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

[winjim]

But I don't want to be 'comfortable enough'. I have worked hard, done lots of learning, courses, progressed and now I am 'very comfortable' for my standards, but still extremely poor compared to others.

I don't want to drop my standards though thanks.

Don't pretend not to understand.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Is money the only reason people go to work?

No.
I could never afford to be a functioning alcoholic if it wasn't for corporate expenses....

 

[Fab Foodie]

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.

I'm going to disagree about efficiency.
I work in blue-chip multi-national corporate. We think that as a lean-mean money-making machine we are super lean and efficient.
I've just been part of a low-level/ground-up 'simplification' project which readily identified vast areas of costly inneficiencies. In our case it only affects corporate profits and wastes our time. In the public sector efficiency savings makes money available for important life-changing stuff.
The problem is that top-down 'efficiency saving' programs have become a euphemism for cost-cutting.
Public organisations should strive for the efficient use of public funds...that is NOT cost-cutting, it's saving that extra life....

 

[Bromptonaut]

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.

Rich/poor is not a binary question is it?

 

[Deleted member 28]

Rich/poor is not a binary question is it?

It is important we find out who is which though because we have to tax the one lot, and those 'wealthy' sorts.

 

[winjim]

It is important we find out who is which though because we have to tax the one lot, and those 'wealthy' sorts.

Do we? Or should we reduce the overall tax burden and encourage personal responsibility and provision of public services by means of private enterprise and philanthropy?

I only mention the idea because it seems this forum is regularly criticised for not tolerating right wing opinion yet in thirteen pages of discussion about taxes nobody has brought it up.

 

[fozy tornip]

Or should we reduce the overall tax burden and encourage personal responsibility and provision of public services by means of private enterprise and philanthropy?

Give public services to P&O. Why, in thirteen pages of discussion, has no-one said it?

 

[Deleted member 28]

Do we?

so for now I'd settle for taxing the rich.

You tell me?

 

[winjim]

You tell me?

I thought it's what you voted for. I mean it's not what you're getting since the Tory party was purged of all sensible one-nation conservatives, but it is ostensibly what right wing economics is supposed to be isn't it?

 

[mudsticks]

I thought it's what you voted for. I mean it's not what you're getting since the Tory party was purged of all sensible one-nation conservatives, but it is ostensibly what right wing economics is supposed to be isn't it?

Well this Janet and John intro to left versus right wing economic policy is all very well Jimbo..

But what I really want to know is, what sort of, if any cake, you got yesterday??

 

[winjim]

I'm going to disagree about efficiency.
I work in blue-chip multi-national corporate. We think that as a lean-mean money-making machine we are super lean and efficient.
I've just been part of a low-level/ground-up 'simplification' project which readily identified vast areas of costly inneficiencies. In our case it only affects corporate profits and wastes our time. In the public sector efficiency savings makes money available for important life-changing stuff.
The problem is that top-down 'efficiency saving' programs have become a euphemism for cost-cutting.
Public organisations should strive for the efficient use of public funds...that is NOT cost-cutting, it's saving that extra life....

I'm not sure we're entirely in disagreement since it's the use of the term as a euphemism that I find particularly disagreeable, although I do think that the term has become utterly corrupted.

But what I really want to know is, what sort of, if any cake, you got yesterday??

Butter and eggs were still out today so I used them to make pancakes for the children.

 

[mudsticks]

I'm not sure we're entirely in disagreement since it's the use of the term as a euphemism that I find particularly disagreeable, although I do think that the term has become utterly corrupted.


Butter and eggs were still out today so I used them to make pancakes for the children.

Yum - pancakes..

 

[winjim]

Yum - pancakes..

They're quick, simple and could do with a proper filling, just like my understanding of economics.

 

[mudsticks]

They're quick, simple and could do with a proper filling, just like my understanding of economics.

There's probs a whole school of economic thought that relies upon pancake analogies..

And fillings various.

Or is that doughnuts??

Anyhow sure they were delicious...

 

[Deleted member 28]

I thought it's what you voted for. I mean it's not what you're getting since the Tory party was purged of all sensible one-nation conservatives, but it is ostensibly what right wing economics is supposed to be isn't it?

I'm not the one complaining about taxation levels am I?