Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: tunnie on 16 November 2017, 08:39:07
-
I'm not usually that interested in them, but this year I will watch with keen interest.
Hope they may cut/reduce stamp duty, seen few rumours. Suspect it will be for first time buyers only. :(
-
My prediction: Things will get worse.
Unless you're penniless, earn minimum wage, or are a first time buyer.
-
Or are a drug using cyclist.....
-
Or are a drug using cyclist.....
Things looking up for Guffers then :D :D :D :P ;D
-
I think he needs to made a bold statement about preparing for No Deal BREXIT! :)
-
I think he needs to made a bold statement about preparing for No Deal BREXIT! :)
Absolutely. In the absence of any appetite for sensible negotiations, time to start sending some signals. :y
-
Increase in tractor fuel tax so it costs at least £2 a litre. Won't affect its proper use as it's tax-free and dyed red. :y :y :y
Further tax rises so to feed the unacceptable sense of overentitlement by the non-wealth creating part of the economy so they are paid even more than the wealth-creating productive side where the chancellor lifts the 1% pay cap. >:( >:( >:(
-
Increase in tractor fuel tax so it costs at least £2 a litre. Won't affect its proper use as it's tax-free and dyed red. :y :y :y
Further tax rises so to feed the unacceptable sense of overentitlement by the non-wealth creating part of the economy so they are paid even more than the wealth-creating productive side where the chancellor lifts the 1% pay cap. >:( >:( >:(
Yes. But if he doesn’t lift the 1% pay cap, the wealth creating whiners will cease to exist as they will not be educated, will die if ill or same result if their house burns down, hopefully with them in it. :)
-
We have a very warped sense of 'worth' in this country.
The people who really matter and make a difference, such as nurses, doctors, teachers, care workers, etc..etc are not always treated well.
Then we have the parasite economy. Selfish individuals involved in finance, or unproductive 'celebs' such as footballers and racing drivers. Such people tend to have an inflated opinion of their worth and think the country will fall apart without their contribution. It won't. :)
-
I think he needs to made a bold statement about preparing for No Deal BREXIT! :)
Absolutely. In the absence of any appetite for sensible negotiations, time to start sending some signals. :y
But spreadsheet Phil doesn't intend for us to leave at all.
-
We have a very warped sense of 'worth' in this country.
The people who really matter and make a difference, such as nurses, doctors, teachers, care workers, etc..etc are not always treated well.
Then we have the parasite economy. Selfish individuals involved in finance, or unproductive 'celebs' such as footballers and racing drivers. Such people tend to have an inflated opinion of their worth and think the country will fall apart without their contribution. It won't. :)
Don’t forget the new age techies, who sit playing with keyboards all day, shifting numbers back and forth. At the end of the day, the number that they started with has grown...lots.....so their net worth has increased. Nice ‘work’, if you can get it.
-
Your behind the curve on that one. They don't need lots of them to play with a keyboard any more. They have a super clever new age techie set up an algorithm programme on computers and they then makes their own decisions.
A computer glitch will crash the worlds economy one day in the not too distant future.
-
I think he needs to made a bold statement about preparing for No Deal BREXIT! :)
Absolutely. In the absence of any appetite for sensible negotiations, time to start sending some signals. :y
But spreadsheet Phil doesn't intend for us to leave at all.
He does realise that invoking article 50 is irreversible... :o
-
Your behind the curve on that one. They don't need lots of them to play with a keyboard any more. They have a super clever new age techie set up an algorithm programme on computers and they then makes their own decisions.
A computer glitch will crash the worlds economy one day in the not too distant future.
Such a theory was mooted years ago, after the ‘flash crash’ on Wall Street. Breakers have now been put in place and trading is halted once a certain limit (usually 10%) has been reached.
-
Don’t forget the new age techies, who sit playing with keyboards all day, shifting numbers back and forth. At the end of the day, the number that they started with has grown...lots.....so their net worth has increased. Nice ‘work’, if you can get it.
Thanks ;)
But assuming you're referring to traders, rather than people who actually keep stuff running, they are just as worried as anyone else about their futures because, sooner or later, computers are going to flat-out replace them (it's already started happening at some firms, in fact).
-
I think he needs to made a bold statement about preparing for No Deal BREXIT! :)
Absolutely. In the absence of any appetite for sensible negotiations, time to start sending some signals. :y
But spreadsheet Phil doesn't intend for us to leave at all.
He does realise that invoking article 50 is irreversible... :o
[/quote:]
That seems to be a matter of opinion. ::)
-
I think he needs to made a bold statement about preparing for No Deal BREXIT! :)
Absolutely. In the absence of any appetite for sensible negotiations, time to start sending some signals. :y
But spreadsheet Phil doesn't intend for us to leave at all.
He does realise that invoking article 50 is irreversible... :o
[/quote:]
That seems to be a matter of opinion. ::)
Indeed, and if you look at the opinion of the man who had the responsibility for delivering article 50, his view is that it can be reversed.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-09/britons-can-still-reverse-brexit-article-50-architect-says (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-09/britons-can-still-reverse-brexit-article-50-architect-says)
Whether its achievable politically, is an entirely different matter.
-
Billion a week for the nhs, increase in tax on diesel, new affordable housing project.
-
We have a very warped sense of 'worth' in this country.
The people who really matter and make a difference, such as nurses, doctors, teachers, care workers, etc..etc are not always treated well.
Then we have the parasite economy. Selfish individuals involved in finance, or unproductive 'celebs' such as footballers and racing drivers. Such people tend to have an inflated opinion of their worth and think the country will fall apart without their contribution. It won't. :)
Society worked for centuries without doctors and nurses, they are a relatively modern invention. What goes back to the begining of human existence are hunter-gathers, farmers and skilled craftsmen followed by merchants, hawkers, storage and distribution. The food growing, storage, processing and distribution system is central to all of our lives which we need to work every day or we starve. So on your scale of worth, farmers, drivers, shelf stackers and shop assistants should be by far the highest paid people in society. ???
The reality is for a society to work how we want it to work most people in the wealth productive side of the economy are required along with many in the non-productive side. It then comes down to skill, added value, supply, demand and free markets to decide worth. Planned economies don't work as it requires all-seeing, knowing leaders to make vital decisions and they can't and don't exist. Bottom-up capitalist societies work much more efficiently with a much better allocation of capital than top-down planned socialist ones with their 5-year tractor plans along with the manufacture of 5million, size 12, left shoes where the person in charge has only one leg with a size 12 foot, so doesn't see the need for pairs or any other size! :o :o :o
-
Don’t forget the new age techies, who sit playing with keyboards all day, shifting numbers back and forth. At the end of the day, the number that they started with has grown...lots.....so their net worth has increased. Nice ‘work’, if you can get it.
Thanks ;)
But assuming you're referring to traders, rather than people who actually keep stuff running, they are just as worried as anyone else about their futures because, sooner or later, computers are going to flat-out replace them (it's already started happening at some firms, in fact).
It has indeed, and those who are left don't tend to earn the money they used to. Its a dying industry.
-
We have a very warped sense of 'worth' in this country.
The people who really matter and make a difference, such as nurses, doctors, teachers, care workers, etc..etc are not always treated well.
Then we have the parasite economy. Selfish individuals involved in finance, or unproductive 'celebs' such as footballers and racing drivers. Such people tend to have an inflated opinion of their worth and think the country will fall apart without their contribution. It won't. :)
Society worked for centuries without doctors and nurses, they are a relatively modern invention. What goes back to the begining of human existence are hunter-gathers, farmers and skilled craftsmen followed by merchants, hawkers, storage and distribution. The food growing, storage, processing and distribution system is central to all of our lives which we need to work every day or we starve. So on your scale of worth, farmers, drivers, shelf stackers and shop assistants should be by far the highest paid people in society. ???
The reality is for a society to work how we want it to work most people in the wealth productive side of the economy are required along with many in the non-productive side. It then comes down to skill, added value, supply, demand and free markets to decide worth. Planned economies don't work as it requires all-seeing, knowing leaders to make vital decisions and they can't and don't exist. Bottom-up capitalist societies work much more efficiently with a much better allocation of capital than top-down planned socialist ones with their 5-year tractor plans along with the manufacture of 5million, size 12, left shoes where the person in charge has only one leg with a size 12 foot, so doesn't see the need for pairs or any other size! :o :o :o
God, you talk some shite. Lengthy shite, too.
-
We have a very warped sense of 'worth' in this country.
The people who really matter and make a difference, such as nurses, doctors, teachers, care workers, etc..etc are not always treated well.
Then we have the parasite economy. Selfish individuals involved in finance, or unproductive 'celebs' such as footballers and racing drivers. Such people tend to have an inflated opinion of their worth and think the country will fall apart without their contribution. It won't. :)
Society worked for centuries without doctors and nurses, they are a relatively modern invention.
Well no, not quite. We know physicians were at work in ancient Egypt around 3,000 BC, and one of the first "doctors", Hippocrates (as in the oath), considered to be the father of modern medicine, was advancing his and other doctors skills from around 460 to 370 BC.
Throughout the ages since that time doctors have advanced the skills at an increasing rate, with both the 19th and 20th century seeing the most rapid progress.
The important point to remember though, throughout those early ages, access to treatment depended on your wealth, your power, and importance to the state, such as those in the military. If you did not meet that criteria you simply struggled to get well, maybe sought help from herbal remedies (mistaken for witchcraft from the 15th to 18th centuries), or just died anyway.
It was only from the 18th century that doctors officially gave "voluntary" or as we would recognise today, "charity" treatment. This was helped by the creation of hospitals like the London Infirmay, from 1748 the London Hospital (now the Royal London Hospital) that was built to specifically give medical treatment at low, or sometimes no cost, to the poor of the East End and hospitals like these grew in number as the industrial revolution made it an economic sense to provide such care.
However, it was not until the creation of the NHS in Britain in 1948 that treatment was given "free to all at the point of entry's". At last the hard working people of industry had the type of treatment previously reserved for the ruling classes and their servants; people prepared to fight and die for them. No longer did the poor need to suffer and die, even though there had been doctors around for centuries who could have treated them.
Pay the doctors and nurses as much as we can afford, as if and when you or a loved one are writhing in pain, you will regret that you did not when that staff do not exist in the number we need.
As for who is worth what? That is the big socialist argument is it not? Every WORKING person is contributing an essential element to our society. The non-working mothers of young children at home are equally contributing. It was / is the wealthy and powerful ruling classes who degraded the importance of the individual in terms of pounds, shilling and pence; their ability to give maximum working output or ability to fight on the battlefield. True Socialists will always believe that no one should gain on the back of others and we should all share in the profits of pooled labour. I personally do not believe "every one is equal" in such a black and white way, but the massive inaqualites that still exist out there are wrong. Work hard and you should be fully rewarded in relation to the profits generated, not at the minimum wage.
So, lift all the pay caps on public workers to get the best, in quantity, that the public need, before we all suffer further from the shortages and shortfalls seen to date. To pay for this taxes MUST be raised. Failure to take this action now will result in a "no doctors" situation, relatively speaking ;)
-
I have no problem with paying doctors, nurses and the rest of the public sector well if they do a good job, but the reality is the number of them exploded under new labour, and to pay them well now, we would need to reduce the numbers back to somewhere near where they were 20 years ago first.
You say "pay them as much as we can afford" ,but taking into account the sheer numbers involved, we are already paying out more than we can afford.
So, we need more wealth generators to produce the money, which means among other things a competitive tax regime and an atmosphere where wealth creation is welcomed and admired. The opposite direction of travel to where we are headed currently.
The politics of envy is now being embraced by a new generation as if they were the first ones to think of it.
-
I have no problem with paying doctors, nurses and the rest of the public sector well if they do a good job, but the reality is the number of them exploded under new labour, and to pay them well now, we would need to reduce the numbers back to somewhere near where they were 20 years ago first.
Given that we have around 12.5m retirees now 2016), courtesy of the "retire @55"* baby boomer generation, compared to 8.3m in 2001, and those older people require the greatest level of health and social care. Talk me through how you imagine that would work ::)
*im well aware that many do not retire at 55, but the baby boomers will, on average enjoy a far longer retirement than any generation before or after them
-
Given that we have around 12.5m retirees now 2016), courtesy of the "retire @55"* baby boomer generation, compared to 8.3m in 2001, and those older people require the greatest level of health and social care. Talk me through how you imagine that would work ::)
*im well aware that many do not retire at 55, but the baby boomers will, on average enjoy a far longer retirement than any generation before or after them
Retire @55 is a poor choice of stick to beat the baby boomers with. To do so they have to have saved enough to fund their own retirement from 55 to 67 because they don't get any state pension from the government till they're 67. The government then gets it's tax take from their private pension earlier than if they waited till 60/65/67. And it also frees up a job for someone else (presumably younger).
And until 2010 it was Retire @ 50 anyway.
-
In no way a stick, and not meant to be. If you can do it, good luck to you. I'm aiming for late 50's myself, although that's 25yrs away. But, it is a useful statistic to put some actual numbers around our aging population.
You have more people who are retired, so not earning and those people will be retired longer (on average) than those who went before them and those that will come after.
Nor am I saying we should allow those old people to go in cared for. But the fact remains that they are there, there are now of them and we need more people than ever before to look after them. So this "sack x% of the public sector leaches" idea doesn't work when the country has (shockingly) moved on a bit in the last 20yrs.
-
Hence 1 billion a week for the nhs. A lot of it will go on care in keeping the old from bed blocking in hospitals. It wont happen as each government kicks the can down the road.
-
I may be retired (and loving it :)) but i still pay tax on my pensions so therefor still contribute to the countries economy. :y Also, as i buy stuff, am also paying VAT.
-
I may be retired (and loving it :)) but i still pay tax on my pensions so therefor still contribute to the countries economy. :y Also, as i buy stuff, am also paying VAT.
+1 :y
.............and as I have paid into two other pensions in addition to my State one, I have more than contributed to my old age future, with full taxes paid. I also still work in "a capacity" for the police. I have no conscience about living into old age and the state helping me when required.
Yes, I am a proud member of the baby boomers generation, but although I never like counter-factual history, just think that without the two World Wars our population would be so much greater than today. Mind you, and this is why I don't like CF History, Great Britain would still, in theory, be a very rich country.............but there again the commoner would not be valued as much as today given the ruling classes would not have lost their then great power over them and not value them still..............and women may not have the vote to change our society for the better as that would not have had a chance to show during the wars how important they were......and so CFH goes on, and on and on....... ::) ::) ::) :P!!!
-
I have no problem with paying doctors, nurses and the rest of the public sector well if they do a good job, but the reality is the number of them exploded under new labour, and to pay them well now, we would need to reduce the numbers back to somewhere near where they were 20 years ago first.
Given that we have around 12.5m retirees now 2016), courtesy of the "retire @55"* baby boomer generation, compared to 8.3m in 2001, and those older people require the greatest level of health and social care. Talk me through how you imagine that would work ::)
*im well aware that many do not retire at 55, but the baby boomers will, on average enjoy a far longer retirement than any generation before or after them
Good point, Jimmy.
The implementation of TB's cull for everyone over 65 may be the solution. Just think of the money that could be saved in pensions and healthcare.
Nah....just kidding. :y.....or am I. 8)
-
I have no problem with paying doctors, nurses and the rest of the public sector well if they do a good job, but the reality is the number of them exploded under new labour, and to pay them well now, we would need to reduce the numbers back to somewhere near where they were 20 years ago first.
Given that we have around 12.5m retirees now 2016), courtesy of the "retire @55"* baby boomer generation, compared to 8.3m in 2001, and those older people require the greatest level of health and social care. Talk me through how you imagine that would work ::)
*im well aware that many do not retire at 55, but the baby boomers will, on average enjoy a far longer retirement than any generation before or after them
Good point, Jimmy.
The implementation of TB's cull for everyone over 65 may be the solution. Just think of the money that could be saved in pensions and healthcare.
Nah....just kidding. :y.....or am I. 8)
So, does that mean that in 5 years time you are going to come & terminate me? :-X
-
I have no problem with paying doctors, nurses and the rest of the public sector well if they do a good job, but the reality is the number of them exploded under new labour, and to pay them well now, we would need to reduce the numbers back to somewhere near where they were 20 years ago first.
Given that we have around 12.5m retirees now 2016), courtesy of the "retire @55"* baby boomer generation, compared to 8.3m in 2001, and those older people require the greatest level of health and social care. Talk me through how you imagine that would work ::)
*im well aware that many do not retire at 55, but the baby boomers will, on average enjoy a far longer retirement than any generation before or after them
Good point, Jimmy.
The implementation of TB's cull for everyone over 65 may be the solution. Just think of the money that could be saved in pensions and healthcare.
Nah....just kidding. :y.....or am I. 8)
So, does that mean that in 5 years time you are going to come & terminate me? :-X
There will be an exemption for people living in Lincolnshire, Robert. ::)
-
I have no problem with paying doctors, nurses and the rest of the public sector well if they do a good job, but the reality is the number of them exploded under new labour, and to pay them well now, we would need to reduce the numbers back to somewhere near where they were 20 years ago first.
Given that we have around 12.5m retirees now 2016), courtesy of the "retire @55"* baby boomer generation, compared to 8.3m in 2001, and those older people require the greatest level of health and social care. Talk me through how you imagine that would work ::)
*im well aware that many do not retire at 55, but the baby boomers will, on average enjoy a far longer retirement than any generation before or after them
Quite simple really. People are living longer healthier lives, so should work longer than they used to unless they have plenty of funds to live financially independent lives.
I'm 58 and have no plans to retire, ever, as long as my health holds out. I cant afford to and don't particularily want to. :)
-
I'm 58 and have no plans to retire, ever, as long as my health holds out. I cant afford to and don't particularily want to. :)
I'm 39 and would retire tomorrow if I could! ;D
-
I have no problem with paying doctors, nurses and the rest of the public sector well if they do a good job, but the reality is the number of them exploded under new labour, and to pay them well now, we would need to reduce the numbers back to somewhere near where they were 20 years ago first.
Given that we have around 12.5m retirees now 2016), courtesy of the "retire @55"* baby boomer generation, compared to 8.3m in 2001, and those older people require the greatest level of health and social care. Talk me through how you imagine that would work ::)
*im well aware that many do not retire at 55, but the baby boomers will, on average enjoy a far longer retirement than any generation before or after them
Quite simple really. People are living longer healthier lives, so should work longer than they used to unless they have plenty of funds to live financially independent lives.
I'm 58 and have no plans to retire, ever, as long as my health holds out. I cant afford to and don't particularily want to. :)
Therein lies the rub as Bill used to say. Not everyone aged 65 could work longer. Not just the physical side of it but the getting to and from and not being able to have a power nap in the afternoon. Think about the folk that do physical work. What are they going to be able to retrain to do? Program robots, Build websites, social work? The whole work cycle is wrong with folk working harder and longer as they reach retirement. The only salvation is there is a growing swell for people to be paid a living wage not to work as robots do us out of jobs. ( Bit of deja vu there. I remember being told in the seventies to expect to only work a 3 or 4 day week as computers did away with our jobs ;D. Little did we realise they were going to increase our work!)
-
I'm 58 and have no plans to retire, ever, as long as my health holds out. I cant afford to and don't particularily want to. :)
I'm 39 and would retire tomorrow if I could! ;D
Agreed. (33 in my case)
-
.............and as I have paid into two other pensions in addition to my State one, I have more than contributed to my old age future, with full taxes paid. I also still work in "a capacity" for the police. I have no conscience about living into old age and the state helping me when required.
I'm afraid the idea that anyone paid into the State Pension pot is a lie peddled by the politicians. And if any of your other pensions are public service final salary pensions (Armed Forces, NHS, Firemen etc but not Local Govt) then that's also a lie. There is no pot, never was never will be.
There is no State Pension fund/pot to pay into. There is also no public service pot (except LGPS). Todays tax payers have to pay for both types of these pensions to be paid to baby boomers. Basically the boomers wrote the rules to say that someone in the future (todays young) would pick up the bill for the pension promises that they made to themselves 30+ years ago.
All the Tax/NI you paid in the past (say 1980) was used to pay for the govt spending in 1980. There was nothing left over (infact there was usually a defecit) to fund the promises that the baby boomers made to themselves. And people wonder why today's young are a bit miffed when they have to pay for their own University fees, no similar pension, and no prospect of getting on the housing ladder.
-
.............and as I have paid into two other pensions in addition to my State one, I have more than contributed to my old age future, with full taxes paid. I also still work in "a capacity" for the police. I have no conscience about living into old age and the state helping me when required.
I'm afraid the idea that anyone paid into the State Pension pot is a lie peddled by the politicians. And if any of your other pensions are public service final salary pensions (Armed Forces, NHS, Firemen etc but not Local Govt) then that's also a lie. There is no pot, never was never will be.
There is no State Pension fund/pot to pay into. There is also no public service pot (except LGPS). Todays tax payers have to pay for both types of these pensions to be paid to baby boomers. Basically the boomers wrote the rules to say that someone in the future (todays young) would pick up the bill for the pension promises that they made to themselves 30+ years ago.
All the Tax/NI you paid in the past (say 1980) was used to pay for the govt spending in 1980. There was nothing left over (infact there was usually a defecit) to fund the promises that the baby boomers made to themselves. And people wonder why today's young are a bit miffed when they have to pay for their own University fees, no similar pension, and no prospect of getting on the housing ladder.
No they are not, both being company pensions, and I stated that I had paid into those.
I am fully aware that the state pension comes out of the taxes we have paid, and still are with my company pensions that are classed as taxable income. That is why I have no conscience to let the state help with when necessary :P
-
Don’t worry, Lizzie. I get my state pension next year, approx £700 a month, because I have the required 35 years of NI contributions. But the tax payer paid 14 years worth of those contributions for me, because my name was on the child benefit book.
I have no fickin qualms whatsoever.
-
Don’t worry, Lizzie. I get my state pension next year, approx £700 a month, because I have the required 35 years of NI contributions. But the tax payer paid 14 years worth of those contributions for me, because my name was on the child benefit book.
I have no fickin qualms whatsoever.
Didn't think you were as old as that STEMO :o :o ;D ;D ;D :y
-
.............and as I have paid into two other pensions in addition to my State one, I have more than contributed to my old age future, with full taxes paid. I also still work in "a capacity" for the police. I have no conscience about living into old age and the state helping me when required.
There is no State Pension fund/pot to pay into. There is also no public service pot (except LGPS). Todays tax payers have to pay for both types of these pensions to be paid to baby boomers. Basically the boomers wrote the rules to say that someone in the future (todays young) would pick up the bill for the pension promises that they made to themselves 30+ years ago.
On that point history is that the first State Pension was introduced after pressure from the Liberal Party, which included Winston Churchill, with the Old-Age Pensions Act in 1908, and the first payments of 5/- per week made to MEN of 70 years or over. To pay for that the Liberals argued that instead of building another 8 Dreadnoughts, "just" 4 should be. It was recognised that future taxation would have to allow for this social change, and for the first time the State would have to fund it and the Defence Budget may have to be reduced accordingly, which in time and as
wars came and went, with people's attitudes modified towards a "socialist" outlook, that is exactly what has happened.
I always love it when I write up the UK Expenditure Budget for the early years of the 20th Century. In 1910 these figures were:
£ million
Total Expenditure 341.4
Pensions 0.9
Health Care 9.1
Education 52.6
DEFENCE 64.9
Just imagine if the current UK government had to explain that budget to the public. It was all about Defence, and remember that expenditure is over overwhelmingly for the Royal Navy and it preparing for what was seen as an inevitable showdown with Germany.
Pensions was just a tiny consideration for the politicians of the time, in charge of still THE Great World Empire ;)
In 2010 this UK Expenditure looked like this:
£ million
Total Expenditure 673,104.0
Pensions 116,392.0
Health Care 116.916.0
Education 88,484.0
DEFENCE 42,552.0
How times have changed! :D :D ;)
-
.....................................therefore the Defence expenditure in 1910 was therefore 19% of total ; in 2010 6% of total ;)
................and that vast reduction is helping to pay our state pensions!
-
I hope the chancellor cuts all payments to anyone. Ones lik child benefit and free nusery really get my goat up. Can't afford the little baskets? Get 2 bricks.
Obviously my views aren't helped by the last 6 weeks of state sponsored wank for CIN. If we are going to pick a state charity, at least pick something worthwhile.
-
I'm worried by the fact that I increasingly agree with just about everything you say - apart from your huge EU blindspot obviously. :P ;D
-
Doesn’t matter though, does it? I don’t think slim Phil looks at OOF. ;D
-
Don't think that dickhead looks at anything outside the bubble of
Westminster the Treasury. ::)
-
Don't think that dickhead looks at anything outside the bubble of Westminster the Treasury. ::)
I have said, you have said it........we’re fooked. There just isn’t enough to go around. There has to be some kind of massive sea change, but no one knows how to, or has the guts to implement what needs doing. Not just here, the whole western world.
Couple the lack of resources with a sense of entitlement and there just isn’t an answer. So........we tinker.
-
We are like a nation of crack addicts. The pushers (politicians) got us addicted to welfare of one form or another decades ago, and all we have to do is suspend our connection to reality and give them our votes.
Every time anyone tries to introduce a reality check, the other scream about poverty, austerity, blah blah blah.....
Maybe we should bring Mugabe over, now he is out of a job and let him have a crack at it. ;D
-
That’s the point, and the problem, we live in a democracy. Heaven forbid we should ever have a one party state, but that’s the only thing that would work.
This is what your getting, be thankful for it.
-
.............and as I have paid into two other pensions in addition to my State one, I have more than contributed to my old age future, with full taxes paid. I also still work in "a capacity" for the police. I have no conscience about living into old age and the state helping me when required.
There is no State Pension fund/pot to pay into. There is also no public service pot (except LGPS). Todays tax payers have to pay for both types of these pensions to be paid to baby boomers. Basically the boomers wrote the rules to say that someone in the future (todays young) would pick up the bill for the pension promises that they made to themselves 30+ years ago.
On that point history is that the first State Pension was introduced after pressure from the Liberal Party, which included Winston Churchill, with the Old-Age Pensions Act in 1908, and the first payments of 5/- per week made to MEN of 70 years or over. To pay for that the Liberals argued that instead of building another 8 Dreadnoughts, "just" 4 should be. It was recognised that future taxation would have to allow for this social change, and for the first time the State would have to fund it and the Defence Budget may have to be reduced accordingly, which in time and as
wars came and went, with people's attitudes modified towards a "socialist" outlook, that is exactly what has happened.
I always love it when I write up the UK Expenditure Budget for the early years of the 20th Century. In 1910 these figures were:
£ million
Total Expenditure 341.4
Pensions 0.9
Health Care 9.1
Education 52.6
DEFENCE 64.9
Just imagine if the current UK government had to explain that budget to the public. It was all about Defence, and remember that expenditure is over overwhelmingly for the Royal Navy and it preparing for what was seen as an inevitable showdown with Germany.
Pensions was just a tiny consideration for the politicians of the time, in charge of still THE Great World Empire ;)
In 2010 this UK Expenditure looked like this:
£ million
Total Expenditure 673,104.0
Pensions 116,392.0
Health Care 116.916.0
Education 88,484.0
DEFENCE 42,552.0
How times have changed! :D :D ;)
Pretty shrewd move by the liberals. ;)
Average life expectancy in the Edwardian era was probably about 50. Presumably after 1918 there was even less to pay out.
-
That’s the point, and the problem, we live in a democracy. Heaven forbid we should ever have a one party state, but that’s the only thing that would work.
This is what your getting, be thankful for it.
Don't mind a one party state. As long as the party agrees with me about everything. ;) ;D
-
That’s the point, and the problem, we live in a democracy. Heaven forbid we should ever have a one party state, but that’s the only thing that would work.
This is what your getting, be thankful for it.
Don't mind a one party state. As long as the party agrees with me about everything. ;) ;D
I'd make an excellent benign dictator. :)
-
That’s the point, and the problem, we live in a democracy. Heaven forbid we should ever have a one party state, but that’s the only thing that would work.
This is what your getting, be thankful for it.
Don't mind a one party state. As long as the party agrees with me about everything. ;) ;D
I'd make an excellent benign dictator cry. :)
FTFY
-
Always try to get old Rob Mugarbage over to see out his twilight years. ;)
-
.............and as I have paid into two other pensions in addition to my State one, I have more than contributed to my old age future, with full taxes paid. I also still work in "a capacity" for the police. I have no conscience about living into old age and the state helping me when required.
There is no State Pension fund/pot to pay into. There is also no public service pot (except LGPS). Todays tax payers have to pay for both types of these pensions to be paid to baby boomers. Basically the boomers wrote the rules to say that someone in the future (todays young) would pick up the bill for the pension promises that they made to themselves 30+ years ago.
On that point history is that the first State Pension was introduced after pressure from the Liberal Party, which included Winston Churchill, with the Old-Age Pensions Act in 1908, and the first payments of 5/- per week made to MEN of 70 years or over. To pay for that the Liberals argued that instead of building another 8 Dreadnoughts, "just" 4 should be. It was recognised that future taxation would have to allow for this social change, and for the first time the State would have to fund it and the Defence Budget may have to be reduced accordingly, which in time and as
wars came and went, with people's attitudes modified towards a "socialist" outlook, that is exactly what has happened.
I always love it when I write up the UK Expenditure Budget for the early years of the 20th Century. In 1910 these figures were:
£ million
Total Expenditure 341.4
Pensions 0.9
Health Care 9.1
Education 52.6
DEFENCE 64.9
Just imagine if the current UK government had to explain that budget to the public. It was all about Defence, and remember that expenditure is over overwhelmingly for the Royal Navy and it preparing for what was seen as an inevitable showdown with Germany.
Pensions was just a tiny consideration for the politicians of the time, in charge of still THE Great World Empire ;)
In 2010 this UK Expenditure looked like this:
£ million
Total Expenditure 673,104.0
Pensions 116,392.0
Health Care 116.916.0
Education 88,484.0
DEFENCE 42,552.0
How times have changed! :D :D ;)
Pretty shrewd move by the liberals. ;)
Average life expectancy in the Edwardian era was probably about 50. Presumably after 1918 there was even less to pay out.
It was a shrewd move, but that was the Liberals last real achievement before they started their rapid decline from power. The disastrous start to The Great War under their leadership which saw Asquith go in favour of a Lloyd George headed coalition, or war committee, in 1916, then the massive growth of the new working mans party, Labour, pushed them out completely, with all future races for power at the hands of either the latter or the Conservatives. ;)
-
Average Government spending per person over their lifetime is a bathtub curve. Expensive at the start of our lives as children where they don't work and need educating and at the end of our lives when we retire as we again don't work, the Government provides a pension and our healthcare costs rocket. With the baby boomer population now retiring, the younger generation preferring not to breed at a population replacement rate, so the ratio to those working v those retired is getting worse and uncontrolled mass migration has meant an explosion in low paid unskilled workers here where they pay little tax and if they have children, they can't afford, lots of benefits to keep them in the lifestyle they aspire to. Gordon McRuin's prolificate public spending with large public sector pay rises that was funded by a tax raid on our pensions, tax rises and lots of borrowing. This was then followed by Tory 'austerity' which just meant slowing down the increase in spending a bit too slowly reduce the deficit, while the National Debt continued to increase. :( :( :(
This is further compounded by £13bn pa or 0.7% of GDP commitment to foreign aid which we have to borrow to fund and deindustrialization and green subsidies for green tree hugger climate fraud which is funded with even more borrowing of £17bn pa by 2020 and the covering of the National Debt interest which has gone from £10bn to £44bn. This means we have to find an extra £64bn per year or £2000 per working person, just to stand still. As a country we are not is a good place economically, just not as bad as Japan, the US or much of mainland Europe. Many Western countries populations are beginning to fall which means even fewer working people to pay off the Government debts. I suspect that the 2020's and 2030's will see many countries defaulting on their debts, which will hit the retired particularly hard. :( :( :(
-
Don't think that dickhead looks at anything outside the bubble of Westminster the Treasury. ::)
I have said, you have said it........we’re fooked. There just isn’t enough to go around. There has to be some kind of massive sea change, but no one knows how to, or has the guts to implement what needs doing. Not just here, the whole western world.
Couple the lack of resources with a sense of entitlement and there just isn’t an answer. So........we tinker.
There's a simple answer to all this and it wouldn't be popular. ::) Raise the base rate of income tax to 30%! :o :P
Everybody would squeal like gutted pigs, but the fact is that if you want well funded public services then you should be prepared to pay for them. ;) The trouble is that everyone thinks someone else should pay. ::)
So Spreadsheet Phil should lay it out in black and white so even the stupidist can understand. There are two options:
A) Low taxes and public services that just about manage.
B) High taxes that affects everyone (because that's fair) and well funded public services.
But unfortunately a lot of people seem to believe Corbyn and McDonnell's fairy tale that they can have well funded public services, but someone else will pay for them. ::) :(
-
Don't think that dickhead looks at anything outside the bubble of Westminster the Treasury. ::)
I have said, you have said it........we’re fooked. There just isn’t enough to go around. There has to be some kind of massive sea change, but no one knows how to, or has the guts to implement what needs doing. Not just here, the whole western world.
Couple the lack of resources with a sense of entitlement and there just isn’t an answer. So........we tinker.
There's a simple answer to all this and it wouldn't be popular. ::) Raise the base rate of income tax to 30%! :o :P
Everybody would squeal like gutted pigs, but the fact is that if you want well funded public services then you should be prepared to pay for them. ;) The trouble is that everyone thinks someone else should pay. ::)
So Spreadsheet Phil should lay it out in black and white so even the stupidist can understand. There are two options:
A) Low taxes and public services that just about manage.
B) High taxes that affects everyone (because that's fair) and well funded public services.
But unfortunately a lot of people seem to believe Corbyn and McDonnell's fairy tale that they can have well funded public services, but someone else will pay for them. ::) :(
Obviously the 'super rich' would be exempt from tax, they always have been. :)
-
My guess is that 'ginger Donald' has paid virtually no tax for the last 30 years.
He seems shy about producing his tax returns. :)
-
Obviously the 'super rich' would be exempt from tax, they always have been. :)
I think you'll find that the so called 1% pay something like 28% of all Income Tax receipts. ;)
-
Obviously the 'super rich' would be exempt from tax, they always have been. :)
I think you'll find that the so called 1% pay something like 28% of all Income Tax receipts. ;)
I refer to the 'super rich' not the 'merely well off', Sir Tig. :)
Also, as a percentage of earnings the poor pay by far the most tax. There is tax and VAT on almost everything. A gallon of petrol is roughly 70% tax and VAT.
-
Tax on fags.....tax on booze. The poor pay proportionately far more.
-
Tax on fags.....tax on booze. The poor pay proportionately far more.
The poor also have a larger proportion of their income which is tax exempt. ;)
Interestingly, Jeremy Corbyn has voted against raising the personal income tax allowance every time. ::) :)
-
Tax on fags.....tax on booze. The poor pay proportionately far more.
The poor also have a larger proportion of their income which is tax exempt. ;)
Interestingly, Jeremy Corbyn has voted against raising the personal income tax allowance every time. ::) :)
What....a pitiful £11000. :)
Donald Trump spends more than that for one night with urinating hookers. :)
-
Tax on fags.....tax on booze. The poor pay proportionately far more.
Genuinely poor people wouldnt even think about spending their money on booze & fags. ;)
If we weren't so addicted to welfare, and hadn't forgotten the concept of self reliance, we could all pay a lot less in tax. But then the state could be a lot smaller again and we would also need a lot less politicians, quangos, civil servants,so called charities etc. etc. and then millions of people would have to find real jobs.
So, the system suits a hell of a lot of people just the way it is, and us average mugs who go to work and try and rely on our own efforts to keep our heads above water just have to have half our incomes taken away and don't dare complain about it.
-
Tax on fags.....tax on booze. The poor pay proportionately far more.
The poor also have a larger proportion of their income which is tax exempt. ;)
Interestingly, Jeremy Corbyn has voted against raising the personal income tax allowance every time. ::) :)
What....a pitiful £11000. :)
Donald Trump spends more than that for one night with urinating hookers. :)
£11,000 might be pitiful to a wealthy old geezer like yourself M'lud, but it's significant if you earn just over that which many people do. ::)
The poor are set to be especially hammered in Scotland by their 'progressive' government with the minimum alcohol price law. I'm not sure of the exact figures but I read that a bottle of strong cider will go up from about £3 to about £11! :o They won't even be able to afford to get smashed to forget their troubles now and I can see many 'pop up' Offies operating around the council estates out of the back of Transit vans! ;)
-
Tax on fags.....tax on booze. The poor pay proportionately far more.
Genuinely poor people wouldnt even think about spending their money on booze & fags. ;)
If we weren't so addicted to welfare, and hadn't forgotten the concept of self reliance, we could all pay a lot less in tax. But then the state could be a lot smaller again and we would also need a lot less politicians, quangos, civil servants,so called charities etc. etc. and then millions of people would have to find real jobs.
So, the system suits a hell of a lot of people just the way it is, and us average mugs who go to work and try and rely on our own efforts to keep our heads above water just have to have half our incomes taken away and don't dare complain about it.
I feel most for the working poor who need their piss poor wages topped up by tax credits. In my view if an employer can not survive without handouts from the taxpayer in order to pay it's employees than it is not a viable business.
Many rogue employers take advantage of this. :-\
-
Tax on fags.....tax on booze. The poor pay proportionately far more.
The poor also have a larger proportion of their income which is tax exempt. ;)
Interestingly, Jeremy Corbyn has voted against raising the personal income tax allowance every time. ::) :)
What....a pitiful £11000. :)
Donald Trump spends more than that for one night with urinating hookers. :)
£11,000 might be pitiful to a wealthy old geezer like yourself M'lud, but it's significant if you earn just over that which many people do. ::)
The poor are set to be especially hammered in Scotland by their 'progressive' government with the minimum alcohol price law. I'm not sure of the exact figures but I read that a bottle of strong cider will go up from about £3 to about £11! :o They won't even be able to afford to get smashed to forget their troubles now and I can see many 'pop up' Offies operating around the council estates out of the back of Transit vans! ;)
Some Scots have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol........but I suppose it is the same everywhere. :)
-
Tax on fags.....tax on booze. The poor pay proportionately far more.
Genuinely poor people wouldnt even think about spending their money on booze & fags. ;)
If we weren't so addicted to welfare, and hadn't forgotten the concept of self reliance, we could all pay a lot less in tax. But then the state could be a lot smaller again and we would also need a lot less politicians, quangos, civil servants,so called charities etc. etc. and then millions of people would have to find real jobs.
So, the system suits a hell of a lot of people just the way it is, and us average mugs who go to work and try and rely on our own efforts to keep our heads above water just have to have half our incomes taken away and don't dare complain about it.
I feel most for the working poor who need their piss poor wages topped up by tax credits. In my view if an employer can not survive without handouts from the taxpayer in order to pay it's employees than it is not a viable business.
Many rogue employers take advantage of this. :-\
So cut all such credits, then the employers have to be more realistic.
As an added bonus, the lazy have to get off their arses as well
-
It's £11,500, not that the extra £500 buys much in the way of anything ::)
-
Tax on fags.....tax on booze. The poor pay proportionately far more.
Genuinely poor people wouldnt even think about spending their money on booze & fags. ;)
If we weren't so addicted to welfare, and hadn't forgotten the concept of self reliance, we could all pay a lot less in tax. But then the state could be a lot smaller again and we would also need a lot less politicians, quangos, civil servants,so called charities etc. etc. and then millions of people would have to find real jobs.
So, the system suits a hell of a lot of people just the way it is, and us average mugs who go to work and try and rely on our own efforts to keep our heads above water just have to have half our incomes taken away and don't dare complain about it.
I feel most for the working poor who need their piss poor wages topped up by tax credits. In my view if an employer can not survive without handouts from the taxpayer in order to pay it's employees than it is not a viable business.
Many rogue employers take advantage of this. :-\
So cut all such credits, then the employers have to be more realistic.
As an added bonus, the lazy have to get off their arses as well
I very much doubt such employers would make up the shortfall themselves. They like the idea of employing people, but without the responsibility and cost that goes with it. :-\
-
I feel most for the working poor who need their piss poor wages topped up by tax credits. In my view if an employer can not survive without handouts from the taxpayer in order to pay it's employees than it is not a viable business.
Many rogue employers take advantage of this. :-\
In my opinion it was the introduction of Tax Credits that has led to piss poor wages in the first place and it was more about creating a electorate that is reliant on the state and thus more likely to vote Liebour, than genuinely helping the poor. I used to be a lorryist and in the early 2000's people got paid really good money in the warehouses of the big supermarkets and other big chains, but tax credits and a endless supply of cheap labour from Eastern Europe has meant that most of these jobs are now zero hour contract jobs on minimum wage. :(
The irony that these changes happened under a Labour Government and their Trade Union paymasters! >:(
-
It's £11,500, not that the extra £500 buys much in the way of anything ::)
Just a nice bottle of wine for Lord Opti's dining table. ;D
-
It's £11,500, not that the extra £500 buys much in the way of anything ::)
Just a nice bottle of wine for Lord Opti's dining table. ;D
I'm a 3 bottles for £10 man. :)
-
I feel most for the working poor who need their piss poor wages topped up by tax credits. In my view if an employer can not survive without handouts from the taxpayer in order to pay it's employees than it is not a viable business.
Many rogue employers take advantage of this. :-\
In my opinion it was the introduction of Tax Credits that has led to piss poor wages in the first place and it was more about creating a electorate that is reliant on the state and thus more likely to vote Liebour, than genuinely helping the poor. I used to be a lorryist and in the early 2000's people got paid really good money in the warehouses of the big supermarkets and other big chains, but tax credits and a endless supply of cheap labour from Eastern Europe has meant that most of these jobs are now zero hour contract jobs on minimum wage. :(
The irony that these changes happened under a Labour Government and their Trade Union paymasters! >:(
Nail, head. :y
-
It's £11,500, not that the extra £500 buys much in the way of anything ::)
Just a nice bottle of wine for Lord Opti's dining table. ;D
I'm a 3 bottles for £10 man. :)
Wine is for batty boys.
-
It's £11,500, not that the extra £500 buys much in the way of anything ::)
Just a nice bottle of wine for Lord Opti's dining table. ;D
I'm a 3 bottles for £10 man. :)
See alcohol should be priced according to income. ;) So the poor pay next to opps all to get obliterated, but Lord Opti should pay proportionately more to get smashed! :)
That would be fair..... No? ??? ::) ;D
-
It's £11,500, not that the extra £500 buys much in the way of anything ::)
Just a nice bottle of wine for Lord Opti's dining table. ;D
I'm a 3 bottles for £10 man. :)
You enjoy a fine bottle of Chateau Du Nitromors then M'lud. ;)
-
It's £11,500, not that the extra £500 buys much in the way of anything ::)
Just a nice bottle of wine for Lord Opti's dining table. ;D
I'm a 3 bottles for £10 man. :)
See alcohol should be priced according to income. ;) So the poor pay next to opps all to get obliterated, but Lord Opti should pay proportionately more to get smashed! :)
That would be fair..... No? ??? ::) ;D
I'm more poor than some people think so alcohol should come on a free prescription for me. :)
-
It's £11,500, not that the extra £500 buys much in the way of anything ::)
Just a nice bottle of wine for Lord Opti's dining table. ;D
I'm a 3 bottles for £10 man. :)
You enjoy a fine bottle of Chateau Du Nitromors then M'lud. ;)
Either that or Our Lords wine is made by Sarsons! ;D
-
It's £11,500, not that the extra £500 buys much in the way of anything ::)
Just a nice bottle of wine for Lord Opti's dining table. ;D
I'm a 3 bottles for £10 man. :)
See alcohol should be priced according to income. ;) So the poor pay next to opps all to get obliterated, but Lord Opti should pay proportionately more to get smashed! :)
That would be fair..... No? ??? ::) ;D
I'm more poor than some people think so alcohol should come on a free prescription for me. :)
Now that, to my mind would be progressive! :y
You should write to Nicola Sturgeon M'lud! :)
-
It's £11,500, not that the extra £500 buys much in the way of anything ::)
Just a nice bottle of wine for Lord Opti's dining table. ;D
I'm a 3 bottles for £10 man. :)
You enjoy a fine bottle of Chateau Du Nitromors then M'lud. ;)
Excellent for cleansing the gullet prior to opening up the wine cellar, Mr Rods. :)
-
£11.5k tax allowance is a saving of £2250 on tax which then largely goes on paying your council tax if you live in anything bigger than a matchbox. :o :o :o Another Gordon McRuin tax rise was where he doubled it over only a few years. >:( >:( >:(
Lazy politicians since 1991 have taken the easy approach, (making the public sector more efficient is much more difficult in comparison) on increasing the tax burden EVERY year with no signs of that rate of increase slowing down, They have gone from 35% of GDP to 43%. Some of the changes and increases include fuel and alcohol escalators, tobacco, airfare tax, IPT, CGT, NI and higher levels of income tax.
Where virtually all taxes are now the wrong side of the Laffer curve so if they increase them further people change their spending habits or if a high earner they move to a lower tax jurisdiction. Since Gideon raised VED and stamp duty more expensive new car sales have fallen and fewer older people are downsizing to smaller houses so these are now also the wrong side of the curve and raising less revenue.
Where they are struggling to steal even more of our economic output, the next areas of new taxes will be sugar, fat and anything else considered to be more enjoyable and less good for you than Government standard formula gruel, all different types of packaging to appeal to the tree huggers and finally on any expensive items as an annual percentage value tax, where you have the privilege of owning and using valuable items. This list will include property, cars, paintings, designer watches, jewellery and fashion items, antiques and any other collectables or items of value. There will be an annual allowance of say £100k and the tax will be regressive at say 5%, from £100k to £500k, £500k to £1m 10%, £1m to £2m 15%, £2m+ 25%. If you can't afford the annual percentage value tax then the government will put a Charge Order on them so you pay with interest when you sell it or when you die as part of the tax due on your estate. If the tax owed is equal or greater than its value it automatically passes to the state who auction it so you then only owe any shortfall in the tax. The annual percentage value tax is basically what Liebour and the DimLems have proposed in the past. It will be particularly appealing to the modern Marxist Liebour party as a way of nationalising all private property of any value, by stealth, so it all belongs to the state within a generation or two. Who gets to use what and on how much rent, will then be decided like in the USSR on Liebour party membership and your contribution to the Corbyn/Mcdonnell/McCluskey revolution where the modern way is to get elected and then pull up the democracy drawbridge behind you. Venezeula, Russia and Turkey are three good examples. >:( >:( >:(
-
I read in the paper today (no not the daily fail) that he plans to tax 'one use' plastic products.
That is plastic drinking cups, bottles, takeaway boxes, etc ......
Similar to the 5p plastic bag charge .....
-
I read in the paper today (no not the daily fail) that he plans to tax 'one use' plastic products.
That is plastic drinking cups, bottles, takeaway boxes, etc ......
Similar to the 5p plastic bag charge .....
This is a good thing as we need to stop using cheap single use plastics that end up contaminating our oceans. :y
I know the naysayers will say that Britain doing this will make very little difference, but if we do it then we can take the moral high ground and encourage other countries where chucking rubbish in the local river is routine, to change their habits. ;)
We really need to stop using our oceans as rubbish dumps! >:(
-
I read in the paper today (no not the daily fail) that he plans to tax 'one use' plastic products.
That is plastic drinking cups, bottles, takeaway boxes, etc ......
Similar to the 5p plastic bag charge .....
This is a good thing as we need to stop using cheap single use plastics that end up contaminating our oceans. :y
I know the naysayers will say that Britain doing this will make very little difference, but if we do it then we can take the moral high ground and encourage other countries where chucking rubbish in the local river is routine, to change their habits. ;)
We really need to stop using our oceans as rubbish dumps! >:(
Agreed. The 5p UK charge reduced the purchase of bags by 80%. Good alround unless you actually make bags.
Stop using the oceans as dumping ground. Why not extend that to the land and waterways. Tax the manufacturer to change packaging rather than pass it on to the consumer. Some packaging is obscene in volume and size.
-
Apparently even at the deepest depths of the Pacific marine biologists are finding plastic. :-\
-
I read in the paper today (no not the daily fail) that he plans to tax 'one use' plastic products.
That is plastic drinking cups, bottles, takeaway boxes, etc ......
Similar to the 5p plastic bag charge .....
This is a good thing as we need to stop using cheap single use plastics that end up contaminating our oceans. :y
I know the naysayers will say that Britain doing this will make very little difference, but if we do it then we can take the moral high ground and encourage other countries where chucking rubbish in the local river is routine, to change their habits. ;)
We really need to stop using our oceans as rubbish dumps! >:(
Agreed. The 5p UK charge reduced the purchase of bags by 80%. Good alround unless you actually make bags.
Stop using the oceans as dumping ground. Why not extend that to the land and waterways. Tax the manufacturer to change packaging rather than pass it on to the consumer. Some packaging is obscene in volume and size.
I think that in this day and age all packaging should be recyclable and it should be all be sent for recycling as well. :y Cheap single use plastics should just be banned outright! :y
We used to drink Coke etc from returnable glass bottles and there's no reason why we can't go back to doing that, other than resistance from the big corps like Coke etc. >:(
-
£11.5k tax allowance is a saving of £2250 on tax which then largely goes on paying your council tax if you live in anything bigger than a matchbox. :o :o :o Another Gordon McRuin tax rise was where he doubled it over only a few years. >:( >:( >:(
Lazy politicians since 1991 have taken the easy approach, (making the public sector more efficient is much more difficult in comparison) on increasing the tax burden EVERY year with no signs of that rate of increase slowing down, They have gone from 35% of GDP to 43%. Some of the changes and increases include fuel and alcohol escalators, tobacco, airfare tax, IPT, CGT, NI and higher levels of income tax.
Where virtually all taxes are now the wrong side of the Laffer curve so if they increase them further people change their spending habits or if a high earner they move to a lower tax jurisdiction. Since Gideon raised VED and stamp duty more expensive new car sales have fallen and fewer older people are downsizing to smaller houses so these are now also the wrong side of the curve and raising less revenue.
Where they are struggling to steal even more of our economic output, the next areas of new taxes will be sugar, fat and anything else considered to be more enjoyable and less good for you than Government standard formula gruel, all different types of packaging to appeal to the tree huggers and finally on any expensive items as an annual percentage value tax, where you have the privilege of owning and using valuable items. This list will include property, cars, paintings, designer watches, jewellery and fashion items, antiques and any other collectables or items of value. There will be an annual allowance of say £100k and the tax will be regressive at say 5%, from £100k to £500k, £500k to £1m 10%, £1m to £2m 15%, £2m+ 25%. If you can't afford the annual percentage value tax then the government will put a Charge Order on them so you pay with interest when you sell it or when you die as part of the tax due on your estate. If the tax owed is equal or greater than its value it automatically passes to the state who auction it so you then only owe any shortfall in the tax. The annual percentage value tax is basically what Liebour and the DimLems have proposed in the past. It will be particularly appealing to the modern Marxist Liebour party as a way of nationalising all private property of any value, by stealth, so it all belongs to the state within a generation or two. Who gets to use what and on how much rent, will then be decided like in the USSR on Liebour party membership and your contribution to the Corbyn/Mcdonnell/McCluskey revolution where the modern way is to get elected and then pull up the democracy drawbridge behind you. Venezeula, Russia and Turkey are three good examples. >:( >:( >:(
Here in Euroland, we have had to declare any holding worth more than a total of 50k euros on our tax returns for a few years now. No tax yet but it is only a matter of time. The categories are quite wide so as to encompass anything you have of value. So for example a collection of 10 nice Omegas, a modest boat, a holding of shares, part share in a deceased parents house that you rent out, antique hunting gun collection, bank accounts totalling more than 50k. Worse the penalties for not declaring are punitive. Also no paying cash for things like a secondhand car above a tiny threshold.
-
I read in the paper today (no not the daily fail) that he plans to tax 'one use' plastic products.
That is plastic drinking cups, bottles, takeaway boxes, etc ......
Similar to the 5p plastic bag charge .....
This is a good thing as we need to stop using cheap single use plastics that end up contaminating our oceans. :y
I know the naysayers will say that Britain doing this will make very little difference, but if we do it then we can take the moral high ground and encourage other countries where chucking rubbish in the local river is routine, to change their habits. ;)
We really need to stop using our oceans as rubbish dumps! >:(
Agreed. The 5p UK charge reduced the purchase of bags by 80%. Good alround unless you actually make bags.
Stop using the oceans as dumping ground. Why not extend that to the land and waterways. Tax the manufacturer to change packaging rather than pass it on to the consumer. Some packaging is obscene in volume and size.
I think that in this day and age all packaging should be recyclable and it should be all be sent for recycling as well. :y Cheap single use plastics should just be banned outright! :y
We used to drink Coke etc from returnable glass bottles and there's no reason why we can't go back to doing that, other than resistance from the big corps like Coke etc. >:(
Agreed. We don't have refuse collection in Spain so everything has to be taken to one of the numerous bins in local towns/villages. You soon realise how much you produce . It is easy enough to put your bottles, cardboard, and plastics/cartons in the approriate bins. Even so you see lazy sods that just put it all in the general waste bin or worse throw it out of the car window.
Why cannot superarkets have recycling banks and you take your bottles back and get "your deposit back" auto creditted to your card. Used to work when we were kids in a simpler way
-
This is a good thing as we need to stop using cheap single use plastics that end up contaminating our oceans. :y
Whilst I most certainly am not disagreeing with you, I'd rather see a law whereby the arseholes who are too bone idle to properly dispose of rubbish are shot with no further discussion.
We really, really, really do need to get away from this opps you jack attitude that plaques this country.
-
£11.5k tax allowance is a saving of £2250 on tax which then largely goes on paying your council tax if you live in anything bigger than a matchbox. :o :o :o Another Gordon McRuin tax rise was where he doubled it over only a few years. >:( >:( >:(
Lazy politicians since 1991 have taken the easy approach, (making the public sector more efficient is much more difficult in comparison) on increasing the tax burden EVERY year with no signs of that rate of increase slowing down, They have gone from 35% of GDP to 43%. Some of the changes and increases include fuel and alcohol escalators, tobacco, airfare tax, IPT, CGT, NI and higher levels of income tax.
Where virtually all taxes are now the wrong side of the Laffer curve so if they increase them further people change their spending habits or if a high earner they move to a lower tax jurisdiction. Since Gideon raised VED and stamp duty more expensive new car sales have fallen and fewer older people are downsizing to smaller houses so these are now also the wrong side of the curve and raising less revenue.
Where they are struggling to steal even more of our economic output, the next areas of new taxes will be sugar, fat and anything else considered to be more enjoyable and less good for you than Government standard formula gruel, all different types of packaging to appeal to the tree huggers and finally on any expensive items as an annual percentage value tax, where you have the privilege of owning and using valuable items. This list will include property, cars, paintings, designer watches, jewellery and fashion items, antiques and any other collectables or items of value. There will be an annual allowance of say £100k and the tax will be regressive at say 5%, from £100k to £500k, £500k to £1m 10%, £1m to £2m 15%, £2m+ 25%. If you can't afford the annual percentage value tax then the government will put a Charge Order on them so you pay with interest when you sell it or when you die as part of the tax due on your estate. If the tax owed is equal or greater than its value it automatically passes to the state who auction it so you then only owe any shortfall in the tax. The annual percentage value tax is basically what Liebour and the DimLems have proposed in the past. It will be particularly appealing to the modern Marxist Liebour party as a way of nationalising all private property of any value, by stealth, so it all belongs to the state within a generation or two. Who gets to use what and on how much rent, will then be decided like in the USSR on Liebour party membership and your contribution to the Corbyn/Mcdonnell/McCluskey revolution where the modern way is to get elected and then pull up the democracy drawbridge behind you. Venezeula, Russia and Turkey are three good examples. >:( >:( >:(
Here in Euroland, we have had to declare any holding worth more than a total of 50k euros on our tax returns for a few years now. No tax yet but it is only a matter of time. The categories are quite wide so as to encompass anything you have of value. So for example a collection of 10 nice Omegas, a modest boat, a holding of shares, part share in a deceased parents house that you rent out, antique hunting gun collection, bank accounts totalling more than 50k. Worse the penalties for not declaring are punitive. Also no paying cash for things like a secondhand car above a tiny threshold.
I find that very worrying indeed Varche. Its like an undercover USSR being readied for when they think the time is right to announce that private property is theft. :o
-
This is a good thing as we need to stop using cheap single use plastics that end up contaminating our oceans. :y
Whilst I most certainly am not disagreeing with you, I'd rather see a law whereby the arseholes who are too bone idle to properly dispose of rubbish are shot with no further discussion.
We really, really, really do need to get away from this opps you jack attitude that plaques this country.
Sadly our politicians are far too spineless for your kind of justice, so a tax will have to do I guess. :-\ ::)
But you are right, you go to a McDonalds or KFC and see all the rubbish strewn about in the car park by shitheads who use the drive through, eat their shit in the car and chuck the packaging out the window! >:(
They should have a sniper in a tower with an RPG and everytime he sees a wrapper go out a window, he can execute instant justice! :y
-
Didn’t this start off as budget predictions? Somehow we’ve moved on to exterminating half of the population. Don’t think that will be in the budget ;D
-
I read in the paper today (no not the daily fail) that he plans to tax 'one use' plastic products.
That is plastic drinking cups, bottles, takeaway boxes, etc ......
Similar to the 5p plastic bag charge .....
This is a good thing as we need to stop using cheap single use plastics that end up contaminating our oceans. :y
I know the naysayers will say that Britain doing this will make very little difference, but if we do it then we can take the moral high ground and encourage other countries where chucking rubbish in the local river is routine, to change their habits. ;)
We really need to stop using our oceans as rubbish dumps! >:(
Agreed. The 5p UK charge reduced the purchase of bags by 80%. Good alround unless you actually make bags.
Stop using the oceans as dumping ground. Why not extend that to the land and waterways. Tax the manufacturer to change packaging rather than pass it on to the consumer. Some packaging is obscene in volume and size.
I think that in this day and age all packaging should be recyclable and it should be all be sent for recycling as well. :y Cheap single use plastics should just be banned outright! :y
We used to drink Coke etc from returnable glass bottles and there's no reason why we can't go back to doing that, other than resistance from the big corps like Coke etc. >:(
Agree with all the above comments on the sea being used as a dumping ground, either deliberately or accidentally, for plastics. The amount of plastic in the sea is now a disgrace to the human race and severely damaging the life that lives in that environment, and around it.
Back to glass bottles, and a deposit having a deposit paid on them, like in my childhood, is a great way to go. If collection of them is a problem, as I can see it could be for retailers, then perhaps there could be communal facilities to take them back through, like the recycling centres, with deposits being refunded there. ;)
-
As noble as the idea is, plastic is cheaper and easier to make than glass.
Unless you want/are prepared to pay significantly more for goods, don't expect the status quo to change...
-
As noble as the idea is, plastic is cheaper and easier to make than glass.
It is also much MUCH cheaper for food retailers and filler companies. You have to spend a (comparative) fortune ensuring that no tiny glass shards make it into food containers as they can easily be lethal. Not easy when the stuff is see through and not magnetic. My old employer had had a number of factories that made "food/drink containers and the production floors had to be glass free. Even the windows were removed and replaced with Perspex.
Similarly, every week or so someone turns up with some new product that can "replace plastic" made of bamboo, or toenail clippings or something. But basically this stuff is just see-through and holds a shape. Plastic containers have to have properties around CO2/O2 permeability, drop resistance, levels of uv transmission etc etc.
None of this stuff is insurmountable by any means, but as DG says, you have to put your hand in your pocket.
Food is cheaper and more plentiful than At any point in history (compared to income) and a big part of that situation is down to being able to store food longer by controlling its decay, and plastics are vital for that as things stand
-
As noble as the idea is, plastic is cheaper and easier to make than glass.
It is also much MUCH cheaper for food retailers and filler companies. You have to spend a (comparative) fortune ensuring that no tiny glass shards make it into food containers as they can easily be lethal. Not easy when the stuff is see through and not magnetic. My old employer had had a number of factories that made "food/drink containers and the production floors had to be glass free. Even the windows were removed and replaced with Perspex.
Similarly, every week or so someone turns up with some new product that can "replace plastic" made of bamboo, or toenail clippings or something. But basically this stuff is just see-through and holds a shape. Plastic containers have to have properties around CO2/O2 permeability, drop resistance, levels of uv transmission etc etc.
None of this stuff is insurmountable by any means, but as DG says, you have to put your hand in your pocket.
Food is cheaper and more plentiful than At any point in history (compared to income) and a big part of that situation is down to being able to store food longer by controlling its decay, and plastics are vital for that as things stand
Well said from your experience as we all too often see things from the 'populist' outside and modern food preservation is part of my problem with simplistic solutions to renewable energy. Food we harvest when it is seasonally available and preserve from daily/monthly seasonal shortages through heating, boiling, pasteurizing, freezing, salting, pickling, tinning, reheating, recooking etc., etc., so we can get our daily vital energy intake, every 4 hours from breakfast to lunch and then our evening meal The end result with food is that the EROEI is 10:1 against, so for every calory you consume 10 are used (mainly through fossil fuels) to produce it. Now apply the same efficiency to tree hugger renewables so that ends up from 5 to 20 to 1 with fossil fuel for EROEI to 10 to 1 against and redo the calculation. :o :o :o Can you afford the tree huggers rise from £20-40 per person to £400-1000 per person per week? Now, this is the scary journey that the bint MP from Brighton and many others want to take you on! :o :o :o
-
Thanks for clarifying that, I now know that we'll carry on contaminating our oceans, rivers and environment generally, because it's the cheap and easy option. ::)
I don't consider myself as a lentil munching tree hugger, but I do think that it is vital that we clean up our act and stop polluting this planet of ours in the way that we do. I understand that it entails a massive change in the way we do things, but it needs to happen IMO. :y
-
There's no excuse for dumping shite anywhere... Plenty to be done recycling... We have one bin for card/plastic/metal, one for general rubbish and a paid for one for garden waste... Just been offered a second recycling bin for free too 8) but some councils still insist on 8 or 9 bins for various bits and bobs, so it's no wonder people don't bother :-\
-
Back on topic - I watched McDonnell being interviewed on TV this morning. It was truly scary to hear the man produce a torrent of verbal dysentery with so much conviction.
The scary thing is that young people will listen to this nonsense and believe in it.
-
Thanks for clarifying that, I now know that we'll carry on contaminating our oceans, rivers and environment generally, because it's the cheap and easy option. ::)
I don't consider myself as a lentil munching tree hugger, but I do think that it is vital that we clean up our act and stop polluting this planet of ours in the way that we do. I understand that it entails a massive change in the way we do things, but it needs to happen IMO. :y
Exactly right :y
Although I can see the financial and physical (as an experienced retailer) arguments in favour of using plastics as well explained by DG, jimmy944 and Rod2, surely the wit of man (and women) is such that we CAN come up with a far better solution than filling our seas, which give us life, and landfill sites with non-degradable, un-recyclable, plastics. We just cannot carry on as we are now.
To bring the argument down to whether or not you are a "tree huger" is plain ridiculous. All of us have a vested interest in this planet and if we can improve something that is damaging our environment why not do it? Everything now is expected to be "on the cheap", no matter what the long term consequences will be. There is no question that if those who can do not come up with a solution to greatly improve plastic formulation so it can be recyclable, or quickly breaks down, and spread the educated word that to throw plastics away into rivers and the sea is unacceptable, eventually killing off the human race, if nothing else does, then we are neglecting something we MUST do. Yes, it may well result in extra costs if the producers of plastics cannot come up with the right solutions, but the alternatives could be far more expensive!
I recycle as much as I can, but I am angry, and have written to the authorities including my MP, to say so that I have no facilities for placing the plastics into the recycling system. If you live in a house then the waste carts do a recyclable waste run that includes plastics, but when you live in blocks of flats with communal waste bins there is NO recycling possibilities for anyone without a car, or who cannot store waste in their flat. I take my collected recycling to a Kent County Council recycling centre, run by BIFFA, the same people who run the waste carts, but there you cannot place plastics into any bins, apart from the general waste one that goes to landfill.
This is as a society we have to change, so that all plastics can be recycled, and there are heavy penalties for any firm producing recyclable plastic packaging, and any individual or firm who dispose of recyclable plastics improperly.
Once more, it is not all down to the feelings or beliefs of tree huger's, or some form of latter day hippy's, or even some national / international conspiracy to defraud us all of our money. No, it is down to us all doing the right thing to stop us clogging up our poor planet that our poor grand children and great grand children will have to live on.
Quote, ''We don't inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children." ;)
-
Back on topic - I watched McDonnell being interviewed on TV this morning. It was truly scary to hear the man produce a torrent of verbal dysentery with so much conviction.
The scary thing is that young people will listen to this nonsense and believe in it.
That man is the biggest threat to Britain's future in my opinion and I do not understand why the Tories arn't relentlessly attacking him on his previous record, when he was Finance Chief at the old Greater London Council and was sacked by Ken Livingston for his incompetence and nearly bankrupting London!! >:(
As you rightly say it's scary that people believe the shite he spouts! :o ::)
-
Back on topic - I watched McDonnell being interviewed on TV this morning. It was truly scary to hear the man produce a torrent of verbal dysentery with so much conviction.
The scary thing is that young people will listen to this nonsense and believe in it.
That man is the biggest threat to Britain's future in my opinion and I do not understand why the Tories arn't relentlessly attacking him on his previous record, when he was Finance Chief at the old Greater London Council and was sacked by Ken Livingston for his incompetence and nearly bankrupting London!! >:(
As you rightly say it's scary that people believe the shite he spouts! :o ::)
He must have been woefully shocking for Red Ken to have noticed :o
-
Rumour has it he was to extreme for Ken. :o ;D
If we hadn't started going all soft, fluffy and Liberal we would still have the death penalty for treason, and him, Corbyn and many of their friends could swing in the breeze on the end of a rope on Parliament square . 8)
-
I'm surprised that Derek Hatton hasn't crawled out from under his stone to join in with the Corbynistas. ::)
-
Rumour has it he was to extreme for Ken. :o ;D
If we hadn't started going all soft, fluffy and Liberal we would still have the death penalty for treason, and him, Corbyn and many of their friends could swing in the breeze on the end of a rope on Parliament square . 8)
Mr Bitz....do you spend a lot of time with TB? ::) ;) :D :D
-
Yes indeed. And OOF is just a cover for to help organise the forthcoming right wing revolution. ;) :D
I think my cull list is actually longer than his though. ;D
-
Yes indeed. And OOF is just a cover for to help organise the forthcoming right wing revolution. ;) :D
I think my cull list is actually longer than his though. ;D
Start with STMO. He is old and infirm so won't be missed. :)
-
Yes indeed. And OOF is just a cover for to help organise the forthcoming right wing revolution. ;) :D
I think my cull list is actually longer than his though. ;D
Start with STMO. He is old and infirm so won't be missed. :)
You’d have to get past my defences first, Mr Optimist. :)
-
Yes indeed. And OOF is just a cover for to help organise the forthcoming right wing revolution. ;) :D
I think my cull list is actually longer than his though. ;D
Start with STMO. He is old and infirm so won't be missed. :)
He is a key part of the conspiracy. He keeps you lot amused while the really serious stuff is going on behind the scenes. :D
-
Yes indeed. And OOF is just a cover for to help organise the forthcoming right wing revolution. ;) :D
I think my cull list is actually longer than his though. ;D
Start with STMO. He is old and infirm so won't be missed. :)
He is a key part of the conspiracy. He keeps you lot amused while the really serious stuff is going on behind the scenes. :D
Ah, I see, a cover up just like Roswell. :)
-
Yes indeed. And OOF is just a cover for to help organise the forthcoming right wing revolution. ;) :D
I think my cull list is actually longer than his though. ;D
Start with STMO. He is old and infirm so won't be missed. :)
You’d have to get past my defences first, Mr Optimist. :)
Without you around to protect it I'm guessing your whippet will be turned into sausages to feed the poor. :)
-
I can guarantee when going shopping on a Saturday or Sunday morning that two car parks I cycle past will be full of McaccyD, KFC and discarded pizza boxes as the local chavs in their Chavmobile's congregate in both of them, the only doughnuts are the black circles in the bigger of the car parks. Rather than walk 2m and put the packaging in the bin they are just thrown out of the window. Chavtastic. >:( >:( >:(
Last Monday week I had been to meeting in London and did not get back to Sandhurst station until 23:40 as I was walking home I could hear the bom, bom bom from an approaching Chavmobile with the sound of breaking glass and laughter as they threw their empty offie bottles out of windows onto the road, Chavtastic. >:( >:( >:(
A major pollution and environmental disaster are plastic microbeads added to shower-gel, shampoo. toothpaste and cosmetics where they are washed into our drainage systems and from the sewage farms into our rivers and oceans and marine life eat them as food. Apart from Snowflake vanity what purpose do they serve and why haven't they been totally banned?
Much of the use of plastic packaging in groceries is as anti-tamper safety, including plastic seals on glass bottles where sickos and blackmailers like adding broken glass and dangerous chemicals to our food. What a lovely swell society we live in. >:( >:( >:(
Caroline Lucus is regularly criticized for jetting all over the world, so the tree huggers can sniff each other's butts and talk about how to save the planet from fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions. Now to save all these air miles, with VoIP communications why doesn't somebody invent a video conferencing system and call it something fancy like Skype?
What really gets up my nose with tree huggers is their self-righteous hypocrisy. A vegan family will tell all the meat-eaters around them how they are saving the planet with their lifestyle while they wait for their family holiday flight to Bali. :o :o :o
-
Yes indeed. And OOF is just a cover for to help organise the forthcoming right wing revolution. ;) :D
I think my cull list is actually longer than his though. ;D
Start with STMO. He is old and infirm so won't be missed. :)
You’d have to get past my defences first, Mr Optimist. :)
Without you around to protect it I'm guessing your whippet will be turned into sausages to feed the poor. :)
It would cut out 90% of Barnley's pollution and waste caused by whippet diarrhoea. ::) ::) ::)
-
a video conferencing system and call it something fancy like Skype?
Because it is utterly, utterly, utterly shite. And that's giving shite a bad name. Did I mention its utter shite?
Guess what shite system I have to use every single poxy day. Did I mention its utter shite.
Its one saving grace is its easy, hence all the mongs use it, even though its utter shite. Hence, I end up having to use it. And its shite.
For those in any doubt, its utter shite.
-
Define shite. ???
;D ;D ;D ;D :P
-
Glad i don,t use Stiteskype then ;D ;D ;D
-
a video conferencing system and call it something fancy like Skype?
Because it is utterly, utterly, utterly shite. And that's giving shite a bad name. Did I mention its utter shite?
Guess what shite system I have to use every single poxy day. Did I mention its utter shite.
Its one saving grace is its easy, hence all the mongs use it, even though its utter shite. Hence, I end up having to use it. And its shite.
For those in any doubt, its utter shite.
Totally agree with you on that where I use it every day. Got much, much worse since being taken over by Microsh*t for $4bn and its main function now is as an advertising platform which does VoIP things when it feels like it may be and it has had a 'simplified' corporate populist makeover to make the easy to use now the awkward arse about face Microsh*t way. >:( >:( >:(
-
I will add that to my budget forecast item. Improved vodeo conferencing.
We will call it facetime or similar wrapped up in techno babble.
I see my housing and nhs forecasts were about right.
-
I will add that to my budget forecast item. Improved vodeo conferencing.
We will call it facetime or similar wrapped up in techno babble.
I see my housing and nhs forecasts were about right.
Except for the nhs bit.
-
Ah we will habeto wait till the day. We are all going to be gobsmacked at how much the nhs will get.... :o
-
I think he needs to made a bold statement about preparing for No Deal BREXIT! :)
Absolutely. In the absence of any appetite for sensible negotiations, time to start sending some signals. :y
But spreadsheet Phil doesn't intend for us to leave at all.
He does realise that invoking article 50 is irreversible... :o
What a shame :)