|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 29, 2023 19:46:07 GMT
UK tax burden currently at record peacetime high and the siren sounds from those on the Left - 'It's not enough'... ...well for some it never will be.  Then go back to the NHS of 1945 and die aged 70. FFS. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 29, 2023 21:20:09 GMT
UK tax burden currently at record peacetime high and the siren sounds from those on the Left - 'It's not enough'... ...well for some it never will be. Then go back to the NHS of 1945 and die aged 70. FFS. You do realise that the current structure of the NHS is unsustainable?. The NHS requires an annual funding growth rate of 4% - UK GDP since WW2 has grown at an average of 2%. You do the math.. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 30, 2023 20:44:08 GMT
Then go back to the NHS of 1945 and die aged 70. FFS. You do realise that the current structure of the NHS is unsustainable?. The NHS requires an annual funding growth rate of 4% - UK GDP since WW2 has grown at an average of 2%. You do the math.. Yep its going to cost a bigger part of the cake very year, but then people are not keen on dying either. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 30, 2023 21:31:38 GMT
The current workforce plan shows that by 2036 half of the people employed by the government will work for the NHS - that will be 9% of the entire workforce.
So that with increasing spending by around 4% a year means that we will have to find an extra £50 Billion a year for the NHS - which is about what we spend on Defence in total.
£50 Billion a year is also what the drive to Net Zero is going to cost. To get an extra £50 Billion a year (let alone £100 Billion) in tax you will need to raise VAT from 20% to 27%.
And for all this extra spending and increase in headcount the NHS output will only stay the same if it increases productivity by 2% a year which it has never done..
The NHS, as it is currently structured, is un-affordable.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Aug 31, 2023 0:53:00 GMT
I think you have fallen for the real propaganda, that fed you by the rich and the media they own. You think the very rich couldn't solve this countries financial issues and they must be borne by those in the middle because that's what you've been fed. The Laffer curve where they would all leave, the 97% tax of some yesteryear, investment in our future, too few of them to make a difference.. All fed to you without the need for you to check because the narrative has been repeated so often. Here's the truth. equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-ukThe top 1% have incomes substantially higher than the rest of those in the top 10%. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the top 1% in the UK has generally been rising, peaking at 14.7% in 2007 before the financial crisis. This is almost double the corresponding figure for Belgium (7%) and still higher than Australia (9%), Sweden (8%) and Norway (8%), to name a few.
I'm a Social Democrat at heart, why the fuck would I fall for right-wing / Tory propoganda lol. My opinions are based on reading sources from all sides, and when it comes to tax matters, I also rely on my experience from working for HRMC. It doesn't matter what wealth / income the top 1% have, the only thing that matters is creating opportunities so that more people can gains skills / qualification and thus earn more. If the CEO was paid less the rest of the company would not be paid more... because wages are determined by the market, and the market is based on skills (hence the need for opportunities). What are going to do, make companies pay above market rate??? As for wealth, that is not income, it is not something you can just share around. What are you going to do, make the company owner give away their shares??? Companies manage their spending, and company owners manage the income they take, you come up with all the hair-brain schemes you like... they will just manage around them. That being said there are things the government could do, like restricting agency workers, getting rid of zero hour contracts, and making companies offer full-time contracts unless they have an employer that specifically applies for part-time hours. I would also tax dividends at the same rate as income tax. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 31, 2023 5:56:59 GMT
The current workforce plan shows that by 2036 half of the people employed by the government will work for the NHS - that will be 9% of the entire workforce. So that with increasing spending by around 4% a year means that we will have to find an extra £50 Billion a year for the NHS - which is about what we spend on Defence in total. £50 Billion a year is also what the drive to Net Zero is going to cost. To get an extra £50 Billion a year (let alone £100 Billion) in tax you will need to raise VAT from 20% to 27%. And for all this extra spending and increase in headcount the NHS output will only stay the same if it increases productivity by 2% a year which it has never done.. The NHS, as it is currently structured, is un-affordable. Well the main driver of this is old age. When do we start telling people that they'll get no more medical help after they reach 85 years? Perhaps if we did something about the massive wealth gap in the UK we could find some spare cash. The top 10% of this countries earners take home 14% of the gross earnings. That's around £285,000 each or £196Bn total This country is not broke, the money is just in the wrong place. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 31, 2023 6:07:55 GMT
I think you have fallen for the real propaganda, that fed you by the rich and the media they own. You think the very rich couldn't solve this countries financial issues and they must be borne by those in the middle because that's what you've been fed. The Laffer curve where they would all leave, the 97% tax of some yesteryear, investment in our future, too few of them to make a difference.. All fed to you without the need for you to check because the narrative has been repeated so often. Here's the truth. equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-ukThe top 1% have incomes substantially higher than the rest of those in the top 10%. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the top 1% in the UK has generally been rising, peaking at 14.7% in 2007 before the financial crisis. This is almost double the corresponding figure for Belgium (7%) and still higher than Australia (9%), Sweden (8%) and Norway (8%), to name a few.
I'm a Social Democrat at heart, why the fuck would I fall for right-wing / Tory propoganda lol. My opinions are based on reading sources from all sides, and when it comes to tax matters, I also rely on my experience from working for HRMC. It doesn't matter what wealth / income the top 1% have, the only thing that matters is creating opportunities so that more people can gains skills / qualification and thus earn more. That being said there are things the government could do, like restricting agency workers, getting rid of zero hour contracts, and making companies offer full-time contracts unless they have an employer that specifically applies for part-time hours. I would also tax dividends at the same rate as income tax. Isn't it strange that only people that share your conclusions are based on a rounded view. Of course it matters where the wealth goes. It wouldn't matter if the tax take reflected that, then if ne person earnt all the money then that person would pay all the tax. I am the MD of a business employing 126 people so yes I understand market forces wage structure etc. I'm not talking about how much money an individual should be allowed to earn but what percentage of that goes in tax. And yes wealth is not income, but you have to look at how much wealth is hoarded by a small number of people who we claim cannot afford to pay more tax. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 31, 2023 6:37:09 GMT
So, Countries around the world are scrapping their wealth tax's because they dont work. At the same time the Left in the UK are saying 'I have a cunning plan to raise more tax - lets have a wealth tax!' It's deja-vu, all over again..  “We had committed ourselves to a wealth tax; but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and the political hassle". |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 31, 2023 8:15:26 GMT
And yes wealth is not income, but you have to look at how much wealth is hoarded by a small number of people who we claim cannot afford to pay more tax. If you take the wealth, you also significantly damage the incentives that led to the wealth being there in the first place. You also create new counterproductive or useless incentives when you spend the wealth to add a new floor to a public sector HR department or paint rainbows in the sky. This is talking in very general terms about incentive. By taxing like this you change the incentives to engage in the actions that led to the wealth being there to tax and change the incentives around the technical holding of wealth. Somebody who previously may have spent all of his energy running his company, may now hire an expensive tax lawyer to find a clever way around your tax. This is another counter-productive incentive, another person moved from production to doing something that isn't really needed. Many left sympathetic people fail to see this. The wealth isn't just *there for the taking*, it's significantly there because you didn't threaten to take it. The way to deal with it is to remove barriers to competition. The political problem with this solution is that politicians sell competitive barriers to those advantaged by them. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 31, 2023 19:42:24 GMT
So, Countries around the world are scrapping their wealth tax's because they dont work. At the same time the Left in the UK are saying 'I have a cunning plan to raise more tax - lets have a wealth tax!' It's deja-vu, all over again.. “We had committed ourselves to a wealth tax; but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and the political hassle".Tax the people with the money. How obscene. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 31, 2023 19:57:48 GMT
And yes wealth is not income, but you have to look at how much wealth is hoarded by a small number of people who we claim cannot afford to pay more tax. This tired old argument. When I setup my business I did not consider the tax I might have to pay if I got rich. I just dreamt of getting rich. Just to clarify I was not suggesting a wealth tax at this time. Merely that we need to tax those who can afford to pay it. But let me turn it back on you, what is your solution? The NHS is able to treat more and more conditions keep us alive ever longer, but it costs money. At the same time more and more of the money is going to less and less of the people. Over to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 31, 2023 21:19:11 GMT
So, Countries around the world are scrapping their wealth tax's because they dont work. At the same time the Left in the UK are saying 'I have a cunning plan to raise more tax - lets have a wealth tax!' It's deja-vu, all over again.. “We had committed ourselves to a wealth tax; but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and the political hassle".Tax the people with the money. How obscene. Ah - the old 'it will be different next time argument'... |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 1, 2023 6:04:42 GMT
Tax the people with the money. How obscene. Ah - the old 'it will be different next time argument'... Did the top 10% of the country have 60% of the wealth back then? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 1, 2023 6:48:25 GMT
Ah - the old 'it will be different next time argument'... Did the top 10% of the country have 60% of the wealth back then? No - but they were not as mobile either. If you were a financier in the City in 1975 you had to go into the office every day - nowdays you can (and probably do) all your work from home. That home can just as easily be in Dubai as Dorking. This idea that people will sit around waiting to be taxed is last century thinking - as other countries have already found out. But then the left in the UK never learn.. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 1, 2023 17:58:39 GMT
This tired old argument. When I setup my business I did not consider the tax I might have to pay if I got rich. I just dreamt of getting rich. Anecdotes really wont go far here. People do things that are risky and difficult to make money - and so, if you take that money off them, they have less reason to do it. You are trying to argue that water goes uphill because you saw it happen. But let me turn it back on you, what is your solution? The answer to taxation and government funding? From the top - There are (broadly speaking) two things people do to make money. 1) They notice something is scarce, act to reduce that scarcity and get paid for it. 2) They hold a restriction / license and get paid to lift it (or they exploit it for the trading advantage it represents) Government should tax 1 lightly (ideally not at all) and 2 heavily (100% market value). Government funding should be restricted to the licences / deeds it can sell/rent - ie the value of its power and usefulness This would mean (ideally) that citizens can trade in non-contraband and employ each other without having to notify the government or worry they somehow are breaking the law It would also mean that government is incentivised to provide good services - bad services will mean low receipts. it will also mean that, because a government is limited to the value of what it provides, its own waste and inefficiency becomes is own problem, rather than everyone else's The NHS is able to treat more and more conditions keep us alive ever longer, but it costs money. At the same time more and more of the money is going to less and less of the people. Over to you The disparity is caused by the tax system - the wealth of these people is largely sourced from things like barriers to trade / licences etc. These objective government items are not paid for properly and instead the government tries to collect such vagueries as profits and earnings from everyone. The result is a very unbalanced trade environment where the big boys hold all the cards and the government chases everyone else to pay for them. It's corrupt of course. |
|
