The Last One
Comments
-
Yet another one who hasnt looked at the facts or thought beyond one tax out of over 20 borne by businesses. Not surprising, but disappointing. Look at the numbers in the links for all relevant taxes.i do not understand steve0s position, if the banks are of such a class leading benefit to the UK, then how come we borrowed 100s of billions to bail them out? money we are now very much struggling to pay back.
as for the 80bn tax take, he also seems to think that if these paye employees were not employed by banks, they not be paying any tax at all, what their employees pay is irrelevant if they, the banks, are using means and ways to avoid tax.
Would be a bit like taking the tax take of nhs staff from the total bill to call for more funding of this service, i doubt Steve0 would be keen on frigging the figures for this would he?
And just to be clear, are you saying the banks are avoiding PAYE? Really?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I agree that everything isn't rosy. I have posted before that no government get all things right all of the time. I agree that all companies and all individuals should meet their full tax burden. But in my mind, the biggest thing holding this country back is the 'something for nothing' culture that is becoming all the more pervasive.
What holds back this country is opportunity for those not born into it and benefit and tax traps, keeping people where they are, so, earn any extra whilst on wtc or HB and the state takes back that extra salary at best 70p in the pound and the councils will freeze HB whilst they calc the new rates payable, easier not to bother.
It would be ridiculous to argue that people born into wealth are not at an advantage to people from poorer backgrounds. If you have wealth it is easier and less risky for you to invest than if you have to borrow capital. Likewise you can pay for an education or even healthcare if you are rich. It has always been so and always will be so.
Are you saying that people on WTCs should be able to claim and then go out to earn over the threshold without relinquishing any benefit? Would you set a limit on how much they could exceed the threshold? If there was no threshold, we would all be on WTCs
we ve 30m odd people who work in this country, so plenty of folk want to work and do so, if ALL benefit fraud was eliminated, it would make almost zero difference to our national debt.
But if there is a something for nothing culture, where does it spring from? MPs expenses? or director pay? maybe CEO's of nhs or councils paying themselves 6 figure salaries, not too mention bankers, who carry on awarding themselves huge bonuses whilst their companies should have folded.... thats some thing for nothing isn't ?
MPs expenses were a scandal and you're right, that is an example of something for nothing. But MPs are selected and elected from the population and they are a product of our society. CEOs and directors are either company owners, in which case they can pay themselves what they see fit, or are answerable to shareholders. It is not public money. NHS and council execs should not be able to award themselves outlandish salaries as that is public money. Likewise bankers, privately owned banks set their bonus rate at what they see fit. Any public owned body is a different matter.0 -
Plenty...forward.
If things are so bad here, why dont you live in continental Europe, as quite a few people here seem to think everything is just fine and the administrations are faultless over the channel?
Weak, prejudiced UKIP style response. Condescending wink added for good measure.
What I would define as a fair rate of tax? That's beside the point and not the argument. I have no idea what a fair division of tax is. The banks and the financial services caused the mess, it should be the banks and the financial services who bail us out. Not cuts to benefits, public services etc etc.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Something I am considering quite seriously for 2016.If things are so bad here, why dont you live in continental Europe, as quite a few people here seem to think everything is just fine and the administrations are faultless over the channel?
Even in the full acknowledgment of their administrations.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 -
I agree that everything isn't rosy. I have posted before that no government get all things right all of the time. I agree that all companies and all individuals should meet their full tax burden. But in my mind, the biggest thing holding this country back is the 'something for nothing' culture that is becoming all the more pervasive.
What holds back this country is opportunity for those not born into it and benefit and tax traps, keeping people where they are, so, earn any extra whilst on wtc or HB and the state takes back that extra salary at best 70p in the pound and the councils will freeze HB whilst they calc the new rates payable, easier not to bother.
It would be ridiculous to argue that people born into wealth are not at an advantage to people from poorer backgrounds. If you have wealth it is easier and less risky for you to invest than if you have to borrow capital. Likewise you can pay for an education or even healthcare if you are rich. It has always been so and always will be so.
Are you saying that people on WTCs should be able to claim and then go out to earn over the threshold without relinquishing any benefit? Would you set a limit on how much they could exceed the threshold? If there was no threshold, we would all be on WTCs
we ve 30m odd people who work in this country, so plenty of folk want to work and do so, if ALL benefit fraud was eliminated, it would make almost zero difference to our national debt.
But if there is a something for nothing culture, where does it spring from? MPs expenses? or director pay? maybe CEO's of nhs or councils paying themselves 6 figure salaries, not too mention bankers, who carry on awarding themselves huge bonuses whilst their companies should have folded.... thats some thing for nothing isn't ?
MPs expenses were a scandal and you're right, that is an example of something for nothing. But MPs are selected and elected from the population and they are a product of our society. CEOs and directors are either company owners, in which case they can pay themselves what they see fit, or are answerable to shareholders. It is not public money. NHS and council execs should not be able to award themselves outlandish salaries as that is public money. Likewise bankers, privately owned banks set their bonus rate at what they see fit. Any public owned body is a different matter.
of course the wealthy have adv but that doesnt mean that pooer folk have to suffer and be forced to stay where they are does it? social mobility is at record lows, the dvantages that helped me, are not there now.
wtc, HB and earnings... a rate of deduction of 70% plus stops people from earning more, therefore taking themselves OUT of benefits, maybe a rate of deduction closer to hmrc tax rates might be better encourgement?
the stopping of HB payments is a real problem for people with little money.
MPs are in no way representitive of society, women, ethnicity for starters, and lets look at public schooling, 7% of pop went to these schools, huge representation in parliament and the scandals of expenses are still going on, 38k paid to ones wife to be an MPs part time secretary???
CEO's....so its ok for them to keep awarding themselves recording breaking pay rises, whilst their staff claim working benefits and yet you complain about a something for nothing culture...... :roll: shareholders tend to be cut from the same cloth, so a bit of a merry-go-round.
NHS chiefs? how much does the southern healthcare boss earn? or the n staffords chief exc?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/15/nhs-chiefs-pay-rise-condemned-nurses
so to summarise, you are correct, there is a something for nothing culture that is destroying our once great country and it starts at the top, Bally.0 -
I am not saying people should be kept in their place at all. What I am saying is people need to take responsibility for themselves to a greater degree. In your world people would seem to be able to claim benefits because of their circumstances, find employment and still keep their benefits.
I agreed that the Mps expenses were a scandal and the culprits were across all parties and not just MPs who went to public school. I didn't say they represented society, I said they were a product of our society. Society's feeling of entitlement had been growing long before the expenses sh1t hit the fan.
I reiterate that CEO are answerable to their employers ie Shareholders. If Dave Lewis of Tesco awarded himself a £1m pay rise, he would have to justify it to his employers. If they choose to sanction it, it is their prerogative. Tesco employs 472,000 people, so I assume you would be happier if they all got 2 quid and contributed nothing further to drive the business forward.
I agreed that NHS managers should not be entitled to unjustified salaries from the public purse.
You bemoan the lack of social mobility, but that ability rests in individuals own hands. Yes the state can help with a safety net, but people have to help themselves more.
Whether the something for nothing culture and sense of entitlement starts at the top is moot, however I feel it pervades all levels of society. TV is full of adverts offering so seek compensation for people for all manner of things. Companies like Brighthouse have made a fortune out of people's sense of entitlement to have the latest flat screen, without thinking of the consequences of signing up for such a deal.0 -
Upward social mobility is declining has done for decades, marked drop off in the late 70s.
i can tell you from personal exp that retraining and seeking new emplyment without money is bl00dy tough and i couldnt do it now, how will those miners and steel workers manage?
Shareholders? mmmm you mean pension fund managers etc? these people are interested in dividend and share price, if they are good they dont give a stuff about a pay rise for the board, nor do they care about number of employees on WTC or HB.
as for people improving their lot through their own enterprise etc, of course and thats why folk should be allowed to keep a larger share of extra monies earned and a less steep scale as benefits are withdrawn, the benefits trap is called trap for a reason
Brighthouse and others like them plus pay day loan sharks..... well, poorly educated people tend to make poor life choices and i dont think you are calling for this sector to be regulated further? so education is probably the only long term answer, that and trying to reduce income inequality but that takes us full circle doesnt it?0 -
Upward social mobility is declining has done for decades, marked drop off in the late 70s.
i can tell you from personal exp that retraining and seeking new emplyment without money is bl00dy tough and i couldnt do it now, how will those miners and steel workers manage?
Shareholders? mmmm you mean pension fund managers etc? these people are interested in dividend and share price, if they are good they dont give a stuff about a pay rise for the board, nor do they care about number of employees on WTC or HB.
as for people improving their lot through their own enterprise etc, of course and thats why folk should be allowed to keep a larger share of extra monies earned and a less steep scale as benefits are withdrawn, the benefits trap is called trap for a reason
Brighthouse and others like them plus pay day loan sharks..... well, poorly educated people tend to make poor life choices and i dont think you are calling for this sector to be regulated further? so education is probably the only long term answer, that and trying to reduce income inequality but that takes us full circle doesnt it?
You are probably right. It is a results led. Make a profit and shareholders are happy. BTW one of the most ethical retailers in the country, Co-Op Food pays near the lowest wages to its employees in the sector.0 -
Grow a sense of humour and stop getting so shirty. I was just making the point that your claim of all the claimed problems in the UK are not unique to the UK.Plenty...forward.
If things are so bad here, why dont you live in continental Europe, as quite a few people here seem to think everything is just fine and the administrations are faultless over the channel?
Weak, prejudiced UKIP style response. Condescending wink added for good measure.
What I would define as a fair rate of tax? That's beside the point and not the argument. I have no idea what a fair division of tax is. The banks and the financial services caused the mess, it should be the banks and the financial services who bail us out. Not cuts to benefits, public services etc etc.
So you you started an argument by claiming that UK companies dont pay a fair share of tax but you are total,y unable to say what a fair share is? My work here is done, you you have no argument and have not even tried to debate the facts that I have provided regarding what they do pay.
Trying to blame everything on the banks is typical of those with an axe to grind and/or a limited understanding of finance and economics."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Please explain something to very limited layman.Trying to blame everything on the banks is typical of those with an axe to grind and/or a limited understanding of finance and economics.
If the banks weren't bailed out and subsidised then why were we faced with austerity measures?
Which are still up to our necks in.
Or, is the Government blaming the banks to cover up their own short comings?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 -
Trying to blame everything on the banks is typical of those with an axe to grind and/or a limited understanding of finance and economics.
i think most people can understand that if you empty the treasury, borrow 100's of billions on the money markets to prop up an industry, that money has to be paid back, with interest.
While that is happening, you struggle to pay for the things you used too have, cut backs and having no money for those little extras... like flood protection or supporting other industries....hence all parties have signed up for some form of deficit reduction, it is the time period and what gets cut that are the sticking points.
Not sure why you have to bring in the insults?
especially as it is those with understanding and experience of economics that got it so wrong in the first place.0 -
I didnt insult anyone. Just made the general comment that is typical of people who try to blame everything on the banks. I'm sure that Pinno will be along shortly to say that he doesnt blame everything on tne banks. However have I accicentally touched a raw nerve?Trying to blame everything on the banks is typical of those with an axe to grind and/or a limited understanding of finance and economics.
i think most people can understand that if you empty the treasury, borrow 100's of billions on the money markets to prop up an industry, that money has to be paid back, with interest.
While that is happening, you struggle to pay for the things you used too have, cut backs and having no money for those little extras... like flood protection or supporting other industries....hence all parties have signed up for some form of deficit reduction, it is the time period and what gets cut that are the sticking points.
Not sure why you have to bring in the insults?
especially as it is those with understanding and experience of economics that got it so wrong in the first place.
And lets not forget how much Labour were spending regardless of the GFC, which effectively brought forward tha day of reckoning for The Labour govt of the day."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's also time for the next round of leftie mythbusters. Heres the estimated overall cost to the country of the bailouts - pretty much zero after funding costs:Trying to blame everything on the banks is typical of those with an axe to grind and/or a limited understanding of finance and economics.
i think most people can understand that if you empty the treasury, borrow 100's of billions on the money markets to prop up an industry, that money has to be paid back, with interest.
While that is happening, you struggle to pay for the things you used too have, cut backs and having no money for those little extras... like flood protection or supporting other industries....hence all parties have signed up for some form of deficit reduction, it is the time period and what gets cut that are the sticking points.
Not sure why you have to bring in the insults?
especially as it is those with understanding and experience of economics that got it so wrong in the first place.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-profit-bank-bailouts/21010"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Of course it was people like me who authorised mortgages to people who had little chance of paying it back. It was a PBlakeney lookalike who took all of the council's money and invested it in an Icelandic bank so he could get a better rate of interest and a bloke who looked remarkably like Mamba who messed around with overnight banking interest rates. The Royal Bank of Scotland is a saintly organisation and HSBC can only be likened to money lending monks without a shadow of doubt on their reputation. Lehman Brothers are just poor unsuspecting pawns and you can only feel sorry for their employees and resulting drop in incomes.
Those lovely lovely banks who are pillars of our society have to be held up with public money because without them we would be stuffed... oh, hang on.
The cost of the bailouts is pretty much Zero?! Notwithstanding the credit crunch and hundreds of thousands who had their houses repossessed (mainly in the US but it did affect us) or the lack of money loaned to businesses despite government attempts at intervention to force banks to lend more. Council's across the UK who lost millions because they had invested monies in overseas hedge funds.
We are still recovering from a recession. Maybe we are doing slightly better than Greece and other countries in the Euro zone but we are still in austerity so I do not know how on earth you can say that the bailouts have cost us nothing. Maybe on paper but the indirect costs of the 2008 banking and credit crises is still apparent.
BTW - The Tories did sign up to Labour's spending plan in 2007.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.htmlseanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Funny how all opposition parties say they'll match the government's spending plans if you they get in power. They always do it possibly because of the way the system works such that there is little opportunity to make a change the for some time after a new government is formed. Mostly messing about with the edges for awhile.
Social mobility decreasing since the 70s. When did Labour change the grammar school and system? Not saying that's not the answer but could the closure of grammar schools make it harder for working class/poor to improve their lot? Funny how there used to be a lot of Labour ministers from a grammar school background. Now there's been public school Labour ministers/shadow spokesmen. I might be wrong here but grammar schools then university for free in my parent's generation led to the last spell of half decent social mobility. Everyone in the two generations above me got on if they went to grammar.school, those who didn't go to grammar school never went as far in life.
Having said that open university did well for generation above me I think. Back when it was new working.class got.degrees while the working.and it was heavily subsidised or even free.0 -
Be careful of going off on a tangent Tangled Metal, it might not go down well with the Stasi's accountancy consultant.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
It's also time for the next round of leftie mythbusters. Heres the estimated overall cost to the country of the bailouts - pretty much zero after funding costs:Trying to blame everything on the banks is typical of those with an axe to grind and/or a limited understanding of finance and economics.
i think most people can understand that if you empty the treasury, borrow 100's of billions on the money markets to prop up an industry, that money has to be paid back, with interest.
While that is happening, you struggle to pay for the things you used too have, cut backs and having no money for those little extras... like flood protection or supporting other industries....hence all parties have signed up for some form of deficit reduction, it is the time period and what gets cut that are the sticking points.
Not sure why you have to bring in the insults?
especially as it is those with understanding and experience of economics that got it so wrong in the first place.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-profit-bank-bailouts/21010
You talk down to people dude.
as for the overall cost? Gov had to borrow that money, which meant they didnt have money for other things, plus we ve still not got back the money have we? and what of the debts and laibilities the bail out exposed the uk to, trillions is nt it? then there is the QE experiment, long term results of which are yet unknown (of which the banks have benefited from hugely)
BUT if this has been a good deal for the tax payer and us? then i assume you ll be giving credit to Labour for having such forsight.........mmmmmmmmmm thought not
the bank collapse was a disaster for the UK, euroland, Greece especially and indeed the world economy and it was caused by little regulation of the mortages sector and human greed, both left and right governments helped cause it.
the next banking crisis will have very similar roots, its just that we cannot envisage what money making schemes the financial industry will devise to tharwt the regulators and it ll again be ordinary folk who will foot the bill.0 -
It was a delayed reply to mamba's comment yesterday afternoon about social mobility dropping off in the 70s. It was kind of on topic then but I got delayed replying.Be careful of going off on a tangent Tangled Metal, it might not go down well with the Stasi's accountancy consultant.
If our accountancy/tax expert friend doesn't like it then he won't like it that I've been more likely agreeing with him than not on political threads in the past. If I come across as disagreeing with him now that might say something about his comments re fairness in tax and other things discussed.0 -
No problems there TM, mamba raised the point and sometimes I don't have the time tomout him straight on everything he come mout with
It was a delayed reply to mamba's comment yesterday afternoon about social mobility dropping off in the 70s. It was kind of on topic then but I got delayed replying.Be careful of going off on a tangent Tangled Metal, it might not go down well with the Stasi's accountancy consultant.
If our accountancy/tax expert friend doesn't like it then he won't like it that I've been more likely agreeing with him than not on political threads in the past. If I come across as disagreeing with him now that might say something about his comments re fairness in tax and other things discussed. Sometimes we need a bit of extra input lest the moaners forget that they are in a minority in the country. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You'll need to forgive a bit of sarcasm as I have lost count of the number of times on here I get the same sort of stuff about it all being unfair/rubbish/somebodys fault etc without even trying to back it up with evidence of facts. Often because they dont support the viewpoint.
It's also time for the next round of leftie mythbusters. Heres the estimated overall cost to the country of the bailouts - pretty much zero after funding costs:Trying to blame everything on the banks is typical of those with an axe to grind and/or a limited understanding of finance and economics.
i think most people can understand that if you empty the treasury, borrow 100's of billions on the money markets to prop up an industry, that money has to be paid back, with interest.
While that is happening, you struggle to pay for the things you used too have, cut backs and having no money for those little extras... like flood protection or supporting other industries....hence all parties have signed up for some form of deficit reduction, it is the time period and what gets cut that are the sticking points.
Not sure why you have to bring in the insults?
especially as it is those with understanding and experience of economics that got it so wrong in the first place.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-profit-bank-bailouts/21010
You talk down to people dude.
as for the overall cost? Gov had to borrow that money, which meant they didnt have money for other things, plus we ve still not got back the money have we? and what of the debts and laibilities the bail out exposed the uk to, trillions is nt it? then there is the QE experiment, long term results of which are yet unknown (of which the banks have benefited from hugely)
BUT if this has been a good deal for the tax payer and us? then i assume you ll be giving credit to Labour for having such forsight.........mmmmmmmmmm thought not
the bank collapse was a disaster for the UK, euroland, Greece especially and indeed the world economy and it was caused by little regulation of the mortages sector and human greed, both left and right governments helped cause it.
the next banking crisis will have very similar roots, its just that we cannot envisage what money making schemes the financial industry will devise to tharwt the regulators and it ll again be ordinary folk who will foot the bill.
We have got most of the money back - approx £115bn is outstanding as at March this year. There will be more to come when the state shareholdings in Lloyds and RBS are fully sold off and loans are repaid.
Never said it was a great deal in itself, just not the vast cost you were making it out to be. The alternative would have been hard to predict but potentially worse. I have said on here before that it was one of the few good things that Gordon Brown did, along with keeping us out of the Euro.
As for the next crisis, have you considered marketing whatever crystal ball you have? I am assuming that you read the links earlier on about the vastly increased capital requirements and risk mitigation in the retail banks which will materially reduce the risk of a repeat. Clearly the future can't be predicted but I am yet to find anyone who can find a way of eliminating such risks altogether without destroying the markets.
As for blaming the banks - I stand by my point above. It is not as if the banks deliberately set out to cause crashes where as our friends in Labour knowingly overspent and even had the gall to joke about there being no money left when they were kicked out in 2010."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Oh!We have got most of the money back - approx £115bn is outstanding as at March this year.
Well, if it is only £115bn let's not worry about such trifle number then.
And, if the banks are not to blame for the austerity then it must be the Government.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 -
How many times does £12bn fit into £115bn... I wonder...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
You dont need a crystal ball to predict we will have another financial crisis, its only a matter on time, just a quick look through history tells us all we need to know.
Our generation will be no more able to prevent the next one, than any previous generation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crises
I am surprised you belittle the amounts involved though :shock:
of course Brown had no choice, a collapse of the banking system would have been far worse BUT that doesnt mitigate that it was the banking industry that was the root cause, how can you say that s moaning? its fact and its why we ve got austerity0 -
£115bn. What's the budget deficit again? Isn't it something like £68bn. How many times does £68bn fit into £115bn? I wonder...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
£115bn. Which is "almost zero"...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
The alternative would be...Let me think hard about this for a moment... A whole load of new banks!seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
...that we wouldn't have had to bail out.
The government could have paid anyone back who couldn't get their money out of the bank. Much better to fork out money directly to the general public. Why pay the banks billions just to keep themselves in rotten jobs, working for rotten companies in a rotten deal?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
£115bn - £68bn = NO budget deficit. Government can spend an extra £47bn. But who the hell would want that? After all, the government would have nothing to do and no people to oppress and could subsidise a few industries...
I wonder how many bankers are homeless this winter...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
The NCB requested a further £360m. Bast4rds. How dare they?
How many times does £360m fit into £115bn?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Oh dear. Just because that isn't yet cash in the bank doesn't mean it is a cost to us/the country. You do accounts so you should understand. That £115 bn is largely represented by our investments in the banks where the state took a stake (and will all be sold eventually); and by loans (that will be largely repaid). These things are called assets on the balance sheet, they are just not cash. So just to be clear, that is not a loss or a net cost.£115bn. What's the budget deficit again? Isn't it something like £68bn. How many times does £68bn fit into £115bn? I wonder...
If you want any more accounting enlightenment to clarify the situation, just let me know "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
