Politics - Page 3 - NFL UK Forums
Watch NFL International Games Live!

Sunday 2 October 2016

VS  

Sunday 23 October 2016

VS  

Sunday 30 October 2016

VS  

Go Back   NFL UK Forums > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic - Entertainment/News

Sponsored Links

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 24.09.2009, 06:06 PM
Vincent's Avatar
Vincent Vincent is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02.02.2007
Location: Pontypridd
Posts: 15,423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack1 View Post
I would hope it isn't about that, and it is more about giving people the tools to suceed.

The reason the two can't work together is because for example say I was a sucesful lawyer who had spent his whole life working to get to this position, why on earth should I fund someone who has no intention of working and has spent his whole life doing no work?

That surely can't be a fair system.
I appreciate your point (and do apologise for the cocky tone earlier, just woke up from nights grouchy), but your point it confused.

You are confusing the lame & lazy with the hard working low earners. There are millions who slog their guts out day in day out who earn a pittance for doing so with little prospect for significantly increasing their earnings through no fault of their own. Not everyone have the means or opportunity to further themselves through university etc.


Now if you are talking about people who have no intention of working - I have no problem with stopping any form of benefits for people who make no effort to contribute to society.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 24.09.2009, 07:15 PM
Dave_R's Avatar
Dave_R Dave_R is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 06.09.2003
Location: Drafting for Tampa Bay
Posts: 7,523
Default

Personally on the subject of tax I think that the overall tax gathered is probably about right but should be gathered from other sources such as increasing the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and slightly reducing on more essential products. I go out most weekends and would have no qualms about paying more for alcohol because its my choice to drink. I don't smoke but again that is all by choice and in turn the increase in taxes on these people would help the NHs (not massively maybe but every little helps).

As for the financial crisis I don't think Labour have done too bad a job with the banks etc - it does however greatly scare me that Osbourne may be let loose as chancellor come 9 months, the man is an idiot.

The other political issue of the moment that I'm angry about is the Trident subs. On the larger scale of things the savings are minimal and to be honest I'd rather have the extra sub for the price. One area I don't believe you can cut corners are the armed forces.

I'd also say that there is a great need to streamline the NHS and police. Get rid of all the tiers of management and community support officers, and get more standard nurses and officers

Last edited by Dave_R; 24.09.2009 at 07:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 24.09.2009, 07:15 PM
Gengar's Avatar
Gengar Gengar is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 28.12.2008
Location: FTW
Posts: 5,243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack1 View Post
High earners alreay pay an unfair rate of tax, IMO there should be a flat rate of tax for all.

On you second point, speak for yourself I think we need a cut in public services.
First things first, the poor pay more tax than the rich, which ever way you slice it. There are more poor people by some way, but far fewer tax evaders within their ranks. The rich (and by the rich I mean those who actually own the means of production or enough land, everyone else is just less poor) take more out of society. They've got more assets, and are therefore disproportionately catered for by the police, fire brigade etc. Not to mention the armed forces - mostly made up of the working class but run for the benefit of the political and financial elites. The rich also tend to be the ones who do the best out of immigration, as it keeps labour cheap and expendable but rents and house prices high.

Taxation is simply the most efficient way the government have yet come up with for the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. If you want a perfect example of this, look at privatisation. The government took state assets, which we'd paid for through taxation and sold them off to the private sector, below market value to ensure a buyer. Now the cost of traveling on a train rises above inflation every single year but the service degrades and the private companies sure as hell have no interest in putting any real investment into the network. The government give a little back in the form of benefits because it's actually easier and probably cheaper to keep people placid and alive than to come up with a scheme that would ensure full employment* or to police all the crime that would ensue if we just dropped everyone off the benefit roll and told them to get on their bikes.

Public services are a remnant of a bygone political era, the days when our returning war heroes, fresh from defeating the ****s, came back and voted in the Labour government which built the social institutions their predecessors have been so slyly running down. They built them because the country was such a mess our grandfathers realised that the only way to rebuild it was for society to work together - rich and poor. The welfare state and NHS are about the only thing the government has done since WWII that makes me proud to be British.

A cut in public services is about the last thing we need right now. The NHS is what, the 3rd largest employer in the world? You wanna send more people on to JSA and HB? How about instead of cutting public services, we cut our obligations for trident (£75bn proposed cost) missiles which we can't even fire ourselves, pointless ID Cards (£20bn or more with ongoing costs), subsidies to the arms industry (£4bn p/a). Plough all that money back into public services which will create jobs and prop up this ailing economy.

If you want to talk about reforming the tax system then the first move needs to be raising the tax threshold to a realistic level, like £18,000. This would not only save the IR plenty of time and money trying to tax these people, but create a far greater incentive to get off of benefits, right now there are many people who are better off on benefits because the minimum wage is such a pittance. No one who's on 12k a year needs to be paying tax, they're the ones who are getting shafted by the tax system, not the high flying lawyers and city boys.



*FYI anyone moaning about benefit claimaints, there are currently around 450,000 job vacancies in the UK, and around 2.5m working age healthy unemployed people, and that's before you factor in the governments ridiculous scheme to kick everyone off of incapacity benefit and back in to the jobs that just don't exist. Not gonna happen, is it.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 24.09.2009, 07:15 PM
BritishBronco's Avatar
BritishBronco BritishBronco is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 10.10.2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 5,022
Default

Personally, I agree with Jack here, in his support for the Flat Tax, although I disagree with the argument that the rich must have worked harder to be earning more money than the working class, although I see his point in that all taxpayers should be treated equally IMO regardless of income. We pay taxes in order to achieve like health, education, police force etc. as they are things, that we as citizens demand. Therefore, I feel that the burden for these services should be shared equally.

Flat tax is also so much more simple than other alternatives. It's a lot more efficient and can save a lot of time. It can eliminate double taxation as well and doesnt have gaping loopholes, which can benefit Government revenue

Am I right in thinking that Russia has a flat tax?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 24.09.2009, 07:24 PM
Gengar's Avatar
Gengar Gengar is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 28.12.2008
Location: FTW
Posts: 5,243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramezes View Post

As for the financial crisis I don't think Labour have done too bad a job with the banks etc - it does however greatly scare me that Osbourne may be let loose as chancellor come 9 months, the man is an idiot.
It was labour who created this problem. They created the FSA, then forced out it's head when he warned about the risk of complex derivatives and insurance against deficits, as long ago as 2001, and replaced him with the head of the ultra aggressive Lloyd's bank. It's about equivalent to putting a paedophile in charge of a nursery because you're worried the children aren't safe.

Every time Gordon Brown says no one could have seen this coming, he's lying, and he knows it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 24.09.2009, 07:33 PM
Dave_R's Avatar
Dave_R Dave_R is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 06.09.2003
Location: Drafting for Tampa Bay
Posts: 7,523
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secret Admirer View Post
It was labour who created this problem. They created the FSA, then forced out it's head when he warned about the risk of complex derivatives and insurance against deficits, as long ago as 2001, and replaced him with the head of the ultra aggressive Lloyd's bank. It's about equivalent to putting a paedophile in charge of a nursery because you're worried the children aren't safe.

Every time Gordon Brown says no one could have seen this coming, he's lying, and he knows it.
I was actually talking about the steps made in recovery more than the pre-cursor for it. You're spot on about the FSA being at fault but in terms of recovery we've done ok when you look that it affected more than just the UK and the crisis originated in the US
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 24.09.2009, 09:18 PM
jack1's Avatar
jack1 jack1 is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 20.10.2006
Location: Walsall
Posts: 2,517
Send a message via MSN to jack1 Send a message via Skype™ to jack1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagunium View Post
Well, I was opposed to it before I studied it in depth (I wrote a dissertation on the NHS as opposed to the Massachucetts Health Care reform bill) but I'm an empirical libertatrian - I believe that most (and just about everything for that matter) things operate most effectively and efficiently under a market system, but healthcare is one of the few things that simply doesn't (although introducing some quasi-markets can improve internal efficiency.) There are too many complications that throw the market off efficiency - the third party payment problem, adminstration costs, drug company contracts to name but a few.
It would of course be more effcient than the Massachucetts system IMO, on the other hand I personally believe that the US system isn't perfect yet as there is still far more legislative work that needs to be done.

Quote:
As regards to the pay issue - you're quite right in many ways. What I mean is there's a disparity in terms of pure market value (what someone could charge for their skills and recouping the cost of training, stress of the job and hours worked) - I.E what top healthcare professionals earn in the states, compared to what they are paid here. Generally it's the old "non-cash" job benefits explanation that's applicable - people are prepared to work for a lower cost because they believe their work has social value, and thus are prepared to accept being paid below skills. Plus bleed-off is reduced because medical licensing issues means it very difficult to transfer to another healthcare system if dissatisfied with pay.

If this low wage cost ever changes though (and there is some pressure) then we'd be better off scrapping the NHS. It's just at the moment the benefits of price outweigh the costs of inefficiency. If I felt the system would work better under a market at present I'd support it like a shot.
Well I agree with some of what your saying particularly about pay, the issue I have is the potentailly huge medical costs we are about to get from the baby boomers, they could well be crippiling.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 24.09.2009, 09:20 PM
jack1's Avatar
jack1 jack1 is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 20.10.2006
Location: Walsall
Posts: 2,517
Send a message via MSN to jack1 Send a message via Skype™ to jack1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrvincent1 View Post
I appreciate your point (and do apologise for the cocky tone earlier, just woke up from nights grouchy), but your point it confused.

You are confusing the lame & lazy with the hard working low earners. There are millions who slog their guts out day in day out who earn a pittance for doing so with little prospect for significantly increasing their earnings through no fault of their own. Not everyone have the means or opportunity to further themselves through university etc.


Now if you are talking about people who have no intention of working - I have no problem with stopping any form of benefits for people who make no effort to contribute to society.
This is the issue we have in that we need to increase opourtunitys for people and show people what options they have such as extra courses etc.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 24.09.2009, 10:47 PM
jack1's Avatar
jack1 jack1 is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 20.10.2006
Location: Walsall
Posts: 2,517
Send a message via MSN to jack1 Send a message via Skype™ to jack1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramezes View Post
The other political issue of the moment that I'm angry about is the Trident subs. On the larger scale of things the savings are minimal and to be honest I'd rather have the extra sub for the price. One area I don't believe you can cut corners are the armed forces.
Completely agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secret Admirer View Post
First things first, the poor pay more tax than the rich, which ever way you slice it. There are more poor people by some way, but far fewer tax evaders within their ranks. The rich (and by the rich I mean those who actually own the means of production or enough land, everyone else is just less poor) take more out of society. They've got more assets, and are therefore disproportionately catered for by the police, fire brigade etc. Not to mention the armed forces - mostly made up of the working class but run for the benefit of the political and financial elites. The rich also tend to be the ones who do the best out of immigration, as it keeps labour cheap and expendable but rents and house prices high.
I would argue with that because alot of your predictions about rich people using more public services are based on assumed use. In fact as you know rich people tend to use the NHS and schools less, so thus they aren't using as many services as people on low incomes.

Some of your other points about "elites" boarder on conspiracy.

Quote:
Taxation is simply the most efficient way the government have yet come up with for the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. If you want a perfect example of this, look at privatisation. The government took state assets, which we'd paid for through taxation and sold them off to the private sector, below market value to ensure a buyer. Now the cost of traveling on a train rises above inflation every single year but the service degrades and the private companies sure as hell have no interest in putting any real investment into the network. The government give a little back in the form of benefits because it's actually easier and probably cheaper to keep people placid and alive than to come up with a scheme that would ensure full employment* or to police all the crime that would ensue if we just dropped everyone off the benefit roll and told them to get on their bikes.
That I hope isn't the main purpose of taxation, it should be to provide services to all, reagrdless of wealth.

The rail system is an example of when privitisation wasn't dealt with properly.

Quote:
Public services are a remnant of a bygone political era, the days when our returning war heroes, fresh from defeating the ****s, came back and voted in the Labour government which built the social institutions their predecessors have been so slyly running down. They built them because the country was such a mess our grandfathers realised that the only way to rebuild it was for society to work together - rich and poor. The welfare state and NHS are about the only thing the government has done since WWII that makes me proud to be British.
Well I completely disagree, if only politicians were removing some unessacery government structures that have weaken this government.


Quote:
A cut in public services is about the last thing we need right now. The NHS is what, the 3rd largest employer in the world? You wanna send more people on to JSA and HB? How about instead of cutting public services, we cut our obligations for trident (£75bn proposed cost) missiles which we can't even fire ourselves, pointless ID Cards (£20bn or more with ongoing costs), subsidies to the arms industry (£4bn p/a). Plough all that money back into public services which will create jobs and prop up this ailing economy.
I am finding it hard not to be demeaning, but we do still need at cut in public services as this will offer better value for tax payers and people will have more money in there pockets. I also disagree with your views that the government needing to be a job creater, it doesn't this will only cause more ineffciency and will eventually result in redunencies, we need to encourage private enterprise and increase educational standards to attract TNC's to provide jobs

Quote:
If you want to talk about reforming the tax system then the first move needs to be raising the tax threshold to a realistic level, like £18,000. This would not only save the IR plenty of time and money trying to tax these people, but create a far greater incentive to get off of benefits, right now there are many people who are better off on benefits because the minimum wage is such a pittance. No one who's on 12k a year needs to be paying tax, they're the ones who are getting shafted by the tax system, not the high flying lawyers and city boys

*FYI anyone moaning about benefit claimaints, there are currently around 450,000 job vacancies in the UK, and around 2.5m working age healthy unemployed people, and that's before you factor in the governments ridiculous scheme to kick everyone off of incapacity benefit and back in to the jobs that just don't exist. Not gonna happen, is it.
Surely then the best idea would be to cut benifets then? It saves more tax money and encourages people to work. Win, Win.

Jobs would exsist if companies had less tax burdens, and there is a fair proportion of people who should not be on incapacity benifet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishBronco View Post
Personally, I agree with Jack here, in his support for the Flat Tax, although I disagree with the argument that the rich must have worked harder to be earning more money than the working class, although I see his point in that all taxpayers should be treated equally IMO regardless of income. We pay taxes in order to achieve like health, education, police force etc. as they are things, that we as citizens demand. Therefore, I feel that the burden for these services should be shared equally.

Flat tax is also so much more simple than other alternatives. It's a lot more efficient and can save a lot of time. It can eliminate double taxation as well and doesnt have gaping loopholes, which can benefit Government revenue

Am I right in thinking that Russia has a flat tax?
Well said, although my example is not what I think, it was specifically for that part of the thread.

Russia does have a flat rate of tax set at 24%
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 25.09.2009, 12:52 AM
Brenainn92's Avatar
Brenainn92 Brenainn92 is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 28.08.2008
Location: Belfast
Posts: 558
Default

Personally I can see the argument from both sides and Jack you do make good points but I personally feel that the rich should pay a higher percentage of tax simply because they can and it is the decent thing to do (assuming that the money is going to public services).



But in reality I think you will all want to know about the major piece of legislation which was passed in the Northern Ireland assembly, restricting the height to which hedges can be grown when as a garden “wall”. And do you know what is the most annoying thing is, after a rise in dissident republican activity, the party’s are still squabbling over who is entailed to the Policing and Justice seat in the executive. :rooleyes:
The options are give it to the SDLP (moderate nationalists and co-creators of the Good Friday Agreement) and are also entitled to the next executive post under the system of selection, the Alliance (the equivalent to the lib dems) a nice neutral party who won’t rub the DUP up the wrong way or reinitiating the entire executive selection process. All to the backdrop of an amateurish assembly which is sectarian, sexist and bigoted. Forced coalitions don’t work and that’s what we have and majority rule doesn’t work because that’s what we had and look were that led. One hell of an ultimatum.

Also double jobbing does my head in, being an MP and MLA and collecting both salaries plus expenses. I have to commend Mark Durkan for his move to quit as an MLA if he is re-elected in the general election (which couldn’t have come at a better time as far as I am concerned. just in time for my first year studying politics and around the time when we focus on the Westminster system of government.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Sponsored Links


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:43 AM.