We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Fair?
Comments
-
More like it creates the vulnerable. The typical example cited: would there be fewer alcoholics if the A&E wasn't abused every Friday & Saturday night by drinkers who need their stomachs pumped? Hell, yes. Charge drunks the cost of their actions for each alcohol-related hospital visit and the cheap plonk will suddenly become far more expensive for abusers who have an incentive to give up while letting sensible drinkers have a cheap drink and a cheaper health service.
Maybe a reasonable point but a hopeless example.
Why are there so many alcoholics (or Heroin addicts) when the price for many of them is death ?
Can you suggest a higher cost than death ?
To any alcoholic, cost is fairly irrelevant.US housing: it's not a bubble - Moneyweek Dec 12, 20050 -
Because the Scottish Government has decided that its spending priorities are different to the Westminster Gvt spending priorities. Why are tuition fees different in Spain than England you may as well ask.
You will find if you look past the headline that diverting money to free prescriptions for example means that overall healthcare in Scotland is of a slightly lower standard than in England.
or perhaps the Barnett formula means significantly more spending per head of population in Scotland than England.US housing: it's not a bubble - Moneyweek Dec 12, 20050 -
That calculator's a bit misleading... it puts me in the 'top earners' group too and calculates the average amount my group pays. I can tell you now that I pay a lot less than that average!Mortgage | £145,000Unsecured Debt | [strike]£7,000[/strike] £0 Lodgers | |0
-
Badger_Lady wrote: »That calculator's a bit misleading... it puts me in the 'top earners' group too and calculates the average amount my group pays. I can tell you now that I pay a lot less than that average!
Badger_Lady wrote: »That calculator's a bit misleading... it puts me in the 'top earners' group too and calculates the average amount my group pays. I can tell you now that I pay a lot less than that average!
The numbers look a bit, well, flaky.
The seventy-odd grand figure purports to be a “disposable income” figure, so what you’ve got left after taxes and arguably other stuff [including mortgage payments?]. You’d need to be on about £120k a year gross to have seventy odd grand a year after tax [incl NI], even assuming no other non-discretionary spend.
There clearly aren’t very many individuals at all who have seventy odd grand a year of income that’s truly “disposable”, also clearly not 10% of households even... although note that the seventy-odd grand figure isn’t a cutoff point for being in the top 10%, rather it’s some kind of average for the top 10%.
The numbers kind of, well, look ropy from start to finish really.FACT.0 -
Going4TheDream wrote: »Do you mean
Why should English students pay £9k in fees for University when Scottish kids pay nothing?
Why should English people pay prescriptions when they are free in Scotland (and Wales?)?
I am sure there are other examples?
How the Scottish government choose to utilise the funds is down to them?
When you look at the funds per head, Scotland does get the secind largest figure (IIRC) however they are the only area who contribute more than they get back.
No wonder the UK is so keen to hold the Scotland.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
I'm going to agree, it was a sloppy example on my part but I don't think the incentives play out as you suggest. Most people who start taking drugs don't think it'll lead to a life of dependency and premature death.Kennyboy66 wrote: »Maybe a reasonable point but a hopeless example.
Why are there so many alcoholics (or Heroin addicts) when the price for many of them is death ?
Can you suggest a higher cost than death ?
To any alcoholic, cost is fairly irrelevant.
The only way you could possibly calculate Scotland contributes more than they give back is if you include all the oil and exclude all the banks!IveSeenTheLight wrote: »When you look at the funds per head, Scotland does get the secind largest figure (IIRC) however they are the only area who contribute more than they get back."The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else." -- Frederic Bastiat, 1848.0 -
Badger_Lady wrote: »That calculator's a bit misleading... it puts me in the 'top earners' group too and calculates the average amount my group pays. I can tell you now that I pay a lot less than that average!
The top earners group is of course so expansive as to be meaningless.
The top 10% of earners earn something like £48K.
The top 10% pay approx 50% of tax intake.
The top 1% pay 25% of the tax intake.
I watched the same programme Hamish did.0 -
OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »Why should we pay according to the Barnett formula? If the porridge jocks want freedom, they need to pay their own way. and before you get on your high horse, moswt of the gas and oil fields are not only outside of national waters, when they were discovered, they were outside of scotlands commercial waters too.
High horse?
But seeing YOU bought up oil/gas
An international convention has determined that the North Sea north of the 55th parallel is under Scottish jurisdiction, which means some 90 per cent of the UK's oil and gas reserves are within Scottish waters.
Going back tothe mid 70's it was recognised that oil could make an independent Scotland one of the richest countries in Europe. A government report saying as much was labelled incendiary, classified as secret and hidden away for 30 years until it came to light at the end of 2005 as a result of Freedom of Information legislation.
In addition to oil Scotland has as much as 25 per cent of the EU tidal and wind resources, which if managed properly could deliver a second energy windfall for the country.Dont wait for your boat to come in 'Swim out and meet the bloody thing'
0 -
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »According to this calculator.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966
People with household incomes similar to Hamish pay £27,221 more in taxation than they receive in benefits and services.
Average Tax Paid = £34,161
Average Benefits and services received = £6,940
Amount Hamish subsidises the rest of you scoundrels every year = more than £27,221...:mad:
For the reasons why, watch BBC 2 now as Nick Robinson explains "the trouble with tax".....
Totally agree Hamish, and as someone who lives in a very low crime area, has no children at school and no medical conditions, I suspect the 'benefits' I receive are significantly less than £6,940.
There are too many people receiving too many benefits and too few contributing too much.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards