David Cameron loses his marbles

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

A bit like all the stealth taxes, council tax rises and tax-band-creep under the current government then?

I am not here to defend New Labour - of course I think the tax burden should fall more proportionately towards the rich.

JasonLVC

lostinrates wrote: »

I thought this had already been raised, by Labour.

I have this bizarre memory that noone on here has confirmed or otherwise that there was dicussion of a new higher tax rate for earners of over £150k....which would be a higher rate of taxation than the 40% at would hen be the middle band of 40k-150k. Its so vived in my (shot) memory that I'm quite happy to believe it is a hallucination and I can take pills for it.

I mention this in post #7

and here's a link for more detail :-

http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/item/8070/pg_dtl_art_news/381/pg_ftr_art

donaldtramp

I am not here to defend New Labour - of course I think the tax burden should fall more proportionately towards the rich.

Who do you think is keeping the country ticking over now? All the people in receipt of benefits or maybe the public sector employees?
Why penalise people who have actually worked hard to support the dead beats in our society.
Hows about getting some of the dead beats to put down their special brew and do a bit?

I think you'll find the problem is peoples taxes have went up massively under Labour and all our measurable standards of life are plummeting.

lostinrates

JasonLVC wrote: »

I mention this in post #7

and here's a link for more detail :-

http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/item/8070/pg_dtl_art_news/381/pg_ftr_art

D'uh, apologies.

Does this mean I don't get happy pills ?

JasonLVC

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

In the manner of that kid from the milk advert: "Exactly."

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=19897085&postcount=158

I'm confused. You made a statement that the Tories previously gave the rich tax cuts.

I asked which tax cuts were you referring to.

You've posted a link to another forum thread from another poster who is giving their own personal opinion on a hypothetical question to which the thread related. I don't know who Sir H is but unless he is Vince Cable in diguise his opinions are just that, his opinions.

So can you answer the original question?. It needs exploring further if we are trying to compare one government to another and this is difficult with generic statements of "Tories favour the rich" as it meas nothing without bakcground context.

Sir_Humphrey

donaldtramp wrote: »

Who do you think is keeping the country ticking over now? All the people in receipt of benefits or maybe the public sector employees?
Why penalise people who have actually worked hard to support the dead beats in our society.
Hows about getting some of the dead beats to put down their special brew and do a bit?

</p>
Oh great, Patrick Bateman is back...can't be bothered to answer this drivel properly.

macaque_2

mitchaa wrote: »

To be fair our income tax rates are low in comparison to other countries around the world.
I personally think the £100k + earners should be taxed at 50%

This is not true. To get a balanced picture, you have to factor in the hidden taxes and the charges we pay for basic services. You have to add up income tax, the cost of public transport, university fees, prescriptions, petrol tax, childcare costs, road tax, council tax, parking fines, planning fees, lack of dental care, hospital parking fees, water charges etc. When you add stealth taxes to income tax, we qualify as a highly taxed country. When you compare the services we get in return with other highly taxed countries, you soon realise what a rip off this country is.

twirlypinky

The_White_Horse wrote: »

sack 50% of public sector workers NOW.


quote]


This sort of comment really gets my back up. The NHS is already on it's knees, has what happened at Staffodshire not taught you anything? NHS Trusts don't have enough money to run properly and are being squeezed tighter and tigher every year. Getting rid of more staff to save money is not a good idea.

Leaving the NHS alone to get on with making people better would be a far more sensible idea, stop re-forming it, stop creating Stragic this, and Foundation that - they don't improve healthcare, they just cost billions to set up.

I really wish people would think a bit more before they just decide to sack half of public sector workers - it's just not viable.

kabayiri

Degenerate wrote: »

After the recovery there will need to be some belt-tightening, but the doomsday scenario that the Tories keep peddling seems to assume that every penny spent supporting the banks is completely lost.

How much we stand to lose? That's the problem, we don't actually know.

Take RBS, we have taken on liability for 325bn of their debts. Some commentators suggest that working on a basis of 80p in the pound return rate on this debt is pretty conservative - it could be a lot worse.

This would leave us with a loss of 20% of 325bn = 60bn.

And that is just RBS. Some would say the loan book of HBOS is of poorer quality.

I also think tax receipts from the City in the next few years will be significantly down. And some firms will be able to offset current losses against future corporation tax payments.

Factor on top of all this a general contraction of the economy, and increased state support for an additional million unemployed.

JasonLVC

twirlypinky wrote: »

The_White_Horse wrote: »

sack 50% of public sector workers NOW.


quote]


This sort of comment really gets my back up. The NHS is already on it's knees, has what happened at Staffodshire not taught you anything? NHS Trusts don't have enough money to run properly and are being squeezed tighter and tigher every year. Getting rid of more staff to save money is not a good idea.

Leaving the NHS alone to get on with making people better would be a far more sensible idea, stop re-forming it, stop creating Stragic this, and Foundation that - they don't improve healthcare, they just cost billions to set up.

I really wish people would think a bit more before they just decide to sack half of public sector workers - it's just not viable.

Not wanting to go off-topic, what happened at this hospital is not a lack of funding per se, but a mixture of very bad senior managers and an endless raft of targets and goals. If a hospital achieves a cewrtain target it gets more money, if it misses certain targets it loses them. This is not the first 'scandal' of this type at an NHS hosptial, there was one afew years back where patients were dying left and right and the CEo left with a payoff and then got another job at another hospital - I cannot recall the specific details I'm afraid.

With a basic set-up like that, it is no surprise that some Trusts will chase the Pound at whatever cost whilst better run Trusts will take a more pragmatic route. Mid-Staffs was chasing the nirvanna of the NHS system, Foundation Status - giving them total control of funding and spending - but to achieve that status takes a lot of work and talent....something both of which was clearly lacking at Mid-Staffs.

With regard the other posters 'Sack the public sector view', certainly at Mid Staffs with the CEO and senior staff being now suspended on full pay, pending enquiries - one cannot but think that paying these particular public workers IS a waste of money.