FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > UK state pension age will soon need to rise to 71, say experts
UK state pension age will soon need to rise to 71, say experts
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK." But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? | |||
| |||
"The money our government sends abroad doesn't quantify such a ridiculous state pension age. Who are these 'experts' media cite these days? Makes you wonder why the ever increasing population isn't contributing enough to cover pensions. Especially as the pension costs, and proejected costs, went down after Covid. All of us are being taken for mugs. That said it's safest to plan on getting no state pension at all. Private pension limits are also being raised quietly to 57 too and will probably got to 60 or 65 at some point." do you have more on this COVID point ? My guess is it's more about interest rates. Why isn't the increasing population helping ? It probably is, but working population has to keep pace with retired. And also state pension goes up at least as quick as pay but can be faster. It may be the increasing population is just dampening the effects. | |||
"From the Guardian today What is all this about? People are living longer - yes People pay their taxes and NI - yes The people who actually rely on a state pension are likely those less well off financially. Meanwhile, here in France, people now have to work until they are 62 to get a much better deal based on their income rather than a a fixed sum. Come on Britain - we can do better than that to look after our elderly." . What is wrong with the UK pension system. ? You have failed to take into account all the tax relief given on pension contributions plus the various top ups given to the less well off in society. It is much better to be an architect of your own destiny and manage you own pension funds . In the UK you appear to have ignored pension credits and other help given to the less well off in society. Some posters on here need to actually speak and mix with the less well off in society. It would give some of the metropolitan woke loving liberal elite a much better idea of how people live and the help that is available . In addition if you manage your pension correctly it can be passed on to your offspring free of IHT . Our system seems superior to the one in France | |||
"From the Guardian today What is all this about? People are living longer - yes People pay their taxes and NI - yes The people who actually rely on a state pension are likely those less well off financially. Meanwhile, here in France, people now have to work until they are 62 to get a much better deal based on their income rather than a a fixed sum. Come on Britain - we can do better than that to look after our elderly.. What is wrong with the UK pension system. ? You have failed to take into account all the tax relief given on pension contributions plus the various top ups given to the less well off in society. It is much better to be an architect of your own destiny and manage you own pension funds . In the UK you appear to have ignored pension credits and other help given to the less well off in society. Some posters on here need to actually speak and mix with the less well off in society. It would give some of the metropolitan woke loving liberal elite a much better idea of how people live and the help that is available . In addition if you manage your pension correctly it can be passed on to your offspring free of IHT . Our system seems superior to the one in France " In Europe, the UK is about 16th on terms of the state pension payement and about 4th in terms of the highest age before the pension is paid. I have said "about" as the figures are not up to date and taken from 2020. This isn't about France (I only mentioned it on my original post as I live here). The UK pays less to pensioners and later than many more countries. From what I have read, it is the Spanish pensioners who are the best off and get the largest pension. I am more concerned about the statement that the pension age needs to go up to 71 (by 2040) as in the Guardian article. I think British pensioners get a raw enough deal as it is but perhaps, with all the other benefits that pensioners and low paid workers can claim including free medical care via the NHS and bus passes (which I think you are alluding to), they are perhaps not so badly off. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Perhaps Rishi’s 2024 manifesto will be called ‘Pension age up, Life expectancy down’" He has given us the highest tax rises since 1956, which appear to have made little difference to what we get back from system. | |||
"Perhaps Rishi’s 2024 manifesto will be called ‘Pension age up, Life expectancy down’ He has given us the highest tax rises since 1956, which appear to have made little difference to what we get back from system. " It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. | |||
"Perhaps Rishi’s 2024 manifesto will be called ‘Pension age up, Life expectancy down’ He has given us the highest tax rises since 1956, which appear to have made little difference to what we get back from system. It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves." We live in the political classes world, did I say that out loud.   | |||
"The money our government sends abroad doesn't quantify such a ridiculous state pension age. Who are these 'experts' media cite these days? Makes you wonder why the ever increasing population isn't contributing enough to cover pensions. Especially as the pension costs, and proejected costs, went down after Covid. All of us are being taken for mugs. That said it's safest to plan on getting no state pension at all. Private pension limits are also being raised quietly to 57 too and will probably got to 60 or 65 at some point.do you have more on this COVID point ? My guess is it's more about interest rates. Why isn't the increasing population helping ? It probably is, but working population has to keep pace with retired. And also state pension goes up at least as quick as pay but can be faster. It may be the increasing population is just dampening the effects. " Its not helping because GDP growth at any cost will not benefit society. GDP per capita is the better measure. To much low skilled low paid imagination. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? " It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. " Or repackage reallocate pension contributions for investment purposes, let's say wind farms instead of foreign investors propping up british infrastructure. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. " Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. " That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Or repackage reallocate pension contributions for investment purposes, let's say wind farms instead of foreign investors propping up british infrastructure." That's a good point. I am not sure if good investments would be good enough to compensate for the ageing population. But it would have alleviated the problem a little. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes." Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. " Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. | |||
| |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. " What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. " If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. A true socialist won't donate to charity because he believes he knows what's good for the entire human race. Through government, he can enforce those views on the entire population, instead of doing it small scale through charities. I have certain causes I care about, for which I make donations. I don't mind if others want to donate to a different cause. A socialist would want the government to force people and collect money from everyone and donate it for a cause which the socialist believes the right cause. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. ." Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. " "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". | |||
| |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". " And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. " You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things?" Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) | |||
| |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. " You favour state education for all but then complain about capitalism, state or formal education only serves the capitalist. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. " Let's be real here the Blair labour party did some great things but running the economy well certainly wasn't one of them.. The Major government handed over a surplus and the economy doing well. The Labour Party handed back a deficit the likes we had not seen in a generation. Everything they built was on PPI that we a still paying back. Brown sold our entire gold reserves at an all time low This list goes on and on.. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine)" Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine)" "Led" is probably the wrong word. But labour's spending habits fucked up the country - A main reason why UK and even most of Europe took way too longer to recover from the crash, compared to US. "Oh here is great growth in economy! Then let's spend more money" only until one day the economy crashes and we are pushed to more debt because of the spending habits. To make things worse, Blair decided to bailout the banks who made mistakes. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins." No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy." The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. | |||
"do you have more on this COVID point ? My guess is it's more about interest rates. Why isn't the increasing population helping ? It probably is, but working population has to keep pace with retired. And also state pension goes up at least as quick as pay but can be faster. It may be the increasing population is just dampening the effects. " Less pensions to pay out due to all the elderly death from Covid, straight from the government's own website; https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/statepensionsavingsfollowingthecovid19pandemic "In 2021, people born outside the UK made up an estimated 14.4% of the UK’s population, or 9.5 million people." "Compared to the UK born, migrants are more likely to be aged 26 to 64, and less likely to be children or people of retirement age." https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/ Not blaming immigrants here. Even fighting aged folk getting cash in hand work need to buy food and fuel to live at 20% VAT on everything they buy... Yet still there isn't enough for folk in old aged as the government is pissing it up the wall and giving it to their chums. | |||
| |||
"France has higher taxes do they? Well, they certainly have lower prices. They aren't getting shafted for fuel prices either as they have enough nuclear power." Really? Electricity prices right now are same in France and UK now. Petrol/Diesel prices are lower in UK now. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. " A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure  | |||
"France has higher taxes do they? Well, they certainly have lower prices. They aren't getting shafted for fuel prices either as they have enough nuclear power." When we were there in the summer, we'd say the cost of living was about the same or slightly higher in France. Employment taxes were higher, house taxes lower, electricity cheaper, diesel more expensive, food much more expensive, healthcare more expensive, camping and leisure cheaper etc. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure "It very much sounds like you're saying that Labour Govt didn't have their own minds 
Not really sure why the rant at buddy, I'm not sure he said it was their fault, unless I missed something. | |||
| |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves." I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people!" Fab is Tory central. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
It very much sounds like you're saying that Labour Govt didn't have their own minds
Not really sure why the rant at buddy, I'm not sure he said it was their fault, unless I missed something. "Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world! | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people!" Strange isn’t it. I will hazard a guess that the majority of people on here are lower rate tax payers with a good few (but still minority) of 40% tax payers (though fiscal drag may be changing that) and a tiny handful of 45% taxpayers. Yet based on posting in these forums so many people seem to truly believe the Tory’s are there for them? There are always outliers and I get it if people are higher end 40% taxpayers but under that level  | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! Fab is Tory central." I really don’t see that here | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! Strange isn’t it. I will hazard a guess that the majority of people on here are lower rate tax payers with a good few (but still minority) of 40% tax payers (though fiscal drag may be changing that) and a tiny handful of 45% taxpayers. Yet based on posting in these forums so many people seem to truly believe the Tory’s are there for them? There are always outliers and I get it if people are higher end 40% taxpayers but under that level "I don’t really see the numbers of posters who think tories are for them as being over 5, how many do you see | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! Fab is Tory central. I really don’t see that here" You should check out the forums. Packed to the rafters with people who think voting for the Tories is a good idea. | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! Fab is Tory central. I really don’t see that here You should check out the forums. Packed to the rafters with people who think voting for the Tories is a good idea." The forums outside of the political forum | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! Strange isn’t it. I will hazard a guess that the majority of people on here are lower rate tax payers with a good few (but still minority) of 40% tax payers (though fiscal drag may be changing that) and a tiny handful of 45% taxpayers. Yet based on posting in these forums so many people seem to truly believe the Tory’s are there for them? There are always outliers and I get it if people are higher end 40% taxpayers but under that level
I don’t really see the numbers of posters who think tories are for them as being over 5, how many do you see "With what I'd call regular posters, I see more socialist types than I do 'Tories'. Are people conflating 'I don't like Labour' with 'being a Tory'? | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! Strange isn’t it. I will hazard a guess that the majority of people on here are lower rate tax payers with a good few (but still minority) of 40% tax payers (though fiscal drag may be changing that) and a tiny handful of 45% taxpayers. Yet based on posting in these forums so many people seem to truly believe the Tory’s are there for them? There are always outliers and I get it if people are higher end 40% taxpayers but under that level "i dont think they think the torys are there for them, just a lot of people see labour as more wanting bigger state and wana poke there nose into peoples lifes more, | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! Strange isn’t it. I will hazard a guess that the majority of people on here are lower rate tax payers with a good few (but still minority) of 40% tax payers (though fiscal drag may be changing that) and a tiny handful of 45% taxpayers. Yet based on posting in these forums so many people seem to truly believe the Tory’s are there for them? There are always outliers and I get it if people are higher end 40% taxpayers but under that level "I don't think anyone believes thag Tories are there for them. Politicians are power hungry scumbags. Tories aren't any different. So are labour. At the same time, most people understand the reason why we are in this situation. Every western European country is in the same or even worse situation. While Tories weren't great, we also understand that there are bigger causes at play here - Ageing population, covid, wars, etc. | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! Fab is Tory central. I really don’t see that here You should check out the forums. Packed to the rafters with people who think voting for the Tories is a good idea. The forums outside of the political forum " Especially down here in the depths of the politics forum. But elsewhere. Having said that, I'm not on any forum of social media, so maybe it's commonplace for people to express support for the Tories on line. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure "The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London. | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! Strange isn’t it. I will hazard a guess that the majority of people on here are lower rate tax payers with a good few (but still minority) of 40% tax payers (though fiscal drag may be changing that) and a tiny handful of 45% taxpayers. Yet based on posting in these forums so many people seem to truly believe the Tory’s are there for them? There are always outliers and I get it if people are higher end 40% taxpayers but under that level
I don’t really see the numbers of posters who think tories are for them as being over 5, how many do you see "Not done a quantitative study on this but the general feel is way higher than that, certainly amongst regulars rather than casuals. | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! Strange isn’t it. I will hazard a guess that the majority of people on here are lower rate tax payers with a good few (but still minority) of 40% tax payers (though fiscal drag may be changing that) and a tiny handful of 45% taxpayers. Yet based on posting in these forums so many people seem to truly believe the Tory’s are there for them? There are always outliers and I get it if people are higher end 40% taxpayers but under that level
I don’t really see the numbers of posters who think tories are for them as being over 5, how many do you see
Not done a quantitative study on this but the general feel is way higher than that, certainly amongst regulars rather than casuals."Off the top of my head I can think of 2. On the left 3. That are regular. I'm not including anyone who I see go either way. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London."Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is… “Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!” | |||
" It's almost as if the Tories don't give a fuck about British people, or indeed anyone except themselves. I'm glad you told us that. Based on the massive amount of support for them on here, I might have voted for them at the next election. They seem such caring people! Strange isn’t it. I will hazard a guess that the majority of people on here are lower rate tax payers with a good few (but still minority) of 40% tax payers (though fiscal drag may be changing that) and a tiny handful of 45% taxpayers. Yet based on posting in these forums so many people seem to truly believe the Tory’s are there for them? There are always outliers and I get it if people are higher end 40% taxpayers but under that level
I don’t really see the numbers of posters who think tories are for them as being over 5, how many do you see
Not done a quantitative study on this but the general feel is way higher than that, certainly amongst regulars rather than casuals.
Off the top of my head I can think of 2. On the left 3. That are regular.
I'm not including anyone who I see go either way. "On Fab plenty more people than admit it go either way | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London.
Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is…
“Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!”"so they just look out for their own political skin even though they were aware of what was going on. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London.
Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is…
“Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!”"Tbf I missed it but have now seen it. I agree it would have been political suicide. The part I was getting at was 'Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected?', sounds like they didn't have their own minds. Hindsight also works both ways though, it's why we here of 'boom & bust'. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London.
Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is…
“Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!”
so they just look out for their own political skin even though they were aware of what was going on."What makes you think they knew what was going on? Nobody knew the scale of what was going on! Some seniors in financial services company knew some of the picture and kept it quiet. These bankers didn’t tell governments that being deregulated was not working. You get that right? As an aside, if you have not watched it there is a good film covering some aspects of this called The Big Short. Worth a watch. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London.
Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is…
“Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!”
Tbf I missed it but have now seen it. I agree it would have been political suicide.
The part I was getting at was 'Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected?', sounds like they didn't have their own minds.
Hindsight also works both ways though, it's why we here of 'boom & bust'."The Financial Services Sector reassured govts around the world (not just New Labour in UK) that the interconnected global finance markets were just fine being deregulated in the way driven by and championed by the libertarianists of the 80s/90s. You know, the same crowd and thinking that populate places like Tufton St. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London.
Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is…
“Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!”
Tbf I missed it but have now seen it. I agree it would have been political suicide.
The part I was getting at was 'Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected?', sounds like they didn't have their own minds.
Hindsight also works both ways though, it's why we here of 'boom & bust'.
The Financial Services Sector reassured govts around the world (not just New Labour in UK) that the interconnected global finance markets were just fine being deregulated in the way driven by and championed by the libertarianists of the 80s/90s. You know, the same crowd and thinking that populate places like Tufton St."Is that what we want from Govt. To listen to self-interested industry. You're dead against Tufton St. But appear to be saying its not Labour's fault they listened to them. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London.
Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is…
“Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!”
so they just look out for their own political skin even though they were aware of what was going on.
What makes you think they knew what was going on? Nobody knew the scale of what was going on! Some seniors in financial services company knew some of the picture and kept it quiet. These bankers didn’t tell governments that being deregulated was not working. You get that right?
As an aside, if you have not watched it there is a good film covering some aspects of this called The Big Short. Worth a watch. "Yeah I have seen it, of course they were aware of what was going on, politicians were lobbied to deregulate the financial industry, they all knew this, if true capitalist market forces were in play the banks should of gone into receivership and bankruptcy, why didn't they, because the fraud amd reckless behaviour would of been shown for all to see. It would of been better and cheaper to just reimburse deposit of account holders in said banks, which there are protections for deposits incase the bank losses your money recklessly that option should of been used but wasn't, funny that. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London.
Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is…
“Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!”
so they just look out for their own political skin even though they were aware of what was going on.
What makes you think they knew what was going on? Nobody knew the scale of what was going on! Some seniors in financial services company knew some of the picture and kept it quiet. These bankers didn’t tell governments that being deregulated was not working. You get that right?
As an aside, if you have not watched it there is a good film covering some aspects of this called The Big Short. Worth a watch.
Yeah I have seen it, of course they were aware of what was going on, politicians were lobbied to deregulate the financial industry, they all knew this, if true capitalist market forces were in play the banks should of gone into receivership and bankruptcy, why didn't they, because the fraud amd reckless behaviour would of been shown for all to see. It would of been better and cheaper to just reimburse deposit of account holders in said banks, which there are protections for deposits incase the bank losses your money recklessly that option should of been used but wasn't, funny that."Or just regulate the banks! | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London.
Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is…
“Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!”
Tbf I missed it but have now seen it. I agree it would have been political suicide.
The part I was getting at was 'Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected?', sounds like they didn't have their own minds.
Hindsight also works both ways though, it's why we here of 'boom & bust'.
The Financial Services Sector reassured govts around the world (not just New Labour in UK) that the interconnected global finance markets were just fine being deregulated in the way driven by and championed by the libertarianists of the 80s/90s. You know, the same crowd and thinking that populate places like Tufton St.
Is that what we want from Govt. To listen to self-interested industry. You're dead against Tufton St. But appear to be saying its not Labour's fault they listened to them. "Nope but to say or imply the 2008 financial crisis was Labour’s fault is completely wrong (not you others). As I said above…regulate the banks. The libertarians will hate it but maybe it will stop the shit hitting the fan again! Oh guess who wanted to drop all the measures put in place after 2008? That’s right. The Tufton St Marionette Truss | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London.
Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is…
“Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!”
Tbf I missed it but have now seen it. I agree it would have been political suicide.
The part I was getting at was 'Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected?', sounds like they didn't have their own minds.
Hindsight also works both ways though, it's why we here of 'boom & bust'.
The Financial Services Sector reassured govts around the world (not just New Labour in UK) that the interconnected global finance markets were just fine being deregulated in the way driven by and championed by the libertarianists of the 80s/90s. You know, the same crowd and thinking that populate places like Tufton St.
Is that what we want from Govt. To listen to self-interested industry. You're dead against Tufton St. But appear to be saying its not Labour's fault they listened to them.
Nope but to say or imply the 2008 financial crisis was Labour’s fault is completely wrong (not you others).
As I said above…regulate the banks. The libertarians will hate it but maybe it will stop the shit hitting the fan again! Oh guess who wanted to drop all the measures put in place after 2008? That’s right. The Tufton St Marionette Truss "Haven’t banks always been regulated? | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London.
Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is…
“Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!”
so they just look out for their own political skin even though they were aware of what was going on.
What makes you think they knew what was going on? Nobody knew the scale of what was going on! Some seniors in financial services company knew some of the picture and kept it quiet. These bankers didn’t tell governments that being deregulated was not working. You get that right?
As an aside, if you have not watched it there is a good film covering some aspects of this called The Big Short. Worth a watch.
Yeah I have seen it, of course they were aware of what was going on, politicians were lobbied to deregulate the financial industry, they all knew this, if true capitalist market forces were in play the banks should of gone into receivership and bankruptcy, why didn't they, because the fraud amd reckless behaviour would of been shown for all to see. It would of been better and cheaper to just reimburse deposit of account holders in said banks, which there are protections for deposits incase the bank losses your money recklessly that option should of been used but wasn't, funny that.
Or just regulate the banks!"Bit late once the horse has bolted. | |||
"France also has much higher taxes compared to UK. But, is that a bad thing? This isn't necessarily about France vs. UK as Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have better pension plans than the UK. Why should the UK accept people having to work longer for less money than in other (peer) countries? A great number of people will be dead before they can claim their pension - is that the idea behind this? What about the young - if people are to work until they drop (or until 71 or older) where are the job vacancies for the young? The state pension in the UK is already terrible in comparison with many if not all, peer nations. Are we happy to just accept this as being a fact of life? It is a good or bad thing based on your age and your position. Essentially you are taking away more money from the working population to pay for old people. This means the younger working population will feel that they are being treated unfairly. Europe has an ageing population problem. Countries need to make a choice. You get old people to work longer or force young people to pay more taxes. Most sensible people don’t mind paying taxes. It’s paying taxes and seeing no return that chaps people’s arse. That's too broad a statement. Would most "sensible" people pay 80% of their earnings to taxes. Everyone has a limit on how much they are willing to pay in taxes. Anyone who earns a lot of money would prefer paying lower percentage in taxes. Didn’t you say that not everyone is into materialism? I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. I’d be comfortable doing so if I had confidence that it was being well used, too. Not everyone is into materialism. At the same time, not everyone hates materialism too. What you did there is exactly the problem with left wingers - Trying to paint all humans with the same brush. If you really wanted to give away your money, you can still do it through charity organisations which you consider are doing good. What makes you think I don’t give money to charity? (I donate to several) A true socialist of course doesn’t believe in charity, because it allows government’s to ignore some sectors, knowing that charity will look after them out of the goodness inherent in some people. If you already do donate to charity, why do you make this complaint - I’m a higher rate tax payer, and I could afford to pay more. . Because I believe certain things are the responsibility of government - education, services etc. and all the charitable donation in the world isn’t going to cover the costs necessary for them. "Services", "etc" - These are pretty broad words. You need to be exact in these discussions. Take the case of education. I would love that to be provided by government. But there are some people who want free education for schools but not for higher education. Some want public schools running along with private schools whilst others want to get rid of private schools entirely. People have wide variety of views in all these topics. Socialists believe they have the right answer to everything and want government to collect as much taxes as possible and do exactly what they want. It obviously fails over a period of time. Then they want more money. No matter what happens, the answer is always "Just give us more money". And yet the last Labour government (which wasn’t socialist, but certainly farther left than we’ve had since 2010) did a much better job of managing the economy than we’ve seen since. And I said ‘services etc’ because I’m not typing out everything that I feel is the responsibility of govt. police, fire, health, libraries, public roads, railways, energy etc should all IMO be provided for the benefit of the population and not run for profit like some capitalist wet dream. You mean the one that led to the major crash in 2008? Of course they did a great job in maintaining the economy. The problem with economic policies is that it usually takes awhile to see it's real impact. Something that looks good initially would fail after sometime - Like taking huge loans or collecting too much taxes to provide free services. It's all fun until you run out of money. You have a huge list of things which you believe should be provided by the government and so you want everyone to pay tax for it. It just shows your personal egotism. Not everyone wants the exact same set of services provided by the government. How hard is it to understand that different people want different things? Your opening paragraph there demonstrated how little you understand. Talk to me about the 2008 global financial crash and how Labour ‘led to it’ (your words, not mine) Alistair darling mp of the labour party bailed out the capitalists banks to save their own skins. No, the poster said that Labour ‘led to’ the 2008 crash. I’d like to hear more about this fantasy. The Labour party were like pigs at the trough feasting on a deregulated market of hypothication and re hypothication of zombie credit, bringing in massive tax receipts which led to zombie banks which were bailed out. A bit revisionist that Buddy. Who deregulated the “banks” and when? Who continued to support that deregulation between 97-08? Who strongly advised New Labour to leave well alone the finance sector if they got elected? Who convinced the entire Western world that the banks were able to self regulate effectively and pointed at the mid 90s to mid 00s economic boom as proof? Where did the financial crisis actually start and unravel from? Was Labour the Govt of that place? Was the financial crisis a local/national issue just for the UK or was it global? But of course, it was Labour’s fault! Not saying blameless but their fault? Sure
The Labour party were in office for how many years and if they had regulated the banking sector the fraud committed in the usa mortgage market would not of happened and the hedge fund manager's would not of got the 1.2 trillion pound or so that the labour party gave to the banks to clear the debt created by the market being shorted. The money went to individual henge fund accounts, it was either the bankers clear the debt or go to jail, Iceland jailed a few bankers the rest are hiding in London.
Did you deliberately miss my reply to Feisty on this point? Here it is…
“Can you imagine if Labour had reversed banking deregulation during an economic boom time? Political suicide. Hindsight is easy to point and say “they should have stepped in sooner” but that applies across most of the world!”
so they just look out for their own political skin even though they were aware of what was going on.
What makes you think they knew what was going on? Nobody knew the scale of what was going on! Some seniors in financial services company knew some of the picture and kept it quiet. These bankers didn’t tell governments that being deregulated was not working. You get that right?
As an aside, if you have not watched it there is a good film covering some aspects of this called The Big Short. Worth a watch.
Yeah I have seen it, of course they were aware of what was going on, politicians were lobbied to deregulate the financial industry, they all knew this, if true capitalist market forces were in play the banks should of gone into receivership and bankruptcy, why didn't they, because the fraud amd reckless behaviour would of been shown for all to see. It would of been better and cheaper to just reimburse deposit of account holders in said banks, which there are protections for deposits incase the bank losses your money recklessly that option should of been used but wasn't, funny that.
Or just regulate the banks!". A bizarre comment. Banks have always been regulated. Have you not heard of the solvency requirements and checks on directors . | |||
"From the Guardian today What is all this about? People are living longer - yes People pay their taxes and NI - yes The people who actually rely on a state pension are likely those less well off financially. Meanwhile, here in France, people now have to work until they are 62 to get a much better deal based on their income rather than a a fixed sum. Come on Britain - we can do better than that to look after our elderly." Have to add I disagree with a person / retirement age it needs to be years worked. I started working at 14 paying tax and NI lots of youth today don't start till after university age 21 or older. So would work 7 years less. If someone starts an apprenticeship at 16 but retirement is the same age for all how is that fair if another stays in education till 27 if doing to masters ?? | |||
"From the Guardian today What is all this about? People are living longer - yes People pay their taxes and NI - yes The people who actually rely on a state pension are likely those less well off financially. Meanwhile, here in France, people now have to work until they are 62 to get a much better deal based on their income rather than a a fixed sum. Come on Britain - we can do better than that to look after our elderly. Have to add I disagree with a person / retirement age it needs to be years worked. I started working at 14 paying tax and NI lots of youth today don't start till after university age 21 or older. So would work 7 years less. If someone starts an apprenticeship at 16 but retirement is the same age for all how is that fair if another stays in education till 27 if doing to masters ?? " I agree and would add that if someone decided to work longer they could defer their state pension resulting in it being a bit higher when they do take it. I would also like to see the state pension better reflect the contribution in tax and NI a person made across their working life. Will never happen of course because it isn’t actually a “pension” as such but more a retired/old person benefit. | |||
"From the Guardian today What is all this about? People are living longer - yes People pay their taxes and NI - yes The people who actually rely on a state pension are likely those less well off financially. Meanwhile, here in France, people now have to work until they are 62 to get a much better deal based on their income rather than a a fixed sum. Come on Britain - we can do better than that to look after our elderly. Have to add I disagree with a person / retirement age it needs to be years worked. I started working at 14 paying tax and NI lots of youth today don't start till after university age 21 or older. So would work 7 years less. If someone starts an apprenticeship at 16 but retirement is the same age for all how is that fair if another stays in education till 27 if doing to masters ?? I agree and would add that if someone decided to work longer they could defer their state pension resulting in it being a bit higher when they do take it. I would also like to see the state pension better reflect the contribution in tax and NI a person made across their working life. Will never happen of course because it isn’t actually a “pension” as such but more a retired/old person benefit." And it won't be long before it is means tested so if you work hard and save for a retirement you might not get much at all.. | |||
"From the Guardian today What is all this about? People are living longer - yes People pay their taxes and NI - yes The people who actually rely on a state pension are likely those less well off financially. Meanwhile, here in France, people now have to work until they are 62 to get a much better deal based on their income rather than a a fixed sum. Come on Britain - we can do better than that to look after our elderly. Have to add I disagree with a person / retirement age it needs to be years worked. I started working at 14 paying tax and NI lots of youth today don't start till after university age 21 or older. So would work 7 years less. If someone starts an apprenticeship at 16 but retirement is the same age for all how is that fair if another stays in education till 27 if doing to masters ?? I agree and would add that if someone decided to work longer they could defer their state pension resulting in it being a bit higher when they do take it. I would also like to see the state pension better reflect the contribution in tax and NI a person made across their working life. Will never happen of course because it isn’t actually a “pension” as such but more a retired/old person benefit." is that in terms of years or £ amount? | |||
