NFL UK Forums

NFL UK Forums (https://forum.nfluk.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic - Entertainment/News (https://forum.nfluk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Politics (https://forum.nfluk.com/showthread.php?t=49460)

Csonka#39 24.09.2009 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack1 (Post 973817)
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.

Oh the high end earners on ludicrous bonuses and salaries. . they pay over the odds do they. . flat rate for all. . so someone on 150.00 per week should pay the same rate of tax as someone on 150.000 a week should they. . wow when are you running for office :rolleyes:

jack1 24.09.2009 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syborg (Post 973830)
Oh the high end earners on ludicrous bonuses and salaries. . they pay over the odds do they. . flat rate for all. . so someone on 150.00 per week should pay the same rate of tax as someone on 150.000 a week should they. . wow when are you running for office :rolleyes:

Surely the two figures you have posted are in fact the same? Unless you have mistakenly put full stops instead of a commas.

But back to the point, yes of course there should be a flat rate of tax, not to mention council tax should also be based on income, because it rewards sucess and creates a fairer system where people don't get punished for achieving.

Vincent 24.09.2009 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack1 (Post 973842)
Surely the two figures you have posted are in fact the same? Unless you have mistakenly put full stops instead of a commas.

But back to the point, yes of course there should be a flat rate of tax, not to mention council tax should also be based on income, because it rewards sucess and creates a fairer system where people don't get punished for achieving.

Another Jack1 hall of shame post

jack1 24.09.2009 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrvincent1 (Post 973845)
Another Jack1 hall of shame post

What a stupid comment to make.

Hannibal 24.09.2009 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrvincent1 (Post 973827)
More money for the police!! :D :p

Gwent Police yes, but not South Wales Police.

Vincent 24.09.2009 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hannibal (Post 973853)
Gwent Police yes, but not South Wales Police.

Haha, now thats just mean!



Jack, not as stupid as a fixed rate of tax for all. That kind of suggestion deserves to be derided.

jack1 24.09.2009 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrvincent1 (Post 973865)

Jack, not as stupid as a fixed rate of tax for all. That kind of suggestion deserves to be derided.

As usual JR your berate people without coming up with a sensible arguement, sorry that I want to encourage sucess.

Vincent 24.09.2009 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack1 (Post 973868)
As usual JR your berate people without coming up with a sensible arguement, sorry that I want to encourage sucess.

I am sorry, I keep forgetting that its only you who can state opinions as fact.



Its all about spreading the wealth. Why cant that happen without encouraging success?

Lagunium 24.09.2009 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack1 (Post 973824)
As I personally am a conservative libertarian I think its strange that someone with a libertarian view point would support the NHS.



If people are willing to accept the money they are being payed then we are paying people the right amount, if we have a staff shortage then people need to be payed more.

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.

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.

jack1 24.09.2009 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrvincent1 (Post 973876)
Its all about spreading the wealth. Why cant that happen without encouraging success?

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.


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.