At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked? Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervened in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumably
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.
If you bother to talk to some actual teachers, the number of children with undiagnosed, untreated SEND issues is rather large.
The “over diagnosis” thing is a pile of shit.
It's possible for both things to be true.
The healthcare, education and benefits systems (among others) regularly see people who are gaming the system *and* those who are missing out. Seen a lot of it in the charity sector.
Twas always thus, and is a product of the range of human personality types as much as anything.
It’s more, as with my father in hospital, knowing how to get ones due. If we had sat there all nice and polite, he would have died from negligence and lack of care.
Indeed. Some folks take stoicism to a ludicrous extreme and don't want to make a fuss even though it's patently obvious that they should.
Others make a racket, get a result, and continue making a racket long after they've been recompensed, because it works.
You see it in the workplace too - with pay increase requests, expenses claims and everything else. Big divide between the pushy and the undemanding.
At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked? Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".
Thing is most pensioners as they age eat much less
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked? Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervened in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell
But some on here argue that your cardiologist and his team are "unproductive" because they get their pay (especially the team members lower down the ladder) from tax revenue rather than being paid by OCP.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumably
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.
If you bother to talk to some actual teachers, the number of children with undiagnosed, untreated SEND issues is rather large.
The “over diagnosis” thing is a pile of shit.
It's possible for both things to be true.
The healthcare, education and benefits systems (among others) regularly see people who are gaming the system *and* those who are missing out. Seen a lot of it in the charity sector.
Twas always thus, and is a product of the range of human personality types as much as anything.
It’s more, as with my father in hospital, knowing how to get ones due. If we had sat there all nice and polite, he would have died from negligence and lack of care.
Indeed. Some folks take stoicism to a ludicrous extreme and don't want to make a fuss even though it's patently obvious that they should.
Others make a racket, get a result, and continue making a racket long after they've been recompensed, because it works.
You see it in the workplace too - with pay increase requests, expenses claims and everything else. Big divide between the pushy and the undemanding.
well quite - how else do you explain the (lib dem especially) sympathy for the WASPI women?
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked? Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".
My mother came to the impression that they were implementing such a policy aleeady when she ras being dicked about by the NHS being pdssed between outpatient departments at different hospitals at 3 month intervals.
A phone call to Nuffield later and she was in to see a specialist in a week and in for Day Surgery with general anaesthetic within 3 weeks. Cost about the same as supply and install a gas boiler.
At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked? Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervened in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell
But some on here argue that your cardiologist and his team are "unproductive" because they get their pay (especially the team members lower down the ladder) from tax revenue rather than being paid by OCP.
For me, RR reported a £22bn black hole - I am not clear whether that is per annum or one-off or a mix. But 5.5bn this year and 8bn next year looks like there is a lot still to come.
The COVID Corruption Commission will also be interesting - how much is that supposed to recover: 10s of millions, 100s of millions, or billions?
They can start with Michelle Mone.
Talking of La Mone, the "save money" justification for Reforming the Lords was a bit weak - it runs very effectively on a shoestring compared to the Commons.
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
or maybe those on benefits just maybe get a job?
Isn't that what I just said?
well the you woudl not have to spend on benefits and give tax cuts -plenty of people have not worked ever who are capable
At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked? Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervened in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell
But some on here argue that your cardiologist and his team are "unproductive" because they get their pay (especially the team members lower down the ladder) from tax revenue rather than being paid by OCP.
They are in fiscal terms.
How many times do I have to point out that unless private enterprises and their employees put money into the treasury in the first place there is no money to pay state employees.
Tax the private sector too much to pay for too big a state sector and they work less or relocate abroad and the public sector implodes.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
or maybe those on benefits just maybe get a job?
Isn't that what I just said?
well the you woudl not have to spend on benefits and give tax cuts -plenty of people have not worked ever who are capable
That doesn't match the data at all.
Our unemployment rate is very low, the overwhelming majority of people on benefits are over 65, not working age people who aren't working.
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked? Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervened in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell
Quite so (I did say those ... for whom ..., not all).
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
Point of order. Police and Fire paid by council tax.
I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."
He is a refugee now.
An illegal immigrant to France or Belgium. Do they have the equivalent of Rwanda?
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
Point of order. Police and Fire paid by council tax.
Further point of order: much of LA expenditure is from central government.
At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked? Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervened in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell
But some on here argue that your cardiologist and his team are "unproductive" because they get their pay (especially the team members lower down the ladder) from tax revenue rather than being paid by OCP.
They are in fiscal terms.
We'll have to agree to disagree. You'd arguably pay more for a worse service from OCP.
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."
I’m sure the same people supporting the ‘whole truth five’ will also support ‘our tommeh’ as a victim.
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
So anyone could go along to their house and threaten to set fire to it, and then charge them for putting it out? Ditto having your wallet stolen. Very 18th century.
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumably
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.
If you bother to talk to some actual teachers, the number of children with undiagnosed, untreated SEND issues is rather large.
The “over diagnosis” thing is a pile of shit.
It's possible for both things to be true.
The healthcare, education and benefits systems (among others) regularly see people who are gaming the system *and* those who are missing out. Seen a lot of it in the charity sector.
Twas always thus, and is a product of the range of human personality types as much as anything.
It’s more, as with my father in hospital, knowing how to get ones due. If we had sat there all nice and polite, he would have died from negligence and lack of care.
Indeed. Some folks take stoicism to a ludicrous extreme and don't want to make a fuss even though it's patently obvious that they should.
Others make a racket, get a result, and continue making a racket long after they've been recompensed, because it works.
You see it in the workplace too - with pay increase requests, expenses claims and everything else. Big divide between the pushy and the undemanding.
well quite - how else do you explain the (lib dem especially) sympathy for the WASPI women?
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
or maybe those on benefits just maybe get a job?
Isn't that what I just said?
well the you woudl not have to spend on benefits and give tax cuts -plenty of people have not worked ever who are capable
That doesn't match the data at all.
Our unemployment rate is very low, the overwhelming majority of people on benefits are over 65, not working age people who aren't working.
Our real unemployment rate is about six million (those working less than 30 hours aa week and receiving state benefits).
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
Point of order. Police and Fire paid by council tax.
Not all local government costs are funded from council tax, only around 60%.
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
So anyone could go along to their house and threaten to set fire to it, and then charge them for putting it out? Ditto having your wallet stolen. Very 18th century.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
or maybe those on benefits just maybe get a job?
Isn't that what I just said?
well the you woudl not have to spend on benefits and give tax cuts -plenty of people have not worked ever who are capable
That doesn't match the data at all.
Our unemployment rate is very low, the overwhelming majority of people on benefits are over 65, not working age people who aren't working.
unemployment rates are low because a lot more are on incapacity benefit
At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked? Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervened in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell
But some on here argue that your cardiologist and his team are "unproductive" because they get their pay (especially the team members lower down the ladder) from tax revenue rather than being paid by OCP.
They are in fiscal terms.
We'll have to agree to disagree. You'd arguably pay more for a worse service from OCP.
I dont doubt that. The point I am trying to make is that the state is trying to do far too much and throttling its sources of revenue by overtaxing and regulating them as a result.
At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked? Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.
They don't pay any net tax, they just receive money net of the "tax" amount from the treasury.
Without the private sector actually putting money into the treasury in the first place, there isn't any money to pay doctors.
Ah so a bone idle zillionaire playboy who does nothing but spend huge sums on vatable luxury goods is a mega producer and net £££ contributor to society then.🤦♂️
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."
Somewhat ironic he will probably have to see out his days in some third world shit hole that will be rammed to the gunnels with FOREIGNERS. Oh wait! On his terms he'll be the FOREIGNER.
Anywhere you can bet on which year the IMF will be called in and order savage Greek type cuts.
(Upon which SKS/Reeves will blame the Tories for leaving them a mess and say the nasty bankers at the IMF made us do the cuts).
I may be tempting fate but the government gilts and bonds markets haven't careered down the ravine like they did in 2022 under a - checks notes- Conservative Government, yet.
It won't happen yet.
When the benefits and other spending bills go up a result of 5%+pay/pension/benefits rises and the tax take goes down because businesses relocate abroad due to too much tax or workers work less or not at all for the same reason, then the merde will hit the fan.
If pension tax relief at 40% goes, I am handing in my notice and retiring as the difference between earnings and early pension just won't be worth the bother.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumably
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.
If you bother to talk to some actual teachers, the number of children with undiagnosed, untreated SEND issues is rather large.
The “over diagnosis” thing is a pile of shit.
It's possible for both things to be true.
The healthcare, education and benefits systems (among others) regularly see people who are gaming the system *and* those who are missing out. Seen a lot of it in the charity sector.
Twas always thus, and is a product of the range of human personality types as much as anything.
It’s more, as with my father in hospital, knowing how to get ones due. If we had sat there all nice and polite, he would have died from negligence and lack of care.
Indeed. Some folks take stoicism to a ludicrous extreme and don't want to make a fuss even though it's patently obvious that they should.
Others make a racket, get a result, and continue making a racket long after they've been recompensed, because it works.
You see it in the workplace too - with pay increase requests, expenses claims and everything else. Big divide between the pushy and the undemanding.
And guess which group tends to be the least pushy? Yes, children, the worst off.
Looking at the patients around my father, you could see who was going to make it. The ones with family that have a damn and knew how to push. One chap in the next bed just faded away, steadily. All polite and unvisited….
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
Point of order. Police and Fire paid by council tax.
Not all local government costs are funded from council tax, only around 60%.
Winter fuel allowance scrapped for those not getting credits.
Damn, that’s bad news for Emirates airline, at least as far as my parents are concerned. They’ve used their WFA to fly somewhere warmer for the past few years.
Interesting to check the life-cycle analysis on how many days one has to jet off somewhere warm to reduce carbon emissions compared to staying in a typical UK home in winter.
I suspect it might be a one-way ticket is required! A train or coach to south of France could be interesting though.
ETA: this website quotes 2.2 tonnes/year for a domestic gas boiler, which they quote as 7 flights from London to NY. If we guess half of that is winter heat then a long stay could start to make sense. London to Paris by train is 22kg return accoridng to seat 61 so, if we guess Marseille is about 3-4 times that, you'd only need to stay way for maybe about a week if my sums are right to break even on CO2.
It’s more than half: the majority of our bill is heating. We had a smart meter installed at the end of Jan - typical summer usage is 13m^3 / month. February? 87 m^3. January was colder. March was 80 m^3, April 40m^3.
So a rough estimate of annual usage might be 3/4 heating, 1/4 cooking / hot water.
On the other hand, a m^3 of natgas weights < 1kg, so we’re using a lot less than that 2.2tonne estimate to heat our 4 bed single skin brick terrace.
I've just re-run those calculations, as my neighbours to the east had two trees crown-lifted today, which will do wonders for the sun on my East facing panels.
In the last 12 months I have used 2400kWh of imported electricity and exported ~2000kWh. I have used ~400 cubic m or ~4300kWh of gas (surprised how low this is tbh - perhaps down by 60-70% on numbers from a couple of years ago). TBF I have pivoted to electric heating/cooling in the last year or two.
200sqm bed house, to roughly 2010 Building Regs Standards (ie OK but not great), live here on my own at present. Gas is cooking, hot water, usually shower and a little heating in winter. Elec is everything else.
With those numbers, and the trees reduced, I am probably within spitting distance of the solar exports and FITs (~2015 install) paying the whole bill. Not as good as some achieve, but I won't complain.
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
Two children murdered and nine others injured in the Southport attack.
Edit - Merseyside police chief constable Serena Kennedy: Two children have died as a result of a stabbing, nine others injured - six of whom are in a critical condition. Two adults are also in a critical condition.
Shit. My 8 year old daughter had been booked on to a quite similar themed dance summer camp today, obviously not this one. It ended up being postponed but I'm feeling it a bit more than usual.
A couple of things. Twitter users reporting the arrested man having an Arabic name and being on a watch list is par for the course. With the exclusion of terrorism one sincerely hopes they are wrong. Leon, were he here, would be absolutely all over this. This seems a constant and I think the government need to be absolutely crystal clear about the guidance to police on how the flow of information is managed, how and when the information is presented and how certain factors that people may feel relevant, including racial, nationality and religious information are dealt with. Originally from Cardiff to me says British raised, even if it says little of ethnicity.
Then, when people start calling cover up, the obvious community note is freely available to link. Government needs to at least try to steal a march on Twitter speculation by having an open, public playbook.
Secondly, such venues are not nurseries or schools, and the physical security of these venues is highly variable, especially in shared use spaces. A lot of ancillary child activity / child care venues are going to have to seriously look at this.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
This segues into questions like: is there a difference between taxpayers paying for a heart transplant vs health insurance paying for it?
& exactly how much old age care is reasonable for people to pay out of their own pocket & how much should the state / a health insurer pay as an “insurance payout” ?
Someone I know had a blood cancer that (until the relevant drugs fell out of patent) cost ~£40k / year to treat. In the US health insurance would have paid for them. In the UK, the NHS does so the cost comes out of general taxation. Is the government paying for his kids to inherit his house sometime in the future? They would have had to sell up to fund his treatment otherwise.
Where are the lines here? None of this seems cut & dried to me.
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
Her priority is clear, and it's raising public sector pay:
NHS workers and teachers will get a 5.5% pay rise Armed forces personnel will get a 6% increase Prison service worker will see a rise of 5% The police will get a pay increase of 4.75%
And she's absolutely right to do so.
Says a Labour football-team supporter.
(save the "I voted LD" stuff, just because you voted tactically to eject the Tory MP)
What a silly comment. I am afraid I just the world differently to you. I believe you need to pay wages and offer conditions that will attract and retain the staff needed to teach our kids, run our health service, guard our prisons, patrol our streets and so on. One day you may be grown-up enough to understand that.
Ah, I see you're using the "I'm more enlightened than you" argument. A classic.
Whilst you're busy seeing the world differently, some of us are actually looking at the numbers and finding sustainable solutions.
Let us know when you're ready to join the adults at the big table.
Are any of Kemi Badenoch, James Cleverly, Robert Jenrick, Priti Patel, Mel Stride or Tom Tugendhat at the big table?
Just because you're in opposition doesn't mean you can't influence or play an important part in the political process.
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
Ar$holes pushing ahead with VAT on school fees from 1st January, and will apply retrospectively.
Disgusting.
Retrospectively? 1 January is in the future.
To any fees paid in advance for next school year.
Obvious tax evasion - would be challenged in the courts if it weren't already being dealt with. The way interest rates are, nobody in their right mind would park large sums of money with a company outside the FSCS for any other reason.
No, the government could have said it'd take effect from 1st January 2025 to any and all fees paid subsequently from that point.
They chose not to do so.
My wife and I now have some difficult choices to make.
For the same reason I'm not expecting to make any capital disposals before the October budget and the predicted CGT hike.
While I don't reckon they'll make the hike retrospective, they've proven they're bonkers enough to do it.
Better to see what my position is under the new regime and adjust my financial plans / tax residency accordingly in the new year.
You just want a tax-based excuse to go and live abroad don't you? The rationale for levying VAT on school fees for summer term 2025 irrespective of when they are paid really doesn't read across to hiking the tax on a chargeable gain realised in summer 2024. I would bet serious money at 3 that CGT hikes will not be retrospective, and that they will happen. I obviously have no idea of your circumstances but say you have 1m in shares you are incurring a probable £250k hit for the luxury of "seeing what your position is." No guarantee that the rules for changing residence to escape the hit won't change at the same time as the hike, either. There's a policy paper out today https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2024-non-uk-domiciled-individuals-policy-summary/changes-to-the-taxation-of-non-uk-domiciled-individuals which sounds like a complete overhaul of tax residence law. If I were Rachel I would jack 5 years up to 10. Would you be happy with that?
HMRC's own research suggests that a 25% rise in CGT, i.e. from 20% to 25% would be revenue positive for the treasury. While a hike to 30% would be substantially revenue negative. So there's a part of me that hopes for a bit of common sense. I could eat a rise from 20% to 25%, especially if I think my portfolio is going to grow more than that over the next year or two to cover it. Also, a return of taper relief would significantly alter my position. So it's worth waiting and seeing, when the worst thing that happens is you sell your primary residence at 0% CGT and use the cash to rebase yourself somewhere else in time for next year.
Would I be happy with leaving for ten years? Or forever? Honestly at this point, yeah.
Fucking off to Canada is high on my list.
Wife isn't pro because it's too far from her family.
Sympathy to @Casino_Royale today. It’s brutal when you’re at the business end of a change in political power.
It is, and thank you, but, do you expect me to stay quiet about it?
Political debate never ends. Quite frankly, if it did, I'm not sure what we'd talk about either except Ian's dog and Sean's latest conspiracy theories.
I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."
For a second there, I thought Toenails had pegged it from the BBC too.
Anywhere you can bet on which year the IMF will be called in and order savage Greek type cuts.
(Upon which SKS/Reeves will blame the Tories for leaving them a mess and say the nasty bankers at the IMF made us do the cuts).
I may be tempting fate but the government gilts and bonds markets haven't careered down the ravine like they did in 2022 under a - checks notes- Conservative Government, yet.
It won't happen yet.
When the benefits and other spending bills go up a result of 5%+pay/pension/benefits rises and the tax take goes down because businesses relocate abroad due to too much tax or workers work less or not at all for the same reason, then the merde will hit the fan.
If pension tax relief at 40% goes, I am handing in my notice and retiring as the difference between earnings and early pension just won't be worth the bother.
I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?
I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?
Was Huw "only doing research" ??
Who was the rock star that claimed that and was still done?
I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?
Was Huw "only doing research" ??
Who was the rock star that claimed that and was still done?
I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?
Yes. It’s a strict liability offence.
Very problematic in the 2000s, as it was ill thought out and in New Labour's knee-jerk authoritarian phase.
A number of very nasty attacks on gay men due to inspiration by the "Gay=Paedophile" folk myth, as still propagated in some places. And animated by hysterical tabloid press coverage.
The same type of thing happened with vetting and barring to some.
I do not know if it is better now; I think Theresa May at the Home Office made some improvements.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
Her priority is clear, and it's raising public sector pay:
NHS workers and teachers will get a 5.5% pay rise Armed forces personnel will get a 6% increase Prison service worker will see a rise of 5% The police will get a pay increase of 4.75%
And she's absolutely right to do so.
Says a Labour football-team supporter.
(save the "I voted LD" stuff, just because you voted tactically to eject the Tory MP)
What a silly comment. I am afraid I just the world differently to you. I believe you need to pay wages and offer conditions that will attract and retain the staff needed to teach our kids, run our health service, guard our prisons, patrol our streets and so on. One day you may be grown-up enough to understand that.
Ah, I see you're using the "I'm more enlightened than you" argument. A classic.
Whilst you're busy seeing the world differently, some of us are actually looking at the numbers and finding sustainable solutions.
Let us know when you're ready to join the adults at the big table.
Are any of Kemi Badenoch, James Cleverly, Robert Jenrick, Priti Patel, Mel Stride or Tom Tugendhat at the big table?
Just because you're in opposition doesn't mean you can't influence or play an important part in the political process.
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
I would
Good luck with your RTA...
There will be a market for private acute medicine. Special forces trained paramedics to swoop in on quadcopters and whisk us away to 5* hospitals while the taxpayers hope the ambulance takes less than the current average 27 hours to turn up.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?
You're desperate to defend anything the government does at the moment, even though it goes against your small state instincts. All part of confirmation bias to justify your poor decision.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
"paying for people's care and living costs"
The Dilnot cap did not cover "living costs" i.e. accommodation, energy bills etc in the care home. It only covered actual care costs. Probably 50:50. i.e. when the cap was £85K it actually meant more like £160K as only actual care costs were to be metered.
Plus if social services are paying for a care home under present system then you are expected to contribute any pension and other benefits towards "living costs". You get to keep a few £ a week for sundries such as newspapers.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
Her priority is clear, and it's raising public sector pay:
NHS workers and teachers will get a 5.5% pay rise Armed forces personnel will get a 6% increase Prison service worker will see a rise of 5% The police will get a pay increase of 4.75%
And she's absolutely right to do so.
Says a Labour football-team supporter.
(save the "I voted LD" stuff, just because you voted tactically to eject the Tory MP)
What a silly comment. I am afraid I just the world differently to you. I believe you need to pay wages and offer conditions that will attract and retain the staff needed to teach our kids, run our health service, guard our prisons, patrol our streets and so on. One day you may be grown-up enough to understand that.
Ah, I see you're using the "I'm more enlightened than you" argument. A classic.
Whilst you're busy seeing the world differently, some of us are actually looking at the numbers and finding sustainable solutions.
Let us know when you're ready to join the adults at the big table.
Are any of Kemi Badenoch, James Cleverly, Robert Jenrick, Priti Patel, Mel Stride or Tom Tugendhat at the big table?
Just because you're in opposition doesn't mean you can't influence or play an important part in the political process.
That's true. That's not what I asked.
I think Tom is at the big table. Not sure about Cleverly yet.
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
The build build build narrative didn't last long.
It's fucking pathetic.
And not a word of protest on here from the sheep who used it as an excuse to vote for them a few weeks ago.
I should point out Rachel Reeves hasn't done anything yet. The purpose of today is to pin as much blame for subsequent pain as she can on her predecessors, who I have to say are making that job easy for her.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
I should point out Rachel Reeves hasn't done anything yet. The purpose of today is to pin as much blame for subsequent pain as she can on her predecessors, who I have to say are make that job easy for her.
Erhh she did do quite a lot today. 10 million won't get their winter fuel payment anymore, social care reform junked, loads of infrastructure projects canned and signed off significant public sector pay increases. That is quite a busy day at the office.
Oh and Sunak new A-Levels that I think even he had forgotten about were sent to the glue factory.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?
You're desperate to defend anything the government does at the moment, even though it goes against your small state instincts. All part of confirmation bias to justify your poor decision.
Sad.
No I'm not, I'm standing by my principles.
I've been saying for a long time that pay should rise for those working for a living. I've been saying for a long time that our taxes should not fund anyone's inheritance. I've been saying for a long time that we should not be paying unnecessary benefits like Winter Fuel Allowance to those who don't need it.
Why is funding a pay rise to those who are working for a living, while cutting funding for protecting inheritances, and cutting expenditure on benefits, a bad thing?
If you want money then work for it. Teachers, doctors etc are working for it, those demanding an inheritance and those claiming winter fuel allowance are not.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?
You're desperate to defend anything the government does at the moment, even though it goes against your small state instincts. All part of confirmation bias to justify your poor decision.
Sad.
You’re also desperate to declare them a failure already.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."
Maybe he will claim political asylum.
In Russia? They are welcome to him.
Should it concern us that TR was arrested using counter-terrorism powers for what appears to be a mixture of libel and contempt of court?
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?
Whose inheritance is funded out of taxes?
That's exactly what HYUFD wants. Us to be taxed to ensue that those with property don't have to pay towards their own expenses, in order to ensure a taxpayer-backed inheritance.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
Comments
in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell
Indeed. Some folks take stoicism to a ludicrous extreme and don't want to make a fuss even though it's patently obvious that they should.
Others make a racket, get a result, and continue making a racket long after they've been recompensed, because it works.
You see it in the workplace too - with pay increase requests, expenses claims and everything else. Big divide between the pushy and the undemanding.
😃
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerxd00rlxo
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
A phone call to Nuffield later and she was in to see a specialist in a week and in for Day Surgery with general anaesthetic within 3 weeks. Cost about the same as supply and install a gas boiler.
How many times do I have to point out that unless private enterprises and their employees put money into the treasury in the first place there is no money to pay state employees.
Tax the private sector too much to pay for too big a state sector and they work less or relocate abroad and the public sector implodes.
You can imagine Boris' fluffing - "But but but, I was at Eton in the 1980s".
Our unemployment rate is very low, the overwhelming majority of people on benefits are over 65, not working age people who aren't working.
Edit: and happily so.
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?
The WASPI women deserve, and will get, nothing
Isn't that a good thing?
When the benefits and other spending bills go up a result of 5%+pay/pension/benefits rises and the tax take goes down because businesses relocate abroad due to too much tax or workers work less or not at all for the same reason, then the merde will hit the fan.
If pension tax relief at 40% goes, I am handing in my notice and retiring as the difference between earnings and early pension just won't be worth the bother.
Looking at the patients around my father, you could see who was going to make it. The ones with family that have a damn and knew how to push. One chap in the next bed just faded away, steadily. All polite and unvisited….
https://x.com/andymroberts/status/1817923203559309734
In the last 12 months I have used 2400kWh of imported electricity and exported ~2000kWh. I have used ~400 cubic m or ~4300kWh of gas (surprised how low this is tbh - perhaps down by 60-70% on numbers from a couple of years ago). TBF I have pivoted to electric heating/cooling in the last year or two.
200sqm bed house, to roughly 2010 Building Regs Standards (ie OK but not great), live here on my own at present. Gas is cooking, hot water, usually shower and a little heating in winter. Elec is everything else.
With those numbers, and the trees reduced, I am probably within spitting distance of the solar exports and FITs (~2015 install) paying the whole bill. Not as good as some achieve, but I won't complain.
A couple of things. Twitter users reporting the arrested man having an Arabic name and being on a watch list is par for the course. With the exclusion of terrorism one sincerely hopes they are wrong. Leon, were he here, would be absolutely all over this. This seems a constant and I think the government need to be absolutely crystal clear about the guidance
to police on how the flow of information is
managed, how and when the information is
presented and how certain factors that people may feel relevant, including racial, nationality and religious information are dealt with. Originally from Cardiff to me says British raised, even if it says little of ethnicity.
Then, when people start calling cover up, the obvious community note is freely available to link. Government needs to at least try to steal a march on Twitter speculation by having an open, public playbook.
Secondly, such venues are not nurseries or
schools, and the physical security of these venues is highly variable, especially in shared use spaces. A lot of ancillary child activity / child care venues are going to have to seriously look at this.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
& exactly how much old age care is reasonable for people to pay out of their own pocket & how much should the state / a health insurer pay as an “insurance payout” ?
Someone I know had a blood cancer that (until the relevant drugs fell out of patent) cost ~£40k / year to treat. In the US health insurance would have paid for them. In the UK, the NHS does so the cost comes out of general taxation. Is the government paying for his kids to inherit his house sometime in the future? They would have had to sell up to fund his treatment otherwise.
Where are the lines here? None of this seems cut & dried to me.
Wife isn't pro because it's too far from her family.
Political debate never ends. Quite frankly, if it did, I'm not sure what we'd talk about either except Ian's dog and Sean's latest conspiracy theories.
Not quite so up for that.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Matt Richards missed out on a stunning Olympic gold by two hundredths of a second but took a thrilling silver in the 200m freestyle in Paris.
Gary Glitter for sure.
A number of very nasty attacks on gay men due to inspiration by the "Gay=Paedophile" folk myth, as still propagated in some places. And animated by hysterical tabloid press coverage.
The same type of thing happened with vetting and barring to some.
I do not know if it is better now; I think Theresa May at the Home Office made some improvements.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Nothing interesting so far that I can see; Harris for President odds still offering better value.
Sad.
The Dilnot cap did not cover "living costs" i.e. accommodation, energy bills etc in the care home. It only covered actual care costs. Probably 50:50. i.e. when the cap was £85K it actually meant more like £160K as only actual care costs were to be metered.
Plus if social services are paying for a care home under present system then you are expected to contribute any pension and other benefits towards "living costs". You get to keep a few £ a week for sundries such as newspapers.
And not a word of protest on here from the sheep who used it as an excuse to vote for them a few weeks ago.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
Oh and Sunak new A-Levels that I think even he had forgotten about were sent to the glue factory.
I've been saying for a long time that pay should rise for those working for a living.
I've been saying for a long time that our taxes should not fund anyone's inheritance.
I've been saying for a long time that we should not be paying unnecessary benefits like Winter Fuel Allowance to those who don't need it.
Why is funding a pay rise to those who are working for a living, while cutting funding for protecting inheritances, and cutting expenditure on benefits, a bad thing?
If you want money then work for it. Teachers, doctors etc are working for it, those demanding an inheritance and those claiming winter fuel allowance are not.
I will wait and see for a bit.
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .