General election? June 8th?

[Nolan]

Corporation tax.... Wheres labour going to get 20 billion from again?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Corporation tax.... Wheres labour going to get 20 billion from again?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

What is the relevance of the chart to the point you're trying to make? Some context would be useful.

 

Also have you managed to establish where you got the chart on growth in health spending?

Edited 16 May, 2017 by shurlock

[Nolan]

Managed to establish where you got the chart on growth in health spending?

From a sky news twitter.

 

Where's the seeds for the mystical money tree.?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

From a sky news twitter.

 

Where's the seeds for the mystical money tree.?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Sky News Twitter. Link?

 

Seeds for the mysterical money tree? - can you write in fully formed sentences rather than gibberish.

 

People pay for better funded services through higher tax: some countries are happy to do so, some aren't. Different countries make the trade-off differently. Not complicated stuff.

[edprice1984]

I heard two things that made me nearly crash the car on the way to work this morning:

 

1 - The French ambassador speaking on Today, alongside her German counterpart stating "France and Germany have always been friends"

 

2 - John McDonnell stating that it was important for those earning £80,000 a year to pay their 'fare share'. Apparently paying £30,434 a year in Income tax and NI contributions isn't enough!

[Nolan]

 

Seeds for the mysterical money tree? - can you write in fully formed sentences rather than gibberish.

 

Says the man who made up the word 'Mysterical'.

 

Anyway, I think it's fair to say. that when Labour use Private Eye as one of their sources for costing for the economy of the country, then you are dealing with a rabble of incompetents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Says the man who made up the word 'Mysterical'.

 

Anyway, I think it's fair to say. that when Labour use Private Eye as one of their sources for costing for the economy of the country, then you are dealing with a rabble of incompetents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

And? Youre attacking an imaginary target that nobody here is defending. As with Trident, wage growth, French tax system etc, it seems to be your schtick whenever you want to change subject or can't engage on substance.

 

Do you have that link btw? I only ask as I've been using OECD health data for a project and can't find anything more recent than 2013/2014. I'm assuming it's bunkum but would like to make sure -just in case I'm missing something.

Edited 16 May, 2017 by shurlock

[Nolan]

You can't handle the speed of argument. Keep up locksy.

 

Nice promise by corbyn to end the freeze of benefits only to renege 60 minutes later.

 

Can they not find the money for that.?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

2 - John McDonnell stating that it was important for those earning £80,000 a year to pay their 'fare share'. Apparently paying £30,434 a year in Income tax and NI contributions isn't enough!

 

Interesting use of the word "fair". Surely everybody paying the same % is the fairest system. Perhaps politicians of both sides should start acknowledging the vast amount of money the richest pay into the system. The way "rich" is chucked around as some sort of insult is disgusting. The vast vast majority are hard working decent citizens, they shouldn't be used as some sort of cash cow.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

Interesting use of the word "fair". Surely everybody paying the same % is the fairest system. Perhaps politicians of both sides should start acknowledging the vast amount of money the richest pay into the system. The way "rich" is chucked around as some sort of insult is disgusting. The vast vast majority are hard working decent citizens, they shouldn't be used as some sort of cash cow.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If the amount you earned was directly proportional to how hard you worked I would agree, but it's not. The system is getting more and more skewed, it's fair that the rich should pay more IMO, and I include me in that.

[shurlock]

Interesting use of the word "fair". Surely everybody paying the same % is the fairest system. Perhaps politicians of both sides should start acknowledging the vast amount of money the richest pay into the system. The way "rich" is chucked around as some sort of insult is disgusting. The vast vast majority are hard working decent citizens, they shouldn't be used as some sort of cash cow.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Trust you Lord P to cut through the morass and resolve the meaning of distributive justice and fairness.

 

The Talmud, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, More, Rousseau, Smith, Kant, Spencer, Hegel, Marx, Nozick, Rawls just to name a few - these ponced up snowflakes have been wasting millennia up their own arśéś when they could have consulted you instead.

 

In fairness, I'd say a large number of people embrace a form of luck egalitarianism but I guess you've already thought through and dismissed that possibility, pal.

[OldNick]

If the amount you earned was directly proportional to how hard you worked I would agree, but it's not. The system is getting more and more skewed, it's fair that the rich should pay more IMO, and I include me in that.

Please quantify what rich is? If you think about it, anybody in this country is in the top 10% wealthiest people on earth. Is rich having Sky, a washing machine, a TV or being able to afford a takeaway meal every week, or get a Costa?

The word rich is bandied about but I'm not sure what really does qualify the meaning.

Is it somebody who earns a bit more than the next person, and so they should pay more?

[buctootim]

Please quantify what rich is? If you think about it, anybody in this country is in the top 10% wealthiest people on earth. Is rich having Sky, a washing machine, a TV or being able to afford a takeaway meal every week, or get a Costa?

The word rich is bandied about but I'm not sure what really does qualify the meaning.

Is it somebody who earns a bit more than the next person, and so they should pay more?

 

The problem isnt primarily tax rates or the top 10%. Its a combination of legally avoiding tax and the accumulation of wealth by the richest 0.01%. 100 people in the world have more money than the bottom half - 4 billion. That is only getting worse, not better.

Edited 16 May, 2017 by buctootim

[Lord Duckhunter]

All I'm saying is I wish people would stop banging on about "fair" taxes. The only thing that's fair is everybody paying the same %. I'm not advocating flat taxes, just an acknowledgment of how much money the richer portion of society transfer to the poorest. The tax system isn't fair if you use the word correctly , because some workers pay 0 % and some pay 45% of money they've earned.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 16 May, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[OldNick]

The problem isnt primarily tax rates or the top 10%. Its a combination of legally avoiding tax and the accumulation of wealth by the richest 0.01%. 100 people in the world have more money than the bottom half - 4 billion. That is only getting worse, not better.

no doubt those top 100 have always been there. They have the money and power to move to wherever they are welcomed. The Corbyn way is hit the people who will generate wealth for jobs and the nations financial health. Now I think you would find that most wealthy would be happy to pay more if they could trust who is spending it. Personally I want the people who deserve it to get it, but ill be buggered if it is to help people who don't want to work have a bit more spending money to laugh at the working population. I also cherish the NHS but throwing more money at it like has been done for the last 20 years does not make it leaner and more efficient

[Verbal]

All I'm saying is I wish people would stop banging on about "fair" taxes. The only thing that's fair is everybody paying the same %. I'm not advocating flat taxes, just an acknowledgment of how much money the richer portion of society transfer to the poorest.

 

This is a common fallacy. The reason that such a small percentage of the population in the UK pay such a large proportion of taxes is because we live in a staggeringly unequal society, where historically unprecedented piles of cash and assets are held by the wealthy.

 

It's also distorted by blatantly regressive taxes on other things than income - taxes that penalise the poor and favour the rich. VAT is a huge tax burden on the poor as a proportion of weekly income, and a negligible one on the wealthy. Property (council) tax is absolutely minuscule for the wealthy (£1500 a year for a £50 million mansion in Mayfair) and a severe burden on the poor (most in the private rental sector pay it, not just property owners).

 

Taxes are so regressive that even the land of the free can, in a very few respects, look more equitable than us. Take a look at annual property taxes in the US if you want to see how 'lucky' wealthy property owners in the UK really are.

[OldNick]

This is a common fallacy. The reason that such a small percentage of the population in the UK pay such a large proportion of taxes is because we live in a staggeringly unequal society, where historically unprecedented piles of cash and assets are held by the wealthy.

 

It's also distorted by blatantly regressive taxes on other things than income - taxes that penalise the poor and favour the rich. VAT is a huge tax burden on the poor as a proportion of weekly income, and a negligible one on the wealthy. Property (council) tax is absolutely minuscule for the wealthy (£1500 a year for a £50 million mansion in Mayfair) and a severe burden on the poor (most in the private rental sector pay it, not just property owners).

 

Taxes are so regressive that even the land of the free can, in a very few respects, look more equitable than us. Take a look at annual property taxes in the US if you want to see how 'lucky' wealthy property owners in the UK really are.

VAT is not on food clothes books and essentials, it is on take away food, cars, TV's ,mobile phones etc that are not essentials to life

I do concede that rentsetc are too high, but of course some of that is due to Gordon Brown raiding the pensions and so people then invested in rental property to supplement what they lost.

I personally would not be a good landlord as I couldn't take high rents off young struggling families but there are many who have/want to, t have a secure retirement

Edited 16 May, 2017 by OldNick

[John B]

From a sky news twitter.

 

Where's the seeds for the mystical money tree.?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

First, re income tax: the proposed tax increase is fair. It will impact a little over 1 million people. Because of the suggested structure the estimated yield looks to be realistic if at the top end of the range. The tax will not be a disincentive: it may encourage more tax saving by spending on pensions at the £80,000 margin.

The corporation tax increase is wise.

 

These increases make complete sense.

 

More than that, there will be capacity to pay them. Labour proposes to increase GDP by spending. When a government spends more when there is unemployment or underemployment the result is not inflation, it is growth. And that growth always creates the capacity to pay the tax that funds the growth. This is a fact. The only question is how to collect that tax from the economy. Labour has chosen to do so in progressive ways consistent with its plans to reshape society. This, as I explained in 2015, is precisely what The Joy of Tax is. No one can blame Labour for doing exactly what tax is meant to do and leaving most in the country better off as a result. The only question is why the Tories won’t do the same.

 

They will, of course, claim that this is a suicide note from Labour. And they will say it will harm the economy. But neither is true. Government spending when the economy is stagnating at less than capacity is wholly rational. And if it increases the ratio of government spending to total economic activity than has been usual, so what? What we need is government spending on health, education, social care, education and so much more. We are clearly not wanting to spend more on what the private sector has to offer or we would be doing so. This manifesto does then, very clearly, deliver what the economy needs.

 

In that case is there a downside? None at all, I suggest, unless you ‘re in the top 3 pr 4 per cent of income earners or are a large company or bank. And let’s be clear, these groups have the capacity to pay.

[Nolan]

Because we know that raising taxes will raise unemployment and benefits costs.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Batman]

John B

 

Labour may have many proposals that appeal to many

however, they have a fair number of people close to jezza that are just horrendous people

 

let alone, jezza himself, who is abhorrent IMO

 

I think you should be prepared to be very disappointed in a few weeks as not only will the nation totally reject Corbyn's policies but will do so with the help of what is left of Labour's stomping grounds in the North

[OldNick]

First, re income tax: the proposed tax increase is fair. It will impact a little over 1 million people. Because of the suggested structure the estimated yield looks to be realistic if at the top end of the range. The tax will not be a disincentive: it may encourage more tax saving by spending on pensions at the £80,000 margin.

The corporation tax increase is wise.

 

These increases make complete sense.

 

More than that, there will be capacity to pay them. Labour proposes to increase GDP by spending. When a government spends more when there is unemployment or underemployment the result is not inflation, it is growth. And that growth always creates the capacity to pay the tax that funds the growth. This is a fact. The only question is how to collect that tax from the economy. Labour has chosen to do so in progressive ways consistent with its plans to reshape society. This, as I explained in 2015, is precisely what The Joy of Tax is. No one can blame Labour for doing exactly what tax is meant to do and leaving most in the country better off as a result. The only question is why the Tories won’t do the same.

 

They will, of course, claim that this is a suicide note from Labour. And they will say it will harm the economy. But neither is true. Government spending when the economy is stagnating at less than capacity is wholly rational. And if it increases the ratio of government spending to total economic activity than has been usual, so what? What we need is government spending on health, education, social care, education and so much more. We are clearly not wanting to spend more on what the private sector has to offer or we would be doing so. This manifesto does then, very clearly, deliver what the economy needs.

 

In that case is there a downside? None at all, I suggest, unless you ‘re in the top 3 pr 4 per cent of income earners or are a large company or bank. And let’s be clear, these groups have the capacity to pay.

Does Diane Abbot do your economical calculations? That's it borrow borrow borrow, we did it before and we know what that brings us.

The nation is at a crucial stage in its life, we are about to go into the unknown regarding our financial future and what Global companies want to stay and then you advocate taxing those companies more!!! We needto encourage them to stay to employ our people not make our goods even more expensive to our markets abroad

[shurlock]

Because we know that raising taxes will raise unemployment and benefits costs.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

No we don't. But crack on, you're covering yourself in glory.

[Nolan]

No we don't. But crack on, you're covering yourself in glory.

You don't, we do. Hey ho.

 

Len McCluskey says Labour winning 200 seats would class as a successful election. Do you agree?

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Nolan]

In one of the two areas they are still ahead. London. They are actively targeting the financial transaction tax and tax rises for those with London type wages.

 

Theyre actively trying to destroy their own voter Base.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Jonnyboy]

John B

 

Labour may have many proposals that appeal to many

however, they have a fair number of people close to jezza that are just horrendous people

 

let alone, jezza himself, who is abhorrent IMO

 

I think you should be prepared to be very disappointed in a few weeks as not only will the nation totally reject Corbyn's policies but will do so with the help of what is left of Labour's stomping grounds in the North

 

If you're on £100k a year and can't handle paying a few hundred quid a year in tax that is abhorrent imo. Whereas working your whole life to find peaceful (and cheaper! ) solutions to violent conflict is the opposite if you ask me.

[Batman]

If you're on £100k a year and can't handle paying a few hundred quid a year in tax that is abhorrent imo. Whereas working your whole life to find peaceful (and cheaper! ) solutions to violent conflict is the opposite if you ask me.

 

that is fine

the people leading the Labour party is what what is largely going to get them soundly beaten

[shurlock]

You don't, we do. Hey ho.

 

Len McCluskey says Labour winning 200 seats would class as a successful election. Do you agree?

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

So without knowing anything about i)what and who's being taxed ii) its level and iii) what taxation is being spent on, you maintain that raising taxes always raises unemployment and benefits costs?

 

There's drivel and then there's drivel and then there's you pal

 

By the way, dug up that link yet?

Edited 16 May, 2017 by shurlock

[Jonnyboy]

Says the man who made up the word 'Mysterical'.

 

Anyway, I think it's fair to say. that when Labour use Private Eye as one of their sources for costing for the economy of the country, then you are dealing with a rabble of incompetents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Says the man who uses dodgy sky news Twitter graphs that are clearly in accurate.

 

I'd rather trust Private Eye than Murdoch's fake news.

[buctootim]

I also cherish the NHS but throwing more money at it like has been done for the last 20 years does not make it leaner and more efficient

 

I don't want to get into the NHS argument again - but the problem with the NHS is not that its inefficient. Its because we refuse to limit the demands on it or match resources to demand.

 

People think that because more money is going in to the NHS then the problems should go away, and when they don't its because the NHS is inefficient. Sure the number of staff has increased by 12% in the past 10 years but the number of operations has increased by 40%, hospital admissions by 28% and A&E attendances by 22%.

[Nolan]

Says the man who uses dodgy sky news Twitter graphs that are clearly in accurate.

 

I'd rather trust Private Eye than Murdoch's fake news.

Oh please, there are laws that govern the truth in the media. Unlike online.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Lord Duckhunter]

Watching Daily Politics on catch up it appears that Labour's "fully costed" manifesto doesn't allocate a single penny for their nationalisation policy. They've also done no economic analysis of behavioural changes regarding tax rises. I thought every serious economist factored that in to every model, but McDonnell hasn't. Then again what do you expect ,he couldn't even answer Nick Robinsons question on how big the deficit is. Funny as ****, the massive pause, the "we must invest" delaying tactic , the denial that we was getting helped , before he gives the wrong figure. By complete coincidence the figure he gave (wrongly) was the same out of date figure on Wikipedia this morning. **** me, someone who wants to be CoE relying on google for his figures.

 

Has there ever been a more incompetent bunch?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 16 May, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[Nolan]

Even when they were told a fortnight ago about their ludicrous costings, they haven't changed any before manifesto launch...

 

http://news.sky.com/story/labours-police-plans-dont-add-up-even-after-the-corrections-10860746

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Jonnyboy]

Oh please, there are laws that govern the truth in the media. Unlike online.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Private Eye is genuine media. You'll be telling us The Sun doesn't make stuff up next.

[shurlock]

Even when they were told a fortnight ago about their ludicrous costings, they haven't changed any before manifesto launch...

 

http://news.sky.com/story/labours-police-plans-dont-add-up-even-after-the-corrections-10860746

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Sure you didn't write it, pal? Almost as bad as your struggles with wages and inflation

 

Got that link?

[OldNick]

I don't want to get into the NHS argument again - but the problem with the NHS is not that its inefficient. Its because we refuse to limit the demands on it or match resources to demand.

 

People think that because more money is going in to the NHS then the problems should go away, and when they don't its because the NHS is inefficient. Sure the number of staff has increased by 12% in the past 10 years but the number of operations has increased by 40%, hospital admissions by 28% and A&E attendances by 22%.

I read (I cant recall if it was on here) that we give out nit combs and suncream on the NHS!!!! Perhaps the staff need to be a little less keen to dish these things out.

[Verbal]

I read (I cant recall if it was on here) that we give out nit combs and suncream on the NHS!!!! Perhaps the staff need to be a little less keen to dish these things out.

 

Yes, you're right. Nit combs and sun creams have brought the NHS to its knees.

 

God only knows what the backlash will be like when NHS managers finally get around to rationing them - if they dare.

[Nolan]

Of course the Sun doesnt makes stuff up. It would be sued to high heaven if it did.

 

Of course Trump and Corbyn supporters will always say otherwise.

 

Like the Mail, Mirror, Guardian, Express, Mirror, times and telegraph. The Sun frames stories to its perceived audience. The general traffic of all papers is omission, but most people are generally capable to seek out full facts.

 

Of course there are always people who believe that Breitbart, Westmonster , Canary and Novara are the holders of truth.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

All I'm saying is I wish people would stop banging on about "fair" taxes. The only thing that's fair is everybody paying the same %. I'm not advocating flat taxes, just an acknowledgment of how much money the richer portion of society transfer to the poorest. The tax system isn't fair if you use the word correctly , because some workers pay 0 % and some pay 45% of money they've earned.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Because the system that defines how much your job is worth is not fair, it is defined by market forces. A functioning society needs carers as much as it needs bankers yet one group can barely afford a house to live while the other can earn millions on the click of a mouse. If people were paid more purely by how hard they worked you would have a point but they are not.

[OldNick]

Yes, you're right. Nit combs and sun creams have brought the NHS to its knees.

 

God only knows what the backlash will be like when NHS managers finally get around to rationing them - if they dare.

I understand your sarcasm, no doubt valid but if such things are being dished out what else that should not be given out also is on the lists.

If we are to pay more tax, then at least don't waste it. Hence my point earlier, it is not about giving more tax it is trusting those who dish the taxes out.

How about a consultant who knew that an op should not be on the NHS but told the person not to worry that they would slip it through (fact not hearsay)

[Batman]

Sad thing about Corbyn's big give away promise

 

When the country totally rejects it, many will show their liberal values and trash the centre of London and fail to accept another result not going their way

[Nolan]

Sure you didn't write it, pal? Almost as bad as your struggles with wages and inflation [emoji38]

 

Got that link?

Am I the economics editor of sky news who wrote that article? No

 

What's your target for success for Corbyn, is it the same as mccluskeys 200 seats?

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Am I the economics editor of sky news who wrote that article? No

 

What's your target for success for Corbyn, is it the same as mccluskeys 200 seats?

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

I meant the authors of labour's manifesto. Hard to tell as you both have similar struggles with the effects of inflation on wages. Perhaps you took the same module at poly?

 

No views either way what constitutes success for Corbyn. Have not waded into the subject, unlike you when you posted your funny little chart. Got the link?

[Nolan]

Poly? I'm younger than that.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Jonnyboy]

Of course the Sun doesnt makes stuff up. It would be sued to high heaven if it did.

 

Of course Trump and Corbyn supporters will always say otherwise.

 

Like the Mail, Mirror, Guardian, Express, Mirror, times and telegraph. The Sun frames stories to its perceived audience. The general traffic of all papers is omission, but most people are generally capable to seek out full facts.

 

Of course there are always people who believe that Breitbart, Westmonster , Canary and Novara are the holders of truth.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Hasn't been updated since 2012 but this makes interesting reading:

http://the-sun-lies.blogspot.co.uk/

[shurlock]

Poly? I'm younger than that.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

New university. Who'd have guessed it.

Edited 16 May, 2017 by shurlock

[Nolan]

I've counted the people that were on the stage. This is likely true.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3577714/jeremy-corbyns-own-shadow-defence-secretary-boycots-manifesto-launch-over-toxic-fears/

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Jonnyboy]

I've counted the people that were on the stage. This is likely true.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3577714/jeremy-corbyns-own-shadow-defence-secretary-boycots-manifesto-launch-over-toxic-fears/

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

 

 you actually read that sh*te

[buctootim]

I understand your sarcasm, no doubt valid but if such things are being dished out what else that should not be given out also is on the lists.

If we are to pay more tax, then at least don't waste it. Hence my point earlier, it is not about giving more tax it is trusting those who dish the taxes out.

How about a consultant who knew that an op should not be on the NHS but told the person not to worry that they would slip it through (fact not hearsay)

 

There are at least 20 skin conditions which require the patient to use sun block, including cancer. Its as much a medical requirement as antibiotics. The current prescription charge is currently £8.60, more than most retail prices, so you can rest assured that the casual user seeking sunscreen for a holiday wont be asking for a prescription.

Edited 17 May, 2017 by buctootim

[Nolan]

[emoji38] you actually read that sh*te [emoji38]

I read all sh*te. All papers present a view across the political spectrum. Its sensible to read as many as you can to get balance. Checks and balances.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

I read all sh*te. All papers present a view across the political spectrum. Its sensible to read as many as you can to get balance. Checks and balances.

 

Reading across the spectrum only works if the paper references its claims with actual facts, direct quotes or links. Most of the broadsheets do you but thr tabloids not. For example did Corbyn really demand Nia Griffin was there - where is the quote, letter or email? Why have they zoomed in on her and not the other eight shadow cabinet members? If Corbyn really did 'ban' her from the prior Chatham House speech then more than likely she also wasnt invited to this one.

Edited 17 May, 2017 by buctootim