Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (131 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

The money waste is the same in any field with huge amounts of money though. People forget that.

Accountants, admin, Consultancy, lawyers etc, all want a huge chunk of change in any field with money for doing very little. Most of them, have "friends" in politics too.

Reminds me of an old joke:

An MP wants his local park fence painted and asks his assistant for quotes.
The assistant manages to get three different painters to quote him. The first painter says he'll do it for £250, the second painter says £500, but the third painter says £2000.

Shocked, the assistant asks "how can you justify this? The first guy quoted me just £250? "
The third painter replies, "yes, but, give me £2000 and I'll pay the first painter £250, and we'll split the rest between us"

You just described the business model of most privatised services.

 

---

[David O'Day]

According to Hancock no other country has the ability to locate people with different variants.

Lying c**t

 

[clint van damme]

I agree.

There are plenty of people who have had to battle through, for example a carer on minimum wage who doesn't get paid for the time driving between calls.

Maybe if Matt Hancock giving multi million PPE contracts to the landlord of his local inspired as much anger in some people as nurses getting 1 percent there might be enough money for them as well.

 

[clint van damme]

I mentioned carers, the ones who earn literally fuck all on minimum wage.
What about people who have kept small shops running in communities and also people in supermarkets getting shit all day from trampy pricks.
What about people who have completely lost their jobs?
What about people who's businesses have been fucked over entirely?

What about them?
You're pitting working class people against each other and doing the Tories work for them.

Nearly 40 billion on a track and trace that's useless, I wonder how many of the above that could of helped?

Or the 40 million that Robert Jenricks mates pocketed thanks to his slight of hand?

Or how about we put the minimum wage up so supermarkets pay more and our taxes on spent on tax credit for their employees while they make huge profit?

 

[shmmeee]

Are we really doing “anyone not at the absolute bottom should just shut up and doff their cap” in 2021?

Yes all these people are underpaid. Virtually everyone in the country is. Stop voting for extremist morons who think you motivate poor people by making them poorer and have some 1970s view of workplace progression.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Also, if nurses have it so great there's a massive shortage. Sign yourself up.

 

[SG21]

Are we really doing “anyone not at the absolute bottom should just shut up and doff their cap” in 2021?

Yes all these people are underpaid. Virtually everyone in the country is. Stop voting for extremist morons who think you motivate poor people by making them poorer and have some 1970s view of workplace progression.

The whole argument of "I'm not getting a payrise" is BS too. So? Are people that childish that unless they get one too, no one else can do well? Nurses/doctors etc work damn hard and deserve better treatment. This last year they've lost friends, family, worked awful hours and I dread to think of the mental damage seeing so many people die will do to them. They deserve to be treated with the upmost repect and at least give them what they deserve.

 

[Ian1779]

When the government have borrowed 92% of their Cov-ID debt from themselves, its patently clear than the ‘affordability’ line is bollocks. It’s about time people realised that we aren’t borrowing like we’ve paid for it on MasterCard.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Yes, it is disgusting.

Just a horrible attitude, it's proper Race to the Bottom stuff.

'I don't have this so he shouldn't have it either.'

Perfectly sums up the attitude in this country and explains why it's such a shit hole these days.

I think the thing that perfectly sums up the attitude of how this country works and who it's run for is more:
"I have this but no-one else should have it".

 

[SG21]

All that money knowingly wasted, yet won't help the NHS out who dug him out of the hole to begin with. The state of the gov.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Less money in the pocket of any worker = reduced demand for goods and services in the private sector. It really is that simple.

Pay freezes / stagnation in the public sector only gives private sector employers the ammunition to continue under paying staff, it's a race to the bottom.

 

[Ian1779]

Can you show me the Anneliese Dodds quote in the correct context please?

Think it’s pretty clear they support the income tax freeze here....

 

[shmmeee]

Very weird to see left wing people agreeing with Guido Fawkes and the TPA that personal allowance raises are progressive.

The IFS disagrees, back in 2012 when they started with this policy they produced this graph of impact across income distributions:

A £10,000 personal allowance: who would benefit, and would it boost the economy? | Institute for Fiscal Studies

The Government has an ambition to increase the income tax personal allowance to £10,000 by the end of this Parliament. James Browne investigates how much it would cost the Government to reach this ambition, who would benefit and what the economic impact might be.

www.ifs.org.uk

tldr; it doesn’t help people earning below the allowance already, and benefits double income households. Because their wages are higher higher earners save more in cash terms by a lot than low earners.

It’s not a tax break for nurses. It’s a tax break for NHS Trust Executives.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Very weird to see left wing people agreeing with Guido Fawkes and the TPA that personal allowance raises are progressive.

The IFS disagrees, back in 2012 when they started with this policy they produced this graph of impact across income distributions:

View attachment 19020

A £10,000 personal allowance: who would benefit, and would it boost the economy? | Institute for Fiscal Studies

The Government has an ambition to increase the income tax personal allowance to £10,000 by the end of this Parliament. James Browne investigates how much it would cost the Government to reach this ambition, who would benefit and what the economic impact might be.

www.ifs.org.uk

tldr; it doesn’t help people earning below the allowance already, and benefits double income households. Because their wages are higher higher earners save more in cash terms by a lot than low earners.

It’s not a tax break for nurses. It’s a tax break for NHS Trust Executives.

Quoting the IFS to support your argument? Their entire output is telling the govt to spend less

Let's see the chart showing the impact of not doing it and the gains for low paid workers

 

[shmmeee]

Quoting the IFS to support your argument? Their entire output is telling the govt to spend less

Do you disagree with the logic they’re putting forward?

If you want to spend money to support nurses, give them a pay rise. If you want to help low earners, increase benefits. This policy disproportionately helps the better off and that’s why Labour support not prioritising it. It’s also why it was a Tory policy to start with.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Numbers were late yesterday but looking good again

Just under 6k confirmed cases (off almost a million tests). Down from 8.5k last Friday

Vaccinations were 376k first dose and 70k second

236 deaths. PHE (England only) covid inpatients 8.5k

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Numbers were late yesterday but looking good again

Just under 6k confirmed cases (off almost a million tests). Down from 8.5k last Friday

Vaccinations were 376k first dose and 70k second

236 deaths. PHE (England only) covid inpatients 8.5k

Why are the 1m tests for people with symptoms? Seems pretty wasteful

 

[shmmeee]

Good to see the vaccine numbers back up after the lull.

 

[Ian1779]

Very weird to see left wing people agreeing with Guido Fawkes and the TPA that personal allowance raises are progressive.

The IFS disagrees, back in 2012 when they started with this policy they produced this graph of impact across income distributions:

View attachment 19020

A £10,000 personal allowance: who would benefit, and would it boost the economy? | Institute for Fiscal Studies

The Government has an ambition to increase the income tax personal allowance to £10,000 by the end of this Parliament. James Browne investigates how much it would cost the Government to reach this ambition, who would benefit and what the economic impact might be.

www.ifs.org.uk

tldr; it doesn’t help people earning below the allowance already, and benefits double income households. Because their wages are higher higher earners save more in cash terms by a lot than low earners.

It’s not a tax break for nurses. It’s a tax break for NHS Trust Executives.

It might not be anywhere near as progressive as a pay rise for sure - but as part as on overall package it’s still important. You can guarantee that the essential things in lower income families like rent and utilities won’t be frozen.. which in this demographic will account for huge proportion of spend.
Where you may argue the benefit is disproportionate - it doesn’t really account for how it is used. Lower income families will use the money to pay for essential things... higher income families are more likely to put it in savings for example.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Why are the 1m tests for people with symptoms? Seems pretty wasteful

Who knows, might be part of return of schools maybe Pete.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Good to see the vaccine numbers back up after the lull.

Yeah, second doses are increasing but total numbers have been down a bit. Mentioned earlier in the week that, supplies permitting, they are expecting to really ramp up vaccines from 15 March. Fingers crossed

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Yeah, second doses are increasing but total numbers have been down a bit. Mentioned earlier in the week that, supplies permitting, they are expecting to really ramp up vaccines from 15 March. Fingers crossed

Nurses should go on a work to rule

 

[David O'Day]

It might not be anywhere near as progressive as a pay rise for sure - but as part as on overall package it’s still important. You can guarantee that the essential things in lower income families like rent and utilities won’t be frozen.. which in this demographic will account for huge proportion of spend.
Where you may argue the benefit is disproportionate - it doesn’t really account for how it is used. Lower income families will use the money to pay for essential things... higher income families are more likely to put it in savings for example.

Isn't that the point that Dodds was making? If you couple a threshold freeze with measures to help the poorest and mitigate the increase intheir taxes then that is progressive?

At the moment it is going to yes hurt the poorest but that is because there are no measures to mitigate the effects. Mitigate them and it will in the richest far more.

 

[Ian1779]

Isn't that the point that Dodds was making? If you couple a threshold freeze with measures to help the poorest and mitigate the increase intheir taxes then that is progressive?

At the moment it is going to yes hurt the poorest but that is because there are no measures to mitigate the effects. Mitigate them and it will in the richest far more.

If she’s making that point she’s not doing a great job articulating it. If you watch that in conjunction with her media appearances in the last 7 days you will pick out that she’s strongly against a rise in corporation tax and ambivalent at best on the rest. We’ve listened to arguments on here about how the general public aren’t interested in the nuances of politics in the same way that we might look at it.... so how did that end up being the overall picture that was portrayed?

 

[shmmeee]

It might not be anywhere near as progressive as a pay rise for sure - but as part as on overall package it’s still important. You can guarantee that the essential things in lower income families like rent and utilities won’t be frozen.. which in this demographic will account for huge proportion of spend.
Where you may argue the benefit is disproportionate - it doesn’t really account for how it is used. Lower income families will use the money to pay for essential things... higher income families are more likely to put it in savings for example.

Giving away the most cash to the richest half of society, nothing to the very poorest, and a small amount to the next poorest. Isn’t progressive. Full stop.

That’s like saying corporate tax cuts really help Janet the hairdresser so it’s OK if Amazon avoid their tax bill. Government resource is limited and there’s better places to spend the money than tax cuts for the middle classes, most of whom have spent the pandemic in relative physical and economic safety.

You’re literally only making this argument because Starmer is making the opposite one. It’s an argument never used by the left before, that’s why it was a flagship Tory policy. What is even going on? If Starmer comes out for inheritance tax will you be against that too?

 

[David O'Day]

If she’s making that point she’s not doing a great job articulating it. If you watch that in conjunction with her media appearances in the last 7 days you will pick out that she’s strongly against a rise in corporation tax and ambivalent at best on the rest. We’ve listened to arguments on here about how the general public aren’t interested in the nuances of politics in the same way that we might look at it.... so how did that end up being the overall picture that was portrayed?

She does say in the interview linked to on here that in principle she is nit against it but it should be part of a package that helps the people effected by it at the bottom end.

Also they oppose a rise in CT now as everyone should. No tax rises should happen in a recession.

 

[shmmeee]

If you want to raise anything, raise CGT after the crazy year we’ve had with stock and crypto.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

If you want to raise anything, raise CGT after the crazy year we’ve had with stock and crypto.

Yep Robin Hood tax absolutely

 

[Ian1779]

Giving away the most cash to the richest half of society, nothing to the very poorest, and a small amount to the next poorest. Isn’t progressive. Full stop.

That’s like saying corporate tax cuts really help Janet the hairdresser so it’s OK if Amazon avoid their tax bill. Government resource is limited and there’s better places to spend the money than tax cuts for the middle classes, most of whom have spent the pandemic in relative physical and economic safety.

You’re literally only making this argument because Starmer is making the opposite one. It’s an argument never used by the left before, that’s why it was a flagship Tory policy. What is even going on? If Starmer comes out for inheritance tax will you be against that too?

And I could say you are making the argument because you are falling into line behind Starmer. This kind of boils down to the same thing. Those who have profited massively from the pandemic have yet again got away with paying nothing back into the system. The people that have struggled the most and will continue to struggle have got nothing from the system.
Even after a world and life-changing event the same shit system remains.

 

[Ian1779]

She does say in the interview linked to on here that in principle she is nit against it but it should be part of a package that helps the people effected by it at the bottom end.

Also they oppose a rise in CT now as everyone should. No tax rises should happen in a recession.

The reason you shouldn’t raise CT on profits over a certain amount is that huge companies will make cost savings (staffing, pay etc) to maintain these absurd profits, which in turn negatively impacts I get that. But how the fuck did we get to this point?

 

[shmmeee]

And I could say you are making the argument because you are falling into line behind Starmer. This kind of boils down to the same thing. Those who have profited massively from the pandemic have yet again got away with paying nothing back into the system. The people that have struggled the most and will continue to struggle have got nothing from the system.
Even after a world and life-changing event the same shit system remains.

You could. But you’d be ignoring the fact that every time the Tories suggest raising the threshold people on the left point out it’s a tax cut for the middle class. Every time until Starmer said it.

You realise our 2019 manifesto actually wanted to phase out the income tax threshold for higher earners and didn’t propose increasing it for others?

Corbyn the red Tory clearly.

 

[skybluetony176]

BREAKING: Court Order shows Boris Johnson misled Parliament over Covid contracts - Good Law Project

3 days after the High Court ruled Government had acted unlawfully by failing to publish Covid contracts, Boris Johnson stood up in the House of Commons and reassured MPs and the public that all Covid-related contracts were “on the record”. However, the final Order handed down by the Judge today...

goodlawproject.org

 

[David O'Day]

The reason you shouldn’t raise CT on profits over a certain amount is that huge companies will make cost savings (staffing, pay etc) to maintain these absurd profits, which in turn negatively impacts I get that. But how the fuck did we get to this point?

Late era capitalism

 

[CCFCSteve]

The reason you shouldn’t raise CT on profits over a certain amount is that huge companies will make cost savings (staffing, pay etc) to maintain these absurd profits, which in turn negatively impacts I get that. But how the fuck did we get to this point?

I’ve stayed out of the economic arguments on this thread but I really don’t think this is correct Ian and also, what’s the choice ?! Nobody wants more austerity but then when increases of the only progressive/fairest forms of significant taxation ie CT and income tax, which are based on if you are doing better you pay more, there’s still grumbles.

They’ve delayed its implementation for a couple of years, thrown a load more cash at struggling businesses, tried to keep smallest/most businesses out of the rise and also tried to offer significant incentives around investment/apprentices etc in the meantime. Companies that have struggled during Covid can also carry back losses for longer so will further minimise taxable profits in 2023/4

Most people and businesses don’t want to pay more tax but a majority will accept under the current circumstances this is probably the fairest solution (I would’ve supported some kind of new wealth or digital tax in principle but wouldn’t be easy to implement - amazon, tech etc don’t pay tax to anyone - this needs addressing internationally)

 

[Ian1779]

I’ve stayed out of the economic arguments on this thread but I really don’t think this is correct Ian and also, what’s the choice ?! Nobody wants more austerity but then when increases of the only progressive/fairest forms of significant taxation ie CT and income tax, which are based on if you are doing better you pay more, there’s still grumbles.

They’ve delayed its implementation for a couple of years, thrown a load more cash at struggling businesses, tried to keep smallest/most businesses out of the rise and also tried to offer significant incentives around investment/apprentices etc in the meantime. Companies that have struggled during Covid can also carry back losses for longer so will further minimise taxable profits in 2023/4

Most people and businesses don’t want to pay more tax but a majority will accept under the current circumstances this is probably the fairest solution (I would’ve supported some kind of new wealth or digital tax in principle but wouldn’t be easy to implement - amazon, tech etc don’t pay tax to anyone - this needs addressing internationally)

Austerity is a political choice - it was then and it will be in the future.
And as I’ve said earlier, when the government owes 92% of its Cov-ID borrowing to itself... this idea of having to pay it back is not the same anymore.