Which are you most likely to be killed by (Brits)
Comments
-
BTW believe it or not I believe that we do need to maintain a proper defence and security capability given the threats we face. But simply throwing money at problems often does not work - its more how you spend it that counts and how you use what you have. The fact that we have not had a Paris style atrocity in the UK for over a decade is testament to the fact that we are doing some things right.
Do you? how do you propose to pay for it then? take from people on min wage? incentives to work dont seem to apply to them.
It costs, in personnel and equipment, as spending cuts have hit all Government organisations over many years, there is little fat to cut, sometimes personal safety trumps money, do you think anyone caught up in Paris was laying there thinking "french tax rates are far too high"
We are surrounded by sea, are not in Schengen, 2 reasons that makes the smuggling of weapons in and out of this country harder, however should the UK launch attacks on Syria who knows what we might face?
i d rather we look forward than bask in previous success.
How do you propose to pay for it then? Have you seen how much the UK is in debt? And despite all the cuts thus far it is still not expecting to balance out for another couple of years. Clearly there are more important things that need money than an arbitrary 2% recommendation on defence. Blame the banks and Gordon Brown.0 -
you need to read the thread.0
-
Let's have a look at some facts and evidence then, rather than this rosy assumption that France somehow pays their way effortlessly with a high tax/high spend policy. And your simplistic assumption that we can simply raise revenues by increasing tax rates.BTW believe it or not I believe that we do need to maintain a proper defence and security capability given the threats we face. But simply throwing money at problems often does not work - its more how you spend it that counts and how you use what you have. The fact that we have not had a Paris style atrocity in the UK for over a decade is testament to the fact that we are doing some things right.
Do you? how do you propose to pay for it then? take from people on min wage? incentives to work dont seem to apply to them.
It costs, in personnel and equipment, as spending cuts have hit all Government organisations over many years, there is little fat to cut, sometimes personal safety trumps money, do you think anyone caught up in Paris was laying there thinking "french tax rates are far too high"
We are surrounded by sea, are not in Schengen, 2 reasons that makes the smuggling of weapons in and out of this country harder, however should the UK launch attacks on Syria who knows what we might face?
i d rather we look forward than bask in previous success.
UK annual tax revenues - £648 bn
UK national debt - £1,560 bn
France annual tax revenues - €920 bn (approx. £644bn at current exchange rates)
France national debt - €2,185 bn (approx. £1,531bn at current exchange rates.
Happy to quote sources for the above numbers which are current.
So, despite having markedly higher tax rates, France collects no more tax than the UK and has almost exactly the same level of national debt. Not exactly the best advert for high taxes, is it? Add to that the lower growth in France caused by high tax and restrictive employment laws means that France is in deep s*** financially - so in 10-15 years time they will have a real problem funding all these things you say are great.
Will the threat have gone away by then? Who knows. But if we pursue short term 'tax 'em more type policies' as you suggest, it will very likely not end well as the evidence shows. We need to think longer term and make sure what we do as a nation is sustainable.
Let's also look at what additional tax revenue was generated the last time Labour tried to raise the top rate of income tax in the UK, not by 1% but by 10%:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http:/www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf
The answer: sweet FA. Because it does not take into account human behaviour to these changes.
If we added 1% to tax rates every time some indignant leftie need money for their hobby horse issue, tax rate would be over 100% by now :roll:
In terms of funding this extra spending you think is needed, best try something that works
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Depending on how you calculate it, you could say it actually has been tried. Step forward socialist paradise Sweden.If we added 1% to tax rates every time some indignant leftie need money for their hobby horse issue, tax rate would be over 100% by now :roll:0 -
Couldn't agree more Stevo.
When Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% many years ago tax receipts from the top 1% of earners doubled.
The higher the tax rate the more avoidance/shifting will happen.
Tax the rich, tax the rich! It doesn't work.0 -
We had a 98% rate in the UK in the 70's under Labour. Top income tax rate was 82%, with a 15% surcharge for investment income; corporate tax was over 50%. The Labour government at the time could not understand why successful, talented people, wealth generators and businesses were leaving the country. Shortly afterwards Labour tapped up the IMF for emergency funding, strangely enough.
Depending on how you calculate it, you could say it actually has been tried. Step forward socialist paradise Sweden.If we added 1% to tax rates every time some indignant leftie need money for their hobby horse issue, tax rate would be over 100% by now :roll:
The moral of the story is obvious. But some people just don't learn - most of them appear to be in opposition right now
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yep. The only thing I would add is that it is the same for businesses, sometimes more so. In my professional experience.Couldn't agree more Stevo.
When Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% many years ago tax receipts from the top 1% of earners doubled.
The higher the tax rate the more avoidance/shifting will happen.
Tax the rich, tax the rich! It doesn't work."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yep. The only thing I would add is that it is the same for businesses, sometimes more so. In my professional experience.Couldn't agree more Stevo.
When Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% many years ago tax receipts from the top 1% of earners doubled.
The higher the tax rate the more avoidance/shifting will happen.
Tax the rich, tax the rich! It doesn't work.
Of course. And that is because it costs them far less to hire expensive accountants and shift their profits to The Cayman Islands than to pay high levels of tax in the UK. So, who ends up footing the bill of high taxes? The middle income earners.0 -
We had a 98% rate in the UK in the 70's under Labour. Top income tax rate was 82%, with a 15% surcharge for investment income; corporate tax was over 50%. The Labour government at the time could not understand why successful, talented people, wealth generators and businesses were leaving the country. Shortly afterwards Labour tapped up the IMF for emergency funding, strangely enough.
Depending on how you calculate it, you could say it actually has been tried. Step forward socialist paradise Sweden.If we added 1% to tax rates every time some indignant leftie need money for their hobby horse issue, tax rate would be over 100% by now :roll:
The moral of the story is obvious. But some people just don't learn - most of them appear to be in opposition right now
More than that Steve, no one in The Labour Party even touches on the subject of how they will deal with expenditure vs income, it's obviously far easier just to oppose cuts and claim the moral high ground.0 -
It must be quite liberating to know you're in a position where you'll never actually have to put your money (or other people's, of course, in the case of socialists) where your mouth is. Eternal petulant opposition is so much less hassle than trying to solve problems in the real world.More than that Steve, no one in The Labour Party even touches on the subject of how they will deal with expenditure vs income, it's obviously far easier just to oppose cuts and claim the moral high ground.0 -
It must be quite liberating to know you're in a position where you'll never actually have to put your money (or other people's, of course, in the case of socialists) where your mouth is. Eternal petulant opposition is so much less hassle than trying to solve problems in the real world.More than that Steve, no one in The Labour Party even touches on the subject of how they will deal with expenditure vs income, it's obviously far easier just to oppose cuts and claim the moral high ground.
I'd rather go for a beer with Corbyn than any other politician I'm familiar with, but unless he steps up to the mark and puts together a coherent economic plan which deals with spending, borrowing, growth...Labour will always be exactly that. The Telegraph article I think goes over the top as you'd expect from them, but there are certainly seeds of truth within there. And plento of ammo for the Tories.0 -
I wish I'd jumped into this one earlier because I know I'm behind on the argument.
Trident is a deterrent against other people using nuclear weapons against us but not a deterrent for conventional weapons because we will not retaliate with nuclear weapons against attacks by conventional weapons.
Why not? Because nuclear weapons have long lasting effects and we don't want to damage our environment. Furthermore I suspect we have made agreements with other nuclear powers not to use them in response to conventional attacks. If we break that agreement then the other nuclear powers would see us as a threat.
Have we ever been attacked with nuclear weapons? Not that I know of and I think I would know if we had. So has it deterred people? If anyone had wanted to, they didn't so our nuclear weapons have possibly deterred people from attacking us with nuclear weapons.
We don't have them to attack other people with, we have them so it is not worthwhile attacking us with nuclear weapons.
If we end our own nuclear deterrent then we leave ourselves open to attack in future. But more likely than attack in the distant future is simply coercion and extortion by other nuclear powers in the near-term, whether they are allies or not. Example - America says TTIP or no protection.
It's an unfortunate circumstance but the technology is here now.0 -
People in America all carry guns for protection.
That works well, they only have one mass shooting per day on average.
Yes I know it is different, but I'm not sure I know of many non-nuclear countries who have had a nuclear weapon used against them. Just one in fact.0 -
Some of that happens but less than you may think. Especial,y now UK profits tax rate is very competitive, so if anything it may well be a net shift inbound.
Yep. The only thing I would add is that it is the same for businesses, sometimes more so. In my professional experience.Couldn't agree more Stevo.
When Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% many years ago tax receipts from the top 1% of earners doubled.
The higher the tax rate the more avoidance/shifting will happen.
Tax the rich, tax the rich! It doesn't work.
Of course. And that is because it costs them far less to hire expensive accountants and shift their profits to The Cayman Islands than to pay high levels of tax in the UK. So, who ends up footing the bill of high taxes? The middle income earners.
The point I was trying to make is that it shifts investment and commercial activity by companies away from high tax or aggressive regimes. The loss of tax revenue is then considerable as you lose the VAT, income tax, etc that goes with the jobs and economic activity, which is way higher than the profits tax. As France is finding out to its cost."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
lets go back to the thread.... sort off!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322957/The-ranks-police-marksmen-reinforced-meet-Islamic-State-s-theatre-war-tactics-officer-said-night.html
of course no doubt some would say Police call for more xyz ... what a surprise!!! on the other hand do we want to find out these people are right?
Already acc to former and currect CC our ability to gether intel from the community is already comprimised due to lack of police, futher cuts are steam rolling ahead, budget cut of 20% currently being discussed, to pay for further cuts in inheritance tax? :roll:
i said that a tax rise (i suggested 1% rising 5.5billion so top rate to 41% std to 21%? not a return to labours 83%) across the board could pay for this IF as you keep telling us the UK is a basket case that cannot afford to protect its people...and you say i do the country down!!!
Didnt the tories increase various taxes to rise money? whats the difference now? or is it just ideological?
Comes down to priorities, some people seem to think you bury your money with you.0 -
And your point is what, exactly?lets go back to the thread.... sort off!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322957/The-ranks-police-marksmen-reinforced-meet-Islamic-State-s-theatre-war-tactics-officer-said-night.html
of course no doubt some would say Police call for more xyz ... what a surprise!!! on the other hand do we want to find out these people are right?
Already acc to former and currect CC our ability to gether intel from the community is already comprimised due to lack of police, futher cuts are steam rolling ahead, budget cut of 20% currently being discussed, to pay for further cuts in inheritance tax? :roll:
i said that a tax rise (i suggested 1% rising 5.5billion so top rate to 41% std to 21%? not a return to labours 83%) across the board could pay for this IF as you keep telling us the UK is a basket case that cannot afford to protect its people...and you say i do the country down!!!
Didnt the tories increase various taxes to rise money? whats the difference now? or is it just ideological?
Comes down to priorities, some people seem to think you bury your money with you.
PS the irony of you claiming that I say Britain is a basket case...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And your point is what, exactly?lets go back to the thread.... sort off!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322957/The-ranks-police-marksmen-reinforced-meet-Islamic-State-s-theatre-war-tactics-officer-said-night.html
of course no doubt some would say Police call for more xyz ... what a surprise!!! on the other hand do we want to find out these people are right?
Already acc to former and currect CC our ability to gether intel from the community is already comprimised due to lack of police, futher cuts are steam rolling ahead, budget cut of 20% currently being discussed, to pay for further cuts in inheritance tax? :roll:
i said that a tax rise (i suggested 1% rising 5.5billion so top rate to 41% std to 21%? not a return to labours 83%) across the board could pay for this IF as you keep telling us the UK is a basket case that cannot afford to protect its people...and you say i do the country down!!!
Didnt the tories increase various taxes to rise money? whats the difference now? or is it just ideological?
Comes down to priorities, some people seem to think you bury your money with you.
PS the irony of you claiming that I say Britain is a basket case...
i ll ignore that as you are very well aware of the point i m making, as i said you are ignoring the tories various tax increases, VAT for starters, or shall we just rise that whenever we need a few extra quid?
you are constantly banging on that this country has no money and no means of rising any more, the inference being we cant afford to properly prepare our selves for the current (and forseeable) threats (so by your own argument we must have a basket case of an economy?).... it is not me who is raising these concerns about police numbers and equipment, it is current and former army chiefs of staff and chief constables, you are choosing to sit back on your laurels with " we must be doing something right" mantra, i sincerely hope you are correct.0 -
You have to stop putting words into my mouth mamba, or are you just reading what you want to read? Please point to where I said those things? Either way you dont seen to understand the financial side of this.
And your point is what, exactly?lets go back to the thread.... sort off!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322957/The-ranks-police-marksmen-reinforced-meet-Islamic-State-s-theatre-war-tactics-officer-said-night.html
of course no doubt some would say Police call for more xyz ... what a surprise!!! on the other hand do we want to find out these people are right?
Already acc to former and currect CC our ability to gether intel from the community is already comprimised due to lack of police, futher cuts are steam rolling ahead, budget cut of 20% currently being discussed, to pay for further cuts in inheritance tax? :roll:
i said that a tax rise (i suggested 1% rising 5.5billion so top rate to 41% std to 21%? not a return to labours 83%) across the board could pay for this IF as you keep telling us the UK is a basket case that cannot afford to protect its people...and you say i do the country down!!!
Didnt the tories increase various taxes to rise money? whats the difference now? or is it just ideological?
Comes down to priorities, some people seem to think you bury your money with you.
PS the irony of you claiming that I say Britain is a basket case...
i ll ignore that as you are very well aware of the point i m making, as i said you are ignoring the tories various tax increases, VAT for starters, or shall we just rise that whenever we need a few extra quid?
you are constantly banging on that this country has no money and no means of rising any more, the inference being we cant afford to properly prepare our selves for the current (and forseeable) threats (so by your own argument we must have a basket case of an economy?).... it is not me who is raising these concerns about police numbers and equipment, it is current and former army chiefs of staff and chief constables, you are choosing to sit back on your laurels with " we must be doing something right" mantra, i sincerely hope you are correct.
I was simply pointing out the flaws in your idea to raise the money. If you want to reallocate some, tame from the overinflated benefits system ( which is already happening) and cut the foreign aid budget - charity starts at home."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I was simply pointing out the flaws in your idea to raise the money. If you want to reallocate some, tame from the overinflated benefits system ( which is already happening) and cut the foreign aid budget - charity starts at home.
i dont think we ve a bloated benefits system, what we ve got is a badly policed system that allows toe rags to keep claiming whilst those in genuine need are penalised because they are not devious enough, ATOS anyone?
anyway, where would get the the money for the weapons and man power for the police or do you think they are well armed and there is enough to face a Paris style attack in the UK? and do u think its a wise decision to cut 5000 police from the Met alone?0 -
You have to stop putting words into my mouth mamba, or are you just reading what you want to read? Please point to where I said those things? Either way you dont seen to understand the financial side of this.
I was simply pointing out the flaws in your idea to raise the money. If you want to reallocate some, tame from the overinflated benefits system ( which is already happening) and cut the foreign aid budget - charity starts at home.
i dont think we ve a bloated benefits system, what we ve got is a badly policed system that allows toe rags to keep claiming whilst those in genuine need are penalised because they are not devious enough, ATOS for example
anyway, where would get the the money for the weapons and man power for the police or do you think they are well armed and there is enough to face a Paris style attack in the UK? and do u think its a wise decision to cut 5000 police from the Met alone?
Overseas aid is vital, not to India etc , thare agin, they still have millions in poverty because of their caste system, but also for trade, for humanitarian need, for our influence overseas, its why con and labour governments keep it.0 -
Seems Cameron has read this thread
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/23/uk-britain-defence-idUKKBN0TC0V120151123
amazing that this sort of money can be found behind the Sofa but credit where its due.
shame they got rid of Nimrod to save a 1bn in 2010 but will now spend 2bn on a US replacement, but it least it saves calling on france to hunt Soviet submarines for us, maybe RAF st Mawgan can be used again for what it should be instead of flying holiday home owners in/out of Cornwall?0 -
Glad to see defences being strengthened. Interesting to see where outs will fall elsewhere.0
-
They have strange accounting figures in the BBC report.Seems Cameron has read this thread
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/23/uk-britain-defence-idUKKBN0TC0V120151123
amazing that this sort of money can be found behind the Sofa but credit where its due.
shame they got rid of Nimrod to save a 1bn in 2010 but will now spend 2bn on a US replacement, but it least it saves calling on france to hunt Soviet submarines for us, maybe RAF st Mawgan can be used again for what it should be instead of flying holiday home owners in/out of Cornwall?
"Cancelling has saved £2bn over 10 years and since Nimrod MR2 was taken out of service"
"The Ministry of Defence has also been accused of failing to advise ministers of the full cost and impact of the loss of the planes.
Almost £4bn has been spent on the project and it will cost £200m to scrap the aircraft and pay compensation to the manufacturers, BAE Systems."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12294766
We will find out on Wednesday.Glad to see defences being strengthened. Interesting to see where outs will fall elsewhere.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Good news is that defence is being strengthened.
Bad news is if ever there was a hangar queen the F35 is it.
0 -
The problem in the defence sector is the fact that British companies are ripping of the MOD and the major suppliers of military hardware.
Electronic components being sold for upto 100x the commercial cost and mechanical parts like, screws, nuts or a simple L bracket (identical to something you'd find in Wilkos for 50p) being sold for over £50 a piece.
It's the UK tax payer that picks up the bill, if it wasn't for these suppliers charging whatever they feel like, the defence budget would be comparatively tiny.0 -
The problem in the defence sector is the fact that British companies are ripping of the MOD and the major suppliers of military hardware.
Electronic components being sold for upto 100x the commercial cost and mechanical parts like, screws, nuts or a simple L bracket (identical to something you'd find in Wilkos for 50p) being sold for over £50 a piece.
It's the UK tax payer that picks up the bill, if it wasn't for these suppliers charging whatever they feel like, the defence budget would be comparatively tiny.
This is a massive problem in procurement. A good example I know of is a basic printer used within hq's. A ruggedised green box costing over £1000. Inside it is a hp deskjet printer you could buy in Currys. We worked out we could buy a new printer every time the ink ran out and it would take about 6 years to cost the same as 1 ruggedised model. This is just a printer. The exorbitant prices for some kit like every day wirkshop tools is ridiculous. The worst thing is, half the kit is already out of date before it comes into service. We can't get enough people away trained on it and it ends up not being used to its full potential.0 -
You have to train people to use a printer?The problem in the defence sector is the fact that British companies are ripping of the MOD and the major suppliers of military hardware.
Electronic components being sold for upto 100x the commercial cost and mechanical parts like, screws, nuts or a simple L bracket (identical to something you'd find in Wilkos for 50p) being sold for over £50 a piece.
It's the UK tax payer that picks up the bill, if it wasn't for these suppliers charging whatever they feel like, the defence budget would be comparatively tiny.
This is a massive problem in procurement. A good example I know of is a basic printer used within hq's. A ruggedised green box costing over £1000. Inside it is a hp deskjet printer you could buy in Currys. We worked out we could buy a new printer every time the ink ran out and it would take about 6 years to cost the same as 1 ruggedised model. This is just a printer. The exorbitant prices for some kit like every day wirkshop tools is ridiculous. The worst thing is, half the kit is already out of date before it comes into service. We can't get enough people away trained on it and it ends up not being used to its full potential. The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You have to train people to use a printer?The problem in the defence sector is the fact that British companies are ripping of the MOD and the major suppliers of military hardware.
Electronic components being sold for upto 100x the commercial cost and mechanical parts like, screws, nuts or a simple L bracket (identical to something you'd find in Wilkos for 50p) being sold for over £50 a piece.
It's the UK tax payer that picks up the bill, if it wasn't for these suppliers charging whatever they feel like, the defence budget would be comparatively tiny.
This is a massive problem in procurement. A good example I know of is a basic printer used within hq's. A ruggedised green box costing over £1000. Inside it is a hp deskjet printer you could buy in Currys. We worked out we could buy a new printer every time the ink ran out and it would take about 6 years to cost the same as 1 ruggedised model. This is just a printer. The exorbitant prices for some kit like every day wirkshop tools is ridiculous. The worst thing is, half the kit is already out of date before it comes into service. We can't get enough people away trained on it and it ends up not being used to its full potential.
Only infantry. They don't get issued the correct size rock to hit it with.0 -
We try not to let hats have rocks anymore as they would only hurt themselves with them.
We now restrict them to cabbages and other soft vegetables. They still manage to take an eye out every now and again but its just a risk of the job I suppose.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
We try not to let hats have rocks anymore as they would only hurt themselves with them.
We now restrict them to cabbages and other soft vegetables. They still manage to take an eye out every now and again but its just a risk of the job I suppose.
I'm not sure who you got to type this out for you cos we all know stillbournes lack the capacity to use IT. Generally rocks are always in reach to inf as their knuckles drag past them while they walk.0
