Forum menu
allthepies- have you not noticed that the NHS is being ripped apart and sold off?
The trust i work for is already up for purchase, we have three bidders, all out to make profit.
Wont be long before you have to check you have your health insurance before you attempt that next big drop off.
druidh- i do care thats why i was asking. If anybody votes for this lot again...well...words fail me.
[i]If anybody votes for this lot again...well...words fail me[/i]
So, the big question. Does everyone just vote for nobody next time?
Accomodation, food, and any other general living expenses. Like I said student loans were a fact long before tuition fees were introduced.
Indeed, but you used to get a grant as well. When my dad went to uni everything was state funded.
Your comparison with VAT isn't very good as you are always liable for it when you buy something
No you're not - it's a choice. Lots of things at 0 rated for VAT - e.g. food. You just pay it off in one installment.
AndyP - Member
So, the big question. Does everyone just vote for nobody next time?
Yeah good point. I have no answer, but they have to go!!
allthepies- have you not noticed that the NHS is being ripped apart and sold off?
No.
So about this paying for medical care thing (apart from general taxation), tell us more. How much for say, a GP appointment or fixing a broken leg ?
instant hit - Member
Supposedly im better off as well, however as we will be paying for our health care
Sorry I didnt see this in the NHS bill that just went through Parliament. Maaaaaaybe you made it up.
You are just going to have to accept that those Evil Tories and their LibDem capitalist running dog lackies have put some money in the pocket of the working man.
The NHS will be broken up and sold of in small chunks to the "best" provider, (private companys out to make a profit). Over a period of time you will end up paying for your healthcare, more so in specialist care, so you might still go to your GP but he will purchase your treatment from the "best" provider (who maybe 50 miles away). And not always the best but the cheapest.
As a mental health nurse we are already being told to cut our sessions down and we have to be "cost effective"!!!!!
So i forsee a future where you will have personal healthcare insurance and if you can't afford it you will not get treatment.
So i forsee a future where you will have personal healthcare insurance and if you can't afford it you will not get treatment.
Ah, so your opinion then not government policy ?
Excuse the ignorant questions but:
1. How does tax avoidance happen? Does the complexity of the system contribute? If so who is most at fault for complicating it?
2. If you raise the tax free allowance and keep everything the same does that make the tax system more/less progressive or the same?
3. To avoid any ambiguity over the theoretical question above, was the gimmick of the 50p tax rate effective at increasing taxation revenue or did Darling (was it him) merely play a clever political finesse?
The Sky News calculator is better, it lets you look at 2013/14 when the income tax cuts kick in. I'm better off.
http://news.sky.com/home/interactive-graphics/budgetcalculator
So i forsee a future where you will have personal healthcare insurance and if you can't afford it you will not get treatment.
I dont doubt that 30-40yrs from now we will have a insurance based system, and like Obamacare it will be provided free for those who cannot pay. Sooner the better too.
The Sky News calculator is better, it lets you look at 2013/14 when the income tax cuts kick in. I'm better off.
Yep, still a few hundred better off.
Yep, still a few hundred better off.
B4stards I tell you.....
That is difficult to answer because everyone actually means slightly different things by 'avoidance'. The government, I believe, bean going out of your way to pay very little tax; but not e.g. using their government set up schemes to encourage e.g. the investment in SME's which are extremely tax efficient but also designed for economic growth. The man on the street might think that this is tax avoidance, and biased towards higher rate tax payers so not entirely fair. Undoubtedly the complexity of the system makes it possible, but if we simplified the system there would be a lot of unemployed people from HMRC and accountants - and who is going to want them!1. How does tax avoidance happen? Does the complexity of the system contribute? If so who is most at fault for complicating it?
I don't like the word "progressive" - but yes that would, proportionally help the poorer more than the well off.2. If you raise the tax free allowance and keep everything the same does that make the tax system more/less progressive or the same?
I am nowhere near paying 50p tax, but I can clearly see it is a totally stupid tax, targeted at the people who are most likely to have an accountant help them carefully manage their tax bill etc. I have an issue with huge taxes on the "wealthy" anyway, as generally, their activities are economically positive (they employ people, spend money, invest in stuff etc). I think its reasonable to say that most people are happy for people who earn more than them, and certainly those who earn more than they ever expect to to pay more tax. I'm not sure that is actually fair or sensible, but it seems to be human nature. Personally I think 20p is probably too low for the standard rate of tax, and there is probably a justification for a "middle" band of 25-30p for something like the 35-45k earners too. But i'd also get rid of the weird NI system which not only taxes you twice (you pay income tax AND NI on the same earnings) but also doesn't really fit with what anyone considers "progressive" these days. Of course none of this would be popular with "mondeo man" so could never get through parliament even if it were a fair and reasonable approach.3. To avoid any ambiguity over the theoretical question above, was the gimmick of the 50p tax rate effective at increasing taxation revenue or did Darling (was it him) merely play a clever political finesse?
I do like this idea of sending everyone a tax statement showing them how much tax they pay and what it goes on.
Who could object to that?
Hmm will be better of by a £100 or so although on paper worse off by around £400. mainly because i wont get tax credits for the kids but as i dont claim them it makes no impact in that way, I dont drink enough for it to register and i dont smoke so no impact there i suppose the main ones will be fuel and road tax but hey ho i aint rich (by STW measures) but i aint poor either so there you go...
mcboo - MemberI do like this idea of sending everyone a tax statement showing them how much tax they pay and what it goes on.
Who could object to that?
I do like it too. Lovely to agree with McBoo on something on the chat forum. I think the sun is peeping out as I type too. 😀
It would be genuinely helpful to people to have an idea of this, also it would be nice to remind the common mayn (maybe with some kind of 'appendix' on the end of each statement) what 'optional' taxes go where. For example Road Fund Licence/fuel duty and roads/public transport, alcohol and tobacco duty and healthcare/smoking cessation/drug and alcohol rehab services and so on....
I also wonder how much it will cost to implement, and which private enterprise is already lined up to [s]make a pig's ear of[/s] err, implement it. 😆
I am nowhere near paying 50p tax, but I can clearly see it is a totally stupid tax, targeted at the people who are most likely to have an accountant help them carefully manage their tax bill etc. I
Yes and now they have their tax reduced for any they might pay they'll not use these accountants.
mcboo - MemberI dont think anyone is going to say 45% is an unreasonable top rate of tax .......
Well actually someone does say that, in fact apparently the majority of voters do - they want the top rate of tax to be 50% not 45%.
[url= http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16191194 ]Voters Want To Keep 50p Top Rate Of Tax[/url]
[i]"The majority of voters are against scrapping the 50p tax rate for top earners - [b]including half of Tory supporters[/b], a new opinion poll shows."[/i]
And interestingly :
[i]"Most hostile are Liberal Democrat supporters, 70% of whom said they wanted the 50p tax rate to stay".[/i]
So out of the approximately 10% of the electorate who still bizarrely support the LibDems, nearly three quarters of them are hostile towards the Tory/LibDem government's policy of reducing the the top rate of taxation.
Oh how Nick Clegg is going to pay the price for selling LibDem principles, which he once purported to support, as the price for a nice ministerial car and handsome salary.
Still, I dare say that he will land himself a nice cushty job with plenty of 'paid for by the taxpayer expenses' with big fat pay cheques as an EU Commissionaire, or something simular - that appears to be the path generally followed by failed politicians who have been rejected by their electorate.
'Reward for failure' is generally accepted as the correct culture for people at the top these days.
And the beauty of the job of EU Commissionaire is that no one needs to like you or want to vote for you.
So I guess the smug **** will have the last laugh. They always do.
E_L : and how many of these people have actually read the economics/behavioural analysis behind marginal rates of tax? If you said, we are going to change the tax system to get less money in or we are going to change it to get more money - that's the easy bit. I wonder what the results would have been if the pools asked, would you support the reduction in the top rate of tax if it can be shown to produce less revenue? [edit accepting that this is not actually what happened exactly!]
So actually, I say chapeau to GO in this case (but not in others) because he has taken on the naive headliner writers (and Darlings last pathetic bit of party mischief making) and used a bit of grey matter even though politically it would look bad as your polls suggest. [Still a big gamble because the data is very hard to draw accurate analysis from on and a lot is being placed on one years worth of data.]
E_L : and how many of these people have actually read the economics/behavioural analysis behind marginal rates of tax?
I've no idea mate. Mcboo said, [i]"I dont think anyone is going to say 45% is an unreasonable top rate of tax"[/i] and apparently he's wrong.
Did I mention that 70% of people who still support the Liberal Democrats were hostile to a change in the top rate of tax ?
[img] 
[/img]
Teamhurtmore - your unthinking acceptance of right wing dogma is showing again.
reducing taxes reduces tax take. this is not Wonderland and you are not Alice
TJ - dont start that rubbish again (it might be a precursor to 'your are being nasty and personal again' with the obvious irony.) Leave it on the nuclear thread FFS. 👿 Go and read both the OBR report and the HRMC to see the "facts" and "analysis". Then come back when you can explain TIE properly.
Its a genuine point and as I said yesterday and A level student better mug up on the OBR conclusions before this summer. E-L thanks for the sensible reply. I read your post and wasn't looking for an argument. Its an interesting area for economists because (apart from one apparent genius) the evidence makes policy decisions in this area very difficult. The TIE does seem to vary even between 40, 45 and 50p
You do make me laugh - despite all your protestations to have a rounded view you show in your posts a slavish unquestioning adherence to tory dogma.
This particular piece is known and proven nonsense. Of course cutting taxs raises more money and of course thats why Osbourne has done it 🙄
So TJ - if the price of a good goes down what happens to the revenue earned? Ditto, if the price of the good goes up what happens to the revenue earned.
This is not Wonderland but you may well be Alice.
(TJ - given the deficit, the non-dogmatic view is to adopt the tax rate that maximises revenue earned.)
p.s. you dont make me laugh. Your self parody used to. But like JY and others recently I find it merely tiresome now.
[nice edit BTW]
EDIT 😉 TIE????
TJ - given the deficit, the non-dogmatic view is to adopt the tax rate that maximises revenue earned
Indeed - which is why this tax cut that will reduce tax receipts by billions is wrong.
There is lots of evidence to show that cutting corporation tax increases the overall tax receipts as it attracts inward investment, increases employment and thus makes more taxpayers.
I therefore find it hard to immediately dismiss a similar effect for personal taxes at the very highest rates.
E-L thanks for the sensible reply. I read your post and wasn't looking for an argument.
You're welcome. And you'll only get an argument out of me if I feel up to it - so don't fret. Although tbh I often do. Despite my recent bans for allegedly "arguing again".
Its a genuine point and as I said yesterday and A level student better mug up on the OBR conclusions before this summer.
What A level student did you tell that they had "better mug up on the OBR conclusions before this summer" ? You recently denied ever having taught economics and attempted to ridicule me for suggesting that you had.
Have you started teaching economics in the last few weeks ? Or do you loiter around schools/colleges so that you can give useful tips to economics students ?
Ha, ha,. Comes down to definition of "taught'" !!! I have not taught it as such (that is 100% true), but that is not to say that I am not involved in preparing candidates!!
I hadn't noticed your ban - pity they haven't been given elsewhere 😉
Edit - But I wish they would phrase the tax questions correctly, because it is a difficult subject to get your head around. So my first questions were genuine!
TandemJeremy - Member
TJ - given the deficit, the non-dogmatic view is to adopt the tax rate that maximises revenue earned
Indeed - which is why this tax cut that will reduce tax receipts by billions is wrong.
A little clue - E stands for elasticity. But dont worry about it as you know everything on this topic already. It should be you teaching economics.
D/P
Ha, ha,. Comes down to definition of "taught'" !!! I have not taught it as such (that is 100% true), but that is not to say that I am not involved in preparing candidates!!
So loitering around schools/colleges so that you can give useful tips to economics students was fairly close then ?
Still, I'm glad to hear that you don't actually 'teach' economics to young impressionable kids.......I found the thought quite worrisome. Although I'm happy for you to spout your loopy neo-liberal Thatcherite nonsense at me.
I hadn't noticed your ban
You didn't even miss me then ? Bashtard.
mcboo - MemberI do like this idea of sending everyone a tax statement showing them how much tax they pay and what it goes on.
Who could object to that?
I do.
Government spending is complicated, an a4 sheet just allows the Government of the time to present figures in a way to support its ideology.
I have to admit it didn't occur to me that's what its real purpose was until I saw the Tories example, had the example more fitted my own political leanings I would not have realised it will be nothing but propaganda.
E-L, probably would not be allowed to teach given that the book on the top of my pile is Steve Keen's "Debunking Economics." So why would a neo-liberal Thatcherite (if this mystical figure exists other than in people's imagination) be reading a book that debunks all the foundations of neo-classical economics. Funny that....!!
Edit: Imagine - "hi A level class, did you know that the demand curve actually does not slope down!" Or is that Wonderland and I am the Mad Hatter?
Now be careful, "loitering around schools" has certain implications. You wouldn't want another leave of absence!!
So why would a neo-liberal Thatcherite (if this mystical figure exists other than in people's imagination) be reading a book that debunks all the foundations of neo-classical economics.
It's an undeniable fact that the Maggie Thatcher Fan Club on here, are a bunched of confused and muddled individuals who constantly contradict themselves to an embarrassing level, so nothing really surprises me anymore.
TBH I think half your problem is that you spend far too much time reading books on economics - as a general rule economists haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Hence the reason why the world economies are in such a mess. Economists across the world, some even with Master's degrees, couldn't all be wrong, you would have thought. Oh yes they can. Except of course, for the ones which no one wanted to listen to.
Even the sun thinks this budget is a bad idea. Take money from pensioners, give money to the rich, throw a few scraps to the rest to keep them sweet. Yay.
E_L, be careful you may be catching TJ' disease.
TBH I think half your problem is that you spend far too much time reading books on economics - as a general rule economists haven't got a clue what they are talking about.
So why was I reading a book by Keen do you wonder???? Silly answer, I am a confused Thatcherite (which I am not by a long shot). Correct answer is perhaps hidden in the second part of your sentance. Nice swerve BTW, far more subtlety than others! 😉
Temahurtmore - when did you ever espouse anything on economics that was not right wing orthodoxy?
I am a confused Thatcherite (which I am not by a long shot)
Oh bless you teamhurtmore, I love it when you deny being a fan of Maggie Thatcher, despite the fact that you have constantly sung her praises on here telling everyone what a great job she did 😀
Is this a bit like how you don't "teach" economics - you just "tell" economics students how to "prepare" for exams ?
So
If we need to decrease tax rates for the rich to reduce tax avoidance and to increase the tax take do we also need to increase benefit rates to reduce benefit fraud and reduce the benefits bill?
While we are at it as well most car drivers exceed the speed limit. Do we increase the speed limits so that no one breaks them?
On the contrary Ernie, I have not sung her praises. I have pointed out clearly what she did right to correct the appalling legacy of Labour and Heath and how she subsequently made many mistakes. C'mon you are better than that - please don't catch TJ's disease. (thesis, antithesis, synthesis - ring a bell? )
TJ, I merely debunk BS where appropriate. The fact that you spout so much of it, is probably why you think that I am so RW. Which is why I have said in the past that the irony is so funny and why I smile when correcting your nonsense because my actual position is often a million miles from the one you like to suggest. Used to keep me amused but as I said earlier the novelty has worn off!!
Laughable.
So give one example where you espouse an economic theory that is not of the right?
Your position is one way over on the right - or so your postings on here show. Are you saying you do not believe the right wing BS you spout on here all the time?
teamhurtmore - MemberHer greatest achievement - easy, ridding us of the nightmare of 1970s Britain
Her greatest failure - replacing one set of extremes with another, but probably hard to see how should could have done otherwiseTackles: 1970s rampant inflation, excess union power, excess welfare state, over-reliance of Keynesian economic (Stop-Go cycle), IMF bailout
But leaves us with: Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty" taken to its extreme, and over-reliance on Monetarism, the Miners Strike, turning self-reliance into "no-such thing as society", over-reliance of market-based solutions and privatisation.....
......teamhurtmore - Member
“The Thatcherite revolution is more a product of rhetoric than of the reality of policy impact”
Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn 😉
Yup - the right wing orthodoxy espoused right there in that quote.
Edit - I suspect your life experience is such that you simply do not understand how right wing you are. Your patronising attitude stinks.
so - do you not believe the right wing BS you sprout continuously? or do you not believe its right wing BS?
TJ - where shall we start? How George Osborne is misunderstanding the relative merits of Monetarism versus Keynesian. How the Tories misunderstand basic IS-LM analysis....do I need to continue???
Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn 😉