Forum menu
I'm sorry jamba, but I have absolutely no time for your shit.
That's clear Alex, you are not interested in facts
Reported
DrJ yes damn us "rich" people buying expensive products with 20% VAT and providing work for dealers, maintainence craftsmen, sail makers and marina staff as well as local pubs and restaurants. Must add up to £100k in VAT over 15 years.
[quote=jambalaya ]That's clear Alex, you are not interested in [b]jamba[/b]facts
Reported
fixed.
DrJ yes damn us "rich" people buying expensive products with 20% VAT and providing work for dealers, maintainence craftsmen, sail makers and marina staff as well as local pubs and restaurants. Must add up to £100k in VAT over 15 years.
Oh us poor folk are so grateful for your kindness and generosity.
Alex Labour snatched back their vote in the North by committing to Brexit and ending freedom of movement
Evidence?
(yes, I'm joking - I know you don't do "evidence")
NHS/healthcare spending vs defence. Nasty Tories eh ?
I'd be interested to see an inflation adjusted graph.
Also - whatever the Tory spend, it's clearly not enough.
To the rest of you - stop being arseholes to Jambalaya. Play the ball not the man.
Tempted to report some of you myself. Getting pretty nasty in here.
Far from naïve ninfan, it was a tongue in cheek jibe not suggesting that conservative voters would 'die out' but that longer lives would lead to greater shift towards conservatism and thus a bigger conservative voter base.
That can be countered by the statistic that shows only retired people voted mostly Tory. Since no-one under 80 will be able to retire in a few years it should be a Labour landslide.
Although, as his transformation progressed, I note that Maybot's equally alarming collapse in the opposite direction may indicate that he is, in fact and literally, an energy vampire...
.
Could just be proof that we are indeed living in a simulation. Someone got the avatars mixed up.
NHS/healthcare spending vs defence. Nasty Tories eh ?
A rather odd comparison to make since it buys into the myth the tories are actually in favour of funding the military properly as opposed to using it and talking about support.
Really rather different things. You only need to look at Thatchers swinging cuts to the armed forces prior to the Falklands which helped make them vulnerable.
[quote=molgrips ]To the rest of you - stop being arseholes to Jambalaya. Play the ball not the man.
Tempted to report some of you myself. Getting pretty nasty in here.
maybe if he stopped playing the pantomime villian...
A rather odd comparison to make since it buys into the myth the tories are actually in favour of funding the military properly as opposed to using it and talking about suppor
Indeed I had a tour of my bro-in-laws ship 2 weeks ago, cost cutting means that the cruise missile bay is a gym as they cant afford the launchers and that the Navy now has less staff than Holland & Barrat !?! and is due to face even more cuts to cover the costs of bae systems ****g up their boats (I think MOD procurement equally to blame on that one)
He was in a massive dilema over who to vote for as he couldnt stomach corbyn, but was angry with tories fallon
jambalaya - Member
Alex Labour snatched back their vote in the North by committing to Brexit and ending freedom of movement
ashcroft & yougov polling on the result dont support your assertions at all
you can google them yourself
Tory vote was at a high not seen since That her in '83
wasnt that also the last time they had a majority bigger than 20?
jambalaya - MemberNHS/healthcare spending vs defence. Nasty Tories eh ?
(graph)
a graph that shows NHS funding rising after 1997, then stalling around 2010. Why do those dates seem important?
The problem with trolls is there there is no ball to play. You kick it back - they just ignore it and get another ball.Play the ball not the man.
Jamba looked at those graphs and instead of trying to gain insight, just thought about how his existing world view could by forced upon them.
It's like Katie Hopkins, she only exists because people choose to react to her.
Don't engage.
You kick it back - they just ignore it
Then rather than laying into him, you should just ignore it and rise above.
To the rest of you - stop being arseholes to Jambalaya
I don't see anyone being arseholes. People are just tired of 'facts' and opinions put out with nothing to back them up and then when questioned it all goes quiet. Just wastes the time of anyone who engages and doesn't ever get anywhere but that is up to anyone that wants to bother.
I think you must be confusing me with someone else molgrips. I've never personally insulted someone on here afaik. Unless you think 'I've had enough of your shit' is just that. In which case I disagree.
I didn't single anyone out Alex.
Then rather than laying into him, you should just ignore it and rise above.
The problem there is the, to be polite, relaxed approach to accuracy becomes normalised.
Look at your post 2 up from my last one and you'll see why I assumed you did.molgrips - MemberI didn't single anyone out Alex.
To the rest of you - stop being arseholes to Jambalaya. Play the ball not the man.
This is politics. The ball and the man are one and the same.
[quote=jambalaya ]
Nothing would be worse for UK public services than a Labour government
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
And this graph proves corbyn once had sex with a goat.
Nothing would be worse for UK public services than a Labour government
What's your point with that graph?
It clearly shows a slowing down of spending on the NHS around 2010 onwards.
It clearly shows a slowing down of [u]the rate of increase in[/u] spending on the NHS around 2010 onwards.
FTFY
Just out of interest, how long do you propose the NHS should keep on getting that rate of spending growth for? And what other services are you willing to sacrifice to achieve it?
hmm, the point is, you can't point at that graph, and say 'look how nice the tories are'...
Just out of interest, how long do you propose the NHS should keep on getting that rate of spending growth for? And what other services are you willing to sacrifice to achieve it?
Wrong way to ask the question.
Start with what is the nhs for, where can we invest to reduce the long term issues of chronic illness. Increasing in targeted funding will should result in a reduction of NHS overall costs and an increase in productivity.
However that would be a massive kick in funding but would probably be better for national security than trident.
It clearly shows a slowing down of the rate of increase in spending on the NHS around 2010 onwards.
Whats the difference between a slowing down and a slowing down of the rate of increase?
And what other services are you willing to sacrifice to achieve it?
I don't think you need to. We can stop effectively subsidising tax cuts and have better services?
Just a 'slowing down' would imply the graph trending down. Compare it to a car - its still currently accelerating - just not as hard as before.Whats the difference between a slowing down and a slowing down of the rate of increase?
I don't think you need to. We can stop effectively subsidising tax cuts and have better services?
Take a look at the graph again. 2005-2010 saw an increase of 40bn over a 5 year period. To maintain that through taxation we would need to take some revenue from a growing economy [u]AND[/u] to 1% to income tax every year forever.
Just out of interest, how long do you propose the NHS should keep on getting that rate of spending growth for? And what other services are you willing to sacrifice to achieve it?
For as long as it needs to. More people (especially elderly) requires more money to treat them. Basic maths.
Money comes from taxation (the not so magic money tree) , not impact to other services.
It's going to take way more than that to get it under control, both parties plans are sticking plasters and basic fire fighting issues.
More people (especially elderly) requires more money to treat them. Basic maths.
It's more complex than that.
It needs lifting out of who's giving x more as proved here it's only used for political points scoring.
Just a 'slowing down' would imply the graph trending down. Compare it to a car - its still currently accelerating - just not as hard as before.
Okay - so we can agree it's slowing down but specifically the rate at which money is spent.
Take a look at the graph again. 2005-2010 saw an increase of 40bn over a 5 year period. To maintain that through taxation we would need to take some revenue from a growing economy AND to 1% to income tax every year forever.
1% tax increase is not enough?
Money comes from taxation (the not so magic money tree) , not impact to other services.
I guess you didn't really think that through? Or look at the graph?
How are you realistically going to find an extra 8bn in taxation year on year every year for 10, 20, 30 years?
As mike correctly points out, the whole system needs an overhaul as there's simply no way we can fund even the current rate of growth in the long term.
1% tax increase is not enough?
are you for real?
so you are proposing that an increase in tax that will see the BASIC rate of tax at over 40% in 20 years time is not enough?
We're not talking 1% rise. 1% rise [u]EVERY YEAR[/u]
As mike correctly points out, the whole system needs an overhaul as there's simply no way we can fund even the current rate of growth in the long term.
Oh no it's going to take a lot more cash to maintain this level of service, the only hope is to massively move into preventative, hospital to home programmes and research.
Then you might stem the growth.
How are you realistically going to find an extra 8bn in taxation year on year every year for 10, 20, 30 years?
Corporation Tax increase from Labour is projected to 20bn.
Also tax fraud/evasion is around 16bn(probably more) a year for start. 70bn on tax avoidance.
are you for real?
so you are proposing that an increase in tax that will see the BASIC rate of tax at over 40% in 20 years time is not enough?
We're not talking 1% rise. 1% rise EVERY YEAR
No need to be personal.
Tax has been too low for a long time. So, yes I am for real.
You explain to me how Austerity and cutting taxes has impacted our society as whole for the best?
Also you are getting hung up on borrowing. Our governments are virtually always in debt. Why are you proposing it's such an issue now?
the only hope is to massively move into preventative
An area that the NHS is notoriously poor on. Partly for the reason that it wasn't ever set up for it, it was supposed to be a safety net.
IMO it's about time we moved the NHS onto a European style funding system.
IMO it's about time we moved the NHS onto a European style funding system.
Which one?
It.can be preventative you just need some longer term thinking and planning.
Whats the difference between a slowing down and a slowing down of the rate of increase?
Just a 'slowing down' would imply the graph trending down. Compare it to a car - its still currently accelerating - just not as hard as before.
Okay - so we can agree it's slowing down
No, it's still accelerating, not slowing
althouh that graph in isolation is still fairly pants without more background on the data and how/if it's been adjusted.
Which they also want to spend on education and welfare.Corporation Tax increase from Labour is projected to 20bn.
You'll never get that to 0, but even if you could, it'll only pay for 2 years out of your 20-30 years of increases.Also tax fraud/evasion is around 16bn
No need to be personal.
Tax has been too low for a long time. So, yes I am for real.
You explain to me how Austerity and cutting taxes has impacted our society as whole for the best?
Wasn't intended to be personal - apologies for poor choice of words -
And fair enough if you actually do think that level of taxation growth is correct/possible. Good luck convincing anyone to vote for it.
Austerity sucks, there's no doubting that.
And yes, I agree we could pay more taxes.
I voted LD as one of the more attractive policies this election was an extra 1% tax for the NHS. But there's a whole world of difference between modest one off tax rises, and doing it every single year.
Where are these NHS figures coming from?
I make it reducing in terms of % of GDP.
I make it 2% actual annual rise since 2009 (unadjusted for inflation), but as inflation is currently at over 2% that means no further tax rate change required to keep current funding level.
So [i]any[/i] tax rise (or tax take) could increase money available for NHS.
So you happily admit to spending half a million quid on a [i]hobby[/i], (not a home, not investments, not transport, not schooling, a ****ING HOBBY???) And you have the temerity to put the word 'rich' in ****ing inverted commas*? Jesus. What planet are you on? No wonder people play the jambollox ball; I find that massively insulting.DrJ yes damn us "rich" people buying expensive products with 20% VAT and providing work for dealers, maintainence craftsmen, sail makers and marina staff as well as local pubs and restaurants. Must add up to £100k in VAT over 15 years.
*speech marks actually, but who's counting
IMO it's about time we moved the NHS onto a European style funding system.
Compulsory insurance?