LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

Question: Is it more absurd to promise lots of public spending knowing you will tax the wealthy to deliver it or to spend the money (admittedly because of exceptional circumstances) and then argue that you shouldn't raise taxes?

Seems we really do have a magic money tree. Funny how austerity was necessary when it targetted those with less of a voice but we can somehow get through this without tax rises.

Taxing the wealthy has been tried before and it did not work. To raise significant amounts of money you need to have a broad tax base.

Next up will be huge numbers attached to cracking down on benefits/tax cheats and last but not least efficiency savings

Isn’t there a significant problem that most of the wealth is tied up with the blue rinse brigade who are holding onto their wealth as unproductively as possibly in order to shift it over to the next lot of 60 year olds?

Funny that, people wanting to hang onto the money they've built up over a lifetime of hard work and pass it into their kids. Weirdos huh?

I guess it's at this point i remind you that the income of the retired is higher than those working.

That is not sustainable.

Also, it's entirely rational behaviour, but it doesn't mean it makes sense for society as a whole.

You seem to be confusing the amount of capital that the older generation have built up over time with their current income.

Shortfall makes a valid point. Good luck with trying to change human nature.

Find me a DB pension that was funded entirely by savings and I'll find you a unicorn.

I will also point you to the government's *largest* expenditure, equal to the NHS, which is state pensions - that is also not paid for by savings.

The income point is a separate matter and I'm well aware the pension situation is not sustainable.

You are still missing the point that people want to pass on their accumulated savings/assets earned to their kids and regardless of what you think is good for society, you will never stop people trying to do that.

Sure. Hence

, it's entirely rational behaviour, but it doesn't mean it makes sense for society as a whole.

Thats why I posted what I did. Good luck with trying to change human nature.

Fyi I have no vested interest here as I have no further potential inheritance in the pipeline.

Nothing you are hoping to pass on?

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Problem with pension reform is that the people devising it are all on DB schemes.

Funny that they reckon a lifetime allowance of £1m equates to £50k a year in a DB scheme which obviously impacts the annual allowance.

I imagine switching from a multiple of x20 to x25 would save a good few billion.

I would also cap the lifetime allowance at £1m and stop index linking it.

DB schemes are a pain from a corporate point of view also. Cash drain and impacts other areas such as dividends.

bompington

Supposing it definitely was proved that it was better for money not to be tied up in inheritances - are we totally convinced that forcing it to be given to the government is a totally great idea, given just how bad the government usually is at deciding how to spend money well?

rick_chasey

bompington said:

Supposing it definitely was proved that it was better for money not to be tied up in inheritances - are we totally convinced that forcing it to be given to the government is a totally great idea, given just how bad the government usually is at deciding how to spend money well?

I think the point is they’d rather spend it before they die and give it all up.

Stevo_666

Or you give a fair bit of it to your kids well before you die, maybe help them with getting on the property ladder. Also helps when it comes to care home fees, which is often the bigger issue.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

Question: Is it more absurd to promise lots of public spending knowing you will tax the wealthy to deliver it or to spend the money (admittedly because of exceptional circumstances) and then argue that you shouldn't raise taxes?

Seems we really do have a magic money tree. Funny how austerity was necessary when it targetted those with less of a voice but we can somehow get through this without tax rises.

Taxing the wealthy has been tried before and it did not work. To raise significant amounts of money you need to have a broad tax base.

Next up will be huge numbers attached to cracking down on benefits/tax cheats and last but not least efficiency savings

Isn’t there a significant problem that most of the wealth is tied up with the blue rinse brigade who are holding onto their wealth as unproductively as possibly in order to shift it over to the next lot of 60 year olds?

Funny that, people wanting to hang onto the money they've built up over a lifetime of hard work and pass it into their kids. Weirdos huh?

I guess it's at this point i remind you that the income of the retired is higher than those working.

That is not sustainable.

Also, it's entirely rational behaviour, but it doesn't mean it makes sense for society as a whole.

You seem to be confusing the amount of capital that the older generation have built up over time with their current income.

Shortfall makes a valid point. Good luck with trying to change human nature.

Find me a DB pension that was funded entirely by savings and I'll find you a unicorn.

I will also point you to the government's *largest* expenditure, equal to the NHS, which is state pensions - that is also not paid for by savings.

The income point is a separate matter and I'm well aware the pension situation is not sustainable.

You are still missing the point that people want to pass on their accumulated savings/assets earned to their kids and regardless of what you think is good for society, you will never stop people trying to do that.

Sure. Hence

, it's entirely rational behaviour, but it doesn't mean it makes sense for society as a whole.

Thats why I posted what I did. Good luck with trying to change human nature.

Fyi I have no vested interest here as I have no further potential inheritance in the pipeline.

Nothing you are hoping to pass on?

Plenty of time to consider that, although it really isn't that difficult to plan around. I'll be starting with 5 years worth of uni fees pretty soon.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

Supposing it definitely was proved that it was better for money not to be tied up in inheritances - are we totally convinced that forcing it to be given to the government is a totally great idea, given just how bad the government usually is at deciding how to spend money well?

I think the point is they’d rather spend it before they die and give it all up.

Let's suppose that becomes policy and people 'spend it all' before it's too late. Who picks up the tab when many of these penniless people then need care in their old age? What happens if they live longer than expected but no longer have sufficient means to support themselves?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

Supposing it definitely was proved that it was better for money not to be tied up in inheritances - are we totally convinced that forcing it to be given to the government is a totally great idea, given just how bad the government usually is at deciding how to spend money well?

I think the point is they’d rather spend it before they die and give it all up.

Let's suppose that becomes policy and people 'spend it all' before it's too late. Who picks up the tab when many of these penniless people then need care in their old age? What happens if they live longer than expected but no longer have sufficient means to support themselves?

Some kind of safety net?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

Supposing it definitely was proved that it was better for money not to be tied up in inheritances - are we totally convinced that forcing it to be given to the government is a totally great idea, given just how bad the government usually is at deciding how to spend money well?

I think the point is they’d rather spend it before they die and give it all up.

Let's suppose that becomes policy and people 'spend it all' before it's too late. Who picks up the tab when many of these penniless people then need care in their old age? What happens if they live longer than expected but no longer have sufficient means to support themselves?

What happens at the moment?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

Supposing it definitely was proved that it was better for money not to be tied up in inheritances - are we totally convinced that forcing it to be given to the government is a totally great idea, given just how bad the government usually is at deciding how to spend money well?

I think the point is they’d rather spend it before they die and give it all up.

Let's suppose that becomes policy and people 'spend it all' before it's too late. Who picks up the tab when many of these penniless people then need care in their old age? What happens if they live longer than expected but no longer have sufficient means to support themselves?

What happens at the moment?

By and large people contribute towards their care out of their assets, down to certain (fairly low) limits. Those not in care who don't have enough savings will either get more benefits and/or will have their standard of living reduced.

Now tell me your thoughts on my questions above.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

Supposing it definitely was proved that it was better for money not to be tied up in inheritances - are we totally convinced that forcing it to be given to the government is a totally great idea, given just how bad the government usually is at deciding how to spend money well?

I think the point is they’d rather spend it before they die and give it all up.

Let's suppose that becomes policy and people 'spend it all' before it's too late. Who picks up the tab when many of these penniless people then need care in their old age? What happens if they live longer than expected but no longer have sufficient means to support themselves?

Some kind of safety net?

So you're happy for people to splash it all and the state picks up the tab later on? And for the state to encourage that? (which is what Rick is proposing)

rick_chasey

I suspect it’d pay for itself re care but I guess that would be the trade off.

surrey_commuter

It is a bizarre world that if you get cancer the State picks up the tab but if you get dementia you are expected to drain your own bank account.

How come you can get plastic surgery on the NHS but care for dementia is means tested?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

I suspect it’d pay for itself re care but I guess that would be the trade off.

How would it pay for itself, given that there would be much less care that is funded from private savings and property?

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

It is a bizarre world that if you get cancer the State picks up the tab but if you get dementia you are expected to drain your own bank account.

How come you can get plastic surgery on the NHS but care for dementia is means tested?

You can get your care funded if your medical needs are shown to be sufficient. (How well that works in practice is another question).

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect it’d pay for itself re care but I guess that would be the trade off.

How would it pay for itself, given that there would be much less care that is funded from private savings and property?

With all the wonderful taxable revs it would generate.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect it’d pay for itself re care but I guess that would be the trade off.

How would it pay for itself, given that there would be much less care that is funded from private savings and property?

With all the wonderful taxable revs it would generate.

So you think that giving just a portion of their savings to the state in the form of a% tax take (and the rest going to the private sector) is better than the whole lot going on care fees? Seem like a bad deal for the state, which I'm sure is not what you intended.

Nor is the encouraging of people to impoverish themselves by overspending, which another likely outcome.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect it’d pay for itself re care but I guess that would be the trade off.

How would it pay for itself, given that there would be much less care that is funded from private savings and property?

With all the wonderful taxable revs it would generate.

So you think that giving just a portion of their savings to the state in the form of a% tax take (and the rest going to the private sector) is better than the whole lot going on care fees? Seem like a bad deal for the state, which I'm sure is not what you intended.

Nor is the encouraging of people to impoverish themselves by overspending, which another likely outcome.

Care homes is a tricky one and I quite liked Theresa May's suggestion of a cap of £100k. Most people would get nowhere near it but would give peace of mind.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect it’d pay for itself re care but I guess that would be the trade off.

How would it pay for itself, given that there would be much less care that is funded from private savings and property?

With all the wonderful taxable revs it would generate.

So you think that giving just a portion of their savings to the state in the form of a% tax take (and the rest going to the private sector) is better than the whole lot going on care fees? Seem like a bad deal for the state, which I'm sure is not what you intended.

Nor is the encouraging of people to impoverish themselves by overspending, which another likely outcome.

Care homes is a tricky one and I quite liked Theresa May's suggestion of a cap of £100k. Most people would get nowhere near it but would give peace of mind.

Agreed, it isn't easy. The cap point has some merits but clearly there still is a fair bit to consider there.

rick_chasey

Lol ok Stevo.

Today in culture wars the head of the state broadcaster said it won't show programmes seen to be making fun of the ruling party.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok Stevo.

Today in culture wars the head of the state broadcaster said it won't show programmes seen to be making fun of the ruling party.

I think they want to bring back Jim Davidson.

Is he still alive?

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

It is a bizarre world that if you get cancer the State picks up the tab but if you get dementia you are expected to drain your own bank account.

How come you can get plastic surgery on the NHS but care for dementia is means tested?

It's ultimately picked up by the tax payer. Put another way, we all pay for cancer treatment, adjusted according to our ability to pay. Is that so different from assessing someone's assets as part of their ability to pay? If those needing care don't have their assets taxed directly to fund their own care then it just means everyone else needs to find a bit more. Seeing as most of it is covered by local authorities, that means Council Tax and Business Rates going up. It's a different way to fund it but I can't see that it's any fairer.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok Stevo.

Today in culture wars the head of the state broadcaster said it won't show programmes seen to be making fun of the ruling party.

I think they want to bring back Jim Davidson.

Is he still alive?

On this, read an amusing take in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/01/rightwing-comedians-not-funny-enough-for-bbc-shows-says-insider

Their 'insider' basically says "we've been desperately trying to find some funny right-wing comedians but we can't" to the point where he says "if there is one please point them in our direction!"

The insider added: “Internally we’ve been asked to make sure we have more balance across our shows – we are constantly on the look out but there aren’t many people who have those viewpoints on the comedy circuit. Tell me the names that we’re missing out on? Some people aren’t very good. The issue is a shortage of rightwing comics.”

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok Stevo.

Today in culture wars the head of the state broadcaster said it won't show programmes seen to be making fun of the ruling party.

I think they want to bring back Jim Davidson.

Is he still alive?

On this, read an amusing take in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/01/rightwing-comedians-not-funny-enough-for-bbc-shows-says-insider

Their 'insider' basically says "we've been desperately trying to find some funny right-wing comedians but we can't" to the point where he says "if there is one please point them in our direction!"

The insider added: “Internally we’ve been asked to make sure we have more balance across our shows – we are constantly on the look out but there aren’t many people who have those viewpoints on the comedy circuit. Tell me the names that we’re missing out on? Some people aren’t very good. The issue is a shortage of rightwing comics.”

It's kinda why I made the JD quip. I think it's partly easier to make topical comedy at the expense of those in power, especially if you want comedy with an edge (which discounts the likes of Michael MacIntyre), and the observational comedians, like MM, have lost a lot of the staples of right wing tending comedy (racism, sexism, etc) that were a feature of earlier eras.

I'm really not sure what a right wing comedian would make jokes about now, especially now that Corbyn is history, and no-one cares about the Libdems.

The best comedy is usually topical, and the topic at the moment is a party that has been in power since 2007, seems to be writing its own satire through ineptitude, and has an 80-seat majority.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok Stevo.

Today in culture wars the head of the state broadcaster said it won't show programmes seen to be making fun of the ruling party.

No idea what you're trying to say there.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok Stevo.

Today in culture wars the head of the state broadcaster said it won't show programmes seen to be making fun of the ruling party.

I think they want to bring back Jim Davidson.

Is he still alive?

On this, read an amusing take in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/01/rightwing-comedians-not-funny-enough-for-bbc-shows-says-insider

Their 'insider' basically says "we've been desperately trying to find some funny right-wing comedians but we can't" to the point where he says "if there is one please point them in our direction!"

The insider added: “Internally we’ve been asked to make sure we have more balance across our shows – we are constantly on the look out but there aren’t many people who have those viewpoints on the comedy circuit. Tell me the names that we’re missing out on? Some people aren’t very good. The issue is a shortage of rightwing comics.”

It's kinda why I made the JD quip. I think it's partly easier to make topical comedy at the expense of those in power, especially if you want comedy with an edge (which discounts the likes of Michael MacIntyre), and the observational comedians, like MM, have lost a lot of the staples of right wing tending comedy (racism, sexism, etc) that were a feature of earlier eras.

I'm really not sure what a right wing comedian would make jokes about now, especially now that Corbyn is history, and no-one cares about the Libdems.

The best comedy is usually topical, and the topic at the moment is a party that has been in power since 2007, seems to be writing its own satire through ineptitude, and has an 80-seat majority.

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok Stevo.

Today in culture wars the head of the state broadcaster said it won't show programmes seen to be making fun of the ruling party.

I think they want to bring back Jim Davidson.

Is he still alive?

On this, read an amusing take in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/01/rightwing-comedians-not-funny-enough-for-bbc-shows-says-insider

Their 'insider' basically says "we've been desperately trying to find some funny right-wing comedians but we can't" to the point where he says "if there is one please point them in our direction!"

The insider added: “Internally we’ve been asked to make sure we have more balance across our shows – we are constantly on the look out but there aren’t many people who have those viewpoints on the comedy circuit. Tell me the names that we’re missing out on? Some people aren’t very good. The issue is a shortage of rightwing comics.”

It's kinda why I made the JD quip. I think it's partly easier to make topical comedy at the expense of those in power, especially if you want comedy with an edge (which discounts the likes of Michael MacIntyre), and the observational comedians, like MM, have lost a lot of the staples of right wing tending comedy (racism, sexism, etc) that were a feature of earlier eras.

I'm really not sure what a right wing comedian would make jokes about now, especially now that Corbyn is history, and no-one cares about the Libdems.

The best comedy is usually topical, and the topic at the moment is a party that has been in power since 2007, seems to be writing its own satire through ineptitude, and has an 80-seat majority.

Why did you chose 2007?

briantrumpet

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok Stevo.

Today in culture wars the head of the state broadcaster said it won't show programmes seen to be making fun of the ruling party.

I think they want to bring back Jim Davidson.

Is he still alive?

On this, read an amusing take in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/01/rightwing-comedians-not-funny-enough-for-bbc-shows-says-insider

Their 'insider' basically says "we've been desperately trying to find some funny right-wing comedians but we can't" to the point where he says "if there is one please point them in our direction!"

The insider added: “Internally we’ve been asked to make sure we have more balance across our shows – we are constantly on the look out but there aren’t many people who have those viewpoints on the comedy circuit. Tell me the names that we’re missing out on? Some people aren’t very good. The issue is a shortage of rightwing comics.”

It's kinda why I made the JD quip. I think it's partly easier to make topical comedy at the expense of those in power, especially if you want comedy with an edge (which discounts the likes of Michael MacIntyre), and the observational comedians, like MM, have lost a lot of the staples of right wing tending comedy (racism, sexism, etc) that were a feature of earlier eras.

I'm really not sure what a right wing comedian would make jokes about now, especially now that Corbyn is history, and no-one cares about the Libdems.

The best comedy is usually topical, and the topic at the moment is a party that has been in power since 2007, seems to be writing its own satire through ineptitude, and has an 80-seat majority.

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok Stevo.

Today in culture wars the head of the state broadcaster said it won't show programmes seen to be making fun of the ruling party.

I think they want to bring back Jim Davidson.

Is he still alive?

On this, read an amusing take in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/01/rightwing-comedians-not-funny-enough-for-bbc-shows-says-insider

Their 'insider' basically says "we've been desperately trying to find some funny right-wing comedians but we can't" to the point where he says "if there is one please point them in our direction!"

The insider added: “Internally we’ve been asked to make sure we have more balance across our shows – we are constantly on the look out but there aren’t many people who have those viewpoints on the comedy circuit. Tell me the names that we’re missing out on? Some people aren’t very good. The issue is a shortage of rightwing comics.”

It's kinda why I made the JD quip. I think it's partly easier to make topical comedy at the expense of those in power, especially if you want comedy with an edge (which discounts the likes of Michael MacIntyre), and the observational comedians, like MM, have lost a lot of the staples of right wing tending comedy (racism, sexism, etc) that were a feature of earlier eras.

I'm really not sure what a right wing comedian would make jokes about now, especially now that Corbyn is history, and no-one cares about the Libdems.

The best comedy is usually topical, and the topic at the moment is a party that has been in power since 2007, seems to be writing its own satire through ineptitude, and has an 80-seat majority.

Why did you chose 2007?

Oops, should have been 2010.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

It is a bizarre world that if you get cancer the State picks up the tab but if you get dementia you are expected to drain your own bank account.

How come you can get plastic surgery on the NHS but care for dementia is means tested?

It's ultimately picked up by the tax payer. Put another way, we all pay for cancer treatment, adjusted according to our ability to pay. Is that so different from assessing someone's assets as part of their ability to pay? If those needing care don't have their assets taxed directly to fund their own care then it just means everyone else needs to find a bit more. Seeing as most of it is covered by local authorities, that means Council Tax and Business Rates going up. It's a different way to fund it but I can't see that it's any fairer.

I don’t think you understand the finances of dementia care and/or cancer care.

In your example some of us would pay for cancer care depending upon how much cancer we had.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

It is a bizarre world that if you get cancer the State picks up the tab but if you get dementia you are expected to drain your own bank account.

How come you can get plastic surgery on the NHS but care for dementia is means tested?

It's ultimately picked up by the tax payer. Put another way, we all pay for cancer treatment, adjusted according to our ability to pay. Is that so different from assessing someone's assets as part of their ability to pay? If those needing care don't have their assets taxed directly to fund their own care then it just means everyone else needs to find a bit more. Seeing as most of it is covered by local authorities, that means Council Tax and Business Rates going up. It's a different way to fund it but I can't see that it's any fairer.

I don’t think you understand the finances of dementia care and/or cancer care.

In your example some of us would pay for cancer care depending upon how much cancer we had.

Well, I've seen both up close, so I have an idea. I agree that it is an anomaly that dementia or other care is funded so differently from the rest of healthcare; but I think whether payment for care is individualised is a separate question from whether their former home should be taxed so heavily.

pblakeney

Anyway, this Conservative party.
What's up there?