Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

But even you Stevo must be as surprised in his positive performances as i m surprised in TM's negative ones ?

Not really, Labour figured they didn't have much to lose and offered lots of people the imaginary proceeds from their magic money tree - quite a few people appear to have been daft enough to swallow it.

So you're happy with the Ed Balls deficit reduction scheme proposed in 2015?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25885606

No real details on how they would do it unless you have a better source?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

3 days from polling and i ve not got a clue what the Tories will do for me, my family or country.

They (or any other party) will save you, your family and the country from Corbyn. Simples

yeah right.

They will. Because they're in, Corbyn isn't.

As you're a self confessed higher rate taxpayer, your desire to have more tax flowing into the government's coffers will be come true on a very personal level if Corbyn's lot get in

No it wont, i dont earn £80k, you must know JC proposals are for those earning that amount plus?
and tbh even if i did, it wouldnt matter, some things are more important than money.

We ve seen our Police Paramedics Nurses and Doc's come to our aid 3 times in the last 2 months and they put their lives on the line against what the AR units no doubt thought were suicide bombers and their next pay rise will be 1%.... fan fcuking tastic, a real terms pay cut!!! - MPs meanwhile got 10% last year and another 1.4 this year, great leadership eh? no.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

No it wont, i dont earn £80k, you must know JC proposals are for those earning that amount plus?
and tbh even if i did, it wouldnt matter, some things are more important than money.

I have a reasonable suspicion that anyone who pays the higher.rate (40%) is going to get clobbered. Why?? Because IMO there aren't enough in the above £80k pa bracket to fund Corbyns promises - especially when you consider that the highest earners are the most able to access tax planning, control the timing of their own income or even shift themselves of their business activities offshore.

Don't say you haven't been warned...

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

No it wont, i dont earn £80k, you must know JC proposals are for those earning that amount plus?
and tbh even if i did, it wouldnt matter, some things are more important than money.

I have a reasonable suspicion that anyone who pays the higher.rate (40%) is going to get clobbered. Why?? Because IMO there aren't enough in the above £80k pa bracket to fund Corbyns promises - especially when you consider that the highest earners are the most able to access tax planning, control the timing of their own income or even shift themselves of their business activities offshore.

Don't say you haven't been warned...

i happen to think you are correct but i d rather pay more (say 5%) and have properly funded Police, nhs and education, so be it, are you seriously telling me that you couldnt afford to pay slightly more tax? and 5% extra would see you down the food bank?

you cant cut 600m from the met budget, with a further 400m in cuts planned and still have the same response and service.
You could save that amount (in one year) by not raising IHT which in the main benefits only the wealthy, why not rise in to 500k instead?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

No it wont, i dont earn £80k, you must know JC proposals are for those earning that amount plus?
and tbh even if i did, it wouldnt matter, some things are more important than money.

I have a reasonable suspicion that anyone who pays the higher.rate (40%) is going to get clobbered. Why?? Because IMO there aren't enough in the above £80k pa bracket to fund Corbyns promises - especially when you consider that the highest earners are the most able to access tax planning, control the timing of their own income or even shift themselves of their business activities offshore.

Don't say you haven't been warned...

i happen to think you are correct but i d rather pay more (say 5%) and have properly funded Police, nhs and education, so be it, are you seriously telling me that you couldnt afford to pay slightly more tax? and 5% extra would see you down the food bank?

you cant cut 600m from the met budget, with a further 400m in cuts planned and still have the same response and service.
You could save that amount (in one year) by not raising IHT which in the main benefits only the wealthy, why not rise in to 500k instead?

The top rate is 45%. The effective rate for those earmimg between £100-£120k is over 60%. That's enough. (Before you go on to corporate rates, there are nearly 25 separate taxes on busimesses, many substantial).

IHT is massively avoidable with a bit of foresight and planning.

You are assumimg that the answer to nearly every perceived problem is to chuck money at it - not always the case. For example the police the expert view seems not to be numberd but then use of available powers:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3724806/former-anti-terror-boss-slams-decision-to-abolish-control-orders-on-extremists-but-says-britain-does-have-enough-police/

I am prepared to look at reallocation of funds from other areas to those that need more but in these times there are hard choices to be made. As mentioned before, in the longer term we need to balance the books.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

I am prepared to look at reallocation of funds from other areas to those that need more but in these times there are hard choices to be made. As mentioned before, in the longer term we need to balance the books.

And some are saying that to balance these books and maintain services that we need more coming in. Nice that everyone agrees.

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I am prepared to look at reallocation of funds from other areas to those that need more but in these times there are hard choices to be made. As mentioned before, in the longer term we need to balance the books.

And some are saying that to balance these books and maintain services that we need more coming in. Nice that everyone agrees.

But history would suggest that there is a limit on what can be brought in. Everybody ducks the whatbwould you do to raise/save money so below is my own manifesto with customary lack of accurate castings.

Personally I would scrap Trident, HS2 and Hinckley Point which back of a fag packet would give us about an extra £30bn per annum.

I would also choke down on pension allowances, housing benefit and pensioner benefits. I would also combine tax and NI which would put everybody on a higher rate for unearned income. I reckon all this will get another £10bn per annum.

This I will use to clear the debt and then go out th other side - my own personal preference would be to use the rest on education and training as economic growth will help pay for everything else.

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I am prepared to look at reallocation of funds from other areas to those that need more but in these times there are hard choices to be made. As mentioned before, in the longer term we need to balance the books.

And some are saying that to balance these books and maintain services that we need more coming in. Nice that everyone agrees.

But history would suggest that there is a limit on what can be brought in. Everybody ducks the whatbwould you do to raise/save money so below is my own manifesto with customary lack of accurate castings.

Personally I would scrap Trident, HS2 and Hinckley Point which back of a fag packet would give us about an extra £30bn per annum.

I would also choke down on pension allowances, housing benefit and pensioner benefits. I would also combine tax and NI which would put everybody on a higher rate for unearned income. I reckon all this will get another £10bn per annum.

This I will use to clear the debt and then go out th other side - my own personal preference would be to use the rest on education and training as economic growth will help pay for everything else.

Send that to JC. Could be the tipping point.
TM would never go with that.

meanredspider

What would be good is if there was a clear way to hypothecate a tax increase to the NHS. I think it's something that, as I understand it, almost everyone is happy to pay more tax for. After all, pretty much everyone relies on the NHS at some point or other.
When I was talking about a far more sophisticated form of democracy before, tax is one of the areas that I believe would be a good area to allow the public to have a more direct say. I have very little interest in HS2 but I'm heavily invested in the NHS. I'd actually pay more tax voluntarily if I could choose where my tax went.

Stevo_666

meanredspider wrote:

I'd actually pay more tax voluntarily if I could choose where my tax went.

That's why I make charitable donations.

meanredspider

Stevo 666 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'd actually pay more tax voluntarily if I could choose where my tax went.

That's why I make charitable donations.

Me too - but it isn't the most efficient or coordinated way of funding healthcare. As an example (slightly indirect) I was astonished to hear of the "rift" (my word) between Guide Dogs for the Blind and RNIB over policy for the blind. Also, far too much of charitable donations ends up in the pockets of fund raising companies and administrators.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

I'd actually pay more tax voluntarily if I could choose where my tax went.

It's a nice thought but of course in this scenario certain areas (eg NHS of course - anything that the Newspapers like) would get far more than they should have and other areas far less. So probably, the NHS would end up getting funded purely by voluntary donations and the less popular, but equally worthy areas would be funded by compulsory taxation. And if that wasn't enough, taxes would rise to make sure that it was enough (always assuming the Govt gave a stuff about the less popular stuff which, in the post Brexit world, they probably won't so it all ends up crap however you do it anyway!).

meanredspider wrote:

Also, far too much of charitable donations ends up in the pockets of fund raising companies and administrators.

Always surprises me how obnoxious and amoral big charities often are.

meanredspider

Yes - clearly there'd need to be a base level of tax. My point is though that there could be a level of "crowd funding" (for want of a better term) where you could say: "Actually, I don't want to pay towards HS2 and I'd rather spend that on NHS" and link additional contributions or an element of your tax to be directed. Popular policy would then get fully funded and controversial stuff, like in crowdfunding, would fall by the wayside. It needs some thinking to develop it but I truly believe that government needs modernising.

ETA - this would have the knock-on benefit on re-engaging people in politics (rather than once in 5 years) AND help people understand what their money gets spent on.

tangled_metal

I know people in the NHS and their families in some cases. There is a lot of fundraising for projects/departments/equipment in hospitals. From one person in the neo-natal unit I heard that they get so much on charitable donations they end up with unspent cash at times. They often ended up spending it on other, less attractive units.

That's the problem with a beauty pageant of a scheme for tax spending within the NHS and indeed all areas of state spending. You'll end up with some parts very well funded at the expense of other parts. Say mental health gets sod all but it's ok because cancer care, neo-natal care is amazing! There will be forgotten areas of state expenditure that'll really lose out.

rjsterry

meanredspider wrote:

Yes - clearly there'd need to be a base level of tax. My point is though that there could be a level of "crowd funding" (for want of a better term) where you could say: "Actually, I don't want to pay towards HS2 and I'd rather spend that on NHS" and link additional contributions or an element of your tax to be directed. Popular policy would then get fully funded and controversial stuff, like in crowdfunding, would fall by the wayside. It needs some thinking to develop it but I truly believe that government needs modernising.

ETA - this would have the knock-on benefit on re-engaging people in politics (rather than once in 5 years) AND help people understand what their money gets spent on.

It's very easy to find out how your money is spent. It takes about 10 minutes of Google searches depending on how detailed you need to go. This information has been available for years - I'm not aware that the ONS's servers have seen particularly heavy traffic. I don't believe there is any real appetite for X-Factor style public spending decisions. I also think this undermines representative democracy.

I think "is it popular?" is probably one of least valid criteria for public spending decisions.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

I think "is it popular?" is probably one of least valid criteria for public spending decisions.

Particularly when 'popular' is what the Daily Mail tells people they should like.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

Yes - clearly there'd need to be a base level of tax. My point is though that there could be a level of "crowd funding" (for want of a better term) where you could say: "Actually, I don't want to pay towards HS2 and I'd rather spend that on NHS" and link additional contributions or an element of your tax to be directed. Popular policy would then get fully funded and controversial stuff, like in crowdfunding, would fall by the wayside. It needs some thinking to develop it but I truly believe that government needs modernising.

Yes, but if HS2 ends up underfunded it just takes a greater proportion of the base taxation. It's like the arguments about cyclists not paying road tax - X amount of pounds need to be spent on Y different things; you can give people the impression that their contribution is being used for a specific purpose that they are themselves supportive of but ultimately, in reality, it still ends up in a big pot of general tax revenue because that pot is what is needed to make the country work. If it makes you feel better about your tax burden then that's maybe a strong reason to do it but it shouldn't appeal to rational thought.

An easier way to achieve the same end would be to set up some sort of National Lottery!

surrey_commuter

meanredspider wrote:

What would be good is if there was a clear way to hypothecate a tax increase to the NHS. I think it's something that, as I understand it, almost everyone is happy to pay more tax for. After all, pretty much everyone relies on the NHS at some point or other.
When I was talking about a far more sophisticated form of democracy before, tax is one of the areas that I believe would be a good area to allow the public to have a more direct say. I have very little interest in HS2 but I'm heavily invested in the NHS. I'd actually pay more tax voluntarily if I could choose where my tax went.

I was pondering much the same thing. I think Govt would need to pledge to raise spending by X% and then for additional spending to work I think it would need to work like a poll tax so that we are all in it together. £200 per head will give us nearly £10bn. So in a referendum do we think people would vote for this

meanredspider

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Yes - clearly there'd need to be a base level of tax. My point is though that there could be a level of "crowd funding" (for want of a better term) where you could say: "Actually, I don't want to pay towards HS2 and I'd rather spend that on NHS" and link additional contributions or an element of your tax to be directed. Popular policy would then get fully funded and controversial stuff, like in crowdfunding, would fall by the wayside. It needs some thinking to develop it but I truly believe that government needs modernising.

Yes, but if HS2 ends up underfunded it just takes a greater proportion of the base taxation. It's like the arguments about cyclists not paying road tax - X amount of pounds need to be spent on Y different things; you can give people the impression that their contribution is being used for a specific purpose that they are themselves supportive of but ultimately, in reality, it still ends up in a big pot of general tax revenue because that pot is what is needed to make the country work. If it makes you feel better about your tax burden then that's maybe a strong reason to do it but it shouldn't appeal to rational thought.

An easier way to achieve the same end would be to set up some sort of National Lottery!

HS2 doesn't get underfunded it just doesn't get done. Like crowdfunding, if you can't persuade enough people that it's worth the money, then you don't get any money.

The Lottery (or "Stupid Tax") is exactly this type of thing and, judging by our success at the Olympics, very successful it has been too.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'd actually pay more tax voluntarily if I could choose where my tax went.

That's why I make charitable donations.

One of the reasons.

Tax offset helps make the decision too, presumably?

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'd actually pay more tax voluntarily if I could choose where my tax went.

That's why I make charitable donations.

One of the reasons.

Tax offset helps make the decision too, presumably?

I don't think it helps him but the charity.

tangled_metal

Beauty pageant taxation decisions. Can't see anything going wrong with that! :shock:

I don't personally use the trains so can I take the part of my taxes that.subsidizes that and put it into cancer research and care? I'm likely to get cancer so I think that's a better use of my tax pounds.

Then I don't use prisons, can I take money out off that for a tax reduction? Sorry, that's been done!

Well you get my drift. Even if you base fund everything and this is a top up, are you really the best person to allocate tax revenue? Also what part of representative democracy don't you understand?

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Yes - clearly there'd need to be a base level of tax. My point is though that there could be a level of "crowd funding" (for want of a better term) where you could say: "Actually, I don't want to pay towards HS2 and I'd rather spend that on NHS" and link additional contributions or an element of your tax to be directed. Popular policy would then get fully funded and controversial stuff, like in crowdfunding, would fall by the wayside. It needs some thinking to develop it but I truly believe that government needs modernising.

Yes, but if HS2 ends up underfunded it just takes a greater proportion of the base taxation. It's like the arguments about cyclists not paying road tax - X amount of pounds need to be spent on Y different things; you can give people the impression that their contribution is being used for a specific purpose that they are themselves supportive of but ultimately, in reality, it still ends up in a big pot of general tax revenue because that pot is what is needed to make the country work. If it makes you feel better about your tax burden then that's maybe a strong reason to do it but it shouldn't appeal to rational thought.

An easier way to achieve the same end would be to set up some sort of National Lottery!

HS2 doesn't get underfunded it just doesn't get done. Like crowdfunding, if you can't persuade enough people that it's worth the money, then you don't get any money.

The Lottery (or "Stupid Tax") is exactly this type of thing and, judging by our success at the Olympics, very successful it has been too.

So what else doesn't get done? The Environment? Farm subsidies? Foreign Aid? You vote for a party that supports HS2 but then refuse to pay for it so HS2 can't happen. I can't work out how that won't be a mess. Honestly, this seems a really confused idea to me!

The fact is that the general public haven't the faintest clue what the priorities are to make our country work and what proportion of funding those priorities need; there is absolutely no chance that they would get it right. We'd end up with gold plated taps in hospitals and rivers black with pollution. That's why we have a Govt and State.

meanredspider

I totally understand representative democracy but I think much of how it happens hasn't changed for literally centuries and it feels like we should challenge the ways things are done once in a while. After all, it's pretty unlikely than any of us would sign up to all the policies of one party. Equally we probably don't disagree with all the policies of the other parties. So rather than just have an exclusive way of being represented why don't we engage more? Technology is beginning to allow us to do more. I'm not saying that it's the answer but I do think we should challenge the way of doing stuff that comes from a time when a horse was the fastest way of getting around.

rjsterry

meanredspider wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Yes - clearly there'd need to be a base level of tax. My point is though that there could be a level of "crowd funding" (for want of a better term) where you could say: "Actually, I don't want to pay towards HS2 and I'd rather spend that on NHS" and link additional contributions or an element of your tax to be directed. Popular policy would then get fully funded and controversial stuff, like in crowdfunding, would fall by the wayside. It needs some thinking to develop it but I truly believe that government needs modernising.

Yes, but if HS2 ends up underfunded it just takes a greater proportion of the base taxation. It's like the arguments about cyclists not paying road tax - X amount of pounds need to be spent on Y different things; you can give people the impression that their contribution is being used for a specific purpose that they are themselves supportive of but ultimately, in reality, it still ends up in a big pot of general tax revenue because that pot is what is needed to make the country work. If it makes you feel better about your tax burden then that's maybe a strong reason to do it but it shouldn't appeal to rational thought.

An easier way to achieve the same end would be to set up some sort of National Lottery!

HS2 doesn't get underfunded it just doesn't get done. Like crowdfunding, if you can't persuade enough people that it's worth the money, then you don't get any money.

The Lottery (or "Stupid Tax") is exactly this type of thing and, judging by our success at the Olympics, very successful it has been too.

Just to clarify HS2 is already in progress. I don't think there's any realistic prospect of it being cancelled.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

I totally understand representative democracy but I think much of how it happens hasn't changed for literally centuries and it feels like we should challenge the ways things are done once in a while. After all, it's pretty unlikely than any of us would sign up to all the policies of one party. Equally we probably don't disagree with all the policies of the other parties. So rather than just have an exclusive way of being represented why don't we engage more? Technology is beginning to allow us to do more. I'm not saying that it's the answer but I do think we should challenge the way of doing stuff that comes from a time when a horse was the fastest way of getting around.

We did challenge the way we were doing stuff - the result was the EU and we are running away from that.

rjsterry wrote:

Just to clarify HS2 is already in progress. I don't think there's any realistic prospect of it being cancelled.

But it is just an example. Any dubious "Grand Project" will do as an alternative!

meanredspider

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Yes - clearly there'd need to be a base level of tax. My point is though that there could be a level of "crowd funding" (for want of a better term) where you could say: "Actually, I don't want to pay towards HS2 and I'd rather spend that on NHS" and link additional contributions or an element of your tax to be directed. Popular policy would then get fully funded and controversial stuff, like in crowdfunding, would fall by the wayside. It needs some thinking to develop it but I truly believe that government needs modernising.

Yes, but if HS2 ends up underfunded it just takes a greater proportion of the base taxation. It's like the arguments about cyclists not paying road tax - X amount of pounds need to be spent on Y different things; you can give people the impression that their contribution is being used for a specific purpose that they are themselves supportive of but ultimately, in reality, it still ends up in a big pot of general tax revenue because that pot is what is needed to make the country work. If it makes you feel better about your tax burden then that's maybe a strong reason to do it but it shouldn't appeal to rational thought.

An easier way to achieve the same end would be to set up some sort of National Lottery!

HS2 doesn't get underfunded it just doesn't get done. Like crowdfunding, if you can't persuade enough people that it's worth the money, then you don't get any money.

The Lottery (or "Stupid Tax") is exactly this type of thing and, judging by our success at the Olympics, very successful it has been too.

So what else doesn't get done? The Environment? Farm subsidies? Foreign Aid? You vote for a party that supports HS2 but then refuse to pay for it so HS2 can't happen. I can't work out how that won't be a mess. Honestly, this seems a really confused idea to me!

The fact is that the general public haven't the faintest clue what the priorities are to make our country work and what proportion of funding those priorities need; there is absolutely no chance that they would get it right. We'd end up with gold plated taps in hospitals and rivers black with pollution. That's why we have a Govt and State.

I'm not talking about all spending or anything like it but more the nuances of spending and possibly only on a very small proportion of spending to start with. But people would get more engaged and better understand what things cost.

fenix

meanredspider wrote:

I totally understand representative democracy but I think much of how it happens hasn't changed for literally centuries and it feels like we should challenge the ways things are done once in a while. After all, it's pretty unlikely than any of us would sign up to all the policies of one party. Equally we probably don't disagree with all the policies of the other parties. So rather than just have an exclusive way of being represented why don't we engage more? Technology is beginning to allow us to do more. I'm not saying that it's the answer but I do think we should challenge the way of doing stuff that comes from a time when a horse was the fastest way of getting around.

I do like the idea of this - but it doesn't work out. Look at Brexit. People were lied to and voted on distractions and irrational fears.

We've made some godawful decisions even with all of the information being freely available. You could easily have internet voting on all sorts of policy decisions if you wanted a true democracy - but your country would be a smoking ruin by the end of the first year....

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

What would be good is if there was a clear way to hypothecate a tax increase to the NHS. I think it's something that, as I understand it, almost everyone is happy to pay more tax for. After all, pretty much everyone relies on the NHS at some point or other.
When I was talking about a far more sophisticated form of democracy before, tax is one of the areas that I believe would be a good area to allow the public to have a more direct say. I have very little interest in HS2 but I'm heavily invested in the NHS. I'd actually pay more tax voluntarily if I could choose where my tax went.

I was pondering much the same thing. I think Govt would need to pledge to raise spending by X% and then for additional spending to work I think it would need to work like a poll tax so that we are all in it together. £200 per head will give us nearly £10bn. So in a referendum do we think people would vote for this

That worked so well the last time round.

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

What would be good is if there was a clear way to hypothecate a tax increase to the NHS. I think it's something that, as I understand it, almost everyone is happy to pay more tax for. After all, pretty much everyone relies on the NHS at some point or other.
When I was talking about a far more sophisticated form of democracy before, tax is one of the areas that I believe would be a good area to allow the public to have a more direct say. I have very little interest in HS2 but I'm heavily invested in the NHS. I'd actually pay more tax voluntarily if I could choose where my tax went.

I was pondering much the same thing. I think Govt would need to pledge to raise spending by X% and then for additional spending to work I think it would need to work like a poll tax so that we are all in it together. £200 per head will give us nearly £10bn. So in a referendum do we think people would vote for this

That worked so well the last time round.

But if you are going to ask people to pay more for the NHS then it should be as broad based as possible. The alternative would be to allocate votes based upon how much extra you are going to pay.

But I am proposing a vote on whether to introduce a poll tax to raise money for the NHS. If nothing else it would be interesting to see if people were prepared to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to NHS funding. I suspect the majority think somebody else should pay for it and would vote NO.