What Is Happening To Our Country?

[aintforever]

7 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

How much additional tax are you currently paying (voluntarily)?

Why would I do that, I'm happy to pay more tax if the government decides to fund public services properly. I'm on OK money but not going to be able to make any difference by myself.

[trousers]

23 minutes ago, The Left Back said:

I'll have a run at this one.

Like aintforever I'd be happy to pay more tax personally as part of a shift in political ideology and a national effort to resolve some of the problems we face.  Taxes aren't popular but there can be fairness writ through national tax policy.

The reason I'm not drawn to voluntary additional tax payments is because it's just propping up the existing ideology.  As an individual my discretionary spend goes much further if I hand it directly to those in need rather than donate it to a corrupt government hell bent on protecting the wealth of the few and increasing the gap between the haves and have nots.

Cheers for the thoughts - all very reasonable.  I too much prefer giving any 'excess' money I have directly to those in need, or via charities, rather than rely on politicians to distribute it wisely/efficiently.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Wow, you really are obsessed with me aren't you. I have barely posted anything for a couple of weeks yet you are still carrying on with this playground bully stuff. It’s nice that you think about me so much but it is a little weird mate. Get a hobby or something, might take your mind of me a bit.

As for paying more tax, it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. That’s the elephant in the room with this whole cost of living crisis. For a large chunk of the population it’s not a crisis. I’m reasonably well paid but not rich by a long way, it’s not a crisis for me. It’s a bit of an inconvenience but it’s no big deal if we have to scale down our next holiday or if the mrs doesn’t get the latest iPhone. The house is full of crap we don’t need anyway, people need to get over this addiction to buying pointless shit for the sake of it.

For many on high wages it’s not even an inconvenience, there is plenty more medium-high earners could afford to contribute without effecting the economy, let alone the rich - super-rich.

I wouldn’t say obsessed but sometimes people make utterly ludicrous but memorable comments on here and you along with Soggy seem to do it more than most 

[aintforever]

4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I wouldn’t say obsessed but sometimes people make utterly ludicrous but memorable comments on here and you along with Soggy seem to do it more than most 

[whelk]

I would be ok with paying more tax if thought could be used wisely and help services.  These twats will give it all to SERCO to manage a project that delivers 3 years late and quadruple the original budget.

@trousers if that is a genuine question I think you need to look at motives for philanthropy 

[The Left Back]

43 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I guess those that contributed to the £4.8 billion worth of tax evasion in 2021 agree with your position on propping up the existing ideology? ( source )

Surely those people who have evaded their taxes aren't ideologically opposed to nurses receving a 19% pay rise which could easily be covered if they coughed up?

No sorry, read it a couple of times but not sure of the point you are making in relation to mine.

if I had to guess I'd say that you believe people who evade tax are doing it because they don't believe the government would spend it wisely - I don't believe that to be true and am surprised you do.  I think you go on to say that your sure that if people who evade taxes support the nurses they'd be happy to contribute their ill-gotten gains to pay for the rise - I don't believe that either.

 

[Jonnyboy]

2 hours ago, trousers said:

Cheers for the thoughts - all very reasonable.  I too much prefer giving any 'excess' money I have directly to those in need, or via charities, rather than rely on politicians to distribute it wisely/efficiently.

Ironic as the NHS for example used to be the most efficient health service in the first world, pound for pound, thanks to those pesky leftie politicians. 

[Jonnyboy]

23 hours ago, Turkish said:

Well those nurses striking seem to be having a whale of a time given what they’ve just shown on the news. Lots of smiling faces and giggles on the news as they chant “what do we want….”  
they don’t exactly look like a bunch of people furious with their pay and conditions.

BTW I fully support the nurses strike and think they’re being taken the piss out of in many ways. 

You obviously dont fully support them or you wouldnt be undermining them with such flippant remarks 🤫

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, Jonnyboy said:

You obviously dont fully support them or you wouldnt be undermining them with such flippant remarks 🤫

 It wasn’t a a flippant remark, some of them looked like they were having a good day out. Ive got friends and family who are nurses so know exactly the sort of shit they have to deal with, so put a lid on it you clown.

[Turkish]

5 hours ago, trousers said:

Question... (I'm genuinely interested rather than looking for bites etc)

Any theories/thoughts on why the amount of voluntary additional tax payments are at a negligible level? Given there are so many people who would be happy to pay more tax I'm slightly bemused as to why it doesn't already happen in large numbers.

Because a lot of people say a lot of things they don’t really mean or believe in. Talking about doing something is one thing, doing it is quite a different matter. 

[Turkish]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64006885
 

hmmm…

[AlexLaw76]

16 hours ago, aintforever said:

Why would I do that, I'm happy to pay more tax if the government decides to fund public services properly. I'm on OK money but not going to be able to make any difference by myself.

Happy to pay more tax? But can’t be arsed to do so.

gotcha

[Lord Duckhunter]

32 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Happy to pay more tax? But can’t be arsed to do so.

 

Nobody wants to pay any more tax. Some people pretend they are willing to do so, whilst the rest are more honest about it. 

Edited 17 December, 2022 by Lord Duckhunter

[whelk]

What a surprise some are so thick that they reason if some say they are willing to pay more tax they think it hypocritical if they don’t donate to HMRC. And so sensitive when you call them thick cunts. 

[egg]

52 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Nobody wants to pay any more tax. Some people pretend they are willing to do so, whilst the rest are more honest about it. 

Yep, and we then have people saying give the nurses a big pay rise, without any clue where the cash will come from, but without any genuine willingness to pay for that through their taxes. 

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep, and we then have people saying give the nurses a big pay rise, without any clue where the cash will come from, but without any genuine willingness to pay for that through their taxes. 

Lots easier just believing and doing what the newspapers tell you isn’t it? 

 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Nobody wants to pay any more tax. Some people pretend they are willing to do so, whilst the rest are more honest about it. 

It’s funny how when the people who make these ridiculous comments are reminded of them they get all defensive and go on about being bullied on stalked. 🤣🤣

[Turkish]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

What a surprise some are so thick that they reason if some say they are willing to pay more tax they think it hypocritical if they don’t donate to HMRC. And so sensitive when you call them thick cunts. 

As opposed to the thick cunts who scream give it to them give it to them there is always loads of money lying around, yes?

[egg]

16 minutes ago, whelk said:

Lots easier just believing and doing what the newspapers tell you isn’t it? 

 

I don't read papers mate. Judgemental prick. 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

As opposed to the thick cunts who scream give it to them give it to them there is always loads of money lying around, yes?

Amen. This is a shit discussion cos people like Whelk say give them cash, then waffle on about Putin and newspapers when asked where the cash is supposed to come from. I'd have a more rational conversation with my granddaughter. And she's 5. 

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

I don't read papers mate. Judgemental prick. 

Doesn’t surprise me actually but there must be some source that gives you macro economic understanding. Slogan on a bus?

[Tamesaint]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Amen. This is a shit discussion cos people like Whelk say give them cash, then waffle on about Putin and newspapers when asked where the cash is supposed to come from. I'd have a more rational conversation with my granddaughter. And she's 5. 

Better pay for nurses would reduce the reliance on agency nurses and would partially offset any increase in nurses's pay

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-pays-43billion-private-firms-28248649

[whelk]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Amen. This is a shit discussion cos people like Whelk say give them cash, then waffle on about Putin and newspapers when asked where the cash is supposed to come from. I'd have a more rational conversation with my granddaughter. And she's 5. 

I fear the Putin reference was lost on you. Anyway no one is going to convince anyone here. You wait for Jacob Rees-Mogg to tell you what there is and isn’t money for. 
 

[egg]

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

Doesn’t surprise me actually but there must be some source that gives you macro economic understanding. Slogan on a bus?

Where do your source your information that we have a budget surplus for £10bn pay hikes? Then the inevitable hikes that other public sector employees would expect after they see nurses get it? A seemingly self proclaimed clever cunt like you must surely understand the inflationary pressures that would follow that, and the vicious circle that would follow? Or are you actually just a thick cunt/irritating keyboard warrior with no actual understanding of basics?

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Better pay for nurses would reduce the reliance on agency nurses and would partially offset any increase in nurses's pay

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-pays-43billion-private-firms-28248649

I think that's part of it for sure. There is a number shortage too, a brexit hangover. We need a solution for sure, but unbudgeted pay hikes will have consequences elsewhere. The biggest fear is a cut in staff numbers or elsewhere in the NHS to pay for it. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

6 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Better pay for nurses would reduce the reliance on agency nurses and would partially offset any increase in nurses's pay

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-pays-43billion-private-firms-28248649

The problem is absolutely shocking management. My snap dragon earns a fortune working bank shifts in addition to her contract. Shifts that come about because of horrendous rostering/sickness levels/ lack of permanent staff. Senior management are fucking clueless and there’s always a last minute panic to fill gaps, they just throw monetary incentives around to get people in. It’s been going on for years, some of her colleagues have reduced their NHS contract in order to do bank shifts. No matter how many times they announce that no incentives will be paid, a week with no volunteers and they soon crumble. The SD won’t do any extra unless it attracts incentive, so just sits back until they give in and start paying it again. 
 

There doesn’t appear to be any accountability or budgets around agency costs & OT. In the private sector I have to use OT & occasionally agency, but my line manager is all over it like a rash. Any manager that uses it long term won’t be in a job for long. Therefore, it seems too simplistic to say “if we used less agency/bank then we can recruit new staff and pay existing ones more”. It really seems beyond senior management to implement this and therefore I’ve no doubt that we’d end up bunging  existing staff more dosh and still not cutting back on agency usage. Other trusts maybe different, but I wouldn’t bet on it. 

[AlexLaw76]

NHS needs more money, clearly

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/nhs-looking-for-an-115k-director-for-lived-experience/

Edited 17 December, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[Tamesaint]

51 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The problem is absolutely shocking management. My snap dragon earns a fortune working bank shifts in addition to her contract. Shifts that come about because of horrendous rostering/sickness levels/ lack of permanent staff. Senior management are fucking clueless and there’s always a last minute panic to fill gaps, they just throw monetary incentives around to get people in. It’s been going on for years, some of her colleagues have reduced their NHS contract in order to do bank shifts. No matter how many times they announce that no incentives will be paid, a week with no volunteers and they soon crumble. The SD won’t do any extra unless it attracts incentive, so just sits back until they give in and start paying it again. 
 

There doesn’t appear to be any accountability or budgets around agency costs & OT. In the private sector I have to use OT & occasionally agency, but my line manager is all over it like a rash. Any manager that uses it long term won’t be in a job for long. Therefore, it seems too simplistic to say “if we used less agency/bank then we can recruit new staff and pay existing ones more”. It really seems beyond senior management to implement this and therefore I’ve no doubt that we’d end up bunging  existing staff more dosh and still not cutting back on agency usage. Other trusts maybe different, but I wouldn’t bet on it. 

Very interesting and confirms what I have been told by other people who work  in the health sector. 

 

 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Where do your source your information that we have a budget surplus for £10bn pay hikes? Then the inevitable hikes that other public sector employees would expect after they see nurses get it? A seemingly self proclaimed clever cunt like you must surely understand the inflationary pressures that would follow that, and the vicious circle that would follow? Or are you actually just a thick cunt/irritating keyboard warrior with no actual understanding of basics?

Where does the £10Bn figure come from ?

[Tamesaint]

12 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Where does the £10Bn figure come from ?

The government say that 1% increase for nurses would cost £700m. That however is for the whole NHS work force. 

Nurses constitute just less than half of the NHS work force. Say £350m for each 1% that nurses are awarded.

19% for nurses would equate to c. £6.5 // £7 billion. However anyone who thinks that nurses will only settle for 19% clearly knows nothing about negotiation / swallows government nonsense without thinking.

An 8% increase for nurses (which is what the Scottish nurses seem to be accepting ) would cost just under £3 billion. As the government have offered (and presumably budgeted for) a 4.75% increase the extra burden on the Exchequer would be in the order of £1.2 / £1.5 billion.. Not exactly chickenfeed but a fraction of the amount that Boris could spaff up the wall in a morning. 

[egg]

55 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

The government say that 1% increase for nurses would cost £700m. That however is for the whole NHS work force. 

Nurses constitute just less than half of the NHS work force. Say £350m for each 1% that nurses are awarded.

19% for nurses would equate to c. £6.5 // £7 billion. However anyone who thinks that nurses will only settle for 19% clearly knows nothing about negotiation / swallows government nonsense without thinking.

An 8% increase for nurses (which is what the Scottish nurses seem to be accepting ) would cost just under £3 billion. As the government have offered (and presumably budgeted for) a 4.75% increase the extra burden on the Exchequer would be in the order of £1.2 / £1.5 billion.. Not exactly chickenfeed but a fraction of the amount that Boris could spaff up the wall in a morning. 

If they came to the table with a more realistic position than 19%, that'd be a start, but anything the nurses get would likely be expected by other NHS employees, then other public service workers. It needs resolving, but conceding something big here will set the tone for other discussions. Ultimately, more money has to be found, and as Duckie says, nobody on all honesty wants to pay for it. 

[The Left Back]

1 hour ago, egg said:

If they came to the table with a more realistic position than 19%, that'd be a start, but anything the nurses get would likely be expected by other NHS employees, then other public service workers. It needs resolving, but conceding something big here will set the tone for other discussions. Ultimately, more money has to be found, and as Duckie says, nobody on all honesty wants to pay for it. 

There’s no table to come to. 

[aintforever]

6 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Happy to pay more tax? But can’t be arsed to do so.

gotcha

I’m happy to pay more tax but that doesn’t mean I want to, just means I won’t cry like a little baby if a bit more has to go towards providing decent public services.

It is really not that hard to understand. I want decent public services so would prefer a government that funds it properly even if it means people like me (middle to high earners) pay more in. 

[egg]

23 minutes ago, The Left Back said:

There’s no table to come to. 

Of course there is, but they've approached it with a ridiculous starting position. In the government's shoes I'd be asking them to revise their position to something vaguely sensible, then sit down. Starting at 19% is madness. 

[The Left Back]

You must have missed the news. Sunak said it yesterday. 

[egg]

6 minutes ago, The Left Back said:

You must have missed the news. Sunak said it yesterday. 

He didn't say that. He said: "The health secretary has always been clear that his door is always open for talks - we want to be reasonable, we want to be constructive". Crystal clear.

He also said that he felt the offer was fair. 

The governments position is more realistic than the union. I wouldn't negotiate with the union whilst they're mentioning 19% - it's not a credible or sensible starting point. They need to drop, then get around the table. 

[whelk]

5 hours ago, egg said:

Where do your source your information that we have a budget surplus for £10bn pay hikes? Then the inevitable hikes that other public sector employees would expect after they see nurses get it? A seemingly self proclaimed clever cunt like you must surely understand the inflationary pressures that would follow that, and the vicious circle that would follow? Or are you actually just a thick cunt/irritating keyboard warrior with no actual understanding of basics?

Think you should take a break mate. Seem to be getting very angry these days. Used to think you were a reasonable chilled poster but fear you are going the way of Unbelievable Jeff it seems.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

Think you should take a break mate. Seem to be getting very angry these days. Used to think you were a reasonable chilled poster but fear you are going the way of Unbelievable Jeff it seems.

No anger here mate, I just think you're a bit of a patronising twat and don't mind pointing it out these days. That's the only change in me. 

[AlexLaw76]

Wait till this gains traction over here…. Not too long ago, you would be laughed at for suggesting the vaccine was not as safe as advertised

 

Edited 18 December, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[badgerx16]

30 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Wait till this gains traction over here…. Not too long ago, you would be laughed at for suggesting the vaccine was not as safe as advertised

 

That is from September 2021.

This is from February 2022;

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/17/instagram-posts/fda-didnt-say-pfizer-misled-them-about-vaccine-saf/

 

Imagine the traction Alexei might get if he posted something recent and relevant.

Edited 18 December, 2022 by badgerx16

[Lighthouse]

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Wait till this gains traction over here…. Not too long ago, you would be laughed at for suggesting the vaccine was not as safe as advertised

 

Whereas these days you just get pretty much ignored by people who are bored with how gullible you are.

[saint1977]

Brexit, that’s what happening. Sunlit uplands my arse https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-nhs-staff-medicine-shortages-b2247575.html

[rallyboy]

How can the UK allow a deranged elderly sex pest to write articles of racist hatred and abuse in The Sun to satisfy his dark army of wanking gammony freaks, but still get invited to the Palace?

 

[Tamesaint]

20 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

How can the UK allow a deranged elderly sex pest to write articles of racist hatred and abuse in The Sun to satisfy his dark army of wanking gammony freaks, but still get invited to the Palace?

 

Clarkson has clearly lost the plot.A pity that the Sun or whichever rag he writes for doesn't get some treatment for him.

[Lighthouse]

28 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

How can the UK allow a deranged elderly sex pest to write articles of racist hatred and abuse in The Sun to satisfy his dark army of wanking gammony freaks, but still get invited to the Palace?

Because we have an open and free press, which is allowed to criticise public figures. It won’t always be nice and some people will abuse that privilege but it’s important to have it.

[Turkish]

14 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Clarkson has clearly lost the plot.A pity that the Sun or whichever rag he writes for doesn't get some treatment for him.

He obviously thought he was being funny and that people would agree with him. He got it wrong, whatever you think of Megan Markele it wasnt a particularly clever or amusing thing to say. 

[rallyboy]

11 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Because we have an open and free press, which is allowed to criticise public figures. It won’t always be nice and some people will abuse that privilege but it’s important to have it.

He was invited to the Palace because we have a free press?

It's not a great look.

 

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, rallyboy said:

He was invited to the Palace because we have a free press?

It's not a great look.

 

im sure you would be equally appalled if the comment was about say, Patel, Farage or Boris Johnson. 

I am certain of it

[The Left Back]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

im sure you would be equally appalled if the comment was about say, Patel, Farage or Boris Johnson. 

I am certain of it

1.   Comments like this make you look bitter and full of passive-aggressive bile.  

2.  Clarkson isn't going to say those things about the people you mentioned is he? I don't like Patel, Farage or Johnson but if I said "At night, I'm unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when Boris is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant 'Shame!' and throw lumps of excrement at him", I'd be quite rightly destroyed on here and elsewhere.

3. If the above quote is a true statement of his night time mindset then I'd be seriously worried about his own issues.  To carry that much poison around about someone else, regardless of who, is going to be playing havoc with his heart health, immune system and neural network.  

4.  If it's not how he feels but he sees his role as to shock and provoke massive response then he's been pretty successful.  If that's the case it speaks volumes about him and his employers, and very little about the ex-duchess of Sussex. 

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, The Left Back said:

1.   Comments like this make you look bitter and full of passive-aggressive bile.  

2.  Clarkson isn't going to say those things about the people you mentioned is he? I don't like Patel, Farage or Johnson but if I said "At night, I'm unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when Boris is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant 'Shame!' and throw lumps of excrement at him", I'd be quite rightly destroyed on here and elsewhere.

3. If the above quote is a true statement of his night time mindset then I'd be seriously worried about his own issues.  To carry that much poison around about someone else, regardless of who, is going to be playing havoc with his heart health, immune system and neural network.  

4.  If it's not how he feels but he sees his role as to shock and provoke massive response then he's been pretty successful.  If that's the case it speaks volumes about him and his employers, and very little about the ex-duchess of Sussex. 

If anything it vindicates her position. She could use this as evidence to claim that she was right about the bias against her. It doesn't say anything about Meghan Markle at all, its nothing to do with her, it's the opinion of a fella who likes to tread close to the line of offence also thinking he'd have some support for his views, this time he's read the room wrong.