for eg). Things that do make a difference! The NHS may be relatively more efficient than others, but is that the only question? All leaders of the NHS have claimed productivity can be improved. All reports commissioned by Gov., NL Gov., demanded productivity improvements in parallel with increases in investment. Guess what, budgets went up and productivity declined. However, the fundamental question is "is the NHS spending balanced according to the expectations of Joe Public"? Today the vast majority of all NHS spending goes on the aged and the amount grows exponentially from 65 years of age onwards. Hygiene, antibiotics and a good diet have increased the length of our lives, on average the massive spend on the aged has increased these by no more that weeks, a few extra months. Hospital now is where very many go to die and I wonder if a better deal with champagne could not be obtained from seaside Hotels. Is this what the NHS budget is fundamentally for? An end of life service?



RJD	Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM Post #18
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Dec 1 2014, 04:17 PM Affa Dec 1 2014, 02:35 PM Alberich Dec 1 2014, 01:52 PM RJD's message is basically the right one. The NHS in its present form, with the huge additional demands on its services through GPs opting out of basic care, and the massive increase in immigration, is simply not viable in the long run. It is a black hole which will swallow any "new" monies that successive chancellors throw at it, and then keep coming back for more. It needs a re-structuring, and this should include some form of insurance, or client payment. I can hear the loud squeals already, but it needs to be addressed now. We should stop ring fencing foreign aid. It is a nonsense to commit successive governments to spend a fixed percentage of GDP, when need varies year on year, and much of it is wasted anyway. The overall welfare bill is massive, and hardly dented after five years of coalition effort. ALL welfare should be means tested, and there are still far too many different branches of welfare. IDS is on the right lines in combining the four main ones into one over-arching payment, but much still needs to be done. Another area ripe for re-evaluating is defence. Do we really need nuclear submarines and trident missiles which we can never use? Did we really need two huge aircraft carriers (apart from providing jobs for Gordon Browns lot). We should stop pretending we are a world super power, and cut our cloth.... And I won't even get started on what the E.U. costs us each and every year!!! Why after identifying many of the demands being made on the NHS do you opt for 'reforms' of the NHS instead of addressing these issues (immigration eg) that put the strain on it. Are you not making the wrong decision to restrict access to care to all instead of specifically to those that arrive here having made no previous contributions? btw, the NHS is still recognised internationally as among the most efficient and successful providers. And costs less than most other systems. People become welfare dependant when they have no paid work, or the pay is insufficient to provide them with basic needs ......... the solution to reducing the bill is reverse this situation, to invest in jobs (creation), improved wages, and lower cost-of-living (rents for eg). Things that do make a difference! When you say invest what you actually mean is borrow isn't it? Borrow then invest then cross your fingers. Improved wages! I agree. Especially for those on the lowest pay. Increase the NMW. Lower the cost of living. Absolutely. Lets have some anti trust organisations that are actually say antitrust. Borrowing at the cost of future generations to fuel current consumption is now what the left term as investment. Totally immoral.



RJD	Dec 1 2014, 04:48 PM Post #19
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Curious Cdn Dec 1 2014, 12:55 PM I'll bet that the richest 10% mentioned in the first post also control about 80% of the wealth. If they legally own such then why not? Serious question. We have seen what happens when the State decides to own such on our behalf.



AndyK	Dec 1 2014, 04:55 PM Post #20
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	papasmurf Dec 1 2014, 04:25 PM Alberich Dec 1 2014, 01:52 PM The overall welfare bill is massive, and hardly dented after five years of coalition effort. That is because the Tories believed their own scrounger propaganda and Iain Duncan Smith has wasted £billions in the process. Only 2% of the welfare budget is JSA. I wouldn't say it was hardly dented, its was £160bn and its been cut down to £100bn.



papasmurf	Dec 1 2014, 05:04 PM Post #21
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Dec 1 2014, 04:55 PM I wouldn't say it was hardly dented, its was £160bn and its been cut down to £100bn. Where are you getting that from, the welfare bill is going up not down due to incomes falling and more people being entitled to in work benefits. http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/Welfare_trends_report_2014_dn2B.pdf



jaguar	Dec 1 2014, 06:35 PM Post #22
Regular Member Posts: 980 Group: Members Member #26 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	papasmurf Dec 1 2014, 05:04 PM AndyK Dec 1 2014, 04:55 PM I wouldn't say it was hardly dented, its was £160bn and its been cut down to £100bn. Where are you getting that from, the welfare bill is going up not down due to incomes falling and more people being entitled to in work benefits. http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/Welfare_trends_report_2014_dn2B.pdf Once again, you have sent a link that going to take all night to read. I have no intention of wasting my time in looking for the answer of the question,"its was £160bn and its been cut down to £100bn". Do you ever read your own links, or do you just post something in the hope it backs up you claim. Point me to the relevant part, in other words, put up or shut up.



Montjoie	Dec 1 2014, 07:07 PM Post #23
Regular Member Posts: 1,205 Group: Members Member #7 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 1 2014, 04:48 PM Curious Cdn Dec 1 2014, 12:55 PM I'll bet that the richest 10% mentioned in the first post also control about 80% of the wealth. If they legally own such then why not? Serious question. We have seen what happens when the State decides to own such on our behalf. So, if people legally immigrate to the UK, why not? And I guess you're against State regulation on this aspect too right? Right .... thought so.



RJD	Dec 1 2014, 07:29 PM Post #24
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Montjoie Dec 1 2014, 07:07 PM RJD Dec 1 2014, 04:48 PM Curious Cdn Dec 1 2014, 12:55 PM I'll bet that the richest 10% mentioned in the first post also control about 80% of the wealth. If they legally own such then why not? Serious question. We have seen what happens when the State decides to own such on our behalf. So, if people legally immigrate to the UK, why not? And I guess you're against State regulation on this aspect too right? Right .... thought so. I really do not understand your point. Many of the so-called rich are so because of assets created and owned elsewhere. If a French Investor comes to the UK with access to legal finance, is a person of good standing who wishes to buy a FTSE listed company which has assets in the UK why should I object? I certainly would wish to be sure that the State regulates such that black money was not involved and that Employment Laws respected. What is your point?



papasmurf	Dec 1 2014, 07:56 PM Post #25
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	jaguar Dec 1 2014, 06:35 PM Once again, you have sent a link that going to take all night to read. I have no intention of wasting my time in looking for the answer of the question,"its was £160bn and its been cut down to £100bn". If you can be bothered to scroll down to page 7 Table 1: Medium-term forecast of welfare spending you can't have looked at it at all. Had you bothered to do you would have improved your knowledge. As it is you prefer to remain in ignorance of the welfare bill going up not down.



AndyK	Dec 1 2014, 08:01 PM Post #26
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	papasmurf Dec 1 2014, 05:04 PM AndyK Dec 1 2014, 04:55 PM I wouldn't say it was hardly dented, its was £160bn and its been cut down to £100bn. Where are you getting that from, the welfare bill is going up not down due to incomes falling and more people being entitled to in work benefits. http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/Welfare_trends_report_2014_dn2B.pdf



papasmurf	Dec 1 2014, 08:08 PM Post #27
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Andy that is not a graph of the welfare bill, which is what is being commented about.



AndyK	Dec 1 2014, 08:12 PM Post #28
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	papasmurf Dec 1 2014, 08:08 PM Andy that is not a graph of the welfare bill, which is what is being commented about. Well the whole budget has been subject to cuts, some of which have worked well and others not so well. But there's no doubt the overall package has made substantial reductions in the budget deficit. There is going to be at least another £50bn in the next parliament, so be prepared for some pretty savage cuts to welfare in the near future, whoever gets into power.



Affa	Dec 1 2014, 08:40 PM Post #29
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	Alberich Dec 1 2014, 04:11 PM But the NSH is in trouble, This is fundamental ....... the NHS is not in trouble! The Economy is in trouble! The solution is not to 'sort out the NHS', but instead to sort out the economy'! Why this does not appear obvious defeats me ....... the NHS is quite capable of delivering the level of service it aspires to provide. There are no inherent problems with how the NHS performs or conducts the business of health care provision - it is very good at what it does. Reforms are not going to be a long term solution - privatisation certainly not, and messing with it (like closing A&E units) to save money generally result in crisis and even more money being spent = SAVING nothing, but certainly increasing suffering and making problems where there should be none. Ask yourself why when the numbers in work are at an all time high, the economy too (now it has returned to pre-crisis levels) is at an all time high, but the Treasury is not, nowhere near as healthy. Receipts are down not up - that is why there is a funding problem - look to where the problem is, to where the solution can be made. Edited by Affa, Dec 1 2014, 08:44 PM.



Affa	Dec 1 2014, 09:04 PM Post #30
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	AndyK Dec 1 2014, 08:12 PM But there's no doubt the overall package has made substantial reductions in the budget deficit. There is going to be at least another £50bn in the next parliament, so be prepared for some pretty savage cuts to welfare in the near future, whoever gets into power. You say this as if the result is somewhat remarkable? It is not a record of success, more one of incompetence. (I could go off topic and mention how it has been policy that has stalled growth in the economy exacerbating the problem, and go further to say this was intentional - a known consequence of policy). Recovery from a recession that when all is said and done had nothing to do with problems in the global MARKET, oil prices, or any of the usual suspects, is historically easier, faster, and should have been quicker this time ....... the potential for growth remains high. The rhetoric has convinced people it was a task too great, when in fact the job was straight forward. It's like someone coming last in a race and saying "didn't I do well, I deserve a medal". ........ most countries have done better at reducing their deficits. Edited by Affa, Dec 1 2014, 09:05 PM.



Tigger	Dec 1 2014, 09:11 PM Post #31
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Dec 1 2014, 01:13 PM Lewis Dec 1 2014, 08:19 AM Enough of this right wing Tory Propaganda and lies. Time has come for a redistribution of wealth in this country and 56% wish that according to this poll: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/27/voters-back-redistribution-wealth/ What's more amazing is that its not 90%. Who didn't vote for money for themselves? Me. Because I don't want to live in a gated community and see the nation end up as a USA lite. Edited by Tigger, Dec 1 2014, 09:12 PM.



Montjoie	Dec 1 2014, 09:29 PM Post #32
Regular Member Posts: 1,205 Group: Members Member #7 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 1 2014, 07:29 PM Montjoie Dec 1 2014, 07:07 PM RJD Dec 1 2014, 04:48 PM Curious Cdn Dec 1 2014, 12:55 PM I'll bet that the richest 10% mentioned in the first post also control about 80% of the wealth. If they legally own such then why not? Serious question. We have seen what happens when the State decides to own such on our behalf. So, if people legally immigrate to the UK, why not? And I guess you're against State regulation on this aspect too right? Right .... thought so. I really do not understand your point. Many of the so-called rich are so because of assets created and owned elsewhere. If a French Investor comes to the UK with access to legal finance, is a person of good standing who wishes to buy a FTSE listed company which has assets in the UK why should I object? I certainly would wish to be sure that the State regulates such that black money was not involved and that Employment Laws respected. What is your point? Your point was that legal is enough for something to be ok. And that somehow it shouldn't be changed, based on the fact that State regulation is always a bad thing. But then if you go down the liberal path, it should apply to everything, including freedom of movement (and everything). But people like you seem to only agree to liberalism when it comes to easy money.



Tigger	Dec 1 2014, 09:35 PM Post #33
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Montjoie Dec 1 2014, 09:29 PM RJD Dec 1 2014, 07:29 PM Montjoie Dec 1 2014, 07:07 PM RJD Dec 1 2014, 04:48 PM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep So, if people legally immigrate to the UK, why not? And I guess you're against State regulation on this aspect too right? Right .... thought so. I really do not understand your point. Many of the so-called rich are so because of assets created and owned elsewhere. If a French Investor comes to the UK with access to legal finance, is a person of good standing who wishes to buy a FTSE listed company which has assets in the UK why should I object? I certainly would wish to be sure that the State regulates such that black money was not involved and that Employment Laws respected. What is your point? Your point was that legal is enough for something to be ok. And that somehow it shouldn't be changed, based on the fact that State regulation is always a bad thing. But then if you go down the liberal path, it should apply to everything, including freedom of movement (and everything). But people like you seem to only agree to liberalism when it comes to easy money. How true! Selective free markets for the benefit of the few seem to be the order of the day at the moment, and strangely many accept this as a perfectly normal state of affairs, challenge these people on this and they'll accuse you of being a radical!



C-too	Dec 1 2014, 09:55 PM Post #34
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	RJD Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM ACH1967 Dec 1 2014, 04:17 PM Affa Dec 1 2014, 02:35 PM Alberich Dec 1 2014, 01:52 PM RJD's message is basically the right one. The NHS in its present form, with the huge additional demands on its services through GPs opting out of basic care, and the massive increase in immigration, is simply not viable in the long run. It is a black hole which will swallow any "new" monies that successive chancellors throw at it, and then keep coming back for more. It needs a re-structuring, and this should include some form of insurance, or client payment. I can hear the loud squeals already, but it needs to be addressed now. We should stop ring fencing foreign aid. It is a nonsense to commit successive governments to spend a fixed percentage of GDP, when need varies year on year, and much of it is wasted anyway. The overall welfare bill is massive, and hardly dented after five years of coalition effort. ALL welfare should be means tested, and there are still far too many different branches of welfare. IDS is on the right lines in combining the four main ones into one over-arching payment, but much still needs to be done. Another area ripe for re-evaluating is defence. Do we really need nuclear submarines and trident missiles which we can never use? Did we really need two huge aircraft carriers (apart from providing jobs for Gordon Browns lot). We should stop pretending we are a world super power, and cut our cloth.... And I won't even get started on what the E.U. costs us each and every year!!! Why after identifying many of the demands being made on the NHS do you opt for 'reforms' of the NHS instead of addressing these issues (immigration eg) that put the strain on it. Are you not making the wrong decision to restrict access to care to all instead of specifically to those that arrive here having made no previous contributions? btw, the NHS is still recognised internationally as among the most efficient and successful providers. And costs less than most other systems. People become welfare dependant when they have no paid work, or the pay is insufficient to provide them with basic needs ......... the solution to reducing the bill is reverse this situation, to invest in jobs (creation), improved wages, and lower cost-of-living (rents for eg). Things that do make a difference! When you say invest what you actually mean is borrow isn't it? Borrow then invest then cross your fingers. Improved wages! I agree. Especially for those on the lowest pay. Increase the NMW. Lower the cost of living. Absolutely. Lets have some anti trust organisations that are actually say antitrust. Borrowing at the cost of future generations to fuel current consumption is now what the left term as investment. Totally immoral. Making cuts and borrowing/investment from 2010 is what NL suggested, the Tories are doing exactly that in a belated effort to catch up with NL. Had they started earlier they may well have halved the deficit by 2013 as NL claimed it would.



Tigger	Dec 1 2014, 10:04 PM Post #35
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM ACH1967 Dec 1 2014, 04:17 PM Affa Dec 1 2014, 02:35 PM Alberich Dec 1 2014, 01:52 PM RJD's message is basically the right one. The NHS in its present form, with the huge additional demands on its services through GPs opting out of basic care, and the massive increase in immigration, is simply not viable in the long run. It is a black hole which will swallow any "new" monies that successive chancellors throw at it, and then keep coming back for more. It needs a re-structuring, and this should include some form of insurance, or client payment. I can hear the loud squeals already, but it needs to be addressed now. We should stop ring fencing foreign aid. It is a nonsense to commit successive governments to spend a fixed percentage of GDP, when need varies year on year, and much of it is wasted anyway. The overall welfare bill is massive, and hardly dented after five years of coalition effort. ALL welfare should be means tested, and there are still far too many different branches of welfare. IDS is on the right lines in combining the four main ones into one over-arching payment, but much still needs to be done. Another area ripe for re-evaluating is defence. Do we really need nuclear submarines and trident missiles which we can never use? Did we really need two huge aircraft carriers (apart from providing jobs for Gordon Browns lot). We should stop pretending we are a world super power, and cut our cloth.... And I won't even get started on what the E.U. costs us each and every year!!! Why after identifying many of the demands being made on the NHS do you opt for 'reforms' of the NHS instead of addressing these issues (immigration eg) that put the strain on it. Are you not making the wrong decision to restrict access to care to all instead of specifically to those that arrive here having made no previous contributions? btw, the NHS is still recognised internationally as among the most efficient and successful providers. And costs less than most other systems. People become welfare dependant when they have no paid work, or the pay is insufficient to provide them with basic needs ......... the solution to reducing the bill is reverse this situation, to invest in jobs (creation), improved wages, and lower cost-of-living (rents for eg). Things that do make a difference! When you say invest what you actually mean is borrow isn't it? Borrow then invest then cross your fingers. Improved wages! I agree. Especially for those on the lowest pay. Increase the NMW. Lower the cost of living. Absolutely. Lets have some anti trust organisations that are actually say antitrust. Borrowing at the cost of future generations to fuel current consumption is now what the left term as investment. Totally immoral. Correct! So perhaps you'd care to explain why the present Tory led government is hell bent on inflating house prices for example? No need to answer this tough one, I'm familiar with that particular brand of hypocrisy.......



Affa	Dec 1 2014, 10:28 PM Post #36
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	C-too Dec 1 2014, 09:55 PM Making cuts and borrowing/investment from 2010 is what NL suggested, the Tories are doing exactly that in a belated effort to catch up with NL. Had they started earlier they may well have halved the deficit by 2013 as NL claimed it would. Strange how the right wing element claim to know more about business and making profits but can conveniently forget what the term 'investment' means. A reminder > to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value. Add to that list - jobs that create wealth, enhance tax returns, reduce welfare dependency, and encourage consumerism, and the path becomes clear - lit up like a highway to prosperity and better times.



jaguar	Dec 1 2014, 11:01 PM Post #37
Regular Member Posts: 980 Group: Members Member #26 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	papasmurf Dec 1 2014, 07:56 PM jaguar Dec 1 2014, 06:35 PM Once again, you have sent a link that going to take all night to read. I have no intention of wasting my time in looking for the answer of the question,"its was £160bn and its been cut down to £100bn". If you can be bothered to scroll down to page 7 Table 1: Medium-term forecast of welfare spending you can't have looked at it at all. Had you bothered to do you would have improved your knowledge. As it is you prefer to remain in ignorance of the welfare bill going up not down. So you are quoting forecasts, but according to the figures 2012/2013. 212.9 2013/2014. 210.1 So the welfare figure has actually dropped this year. Read it yourself, it might have improved your knowledge.



Curious Cdn	Dec 2 2014, 03:13 AM Post #38
Frozen Member Posts: 4,818 Group: Members Member #41 Joined: Jul 1, 2014	RJD Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM ACH1967 Dec 1 2014, 04:17 PM Affa Dec 1 2014, 02:35 PM Alberich Dec 1 2014, 01:52 PM RJD's message is basically the right one. The NHS in its present form, with the huge additional demands on its services through GPs opting out of basic care, and the massive increase in immigration, is simply not viable in the long run. It is a black hole which will swallow any "new" monies that successive chancellors throw at it, and then keep coming back for more. It needs a re-structuring, and this should include some form of insurance, or client payment. I can hear the loud squeals already, but it needs to be addressed now. We should stop ring fencing foreign aid. It is a nonsense to commit successive governments to spend a fixed percentage of GDP, when need varies year on year, and much of it is wasted anyway. The overall welfare bill is massive, and hardly dented after five years of coalition effort. ALL welfare should be means tested, and there are still far too many different branches of welfare. IDS is on the right lines in combining the four main ones into one over-arching payment, but much still needs to be done. Another area ripe for re-evaluating is defence. Do we really need nuclear submarines and trident missiles which we can never use? Did we really need two huge aircraft carriers (apart from providing jobs for Gordon Browns lot). We should stop pretending we are a world super power, and cut our cloth.... And I won't even get started on what the E.U. costs us each and every year!!! Why after identifying many of the demands being made on the NHS do you opt for 'reforms' of the NHS instead of addressing these issues (immigration eg) that put the strain on it. Are you not making the wrong decision to restrict access to care to all instead of specifically to those that arrive here having made no previous contributions? btw, the NHS is still recognised internationally as among the most efficient and successful providers. And costs less than most other systems. People become welfare dependant when they have no paid work, or the pay is insufficient to provide them with basic needs ......... the solution to reducing the bill is reverse this situation, to invest in jobs (creation), improved wages, and lower cost-of-living (rents for eg). Things that do make a difference! When you say invest what you actually mean is borrow isn't it? Borrow then invest then cross your fingers. Improved wages! I agree. Especially for those on the lowest pay. Increase the NMW. Lower the cost of living. Absolutely. Lets have some anti trust organisations that are actually say antitrust. Borrowing at the cost of future generations to fuel current consumption is now what the left term as investment. Totally immoral. A lot of them legally own most of your country because their ancestors were Norman thugs. That hardly makes them deserving of much.



RJD	Dec 2 2014, 08:15 AM Post #39
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Montjoie Dec 1 2014, 09:29 PM RJD Dec 1 2014, 07:29 PM Montjoie Dec 1 2014, 07:07 PM RJD Dec 1 2014, 04:48 PM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep So, if people legally immigrate to the UK, why not? And I guess you're against State regulation on this aspect too right? Right .... thought so. I really do not understand your point. Many of the so-called rich are so because of assets created and owned elsewhere. If a French Investor comes to the UK with access to legal finance, is a person of good standing who wishes to buy a FTSE listed company which has assets in the UK why should I object? I certainly would wish to be sure that the State regulates such that black money was not involved and that Employment Laws respected. What is your point? Your point was that legal is enough for something to be ok. And that somehow it shouldn't be changed, based on the fact that State regulation is always a bad thing. But then if you go down the liberal path, it should apply to everything, including freedom of movement (and everything). But people like you seem to only agree to liberalism when it comes to easy money. Your draw a false conclusion from an assumption. I am for State regulation in the interests of the majority of the people in the UK. I do not believe in unfettered capitalism and I have nothing against French businessmen who wish to invest legally gotten gains here in the UK.



RJD	Dec 2 2014, 08:19 AM Post #40
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Curious Cdn Dec 2 2014, 03:13 AM RJD Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM ACH1967 Dec 1 2014, 04:17 PM Affa Dec 1 2014, 02:35 PM Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference! When you say invest what you actually mean is borrow isn't it? Borrow then invest then cross your fingers. Improved wages! I agree. Especially for those on the lowest pay. Increase the NMW. Lower the cost of living. Absolutely. Lets have some anti trust organisations that are actually say antitrust. Borrowing at the cost of future generations to fuel current consumption is now what the left term as investment. Totally immoral. A lot of them legally own most of your country because their ancestors were Norman thugs. That hardly makes them deserving of much. But legally owned none the less. We do not usually condemn people for the errors of their forefathers made generations and generations ago. In the main these people have treated the lands their forefathers stole with much greater respect than any Politician of the State ever would. So on balance better a Norman Robber Baron than some tardy self seeking Politician.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3