Rishi - be a Robin Hood, Tax the richer and give to the poorer....

[Deleted member 49]

Hmm.. you surprise me, I thought you would have preferred that those in work earned enough not to need top-up benefits (ie subsidising employers)... but... no matter, we all have a view...

I'd settle for them either being decently paid or suitable benefits...

Do keep up.

 

[BoldonLad]

Do keep up.

? I had kept up, I was querying your willingness to accept top-up benefits to those working.

 

[Deleted member 49]

? I had kept up, I was querying your willingness to accept top-up benefits to those working.

Can I be arsed....go on then.So if your working you should be suitably paid.If your on benefits they should be enough to live on....happy 🙄

 

[newfhouse]

Excellent. Now we are getting somewhere. We know now that anyone on £79,999 or less is poor.

Now we can start to figure out how to help those people.

I’m only posting this because @winjim was struggling to post images a while back.

 

[Rusty Nails]

But as we don't know where poor stops and rich begins how can we sensibly debate if enough is being done?

There is not a point where poor stops and rich begins, and I cannot understand why it is the cause of such debate. There is a continuum with the very poor right at one end and the very rich at the other and there are millions in between. James Dyson is very rich and the bloke who sleeps in the doorway of M&S is very poor. Compared to the bloke sleeping rough I am rich, while compared to Dyson, I am poor.

I am not in favour of just soak the rich, but it should not be beyond the abilities of the best minds in government and finance to develop a new system to gradually increase the level that people and companies pay in tax (beyond a flat rate for everyone which simplistically does that) to meet the needs of a civilised and caring country more fairly than it does at present. And a mentality in government to ensure that this is carried out effectively with loopholes closed.

 

[BoldonLad]

There is not a point where poor stops and rich begins, and I cannot understand why it is the cause of such debate. There is a continuum with the very poor right at one end and the very rich at the other and there are millions in between. James Dyson is very rich and the bloke who sleeps in the doorway of M&S is very poor. Compared to the bloke sleeping rough I am rich, while compared to Dyson, I am poor.

I am not in favour of just soak the rich, but it should not be beyond the abilities of the best minds in government and finance to develop a new system to gradually increase the level that people and companies pay in tax (beyond a flat rate for everyone which simplistically does that) to meet the needs of a civilised and caring country more fairly than it does at present. And a mentality in government to ensure that this is carried out effectively with loopholes closed.

Owning up firstly to not being an economist, my simplistic idea is a form of income tax which begins as a negative deduction, then, slowly, in 1% increments, reaches zero (ie, no deduction and no rebate), at (say) £25,000, then progressively increases in 1% increments, until (say) 90% is reached. Given that computers (even in the form of phones and tablets) are readily available, the actual calculation, even for a one man business should not be a problem. Company taxation is, I suppose, paid by “us” anyway, it is simply included in the price of goods and services. Not sure how I would approach that, perhaps, give up, and have just personal taxation?

An equally big problem, in my mind, is calculating the total demand and cost of the services we wish to provide (as suggested by another poster). Most things at present are effectively “rationed” by price, if we remove that, how is demand controlled and a degree of efficiency maintained?

All too much for my old head.

 

[winjim]

We all like value for money but I'm wary of demanding too much in the way of 'efficiency'. A bureaucracy the size of a government department is always going to have inefficiencies and there will always be waste, that's a fact of life. The NHS is always going to lose money, it's in the nature of the service. The term 'efficiency' is a euphemism being used in order to encourage privatisation of essential public services with the myth that private companies can wave some sort of magic wand and increase 'efficiency' just like that. It's a dirty lie and a con trick and recent history should leave us in no doubt about it.

Just have a think about who our 'minister for government efficiency' is and what his motives might be. That really should tell us all we need to know about that term.

 

[theclaud]

There is not a point where poor stops and rich begins, and I cannot understand why it is the cause of such debate.

It isn't a cause of debate, it's a means of avoiding the question.

 

[mudsticks]

We all like value for money but I'm wary of demanding too much in the way of 'efficiency'. A bureaucracy the size of a government department is always going to have inefficiencies and there will always be waste, that's a fact of life. The NHS is always going to lose money, it's in the nature of the service. The term 'efficiency' is a euphemism being used in order to encourage privatisation of essential public services with the myth that private companies can wave some sort of magic wand and increase 'efficiency' just like that. It's a dirty lie and a con trick and recent history should leave us in no doubt about it.

Just have a think about who our 'minister for government efficiency' is and what his motives might be. That really should tell us all we need to know about that term.

Agree.


And in my view little bits of inefficiency are just about being human, and give us some wiggle room in emergencies, we can tighten up if things get really difficult.

That's how I've run my own businesses over the years, and its stood me in good stead, there's always a bit of leeway.

I'm not having to 'maximise shareholder value'

And 'maximum efficiency' isn't a direct indicator of good value or 'best practice' in terms of getting societies needs met anyhow.

Take for instance school food.

At the moment it's provision is tendered for by big corps like 'Rentokill' 🙄


Contracts are awarded on the lowest price that meets minimum standards.
They just meet the minimum standards for nutrition, but the offering is pretty dire .

But imagine having localised contracts for public procurement of school food, using locally produced ingredients where possible..

- some other countries already have legislation that insists upon that being done - because they value their children - the quality of food they receive and as it happens their food providers too.

That system might initially seem more 'inefficient'

But it can enhance nutritional value via freshness and variety, encourage better eating habits for life, with knock on benefits for health and educational attainment, and securely support local production..

So long as those little bits of inefficiency in terms of money spent, stay in the economy moving around doing things, then all is well.

Even just buying coffees, chain lube, cake, or nice socks, whatever then that's money moving in the economy.

Big corps making big money - via supposed 'efficiencies' then hiding it for tax purposes, or distributing it in shareholder value to offshore accounts, doesn't actually serve an economy well.

If enhancing overall human wellbeing is the primary aim, of a well run economy.

Trouble is , enhancing human wellbeing doesn't seem to be the main aim, if one at all, of this administration.

 

[winjim]

It isn't a cause of debate, it's a means of avoiding the question.

In current internet discourse, and maybe I've been watching too many videos involving right wing libertarian manbabies and young earth creationists, any invitation to 'debate' seems entirely disingenuous. I have no interest in 'debate' with those who don't share the same broad objectives as me. What would be the point?

 

[mudsticks]

In current internet discourse, and maybe I've been watching too many videos involving right wing libertarian manbabies and young earth creationists, any invitation to 'debate' seems entirely disingenuous. I have no interest in 'debate' with those who don't share the same broad objectives as me. What would be the point?

I'm borrowing this if I may..

 

[BoldonLad]

In current internet discourse, and maybe I've been watching too many videos involving right wing libertarian manbabies and young earth creationists, any invitation to 'debate' seems entirely disingenuous. I have no interest in 'debate' with those who don't share the same broad objectives as me. What would be the point?

Is that you @shep? Has your account been hacked?

 

[BoldonLad]

Can I be arsed....go on then.So if your working you should be suitably paid.If your on benefits they should be enough to live on....happy 🙄

It’s your opinion, everyone has one, no problem to me.

 

[Deleted member 28]

I've got a patient here with high cholesterol and raised TC:HDL ratio, normal trigs. No previous lipid profile available, U&Es and LFTs both normal. What should I write on the report?

In current internet discourse, and maybe I've been watching too many videos involving right wing libertarian manbabies and young earth creationists, any invitation to 'debate' seems entirely disingenuous. I have no interest in 'debate' with those who don't share the same broad objectives as me. What would be the point?

Tax the rich!

 

[Deleted member 28]

Can I be arsed....go on then.So if your working you should be suitably paid.If your on benefits they should be enough to live on....happy 🙄

At what level do you stop as there will be no incentive to get a job if not working makes life comfortable enough.