Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

Imagine those earning over £150,000 are really feeling the burden...

Must be so tough only going for the fabric over the leather upholstery in their family car.

Ridiculous comment.

I don't begrudge people earning a lot of money but to suggest they're "over burdened" is just a joke.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Imagine those earning over £150,000 are really feeling the burden...

Must be so tough only going for the fabric over the leather upholstery in their family car.

Ridiculous comment.

I don't begrudge people earning a lot of money but to suggest they're "over burdened" is just a joke.

Most sensible option in any case. But that is for another thread.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Imagine those earning over £150,000 are really feeling the burden...

Must be so tough only going for the fabric over the leather upholstery in their family car.

Ridiculous comment.

I don't begrudge people earning a lot of money but to suggest they're "over burdened" is just a joke.

You should try it one day then maybe you would understand

The point is that they are not a bottomless source of tax revenue and that simply trying to up the by is often counter productive for a number of reasons.

I've posted this link before but it is pretty relevant here and may help people understand in laymans terms:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9236469/There-is-a-moral-message-behind-the-low-tax-story.html

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Imagine those earning over £150,000 are really feeling the burden...

Must be so tough only going for the fabric over the leather upholstery in their family car.

Ridiculous comment.

I don't begrudge people earning a lot of money but to suggest they're "over burdened" is just a joke.

You should try it one day then maybe you would understand

The point is that they are not a bottomless source of tax revenue and that simply trying to up the by is often counter productive for a number of reasons.

I've posted this link before but it is pretty relevant here and may help people understand in laymans terms:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9236469/There-is-a-moral-message-behind-the-low-tax-story.html

The assumption that a small government MUST be better is every bit as dogmatic as the hard left's Nationalise Everything approach. If you take away that assumption the whole argument for lower taxes falls apart. Also, I didn't think you believed morality had any relevance to taxation. Putting that to one side, the basic point that high earners aren't an inexhaustible supply of tax income is fair enough, not least because there aren't enough of them.

Just to pick up on SC's point on stamp duty, while it's difficult to shed a tear for London property owners losing a bit more of their unearned income, rather than tapping into a new source, the changes Osborne brought in have just stalled the market.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Imagine those earning over £150,000 are really feeling the burden...

Must be so tough only going for the fabric over the leather upholstery in their family car.

Ridiculous comment.

I don't begrudge people earning a lot of money but to suggest they're "over burdened" is just a joke.

You should try it one day then maybe you would understand

The point is that they are not a bottomless source of tax revenue and that simply trying to up the by is often counter productive for a number of reasons.

I've posted this link before but it is pretty relevant here and may help people understand in laymans terms:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9236469/There-is-a-moral-message-behind-the-low-tax-story.html

The assumption that a small government MUST be better is every bit as dogmatic as the hard left's Nationalise Everything approach. If you take away that assumption the whole argument for lower taxes falls apart. Also, I didn't think you believed morality had any relevance to taxation. Putting that to one side, the basic point that high earners aren't an inexhaustible supply of tax income is fair enough, not least because there aren't enough of them.

Just to pick up on SC's point on stamp duty, while it's difficult to shed a tear for London property owners losing a bit more of their unearned income, rather than tapping into a new source, the changes Osborne brought in have just stalled the market.

As before, the 'moral' of the story in tnat last link is related not to the small state argument but to the point that there is a limit to how much tax burden you can impose on the higher income bands (and corporates) before the normal human reaction to actual or perceived excessive taxes kicks in and makes tax rises counter productive. Ditto hostility toward those that pay most of the bills.

There is other evidence to back up the point. For example:-
- Not sure if you recall the link I posted a while back to HMRCs estimatemof how much the income tax hike to 50% actually raised in additional revenues. The answer we sweet FA.
- Or the fact that we collected significantly more corporation tax in absolute terms year when the rate was 20% compared to 2010 when the Tories took power and the rate was 28%

I've yet to see anyone produce any evidence to refute the point in the article.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

As before, the 'moral' of the story in tnat last link is related not to the small state argument but to the point that there is a limit to how much tax burden you can impose on the higher income bands (and corporates) before the normal human reaction to actual or perceived excessive taxes kicks in and makes tax rises counter productive. Ditto hostility toward those that pay most of the bills.

There is other evidence to back up the point. For example:-
- Not sure if you recall the link I posted a while back to HMRCs estimatemof how much the income tax hike to 50% actually raised in additional revenues. The answer we sweet FA.
- Or the fact that we collected significantly more corporation tax in absolute terms year when the rate was 20% compared to 2010 when the Tories took power and the rate was 28%

I've yet to see anyone produce any evidence to refute the point in the article.

OK let's look at the figures.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

Who is right is important not just for the lucky few who have incomes high enough that they would be directly affected. It matters for everyone because the Exchequer is, perhaps worryingly, reliant on this very small group of individuals for a very large fraction of revenue: the 1% of income tax payers with incomes in excess of £150,000 pay somewhere between 25 and 30% of all income tax. How these people would respond to a change in tax rates can therefore have big implications for overall tax revenues.
Perhaps the best evidence we have at present is that produced by HMRC, and signed off by the Office for Budget Responsibility, in 2012. This suggested that cutting the 50p rate to 45p could reduce revenues by about £3.5 billion in 2015–16 if there was no change in behaviour by affected individuals. However, once one allows for behavioural response, their central estimate was a cost of just £100 million – a very small amount of money. The best available estimate of what reversing the cut would raise is therefore about £100 million too.

So we're more or less at the top of the laffer curve - so why are the Tories so het up about that figure? and you?

And as for the stat of taking more corporate tax when it was lower - again, you mentioned this before and I asked, rightly, that it's better to look at it as proportion of GDP rather than the absolute number. All the number ought to be bigger because there are more people in the UK and the economy as a whole has grown since 2010 fairly significantly.

That would explain why you get stories like this: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 9qxX9xcezg


Take a look at this from the IFS: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9206

This substantial rise in the rate of corporation tax would raise a substantial sum. HMRC estimate that a 1 percentage point increase in the rate of corporation tax this year would raise £2.7 billion a year in 2021–22 (£2.3 billion a year in 2017–18 terms). If this figure is used, a simple ‘back of the envelope’ calculation suggests that Labour’s plans (relative to a 17% rate) could raise around £19 billion in 2021–22 (£16.8 billion in 2017–18 terms). That compares to forecast onshore corporation tax revenues of £53 billion in 2021–22. However, this should be seen as an overestimate of how much revenue would be raised because at higher tax rates an increase in the rate would lead to a larger reduction in UK investment and therefore bring in less revenue.
Labour’s increase in the rate of corporation tax, if it did raise revenues by £19 billion, would add 0.8% of national income to government receipts, which are already forecast to rise to the highest share of national income since 1986–87.

The article mentions the trade offs - re the price compared to other nations putting off international nations, but doesn't put a figure on it.

I reckon however, that the UK economy is probably big enough and attractive enough that it would put off firms at the margins rather than anything too significant. Or are you doing down the British economy Stevo? That the only reason they want to be here is for low corporate tax?

There's also arguments to suggest that low taxes to attract international firms to circulate revenue through them warps the economy in unfortunate ways.

Stevo_666

How do you know whare we are on the Laffer curve?

Not sure why you think people are hung up, we just want avoid harming the economy for ideological tax reasons.

Also whare are you getting your figures from for UK GDP and corporation tax revenues from 2010 to 2017? As the latter has increased substantially more in percentage terms compared to the former. Despite the rate dropping substantially in that period.

The article says that short term revenues would go up but then will be adversely impacted as investment goes down (and avoidance goes up - I know it will)

As for your last two paragraphs, show me your arguments/evidence.

rick_chasey

Let's look at FDI over time.

You feel FDI will be lower when corporate taxes are higher.



So ignoring the FX drop by 20% bounce right at the end I don't see a steady increase as corp tax is reduced.

I also don't remember the Uk being particularly unattractive in the '00s.

How do I know we're probably at the top of the laffer curve? Because moving it 5% either way makes negligible impact - as discussed.



Around the top of the curve the changes affect revenue less.

I didn't give any pre 2010 figures - was suggesting you did.

Offering gross figures is meaningless.

This article offers reasons for why the Uk corporate tax take spiked last year: https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7 ... 8383da43b7

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Imagine those earning over £150,000 are really feeling the burden...

Must be so tough only going for the fabric over the leather upholstery in their family car.

Ridiculous comment.

I don't begrudge people earning a lot of money but to suggest they're "over burdened" is just a joke.

You should try it one day then maybe you would understand

The point is that they are not a bottomless source of tax revenue and that simply trying to up the by is often counter productive for a number of reasons.

I've posted this link before but it is pretty relevant here and may help people understand in laymans terms:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9236469/There-is-a-moral-message-behind-the-low-tax-story.html

The assumption that a small government MUST be better is every bit as dogmatic as the hard left's Nationalise Everything approach. If you take away that assumption the whole argument for lower taxes falls apart. Also, I didn't think you believed morality had any relevance to taxation. Putting that to one side, the basic point that high earners aren't an inexhaustible supply of tax income is fair enough, not least because there aren't enough of them.

Just to pick up on SC's point on stamp duty, while it's difficult to shed a tear for London property owners losing a bit more of their unearned income, rather than tapping into a new source, the changes Osborne brought in have just stalled the market.

As before, the 'moral' of the story in tnat last link is related not to the small state argument but to the point that there is a limit to how much tax burden you can impose on the higher income bands (and corporates) before the normal human reaction to actual or perceived excessive taxes kicks in and makes tax rises counter productive. Ditto hostility toward those that pay most of the bills.

There is other evidence to back up the point. For example:-
- Not sure if you recall the link I posted a while back to HMRCs estimatemof how much the income tax hike to 50% actually raised in additional revenues. The answer we sweet FA.
- Or the fact that we collected significantly more corporation tax in absolute terms year when the rate was 20% compared to 2010 when the Tories took power and the rate was 28%

I've yet to see anyone produce any evidence to refute the point in the article.

I think I was agreeing with your main point - that's why I mentioned stamp duty, where lifting the rates has stalled sales around the thresholds. I'd be surprised if this has raised much more revenue in spite of there being quite a lot of support from across the political spectrum for the idea that stamp duty should be increased. Possibly that is more due to the rather clunky way Osborne implemented the changes, but either way it pleases nobody.

The point I was arguing against in that article was that a small state and low taxes were somehow morally superior. I think that's just trying to put a virtuous gloss on wanting to have more money in your pocket.

kingstongraham

Stamp duty no longer has the ridiculous cliff edge thresholds where you pay the higher rate on the whole property value, does it? That went a few years ago.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let's look at FDI over time.

You feel FDI will be lower when corporate taxes are higher.



So ignoring the FX drop by 20% bounce right at the end I don't see a steady increase as corp tax is reduced.

I also don't remember the Uk being particularly unattractive in the '00s.

How do I know we're probably at the top of the laffer curve? Because moving it 5% either way makes negligible impact - as discussed.



Around the top of the curve the changes affect revenue less.

I didn't give any pre 2010 figures - was suggesting you did.

Offering gross figures is meaningless.

This article offers reasons for why the Uk corporate tax take spiked last year: https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7 ... 8383da43b7

FDI is not the whole picture - there is also domestic investment. And other activities that do no necessarily show up on the investment radar - especially in services which often does not require a large capital investment to get incremental growth. There is also the impact of the actions taken (or lack of) by groups and high earning individuals to mitigate. As the rate comes down, so does incentive to reduce tax bills and the amount of mitigation.

The rate coming down from 28% to 20%, other things equal should reduce the corp tax take by around 29% (20/28 = 71.4%). UK GDP growth over the period is roughly 20 or so. So you should see the tax take go down by around 14$ (20/28 x 1.2 = approx 86%). Simplistic granted, but given the CT take has increased materially over the same period, clearly the human reactions to the rate cut have counted for a lot - in a positive way. That is before we look at the other taxes collected on the back of this increased activity (I've posted my evidence for this enough time before but can re-post if you want).

What numbers are you working on for the UK corporate tax revenues?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Imagine those earning over £150,000 are really feeling the burden...

Must be so tough only going for the fabric over the leather upholstery in their family car.

Ridiculous comment.

I don't begrudge people earning a lot of money but to suggest they're "over burdened" is just a joke.

You should try it one day then maybe you would understand

The point is that they are not a bottomless source of tax revenue and that simply trying to up the by is often counter productive for a number of reasons.

I've posted this link before but it is pretty relevant here and may help people understand in laymans terms:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9236469/There-is-a-moral-message-behind-the-low-tax-story.html

The assumption that a small government MUST be better is every bit as dogmatic as the hard left's Nationalise Everything approach. If you take away that assumption the whole argument for lower taxes falls apart. Also, I didn't think you believed morality had any relevance to taxation. Putting that to one side, the basic point that high earners aren't an inexhaustible supply of tax income is fair enough, not least because there aren't enough of them.

Just to pick up on SC's point on stamp duty, while it's difficult to shed a tear for London property owners losing a bit more of their unearned income, rather than tapping into a new source, the changes Osborne brought in have just stalled the market.

As before, the 'moral' of the story in tnat last link is related not to the small state argument but to the point that there is a limit to how much tax burden you can impose on the higher income bands (and corporates) before the normal human reaction to actual or perceived excessive taxes kicks in and makes tax rises counter productive. Ditto hostility toward those that pay most of the bills.

There is other evidence to back up the point. For example:-
- Not sure if you recall the link I posted a while back to HMRCs estimatemof how much the income tax hike to 50% actually raised in additional revenues. The answer we sweet FA.
- Or the fact that we collected significantly more corporation tax in absolute terms year when the rate was 20% compared to 2010 when the Tories took power and the rate was 28%

I've yet to see anyone produce any evidence to refute the point in the article.

I think I was agreeing with your main point - that's why I mentioned stamp duty, where lifting the rates has stalled sales around the thresholds. I'd be surprised if this has raised much more revenue in spite of there being quite a lot of support from across the political spectrum for the idea that stamp duty should be increased. Possibly that is more due to the rather clunky way Osborne implemented the changes, but either way it pleases nobody.

The point I was arguing against in that article was that a small state and low taxes were somehow morally superior. I think that's just trying to put a virtuous gloss on wanting to have more money in your pocket.

I think the impact on the top end of the housing market is making is relatively ineffective as a revenue raiser - SD was always a fringe player in terms of tax revenues. If however it was designed to dampen demand and prices then it could be seen as having an impact.

Not sure many will shed a tear but I recall that Kensington and Chelsea accounts for some ridiculously high proportion of SD, more than the whole of Wales or something like that !

Agree with KG that the revisions to the rules to apply higher rates on the excess rather than the whole lot have reduced the stalling around the thresholds though.

rjsterry

I'm not sure SD hikes have dampened demand as such, just stalled the market (along with Brexit and the GE making many sit on their hands). There are a lot of London properties in the 10% bracket, and certainly not just K&C. SD on those properties is now roughly equivalent to the cost of adding an extra bedroom, so people are staying put.

Stevo_666

Here's a slap in the face for those who say that the NHS is inferior to healthcare systems in other similar countries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

Not a perfect school report by any stretch of the imagination, but we according to this report the NHS is better than the healthcare systems in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and France.

So cheer up, all this stuff about the NHS being rubbish is at least relatively speaking, rubbish I await the wrath of the 'do us down' squad...

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here's a slap in the face for those who say that the NHS is inferior to healthcare systems in other similar countries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

Not a perfect school report by any stretch of the imagination, but we according to this report the NHS is better than the healthcare systems in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and France.

So cheer up, all this stuff about the NHS being rubbish is at least relatively speaking, rubbish I await the wrath of the 'do us down' squad...

Who knew a state run, free at point of use, service could be so good Stevo???

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here's a slap in the face for those who say that the NHS is inferior to healthcare systems in other similar countries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

Not a perfect school report by any stretch of the imagination, but we according to this report the NHS is better than the healthcare systems in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and France.

So cheer up, all this stuff about the NHS being rubbish is at least relatively speaking, rubbish I await the wrath of the 'do us down' squad...

Who knew a state run, free at point of use, service could be so good Stevo???

It can't possibly be that good. Why would the Government be trying to reform it if it was?
Not to mention shooing away foreign employees and driving away the home grown version.

mamba80

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here's a slap in the face for those who say that the NHS is inferior to healthcare systems in other similar countries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

Not a perfect school report by any stretch of the imagination, but we according to this report the NHS is better than the healthcare systems in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and France.

So cheer up, all this stuff about the NHS being rubbish is at least relatively speaking, rubbish I await the wrath of the 'do us down' squad...

Who knew a state run, free at point of use, service could be so good Stevo???

It can't possibly be that good. Why would the Government be trying to reform it if it was?
Not to mention shooing away foreign employees and driving away the home grown version.

i thought it was a 5 day a week service and that Hunt wanted an 7 day version to prevent 1000's of unnecessary deaths? i recall he sited a few euro countries to justify his criticisms.

you can find various reports that will say we are the best and those that we are not, depends on the criteria, certainly we are good on preventable diseases and vascular problems, not so on Cancers.
the medical treatment my mum got was good, but we had to complain about her getting bedsores and left to lie in her own p1ss for hours overnight, the care was shitte

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/healt ... 44131.html

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here's a slap in the face for those who say that the NHS is inferior to healthcare systems in other similar countries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

Not a perfect school report by any stretch of the imagination, but we according to this report the NHS is better than the healthcare systems in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and France.

So cheer up, all this stuff about the NHS being rubbish is at least relatively speaking, rubbish I await the wrath of the 'do us down' squad...

Who knew a state run, free at point of use, service could be so good Stevo???

I think the message is that its better than other countries state run, free at the point of use systems.

And relatively efficient - as many are keen to point out, we spend less as a percenfage of GDP on healthcare than most of the competition. See, its not all about how much of our money we chuck at something

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here's a slap in the face for those who say that the NHS is inferior to healthcare systems in other similar countries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

Not a perfect school report by any stretch of the imagination, but we according to this report the NHS is better than the healthcare systems in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and France.

So cheer up, all this stuff about the NHS being rubbish is at least relatively speaking, rubbish I await the wrath of the 'do us down' squad...

Who knew a state run, free at point of use, service could be so good Stevo???

It can't possibly be that good. Why would the Government be trying to reform it if it was?
Not to mention shooing away foreign employees and driving away the home grown version.

i thought it was a 5 day a week service and that Hunt wanted an 7 day version to prevent 1000's of unnecessary deaths? i recall he sited a few euro countries to justify his criticisms.

you can find various reports that will say we are the best and those that we are not, depends on the criteria, certainly we are good on preventable diseases and vascular problems, not so on Cancers.
the medical treatment my mum got was good, but we had to complain about her getting bedsores and left to lie in her own p1ss for hours overnight, the care was shitte

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/healt ... 44131.html

Just think about how bad those continental healthcare systems must be, given that ours is better.

Cheers up, we set an example to the world on healthcare.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here's a slap in the face for those who say that the NHS is inferior to healthcare systems in other similar countries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

Not a perfect school report by any stretch of the imagination, but we according to this report the NHS is better than the healthcare systems in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and France.

So cheer up, all this stuff about the NHS being rubbish is at least relatively speaking, rubbish I await the wrath of the 'do us down' squad...

Who knew a state run, free at point of use, service could be so good Stevo???

I think the message is that its better than other countries state run, free at the point of use systems.

And relatively efficient - as many are keen to point out, we spend less as a percenfage of GDP on healthcare than most of the competition. See, its not all about how much of our money we chuck at something

Well, yeah look at the US.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here's a slap in the face for those who say that the NHS is inferior to healthcare systems in other similar countries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

Not a perfect school report by any stretch of the imagination, but we according to this report the NHS is better than the healthcare systems in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and France.

So cheer up, all this stuff about the NHS being rubbish is at least relatively speaking, rubbish I await the wrath of the 'do us down' squad...

Who knew a state run, free at point of use, service could be so good Stevo???

It can't possibly be that good. Why would the Government be trying to reform it if it was?
Not to mention shooing away foreign employees and driving away the home grown version.

I guess it's just part of the UK winning mentality, the drive to improve on what is already the best and not resting on our laurels.

The report does say it can be improved.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well, yeah look at the US.

I think that in this case we should be celebrating UK success rather than looking too closely at US, French or German failure

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess it's just part of the UK winning mentality, the drive to improve on what is already the best and not resting on our laurels.

The report does say it can be improved.

Any events can be interpreted differently.
UK winning mentality? Really?

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess it's just part of the UK winning mentality, the drive to improve on what is already the best and not resting on our laurels.

The report does say it can be improved.

Any events can be interpreted differently.
UK winning mentality? Really?

The survey says the NHS is the best and you said we are trying to reform and improve it. So that's the way it looks to me.

Winning mentality is difficult to explain to those who don't have it, so I won't try here

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess it's just part of the UK winning mentality, the drive to improve on what is already the best and not resting on our laurels.

The report does say it can be improved.

Any events can be interpreted differently.
UK winning mentality? Really?

The survey says the NHS is the best and you said we are trying to reform and improve it. So that's the way it looks to me.

Winning mentality is difficult to explain to those who don't have it, so I won't try here

the report i highlighted (which you conveniently ignored) shows the nhs 30th not no1 and even your survey says the uk is falling behind in health out comes, surely a very important indicator?

this is a comparison from 2005, under Labour, it shows we ve a lot to learn, it backs up the report i linked too.

https://www.bowgroup.org/sites/bowgroup ... 202005.pdf

we consistently invest less into the nhs, esp number of Doc's, the shortages in GP's and nurses are not just a tory issue but a long term failure, brexit may highlight this.

see, i can be just as critical of labour as i am of the tories

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess it's just part of the UK winning mentality, the drive to improve on what is already the best and not resting on our laurels.

The report does say it can be improved.

Any events can be interpreted differently.
UK winning mentality? Really?

The survey says the NHS is the best and you said we are trying to reform and improve it. So that's the way it looks to me.

Winning mentality is difficult to explain to those who don't have it, so I won't try here

An accountant using stats to prove a desired outcome. No surprises there.
The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth please.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess it's just part of the UK winning mentality, the drive to improve on what is already the best and not resting on our laurels.

Here is an example of UK winning mentality.... i m in the market for new hi end road frame... i went on the Factor website (new uk manufacturer.. no prices, no dealership info, i contacted them, one email saying someone woudl contact me, nothing so far.

contacted LOOK (french company) re their new frameset, instant reply with prices, release date and colour schemes.

Listening to a guy who runs a consultative business in China, his criticism of UK business, even now, was that UK companies do not take the Chinese market seriously!!! they apparently sell more to Ireland than China.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess it's just part of the UK winning mentality, the drive to improve on what is already the best and not resting on our laurels.

The report does say it can be improved.

Any events can be interpreted differently.
UK winning mentality? Really?

The survey says the NHS is the best and you said we are trying to reform and improve it. So that's the way it looks to me.

Winning mentality is difficult to explain to those who don't have it, so I won't try here

An accountant using stats to prove a desired outcome. No surprises there.
The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth please.

Another case of playing the man not the ball. Oh dear.

Your evidence to refute my point is what....?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess it's just part of the UK winning mentality, the drive to improve on what is already the best and not resting on our laurels.

The report does say it can be improved.

Any events can be interpreted differently.
UK winning mentality? Really?

The survey says the NHS is the best and you said we are trying to reform and improve it. So that's the way it looks to me.

Winning mentality is difficult to explain to those who don't have it, so I won't try here

the report i highlighted (which you conveniently ignored) shows the nhs 30th not no1 and even your survey says the uk is falling behind in health out comes, surely a very important indicator?

this is a comparison from 2005, under Labour, it shows we ve a lot to learn, it backs up the report i linked too.

https://www.bowgroup.org/sites/bowgroup ... 202005.pdf

we consistently invest less into the nhs, esp number of Doc's, the shortages in GP's and nurses are not just a tory issue but a long term failure, brexit may highlight this.

see, i can be just as critical of labour as i am of the tories

That report was published in the Lancet and run by doctors. No axe to grind there then. I chose the link to the survey that I posted because it had no obvious bias or agenda.

My argument here isn't Labour vs Tory. It's UK vs other other countries. I think some might find it hard to accept that an NHS run by those nasty Tories is actually doing rather well compared to its peers

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess it's just part of the UK winning mentality, the drive to improve on what is already the best and not resting on our laurels.

Here is an example of UK winning mentality.... i m in the market for new hi end road frame... i went on the Factor website (new uk manufacturer.. no prices, no dealership info, i contacted them, one email saying someone woudl contact me, nothing so far.

contacted LOOK (french company) re their new frameset, instant reply with prices, release date and colour schemes.

Listening to a guy who runs a consultative business in China, his criticism of UK business, even now, was that UK companies do not take the Chinese market seriously!!! they apparently sell more to Ireland than China.

Well that proves your point doesn't it :roll:

Plenty investment in China in the multinationals I have worked for.