|
|
Post by wapentake on May 21, 2023 19:03:53 GMT
And I think you’re evading answering Well if you want to start talking about energy then I believe energy prices are way too high. But that isnt as a result of who owns the energy companies - it's due to politicians who prevent us using our own energy resources. Still haven’t answered |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 21, 2023 21:10:44 GMT
No I don't, which is a shame. But there are very few issues that can gather that sort of support. My view is that a vote for the libdems would just be another vote for the Tories. I don't think it proves your argument that people don't want taxes raised. Most people want the rich to pay more tax. So I'm voting Labour because I do expect them to raise taxes and repair the damage done to the NHS. I hope they would also sort the railways and the water, but I'm a pragmatist. You just made the point - they want someone else to pay more tax (the mythical 'rich') - they certainly do not want to pay more tax themselves.  "the mythical 'rich'" Your posts get dafter by the day. Edit: Here's a UK sample. For the first time in 14 years, the number of billionaires on the list fell, by six to 171. But those who stayed in the billionaires’ club still saw their wealth grow by close to £31 billion. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 21, 2023 21:35:51 GMT
The trouble with this Laffer curve theory is that is just not true. That is the most interesting claim of the day on this forum. Do you have any actual evidence that tax rates do not influence lifestyle changes. If so I would like to see it because it flies in the face of every economic text that I have ever read. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 21, 2023 21:38:55 GMT
Well if you want to start talking about energy then I believe energy prices are way too high. But that isnt as a result of who owns the energy companies - it's due to politicians who prevent us using our own energy resources. Still haven’t answered Absolutely no idea what you are talking about then |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on May 21, 2023 21:39:56 GMT
You really don't get it do you? I will make it real simple for you... the Tories drive down public services because the average UK citizens hates paying taxes, so they turn a blind eye to it. The average person doesn't swim in UK seas / rivers so they would rather have cheap bills. Look at the outcry now, when they offer to fix the sewers will increased bills... and the average UK citizens does what they do best... demand excellent public services but want somebody else to pay for it! You can keep kidding yourself that everything bad is because of the Tories, and that anything good was forced upon us by the EU, but if you cannot identify the actual problem how do you hope to ever fix it? It is clear to anybody with half a brain that we are living way beyond our means, even with crap public services. So please point to a party that is brave enough to make this point... and then make a case for high taxes and excellent public services. If you disagree, I would politely point you to the last Labour government, that instead of having a honest conversation with the public, used stealth taxes and dodgy PFI contracts instead. Absolute crap, blaming the electorate for failings of government, who tell them they will fix everything, when they cannot even fix the basics for living standards. While dodgy companies rob them blind in rip off Britain. Absolute crap eh? So what happened with the planned increase in NI to increase funding for social care / NHS? Scrapped because of public outcry. Why were T HREE MILLION people operating Public Service Companies to avoid the paying tax at PAYE levels? Then they cried like babies when IR35 stopped them... and the likes of Gary Lineker even go to court to avoid paying it at PAYE levels lol. Look at what Starmer has said so far... he is going to fund the world via windfall taxes and scrapping non-dom status... lol. So who is talking crap... it is you sir, you don't even understand the people you share the country with lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 21, 2023 21:43:54 GMT
You just made the point - they want someone else to pay more tax (the mythical 'rich') - they certainly do not want to pay more tax themselves. "the mythical 'rich'" Your posts get dafter by the day. Edit: Here's a UK sample. For the first time in 14 years, the number of billionaires on the list fell, by six to 171. But those who stayed in the billionaires’ club still saw their wealth grow by close to £31 billion.This is exactly what I mean - the gullible look at the Sunday Times Rich List and think that there is all this wealth waiting to be taxed. However if they had any sense they would realise that most of the people on that list are not UK citizens - therefore the odds on squeezing them until the pips squeak are somewhat limited.. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on May 21, 2023 22:02:06 GMT
Getting back on topic briefly (lol) I listened to someone on GB News yesterday who said in order to pay for upgrading Victorian sewers and sewarage systems, water bills will increase every year for the next 100 years. Also, water companies will pay shareholders an estimated £15 billion in dividends over he next six years. Also, our water rates at Rackham Towers has gone up 150% in ten years. When it comes to the privatised water industry, something has gone spectacularly wrong. If you bothered to do some simple research, instead of listening to people on GB News, you might understand the situation better. When was the last time you heard opponents of privatisation talk about how much was invested, or how the water quality / leaks rate compares to now and under nationalisation? Listen to what they say. They spout populist nonsense about how much was paid to shareholders, how many swimming pools of water are lost to leaks etc. Under nationalisation the budget for investment was £2b per year. The water companies have invested £5.3b per year.I'm not saying privatisation is working perfectly, but to pretend it would automatically be better under nationalisation is a fallacy. The true cost of nationalised assets is often hidden in massive subsidy... and let's face it... funding for it is going to be low low low priority behind the behemoths of health, welfare, education and state pensions. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 21, 2023 22:02:35 GMT
The trouble with this Laffer curve theory is that is just not true. That is the most interesting claim of the day on this forum. Do you have any actual evidence that tax rates do not influence lifestyle changes. If so I would like to see it because it flies in the face of every economic text that I have ever read. That is not the claim for the Laffer curve. It claims that if you raise tax above their given level you lose more tax than you gain. But every time tax climbs above their given number they just raise the amount. The Laffer curve is now the Laughter curve. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 21, 2023 22:08:01 GMT
That is the most interesting claim of the day on this forum. Do you have any actual evidence that tax rates do not influence lifestyle changes. If so I would like to see it because it flies in the face of every economic text that I have ever read. That is not the claim for the Laffer curve. It claims that if you raise tax above their given level you lose more tax than you gain. But every time tax climbs above their given number they just raise the amount. The Laffer curve is now the Laughter curve. So you really believe that a 100% tax rate would generate more tax receipts than a 50% tax rate?. Any actual evidence or peer reviewed research to support this? I'll give a recent example. The Tories have introduced a windfall tax on oil and gas production from the North Sea. As a result the exploration companies have cut output, investment and jobs - is this going to lead to higher tax receipts? |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on May 21, 2023 22:19:21 GMT
Absolutely no idea what you are talking about then Really? I asked you amongst other things why we are paying ridiculous standing charges and can you explain the purpose of myriad energy companies that produce nothing are useless middlemen all operating in a so called competitive market one of the things privatisation was sold on. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on May 21, 2023 22:22:58 GMT
You really don't get it do you? I will make it real simple for you... the Tories drive down public services because the average UK citizens hates paying taxes, so they turn a blind eye to it. The average person doesn't swim in UK seas / rivers so they would rather have cheap bills. Look at the outcry now, when they offer to fix the sewers will increased bills... and the average UK citizens does what they do best... demand excellent public services but want somebody else to pay for it! You can keep kidding yourself that everything bad is because of the Tories, and that anything good was forced upon us by the EU, but if you cannot identify the actual problem how do you hope to ever fix it? It is clear to anybody with half a brain that we are living way beyond our means, even with crap public services. So please point to a party that is brave enough to make this point... and then make a case for high taxes and excellent public services. If you disagree, I would politely point you to the last Labour government, that instead of having a honest conversation with the public, used stealth taxes and dodgy PFI contracts instead. You are wrong about public support for raising taxes, every poll I can find says there is overall support for increasing taxes. "Fifty two per cent of voters support higher taxes and public spending, and just 6 per cent want them cut." www.newstatesman.com/chart-of-the-day/2022/09/public-support-tax-and-spendPoll of millionaires: 72% support increasing taxes on wealth to help fund public services and the cost of living crisis patrioticmillionaires.uk/latest-news/new-poll-wealthiest-6-percent-of-brits-support-a-wealth-taxYour other point on Labour not being willing to either is shown to be wrong by your own admission that they did indeed increase taxes albeit you claim by stealth (others might say targeted) The big problem we have with public services in this country is the ever growing wealth gap which has left more people unable to pay tax fewer people in the middle incomes and more money with those earning 80k plus a year or simply making money by having money. Tax has not kept up with this change under this Tory government (Surprise surprise). I'm voting Labour to see if that does get adjusted a bit. It is not I that is claiming they used "stealth taxes", it was every economist at the time (and since) lol. The point I am making to you is how come all over Europe, Social Democrats don't have a problem getting into power, but yet in the UK Labour struggle? I am putting it to you that they struggle because they pedal a populist "politics of envy" narrative, instead of having a fucking grown up conversion about how the best places to live have high taxes for all. So when Labour do get into power they struggle because their entire narrative is based on an economic model that just won't work. As for "wealth taxes", once you open that pandora's box where will it end? Once you accept the idea then why not go after anybody with unearned income? When your house gains value lets tax it. You can put a charge on the house that way your children will get about a quid when they inherit it lol. Business is going to love it too, all that much needed invest money going into the government coffers instead so they can waste it lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 21, 2023 22:26:59 GMT
If you bothered to do some simple research, instead of listening to people on GB News, you might understand the situation better. When was the last time you heard opponents of privatisation talk about how much was invested, or how the water quality / leaks rate compares to now and under nationalisation? Listen to what they say. They spout populist nonsense about how much was paid to shareholders, how many swimming pools of water are lost to leaks etc. Under nationalisation the budget for investment was £2b per year. The water companies have invested £5.3b per year.I'm not saying privatisation is working perfectly, but to pretend it would automatically be better under nationalisation is a fallacy. The true cost of nationalised assets is often hidden in massive subsidy... and let's face it... funding for it is going to be low low low priority behind the behemoths of health, welfare, education and state pensions. I don't need to research my water bills. We moved to this property in 2013, exactly ten year ago. Over those ten years our annual water bill has increased by 150%. Yet the service has not improved, indeed every summer my water company warns me of impending water shortages, why? Could it be because even though hundreds of new reservoirs have been proposed since the 1960's to supply an ever increasing population, just one (1) new reservoir has been built. Carsington reservoir in 1991. Thatcher flogged off the water industry in what became known as the greatest privatisation scam of all. Ten water companies were flogged of to any foreign buyer who had a few quid to spare, at prices that were well below their stock market valuation. It's no secret that UK water companies were bought and sold by companies and governments who's only interest was to make a fast buck. I accept this has somewhat settled down in recent years but don't kid yourself that the water industry in this country is a glowing example of privatisation, it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on May 21, 2023 23:20:53 GMT
If you bothered to do some simple research, instead of listening to people on GB News, you might understand the situation better. When was the last time you heard opponents of privatisation talk about how much was invested, or how the water quality / leaks rate compares to now and under nationalisation? Listen to what they say. They spout populist nonsense about how much was paid to shareholders, how many swimming pools of water are lost to leaks etc. Under nationalisation the budget for investment was £2b per year. The water companies have invested £5.3b per year.I'm not saying privatisation is working perfectly, but to pretend it would automatically be better under nationalisation is a fallacy. The true cost of nationalised assets is often hidden in massive subsidy... and let's face it... funding for it is going to be low low low priority behind the behemoths of health, welfare, education and state pensions. I don't need to research my water bills. We moved to this property in 2013, exactly ten year ago. Over those ten years our annual water bill has increased by 150%. Yet the service has not improved, indeed every summer my water company warns me of impending water shortages, why? Could it be because even though hundreds of new reservoirs have been proposed since the 1960's to supply an ever increasing population, just one (1) new reservoir has been built. Carsington reservoir in 1991. Thatcher flogged off the water industry in what became known as the greatest privatisation scam of all. Ten water companies were flogged of to any foreign buyer who had a few quid to spare, at prices that were well below their stock market valuation. It's no secret that UK water companies were bought and sold by companies and governments who's only interest was to make a fast buck. I accept this has somewhat settled down in recent years but don't kid yourself that the water industry in this country is a glowing example of privatisation, it isn't. I never said it was a "glowing example of privatisation", I am making the point that there is a lack of a grown up conversation about it. As a country we go around the same merry-go-round, of populist arguments over actually facts. We already spend more than anybody else in Europe on investment (by a considerable amount), £170b since privatisation, and our water quality and leakage rates are comparable with nationalised countries. Your bills are going up because there is a £600b legacy problem caused by decade upon decade of underinvestment under nationalisation. Can you hand on heart say that if privitisation had never happened we would be in a better position? The £600b legacy problem suggests otherwise... Who is going to pay for these new reservoirs you want? You are already moaning about your bill... If you want to argue for re-nationalisation, and argue that your water bill should match the level of supply and investment needed then I would support that. It will never happen though, your bill will be artificially low for political reasons, while the state makes up the shortfall in shadowy subsidy funded by stealth taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 21, 2023 23:52:57 GMT
I never said it was a "glowing example of privatisation", I am making the point that there is a lack of a grown up conversation about it. As a country we go around the same merry-go-round, of populist arguments over actually facts. We already spend more than anybody else in Europe on investment (by a considerable amount), £170b since privatisation, and our water quality and leakage rates are comparable with nationalised countries. Your bills are going up because there is a £600b legacy problem caused by decade upon decade of underinvestment under nationalisation. Can you hand on heart say that if privitisation had never happened we would be in a better position? The £600b legacy problem suggests otherwise... Who is going to pay for these new reservoirs you want? You are already moaning about your bill... If you want to argue for re-nationalisation, and argue that your water bill should match the level of supply and investment needed then I would support that. It will never happen though, your bill will be artificially low for political reasons, while the state makes up the shortfall in shadowy subsidy funded by stealth taxes. There doesn't need to be an argument of any sort, the facts are there to see. Privatisation has not delivered the benefits that were promised, and the fact that you're still blaming nationalisation, 34 years after the water industry was privatised, suggests you're struggling, ffs the water industry are projected to give £15 billion in shareholder dividends over the next six years. Yet consumers are being told to put a brick in the cistern to save water. However, we have to deal with the situation as is, we must look forward. I'm not arguing for renationalisation, the clock cannot be turned back. Even Starmer who promised to renationalise has changed his mind because it's unaffordable. However, when it comes to the utilities, this country totally fucked up privatisation. The reason we are currently paying sky high costs for fuel/energy is because successive governments have failed to plan for the future, and as virtuous as net zero is, it certainly hasn't been costed. I digress. Since we're being encouraged to have water meters fitted I suspect we are rapidly heading towards a US style water industry where consumers pay a fortune and wealthy shareholders reap the benefits. Yay the future. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 22, 2023 0:30:14 GMT
3 min test. the left is British tap water - Hertfordshire to be specific, the right is bottled water.  A close up of the tap water.  |
|
