shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You just described the business model of most privatised services.
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"
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.
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?
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.
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.
Think it’s pretty clear they support the income tax freeze here....Can you show me the Anneliese Dodds quote in the correct context please?
Quoting the IFS to support your argument? Their entire output is telling the govt to spend lessVery 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
Why are the 1m tests for people with symptoms? Seems pretty wastefulNumbers 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
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.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.
Why are the 1m tests for people with symptoms? Seems pretty wasteful
Good to see the vaccine numbers back up after the lull.
Nurses should go on a work to ruleYeah, 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
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.
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?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.
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.
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?
Yep Robin Hood tax absolutelyIf you want to raise anything, raise CGT after the crazy year we’ve had with stock and crypto.
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.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?
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?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.
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.
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?
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?
Austerity is a political choice - it was then and it will be in the future.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)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?