Not The Politics Thread.

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

It doesn't even solve the problem, it pays for CARE and not accommodation and everything that comes with that, eg food. Which is still at least £1000 a month you need to find, on top of the original £86,000 you need to pay. 

And the reality is, that nothing will without a cost associated to the end user.  It's an Ageing Population. Healthcare that is free for life is not going to persist into the future. Virtually all of the developed world have some form of required Long Term Care Insurance policy. paying this for their entire working life. 

 

For those that DO provide free Social Care (Sweden for instance) have a much higher Tax burden.

 

Choose which system you'd prefer.

 

In Johnsons address to Parliament he mentioned that the business world will provide solutions..... IE.... a Long Term Insurance Plan.  

 

That's the direction we are heading in. 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Not a myth when it's true. Hell, NHS higher ups admit money is wasted. Both tories and Labour have done reviews showing billions wasted. And being efficient compared to other health services is no excuse at all. At work I'm expected to work as efficiently as possible, the NHS doesn't get a free pass to waste taxpayer money just because it's a large organisation, someone in the chain makes a decision that wastes money and should be held to account. 

 

How you can correctly fund something that doesn't run at peak efficiency is beyond me. 

Of course there shouldn't be money wasted if at all possible.

 

But perhaps a little more licence might be allowed than the average business organisation considering this particular one works to preserve two concepts - health and life - that are at least extremely valuable and at most are beyond material price.

[Innovindil]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Of course there shouldn't be money wasted if at all possible.

 

But perhaps a little more licence might be allowed than the average business organisation considering this particular one works to preserve two concepts - health and life - that are at least extremely valuable and at most are beyond material price.

And this is the rub, it is possible. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

And this is the rub, it is possible. 

Absolutely. But it must be done carefully, if it is done.

[foxes1988]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Not a myth when it's true. Hell, NHS higher ups admit money is wasted. Both tories and Labour have done reviews showing billions wasted. And being efficient compared to other health services is no excuse at all. At work I'm expected to work as efficiently as possible, the NHS doesn't get a free pass to waste taxpayer money just because it's a large organisation, someone in the chain makes a decision that wastes money and should be held to account. 

 

How you can correctly fund something that doesn't run at peak efficiency is beyond me. 

Apologies myth is the wrong word I just think its a simplistic naive view point that some people have to publically funded organtisation that quite often are more efficient then private companies.  (i dont mean yourself just some debate over NHS funding i find bizarre)

'if we give the NHS more money it will just go into a blackhole' 

I'm not really sure what peoples alternative to funding the NHS is.  Go to a much more wasteful and inefficient and more expensive systems like USA or France or Germany?

 

Of course the NHS wastes money and of course its billions as its the 8th biggest organisation in the world (#1 largest healthcare service organisation) or if it were a country the 13th largest economy in the world.  It doesn't get a free pass in any way shape or form.  Naturally you aim for it to be as efficient as possible but realise there is a limit also.

 

 

 

Edited 9 September 2021 by foxes1988

[foxes1988]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

And this is the rub, it is possible. 

In what possible way is it possible for the NHS not to waste money?

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

And this is the rub, it is possible. 

Every business has wasted expenditure, unless you've solved capitalism the same is true of the NHS

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

Apologies myth is the wrong word I just think its a simplistic naive view point that some people have to publically funded organtisation that quite often are more efficient then private companies.  (i dont mean yourself just some debate over NHS funding i find bizarre)

'if we give the NHS more money because it will go into a blackhole' 

I'm not really sure what peoples alternative to funding the NHS is.  Go to a much more wasteful and inefficient and more expensive systems like USA or France or Germany?

 

Of course the NHS wastes money and of course its billions as its the 8th biggest organisation in the world (#1 largest healthcare service organisation) or if it were a country the 13th largest economy in the world.  It doesn't get a free pass in any way shape or form.  Naturally you aim for it to be as efficient as possible but realise there is a limit also.

 

 

 

Just for the record before we fall off on a tangent I've got absolutely no problems with funding the NHS. I prefer it to any other system that's ever been touted and think they do a good job with what they have.

 

5 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

In what possible way is it possible for the NHS not to waste money?

 

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Every business has wasted expenditure, unless you've solved capitalism the same is true of the NHS

Same answer to both questions. Of course there is going to be waste, but there are acceptable wastes, like having too many nurses on a shift because you're not as busy as expected and then unacceptable waste, like not using the space provided, paying more for supplies than necessary etc etc. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/productivity-in-nhs-hospitals

 

This report was released in 2016, pointing out that some £5billion a year could be saved by 2020. Obviously covid has skewed everything up shits creek but the principle is the same. Its not about the NHS not doing their jobs, it's about them doing it better, which they can. 

[Innovindil]

Tbh I don't think my use of the term blackhole is doing me any favours. It's not quite a blackhole in a tradional sense, more like a bandit. You can put essentially unlimited amounts of money into it and be unsure of what you'll get back out. And that's what will give people extra jitters when new taxes and introduced.

 

Does that make more sense? 

 

Been a long day so far. 

[CosbehFox]

5 hours ago, RobHawk said:

As someone who worked their ass off throughout lockdown, this tax rise feels like a kick in the teeth to myself and my colleagues. 

 

Whilst I understand why we spent all that money on furlough, I still argue against these tax rises. Why? Because there are better and fairer ways to raise taxes than by raising NI which will have a much greater burden on those on low incomes. 

Very well put - I’ve advocated for a long time about collectively putting more in the pot. Can’t preach a level of socialism and not give it back.  
 

You are bang on though with why NI?

[SexyGammonFox]

4 hours ago, Babylon said:

Someone tell Oadby and Wigston who've put mine up about £500 a month over the last 10 years. Not forgetting the extras such as paying for your garden bins and now paying for parking. So more like £600. 

I agree we're getting royally screwed for CT in O & W when compared to the rest of our fair shire, but blimey, surely you're not paying over £500pm?

[Babylon]

20 minutes ago, SexyGammonFox said:

I agree we're getting royally screwed for CT in O & W when compared to the rest of our fair shire, but blimey, surely you're not paying over £500pm?

Ha ha no sorry, obviously that was meant to be per annum. Not many 75 bedroom houses you'd probably need to have to pay over £500 a month in Wigston. 

[RoboFox]

14 hours ago, tom27111 said:

 

I'm in Northamptonshire. Because they refused to raise council tax for so many years, the council is now effectively bankrupt.

 

Controversial opinion to raise money in the coffers and not raise taxes....

 

 

That seems to be putting a positive spin on NCC's failures. Whilst that's part of it, the true-blue council was so spectacularly mismanaged for so long, it beggars belief.

 

Services outsourced or turned into profit-making companies which were neither efficient, nor effective. £50m on consultants and rebranding, vanishing libraries, bus route cuts, a chronic shortage in social workers, some of the worst roads in the country, all whilst they built themselves a shiny new £50m office at the bottom of Bridge St (which they instantly had to sell to make up budget shortcomings). They went bankrupt twice in six months. It was one of the worst municipal failures in recent times. 

 

And man, it shows. I went into the town centre for the first time in years not long ago. Northampton has always been grim, but parts of it looked post-apocalyptic. 

 

Edited 9 September 2021 by RoboFox

[foxes1988]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Tbh I don't think my use of the term blackhole is doing me any favours. It's not quite a blackhole in a tradional sense, more like a bandit. You can put essentially unlimited amounts of money into it and be unsure of what you'll get back out. And that's what will give people extra jitters when new taxes and introduced.

 

Does that make more sense? 

 

Been a long day so far. 

Yeah I get what you're saying and your right in that there does need to be regular reviews into spending and the aim should always been to keep it as streamlined as possible and trying to balance it all with the health and wellbeing of the nation.  Then trying to get people to think of society rather then themselves when it comes to taxes is the tricky part I guess.  Who'd be a politician eh.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

Yeah I get what you're saying and your right in that there does need to be regular reviews into spending and the aim should always been to keep it as streamlined as possible and trying to balance it all with the health and wellbeing of the nation.  Then trying to get people to think of society rather then themselves when it comes to taxes is the tricky part I guess.  Who'd be a politician eh.

Or a scientist, or a science communicator.

[Lionator]

On a grander scale SURELY this is going to be a potential tipping point come 2024? Pandemic or not, Labour can say that you can't trust anything in a Johnson/Sunak manifesto. 

 

The only thing is that I feel is that none of this affects over 60's significantly. And as long as the Tories can get the majority of over 60's to the polls, it's going to be very difficult for Labour, because for whatever reason they will vote tory regardless.

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, Lionator said:

On a grander scale SURELY this is going to be a potential tipping point come 2024? Pandemic or not, Labour can say that you can't trust anything in a Johnson/Sunak manifesto. 

 

The only thing is that I feel is that none of this affects over 60's significantly. And as long as the Tories can get the majority of over 60's to the polls, it's going to be very difficult for Labour, because for whatever reason they will vote tory regardless.

The pensioners have just been told part of the triple lock has been put on hold. Right at a time when wages were going up quite a lot and they were set for a *relatively* big pay day. 

 

Doesn't sound like such a big issue, but it really won't sit well. 

 

Where's @UpTheLeagueFox with the latest poll data when he's needed. 

[Lionator]

13 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

The pensioners have just been told part of the triple lock has been put on hold. Right at a time when wages were going up quite a lot and they were set for a *relatively* big pay day. 

 

Doesn't sound like such a big issue, but it really won't sit well. 

 

Where's @UpTheLeagueFox with the latest poll data when he's needed. 

The poll data will be exactly the same I'm sure of it. The vitirol and hatred towards the youth and disadvantaged from the more elderly will remain regardless and it'll played out in the form of a nailed on tory vote. 

[Dunge]

17 minutes ago, Lionator said:

On a grander scale SURELY this is going to be a potential tipping point come 2024? Pandemic or not, Labour can say that you can't trust anything in a Johnson/Sunak manifesto. 

 

The only thing is that I feel is that none of this affects over 60's significantly. And as long as the Tories can get the majority of over 60's to the polls, it's going to be very difficult for Labour, because for whatever reason they will vote tory regardless.

It is possible it will be seen as his Poll Tax. But then everything Boris does, his enemies hope it will be seen as his Poll Tax.

 

I’m still kind of taking in what’s happening with all this, listening to opinions and reading analysis. In many ways the breaking of this manifesto pledge doesn’t bother me as such, because I think in principle it’s something that needed to happen anyway. I always see a manifesto as half the story, with the other half being “what do you do when things go wrong?” (Which they inevitably will for any government at some point.) This, and of course the massive expenditure during the pandemic, both point to a necessity to raise taxes in some way. If they’d stuck to their manifesto pledge and not raising any taxes at all, I’d have said they were making the wrong call.

 

As for the specifics of whether they should be raising the tax through NI - that’s perhaps a more interesting question to me. I’m always very wary of wealth taxes because I always fear they have unintended consequences, potentially causing more damage than they purport to resolve. But on the other hand I did feel during the pandemic that, as a one-off event that the rich were largely shielded from, the rich should in turn really be carrying much of the load in paying for the response.

 

This, however, is more than just a pandemic response; this is about a long-term plan to cover the cost of social care for a swiftly ageing population. Whatever the solution, this is a really big and uncomfortable issue being debated and addressed here. As such, I think it needs a long-term, set, predictable source of taxable income, and NI is certainly that. I suspect ultimately this is another case of trying to find a least-worst option. I’m far from convinced that NI is that least-worst option, but I do think it’s better than doing nothing and ignoring the problem.

 

Anyway, I’m certainly open to discussion on the matter.

[WigstonWanderer]

11 minutes ago, Dunge said:

It is possible it will be seen as his Poll Tax. But then everything Boris does, his enemies hope it will be seen as his Poll Tax.

 

I’m still kind of taking in what’s happening with all this, listening to opinions and reading analysis. In many ways the breaking of this manifesto pledge doesn’t bother me as such, because I think in principle it’s something that needed to happen anyway. I always see a manifesto as half the story, with the other half being “what do you do when things go wrong?” (Which they inevitably will for any government at some point.) This, and of course the massive expenditure during the pandemic, both point to a necessity to raise taxes in some way. If they’d stuck to their manifesto pledge and not raising any taxes at all, I’d have said they were making the wrong call.

 

As for the specifics of whether they should be raising the tax through NI - that’s perhaps a more interesting question to me. I’m always very wary of wealth taxes because I always fear they have unintended consequences, potentially causing more damage than they purport to resolve. But on the other hand I did feel during the pandemic that, as a one-off event that the rich were largely shielded from, the rich should in turn really be carrying much of the load in paying for the response.

 

This, however, is more than just a pandemic response; this is about a long-term plan to cover the cost of social care for a swiftly ageing population. Whatever the solution, this is a really big and uncomfortable issue being debated and addressed here. As such, I think it needs a long-term, set, predictable source of taxable income, and NI is certainly that. I suspect ultimately this is another case of trying to find a least-worst option. I’m far from convinced that NI is that least-worst option, but I do think it’s better than doing nothing and ignoring the problem.

 

Anyway, I’m certainly open to discussion on the matter.

Perhaps I’m being naive, but why not use the ordinary income tax system to raise money from those that can afford it?

[Dunge]

3 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Perhaps I’m being naive, but why not use the ordinary income tax system to raise money from those that can afford it?

Well, I think that’s a fair question. And one to which I’d be interested to hear the answer from the Tories who either proposed or supported the NI move.

The only potential issue I’ve heard about it is that, as I understand it, Income tax is a devolved tax. So therefore could only be done for England without some sort of coordination with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments. Although that on its own doesn’t feel like it should be enough to discard the idea.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Well, I think that’s a fair question. And one to which I’d be interested to hear the answer from the Tories who either proposed or supported the NI move.

The only potential issue I’ve heard about it is that, as I understand it, Income tax is a devolved tax. So therefore could only be done for England without some sort of coordination with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments. Although that on its own doesn’t feel like it should be enough to discard the idea.

I suppose historically health and social security are supposed to be paid for by NI, but at the end of the day they are all just taxes now.

Edited 9 September 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[Dunge]

1 minute ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I suppose historically health and social security are supposed to be paid for by NI, but at the end of the day they are all just taxes now.

I wonder whether it could work as part of a wider taxation shuffle, in that it’d be ok to do this as long as you’re giving equivalent tax breaks to lower earners somewhere else. Although I don’t see any sign of that happening so far.

[WigstonWanderer]

11 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I wonder whether it could work as part of a wider taxation shuffle, in that it’d be ok to do this as long as you’re giving equivalent tax breaks to lower earners somewhere else. Although I don’t see any sign of that happening so far.

I believe the original idea of NI was that it really was supposed to pay for the social security, pension and health benefits as a proper insurance scheme. Over the years it just seems to have become another tax that I believe just goes into the same pot as all the other ones. The advantage to politicians is that that they seem to have got away with raising it instead of income tax and then claiming to be keeping taxation low.

 

Time politicians came clean and binned it in favour of a properly graduated income tax IMO.

Edited 9 September 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[String fellow]

55 minutes ago, Lionator said:

The poll data will be exactly the same I'm sure of it. The vitirol and hatred towards the youth and disadvantaged from the more elderly will remain regardless and it'll played out in the form of a nailed on tory vote. 

There's also plenty of vitriol and hated expressed towards the 'more elderl'y' from 'the youth and disadvantaged'. What the latter tend to forget is that they themselves will eventually become elderly, assuming that Covid-19 doesn't get them first.