# .



## Phil Pascoe (5 Oct 2022)

My daughter and her partner, both 27, bought their first house a couple of years ago. A small end of terrace, a typical first time buyer's property. They've just had to negotiate a new mortgage, and the repayments have gone up ................................. by £236 a month. They can afford it, but it'll leave them hamstrung to do much else, and it doesn't look like this'll be the last increase. Large scale repossessions seem to be looming.


----------



## Adam W. (5 Oct 2022)

Not only that, but here in DK, our gas bill has gone up to a whopping £3000 per quarter.


----------



## Stan (5 Oct 2022)

Last year's pension increase covered 3 out of 12 months increase in electricity. ( That is last year's increase only). It didn't cover the increases in petrol, council tax, food....

This year? F*** knows!

Won't be long before I have to pay out more than I get just to breathe, let alone eat or go anywhere.

For what did I spend my life serving my community in the forces and emergency services? I could have worked in the private sector, or even as a politician feathering my own nest ( in between illegal wine parties at No.10 or going to Barnard Castle for my eye tests).


----------



## BucksDad (5 Oct 2022)

It really does feel like we are on the cusp of societal breakdown. We had the industrial revolution to create economic growth, we then had the invention of the microchip which created another wave of growth. I am not sure where the next wave of economic growth for our country is going to come from because we can't manufacture anything and technological progress is now painstakingly slow in comparison to the past 50 years. I think we are the next Italy.

No government seems to have provided any credible plan to resolve the cost of housing or build more homes quickly.
With regards to mortgages, if the rates keep going up, I think the government will intervene and force the banks to make mortgages interest only for a few years


----------



## Jacob (5 Oct 2022)

BucksDad said:


> ...
> 
> No government seems to have provided any credible plan to resolve the cost of housing or build more homes quickly.
> ...


It takes positive action. Bring back council house building. Free market ideology doesn't do it. See "Trussonomics".
"Growth" is no longer an option - talk nowadays is of "degrowth".
Also takes taxation. Taxation drives the economy.
There'll have to be a massive readjustment to the current problems. Inflation helps as it allows adjustments e.g. could permit adjustment in relative house prices without leaving people in negative equity.


----------



## Thingybob (5 Oct 2022)

BucksDad said:


> It really does feel like we are on the cusp of societal breakdown. We had the industrial revolution to create economic growth, we then had the invention of the microchip which created another wave of growth. I am not sure where the next wave of economic growth for our country is going to come from because we can't manufacture anything and technological progress is now painstakingly slow in comparison to the past 50 years. I think we are the next Italy.
> 
> No government seems to have provided any credible plan to resolve the cost of housing or build more homes quickly.
> With regards to mortgages, if the rates keep going up, I think the government will intervene and force the banks to make mortgages interest only for a few years


If years ago when i left school if renewable energy was seen as a major progression i would have jumped at the chance to of been involved but as you say nowadays we dont have the manufacturing infrastructure to be able to compete globaly sad state


----------



## Jacob (5 Oct 2022)

Thingybob said:


> If years ago when i left school if renewable energy was seen as a major progression i would have jumped at the chance to of been involved but as you say nowadays we dont have the manufacturing infrastructure to be able to compete globaly sad state


But if we look at constructive "degrowth" we don't need manufacturing infrastructure, we need less of it. And we need to stop trying to compete globally.
The old models are all broken.
Degrowth is on the way like an avalanche, due to climate change. We can't stop or avoid it but need to manage it as best we can.


----------



## thetyreman (5 Oct 2022)

my prediction is another massive recession which will be an amazing opportunity like 2008 to buy things cheap again, the sooner it happens the better, and I'd love that tories get the blame this time, but they do everything in their path to prevent it and protect bankers instead, I can imagine civil unrest the way things are going.


----------



## Thingybob (5 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> But if we look at constructive "degrowth" we don't need manufacturing infrastructure, we need less of it. And we need to stop trying to compete globally.
> The old models are all broken.
> Degrowth is on the way like an avalanche, due to climate change. We can't stop or avoid it but need to manage it as best we can.


But surely we need the means to produce power nationaly , Its hard to say what level of degrowth you are advocating where are you basing your time line Tudor, Edwardian or 50s I agree we are relying on Technology too much but the ability to generate power sustainably and share it with others is a must


----------



## Jacob (5 Oct 2022)

Thingybob said:


> But surely we need the means to produce power nationaly , Its hard to say what level of degrowth you are advocating


Not advocating it at all except that it's being forced upon us and can't be ignored.


----------



## johna.clements (5 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> But if we look at constructive "degrowth" we don't need manufacturing infrastructure, we need less of it. And we need to stop trying to compete globally.
> The old models are all broken.
> Degrowth is on the way like an avalanche, due to climate change. We can't stop or avoid it but need to manage it as best we can.


I am not sure what you mean by degrowth.

Growth is a natural thing. Out put goes up because we find better ways of doing things. The quality and the speed of most peoples work here will have seen growth.

Are you proposing that people should not pass on their bright ideas, which is part of this forums purpose.


I think we should be more concerned with pointless consumption.

This forum is mainly about wood. We should be promoting the use of wood in sustainable ways, products that last rather than go to land fill every ten years etc.


----------



## D_W (5 Oct 2022)

Stan said:


> For what did I spend my life serving my community in the forces and emergency services? I could have worked in the private sector, or even as a politician feathering my own nest ( in between illegal wine parties at No.10 or going to Barnard Castle for my eye tests).



My parents were both teachers. They often say this. They worked about 1600 hours a year, but really a little less than that - I'm giving them credit for working 9 hours a day, but it was more like 7-8.

I found it kind of insulting "I could make a lot more money in the private sector". Maybe. You would have to work another 1000 hours a year in most better-paying jobs - as in better than the gov jobs, have less PTO, have to work on the weekends sometimes (at salary, no extra pay) and evenings.

And probably not have a pension at this point, and more self-contribution with healthcare. Private sector does give more options to seek higher pay, but there aren't many that are the supposed 9-5 types.

The rank and file private sector types are in the same boat as you, but maybe with less money. 

There are exceptions, like semi-volunteer community medical work or public defenders. I think the latter, along with district attorneys, are usually folks working toward setting up a private law practice and cashing in then, or building a record to run for office in politics.


----------



## Spectric (5 Oct 2022)

It is all to do with cycles, countries rise to the top and then slide back down as another one comes up because there is not enough market for too many at the top. The problems arise when you don't accept this and try to remain at the top because your finances are not good enough and you start trying to punch above your weight. On a bigger scale it is the west in a slide downwards with the east rising up and resisting this shift in economics is what causes the people financial pain, in very basic terms we have priced ourselves out of being viable. Pointless consumption is what drives the western economy, if you make your money from selling then your objective is to sell more, make things with a shorter lifespan, con people with terms like fashion and designer and promote a materialistic lifestyle. Why do you think we use so much chipboard, it is because it allows for fast manufacturing of short lifespan items like kitchens. Using wood in a traditional way would raise the cost and skill levels needed for something that does not fit into todays market where everything is short term and not for the long haul.


----------



## flying haggis (5 Oct 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> My daughter and her partner, both 27, bought their first house a couple of years ago. A small end of terrace, a typical first time buyer's property. They've just had to negotiate a new mortgage, and the repayments have gone up ................................. by £236 a month. They can afford it, but it'll leave them hamstrung to do much else, and it doesn't look like this'll be the last increase. Large scale repossessions seem to be looming.


wait till the mortgage rate gets to 15%+ as i suffered from in the 80s , all interst rates have been to low for too long so now when they start to rise people will complain. people with mortgages have been laughing for years but savers have been suffering so ok its tough but now the boot is on the other foot for me i will be happy if savings rates go up


----------



## D_W (5 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> The problems arise when you don't accept this and try to remain at the top because your finances are not good enough and you start trying to punch above your weight.



This is the huge risk people place themselves in, and then societies as a whole do, too.

Strangely, it involves borrowing on both accounts.

The result of too much borrowing is slightly different, but not too much different. The government does have the ability to harvest from the savers and economic value by diluting their assets through currency. I'm glad private debtors can't do that, too!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (5 Oct 2022)

We don't have a vision - improving standards of material wealth, greater happiness, more leisure time, greater fairness in the distribution of wealth, etc. It is wishful thinking to believe they can be complementary.

Retired, no mortgage, some cash (not a lot) in the bank I want a fair rate of interest on my savings having spent a working life responsibly providing for retirement rather than the pitiful less than 1% in recent years. Younger folk with mortgages understandably feel differently.

Degrowth means society reducing its consumption - *getting poorer in conventional economic terms.* I have no problem accepting that health, relationships, leisure time etc can be more important than unnecessary material excess. 

For many it means making do with even poorer access to the "essentials" which money buys. Without redistribution of wealth, it is untenable. A "degrowth" policy will therefore deny me the benefits I have accumulated through working and saving for 40 years.

The views of a society will inevitably be some sort of consensus arising from a diversity of individual opinions and circumstances. Few will get all they want, some will get part, and some will disagree violently with the outcome.


----------



## D_W (5 Oct 2022)

A very good post, Terry - in the US and much of the west, a great deal of economic expansion and consumption has come not out of pure spontaneous growth, but realization that you can spur some expansion with borrowing. 

As countries, we are all running around decrying any setbacks in standard of living that are generally society-wide, reduction in convenience and fiscal laziness. For some individuals, especially if they exercised convenience and fiscal laziness as an individual, things may be more dire. 

But I can't imagine many folks gather the sameness between this and the neighbor who takes out a bunch of loans above and beyond their means and then throws a fit when they have to cut back, because they may have already been living at 1.5x the standard of that their income would afford. they had personal expansion by borrowing instead. 

We absolutely lambaste the individual who falls into this category, but for some reason, think it has no consequences when all of society does it collectively. 

It's not difficult. The only way borrowing can not affect standard of living is if it spurs so much growth that the growth itself pays back more than the borrowing cost. It never does - we just try to stay in front of the wave with real economic growth allowing more borrowing, but we are on the surfboard, the wave is getting bigger and closer.


----------



## Tris (5 Oct 2022)

flying haggis said:


> wait till the mortgage rate gets to 15%+ as i suffered from in the 80s , all interst rates have been to low for too long so now when they start to rise people will complain. people with mortgages have been laughing for years but savers have been suffering so ok its tough but now the boot is on the other foot for me i will be happy if savings rates go up


Out of interest, do you recall what the loan to salary ratio you had was? 
I wonder how those who have borrowed 4 or 5 times their joint incomes will fare if the rates go that far up again.


----------



## artie (5 Oct 2022)

Tris said:


> Out of interest, do you recall what the loan to salary ratio you had was?
> I wonder how those who have borrowed 4 or 5 times their joint incomes will fare if the rates go that far up again.


Back in '84, it was 2.5 times annual salary when I approached the Woolwich.


----------



## Ozi (5 Oct 2022)

I hold no strong political affiliation but what gets to me is the utter contempt our current crop of politicians hold for the electorate. Were they really going - in a time of significant economic difficulty - to borrow money to pass to the richest part of our society as a tax cut? The country is broke after covid, energy supply is being used as a weapon against us there is a lot of economic pain to be suffered. If we were all playing by the same rules and everybody took their share I think most of us would understand but when the country was paying the equivalent of half the NHS budget in interest on dept to adopt a policy so reckless that it raises the interest rate at which that dept must be paid and to do it only to benefit 1% of us is utterly indefensible.


----------



## Spectric (5 Oct 2022)

flying haggis said:


> all interst rates have been to low for too long so now when they start to rise people will complain.


People who are too young to have experienced the high interest rates have taken out big mortgages thinking that the low interest rates are normal and without thinking that they might just rise at some point in the future. To make maters worse many have not been paying more off that mortgage to reduce the debt whilst the rates were low and so are now facing some very hard times. On the other hand it might now at last be time for us savers to receive some rewards on our savings. 

When I purchased a property many years ago when the prices were realistic I only borrowed roughly 1.25 times my annual income which rose fast enough so as I could clear my debt within seven years.


----------



## Geoff_S (5 Oct 2022)

Yes, I had a 16% mortgage back in the day. The thing is that although back then it was hard work, on the plus side it did come down. I remember fixing it at 10% back in 1995, at the time thinking it couldn’t possibly go any lower. Well, it did and when we finally paid the bloody thing off in 2008 we were paying just 5%. 

Then it went down to 1.79% not that long after. Should’ve hung on, never mind.

But a point I would make is that what was easier in our time was adjusting to a constantly falling interest rate, yeh, not a problem really. So it doesn’t take that much imagination to understand the pain of it going up.


----------



## clogs (5 Oct 2022)

my electric bill has gone from just over 100euro's per month to nearly 80 for the same amount used....
hence going solar PV....stuff em....luckily we have the room and the sun....


----------



## Spectric (5 Oct 2022)

Ozi said:


> Were they really going - in a time of significant economic difficulty - to borrow money to pass to the richest part of our society as a tax cut?


They need to forget that word "the economy" and aim for "a decent living standard for all", where all actions taken deliver for everyone and not just high earners . To this end we should all be paying our fair share of taxation and tax avoidance needs to be re-worded as tax evasion so the huge leak of untaxed wealth out of the UK into tax havens like the Cayman islands is closed. 

We are not completely broke unless the government continues to spend like we are a economic super power, they need to cut their cloth to suit the income and stop wasting money on projects like HS2 which will not benefit the majority.


----------



## Jacob (5 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> .....
> 
> Degrowth means society reducing its consumption - ........


Or in the case of climate change, having it reduced involuntarily.


Terry - Somerset said:


> Without redistribution of wealth, it is untenable. .......


Yes true but that is true of all successful societies. It's normal. This is why we have taxation. Taxation drives economies. You can't play the game of you haven't got the chips. As anybody who has ever played Monopoly will tell you!


----------



## Jorny (5 Oct 2022)

Here in Sweden we just suffered through one of the most stupid elections ever. No ideas, no visions no serious reforms. A lot of jabbering and cheap arguments about being tough on crime. 

One thing that drove me nuts is the "debate" on the skyrocketing price of electricity in the southern parts of the country. The only thing that has been proposed are subsidies for the consumers. Being fairly far on the left side of politics I havet no problems with goverment interventions to protect people in need and regulating markets if need be. But now it is just about handling out money to everyone who is using a lot of electricity. 

No discussion of personal responsibility (and remember I am a leftist!). A lot of the people complaining that they can't afford their energy bills somehow seem to afford an expensive boat, motor cycle, new car or yearly (or even two trips) trip abroad (and don't forget that they absolutely also have to go skiing in the mountains as well!). 

No discussion of saving energy. A useful subsidy could be to help people using electricity to warm their house and hot water to get geothermal energy or a air-air heatpump, but no, the upper middle class must be able to continue exactly as before. 


Sorry for the rant.


----------



## flying haggis (5 Oct 2022)

Tris said:


> Out of interest, do you recall what the loan to salary ratio you had was?
> I wonder how those who have borrowed 4 or 5 times their joint incomes will fare if the rates go that far up again.


Two times the higher salary plus one times the lower salary was what we were "allowed". And because we had borrowed such a "large" amount £18000 !!! we had to pay an additional 0.5% 
No that is not a typo it was £18000 not £180000


----------



## Jacob (5 Oct 2022)

Jorny said:


> ...... the upper middle class must be able to continue exactly as before.


Which is what most of the climate debate discussions and proposed solutions are about, so far.


----------



## Jorny (5 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Or in the case of climate change, having it reduced involuntarily.
> 
> Yes true but that is true of all successful societies. It's normal. This is why we have taxation. Taxation drives economies. You can't play the game of you haven't got the chips.


"I hear people talking the language of participation and justice and equality and transparency. But then almost no one raises the real issue of tax avoidance. And of the rich just not paying their fair share. It feels like I’m at a firefighters conference and no one is allowed to speak about water"

- Rutger Bergman at Davos


----------



## Jacob (5 Oct 2022)

flying haggis said:


> Two times the higher salary plus one times the lower salary was what we were "allowed". And because we had borrowed such a "large" amount £18000 !!! we had to pay an additional 0.5%
> No that is not a typo it was £18000 not £180000


Yes that's what I remember. But my first house (1974) was only £3000 (not a typo!). It was a bit of a dump!
House price inflation was already well underway - the previous owner had only paid £500 three years earlier. It didn't start with Thatcher as everybody imagines but she gave it a mighty push.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Oct 2022)

flying haggis said:


> wait till the mortgage rate gets to 15%+ as i suffered from in the 80s , all interst rates have been to low for too long so now when they start to rise people will complain. people with mortgages have been laughing for years but savers have been suffering so ok its tough but now the boot is on the other foot for me i will be happy if savings rates go up


Yes. But her house would have been £18,000 instead of £180,000.


----------



## Jacob (5 Oct 2022)

Jorny said:


> "I hear people talking the language of participation and justice and equality and transparency. But then almost no one raises the real issue of tax avoidance. And of the rich just not paying their fair share. It feels like I’m at a firefighters conference and no one is allowed to speak about water"
> 
> - Rutger Bergman at Davos


Bregman. 
2 excellent and very readable books. Rutger Bregman


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Oct 2022)

Jorny said:


> And of the rich just not paying their fair share. It feels like I’m at a firefighters conference and no one is allowed to speak about water"
> 
> - Rutger Bergman at Davos


Oh, the irony. Davos is full of rich people intent on not paying their share.


----------



## Jacob (5 Oct 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Oh, the irony. Davos is full of rich people intent on not paying their share.


Which is what he was pointing out.


----------



## Jorny (5 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> A very good post, Terry - in the US and much of the west, a great deal of economic expansion and consumption has come not out of pure spontaneous growth, but realization that you can spur some expansion with borrowing.
> 
> As countries, we are all running around decrying any setbacks in standard of living that are generally society-wide, reduction in convenience and fiscal laziness. For some individuals, especially if they exercised convenience and fiscal laziness as an individual, things may be more dire.
> 
> ...



Loans for consumptions (often what is basically toys) is an insanity that western society has turned in to an predatory industry.

Talking about fiscal laziness. Working as an urban planner I was shocked when I understood how streets, roads and infrastructure is financed in the US. Reading the rather conservative Chuck Marohn was a real eye opener that has influenced me a lot even though the whole system works very differently here.


----------



## flying haggis (5 Oct 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Yes. But her house would have been £18,000 instead of £180,000.


what do they earn? when we got our mortgage we were on just over £5000 a year so just scraped in the allowed amount just as todays mortgagees do but we didnt have sky, phone contracts, car costs etc or have takeaways 3/4 times a week like so many today do and expect to do . and then when money gets tight what do they do cut down on non essentials, should do but many dont. 
( i am not saying your daughter and partner are like that but others are)


----------



## D_W (5 Oct 2022)

Jorny said:


> Loans for consumptions (often what is basically toys) is an insanity that western society has turned in to an predatory industry.
> 
> Talking about fiscal laziness. Working as an urban planner I was shocked when I understood how streets, roads and infrastructure is financed in the US. Reading the rather conservative Chuck Marohn was a real eye opener that has influenced me a lot even though the whole system works very differently here.



What did you see - basically loans against assumed future increases in taxes due to road work? We have a lot of proposals here that are that type and also TIF (increment financing) where someone makes their case for getting a bunch of immediate money because the area will still get more total revenue even though most of the new revenue will go to fund the TIF (the giveaway to put in infrastructure instead of making the builder pay for it).

Much of the borrowing against the future for things that don't have value in the future is just marketed and people see advertising and literature often enough and start to confuse repeated advertisements for actual "that's what everyone is doing" standards.

It culminates in hearing stuff from time to time like resentful kids whose parents died and didn't have as much money as they said they did - because the kids are counting on the inheritance to cover debt and they themselves are already headed toward later life.

I worked with a lady early on whose parents spent all of their money, she had a higher paying job, and would talk about waiting for annual bonus to pay off credit cards. And then she mentioned something about her parents living in a gated community, being "bad at math" and they'd spent themselves out of money in their 80s . Not totally broke, but could no longer pay all of their own bills. They went back to their kids and made an appeal for money because they couldn't bear the thought of moving out of the gated community into a "Regular house". At the time, I guess the kids obliged. 

Bubbly folks in person - everything was for show with the whole lot. "all fun all the time". I wonder what they were like in private - probably wasn't as much fun.


----------



## Jorny (5 Oct 2022)

Rememb


D_W said:


> What did you see - basically loans against assumed future increases in taxes due to road work? We have a lot of proposals here that are that type and also TIF (increment financing) where someone makes their case for getting a bunch of immediate money because the area will still get more total revenue even though most of the new revenue will go to fund the TIF (the giveaway to put in infrastructure instead of making the builder pay for it).
> 
> Much of the borrowing against the future for things that don't have value in the future is just marketed and people see advertising and literature often enough and start to confuse repeated advertisements for actual "that's what everyone is doing" standards.
> 
> ...



Yes, basically. And also financing repairs of existing streets by selling land for new development.


----------



## D_W (5 Oct 2022)

Jorny said:


> Rememb
> 
> 
> Yes, basically. And also financing repairs of existing streets by selling land for new development.


 moving neighborhood streets is a problem. By moving, I mean what is a vibrant neighborhood will generally become out of style and will be inhabited by poor and retirees. but nobody wants to figure out how to prevent that from occurring and the relatively abundant land here creates a donut of increasing size. Outside the donut, not so great. In the center, not so great. But over time the donut's lines change, new development is done at the outer side and the group near the center ages. 

I don't have a great answer for it. 

it also has a lot to do with our enormous energy consumption. I live a whopping 6 miles from downtown and ride the bus, and am not green by any means, but I don't see the draw in doubling the house size and moving 3 -5 times as far away. It's just selling away too much of my future time. 

The way schools are allocated for around here also creates some oddness - like a recent TIF proposal where I grew up, where nearly the entire cost of infrastructure was going to be taken up by the public in "increment financing" (issuing a bond and then using property taxes of the new development to pay off the bond). Very little net improvement in revenue would occur for a very long time, but the school would've gotten a little bit in taxes and the new development was 55+, so they expected few students. So they lobbied for it hard. For the community itself, it would've have amount to much and the risk of cost overruns was on everyone else. 

I saw people I thought I had some respect for quickly figuring out how to change that. I guess they stood to gain financially somehow in it. 

There's too much of that because there's also a huge aversion to increasing local taxes.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (5 Oct 2022)

For those old enough to remember the Beatles song "Taxman", the lyrics were wrong - "there's 1 for you 19 for me". The real rate of tax was 83% + 15% investment income surcharge - 98% in total.

The wealthy put a huge amount of effort into tax avoidance, and (I suspect) evasion. The "brain drain" denuded the UK of doctors, scientists, lawyers, etc who sought a better lifestyle and income overseas. Mrs Thatcher reduced the tax rate fairly rapidly to 40% and the tax take went up!

Some see taxation as a means of wealth redistribution - redistribution may pay a part in tax policy but as a goal in itself it clearly does not work.

Others see taxation policy as a means of encouraging investment, risk taking, entrepreneurial endeavour creating jobs and wealth. 

There is a case for a balanced approach to taxation - but IMHO there is a better case for encouraging growth than redistribution that acts as a drag on progress.

The environmental impacts of growth do need to be addressed through taxation - redistributing wealth likely ensures further environmental degradation follows as those in receipt spend on damaging products and technologies.

Far better to use the tax system to reduce profligacy - the current high cost of energy may drive behaviours towards outcomes that minimise environmental damage. There is a case for supporting those in real need, but taxing carbon consumption rather than income has considerable merit.

How about a tax allowance of £25k and a carbon tax to balance - eg: petrol at £4 per litre, plastics carry a tax of (say) £10 per 100g etc. Behaviours would rapidly change!


----------



## johna.clements (5 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> moving neighborhood streets is a problem. By moving, I mean what is a vibrant neighborhood will generally become out of style and will be inhabited by poor and retirees. but nobody wants to figure out how to prevent that from occurring and the relatively abundant land here creates a donut of increasing size. Outside the donut, not so great. In the center, not so great. But over time the donut's lines change, new development is done at the outer side and the group near the center ages.
> 
> I don't have a great answer for it.
> 
> ...


The US appears to be a Ponzi scheme. Too many places borrow money to build developments then do not tax people to enough to pay for the future maintenance costs of the development in which they live. When they move in there are not many bills for the new development. But they do tax them enough to pay the bills that are starting to come due on the previous development. They can only keep taxes low by building more developments to bring in more tax pay for the costs of the previous development. When the all the land is built on there are no new taxpayers so tax must go up and people leave to the next new town.

That's what it looks like to me, here in the UK.


----------



## Thingybob (5 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> People who are too young to have experienced the high interest rates have taken out big mortgages thinking that the low interest rates are normal and without thinking that they might just rise at some point in the future. To make maters worse many have not been paying more off that mortgage to reduce the debt whilst the rates were low and so are now facing some very hard times. On the other hand it might now at last be time for us savers to receive some rewards on our savings.
> 
> When I purchased a property many years ago when the prices were realistic I only borrowed roughly 1.25 times my annual income which rose fast enough so as I could clear my debt within seven years.


Only had 3 houses in my life and the first two when i was mortgageing them i was counciled by the mortgage co as to if the rates went up would i be able to afford the repayments which made me think about could I and in the 80s i had a few sleepless nights but scraped through i feel for the younger ones just setting out on this journey


----------



## Flynnwood (5 Oct 2022)

Hypothesis: 
If you simultaneously put 600 hundred BBC cameras in front of 600 politician's, giving them 3 seconds to answer this:
What is seven times eight?


----------



## Jameshow (5 Oct 2022)

Imho taxation us the means to civil society. I.e. the means to pay for hospitals, schools, police, roads etc etc etc..... 

If you reduce the tax income the services become reduced and then you have to purchase top up services esp in healthcare and education. Then you get disparity of provision and civil unrest. 

Reducing taxation imho means that the poor get poorer either as employed public servants or as recipients of services or benefits. 

What's the answer a balanced society of public and private, industry and services. 


ATM we are too much dependant on services and an unhealthy trade deficit.


----------



## Amateur (5 Oct 2022)

Society has changed beyond belief.
Values that held good back then are sniggered at by todays generation.
You can't expect anything else but rebellion when you send every person coming out of school to university that only start contributing to the pot sometimes at the age of 26.
Then wonder why they have a token pension later in life.
We have all had it too good for too long and people have forgotten what strife actually is or never experienced it.
Immigrants doing the menial jobs because our benefit system people won't touch them and millions paid out to stay at home..or whatever they do.
No one has mentioned the days when you couldn't get a job anywhere and still scratted around to pay the mortgage. But this generation have never had to go there. Never worked two or three jobs on top of their 40 hrs.
On housing costs back in the day two people met fairly young got engaged, stayed at home with parents and saved to get that house deposit and mortgage foregoing holidays, nights out etc
Very few do today and many more living over the brush in rented, influenced by the loss of everything should a divorce happen. No savings...whats the point they say?
And when MPs start disliking something or someone that doesnt quite fit with them then gang up, we end up with one PM ousted and another under pressure. How many more?
The whole country has something to moan about and we are becoming ungovernable.
No point saying more except a conversation outside the food bank in town.
Two women.
" I thought you'd been down once this week?"
"Yeh, I have, but the dog was out of food so I fed it on the first lot. I'm just going in for some more for the family"
Says it all?


----------



## Thingybob (5 Oct 2022)

Well we got rid of one PM because he partied while we were locked down . Now we have one who is actualy taking money from you in one way or another and damaging the economy to boot whilst making the rich richer Question which one would you rather have some will say neither but i wonder what would of happened with the devil you knew


----------



## Jacob (5 Oct 2022)

Degrowth: what's behind this economic theory and why it matters today


Degrowth is a radical theory which broadly means shrinking rather than growing economies, in order to use less of the world’s resources. But is it workable?




www.weforum.org


----------



## Jacob (5 Oct 2022)

Amateur said:


> ..... a conversation outside the food bank in town.
> Two women.
> " I thought you'd been down once this week?"
> "Yeh, I have, but the dog was out of food so I fed it on the first lot. I'm just going in for some more for the family"
> Says it all?


Says most likely completely untrue. Malicious gossip in fact.


----------



## D_W (5 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> The US appears to be a Ponzi scheme. Too many places borrow money to build developments then do not tax people to enough to pay for the future maintenance costs of the development in which they live. When they move in there are not many bills for the new development. But they do tax them enough to pay the bills that are starting to come due on the previous development. They can only keep taxes low by building more developments to bring in more tax pay for the costs of the previous development. When the all the land is built on there are no new taxpayers so tax must go up and people leave to the next new town.
> 
> That's what it looks like to me, here in the UK.



It's probably similar to the UK. Slightly more debt to GDP, but more economic potential here than in the UK. 

I think there's more property development here because the restrictions on land use aren't as tight as they are in the UK, which is also why the properties are cheaper (outside of parts of california, NY and other trendy places where you can spend multimillions for a fraction of an acre and a 5000 sq foot house). 

All of the services in general (ongoing) and infrastructure are well funded. The part about borrowing against future revenues is always there for the new builds because it's politically unpopular to tell current payers that their rates will go up for improved service for someone else.


----------



## John Brown (5 Oct 2022)

My neighbour volunteers at a food bank. People don't just turn up(in flash cars) and take stuff.


----------



## Spectric (5 Oct 2022)

Thingybob said:


> i feel for the younger ones just setting out on this journey


But just like those that came before they will be mostly in charge of their journey and will have to make those decisions, but the best advice I would give is to jump the sinking ship and find a more stable one to build a new life on, the world is your oyster whilst you have youth on your side.


----------



## johna.clements (5 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> It's probably similar to the UK. Slightly more debt to GDP, but more economic potential here than in the UK.
> 
> I think there's more property development here because the restrictions on land use aren't as tight as they are in the UK, which is also why the properties are cheaper (outside of parts of california, NY and other trendy places where you can spend multimillions for a fraction of an acre and a 5000 sq foot house).
> 
> All of the services in general (ongoing) and infrastructure are well funded. The part about borrowing against future revenues is always there for the new builds because it's politically unpopular to tell current payers that their rates will go up for improved service for someone else.


In the UK local government has limited borrowing abilities. They have to have a balanced budget.


----------



## julianf (5 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> My neighbour volunteers at a food bank. People don't just turn up(in flash cars) and take stuff.



Yeah they do. With their latest iPhones, and designer trainers.


Don't get me started on immigration. 
Do you know they get given a brand new car as soon as they say they have a child?


----------



## baldkev (5 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> For those old enough to remember the Beatles song "Taxman", the lyrics were wrong - "there's 1 for you 19 for me". The real rate of tax was 83% + 15% investment income surcharge - 98% in total.


Did they?? I know the stevie ray vaughn version, didnt know the beetles wrote it 

I saw an article on flipboard a few days ago when a guy ( the author i believe ) complaned that his benefits didnt rise to match inflation and his mortgage payments  i didnt read the article ( couldnt be bothered ), but one commenter was astounded that his benefits factored in to help get the mortgage ! 

We need to renew ours before February..... meeting the mortgage advisor tomorrow


----------



## baldkev (5 Oct 2022)

Just floating this ( im not an economist )
If everyone beyond say 18k a year paid a flat rate of 20%, no exceptions, including on bonuses and any other 'benefits' of their job / investments, would we be better or worse off? At the mo a lot of high earners get away with cheating their tax bills, so a 20%, non negotiable rate for all, would be fair?
Including big tech and corporations, i.e google and amazon forvexample


----------



## julianf (5 Oct 2022)

Year on year growth is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. 

There's some numbers as to the number of tonnes of "stuff" a society needs to, basically, pull out of the ground to maintain X growth... You can argue about the numbers, but the undeniable reality is that above a relatively small number there just isn't enough "stuff" to be pulled out.

It's an inherent flaw in the plan. "Stuff" is limited. You can get better with "stuff" or create room temperature nuclear fusion, or whatever, but, whatever way you look at it, infinite growth is infinitely impossible.


----------



## D_W (5 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> In the UK local government has limited borrowing abilities. They have to have a balanced budget.


They generally do here, too. When there's new construction, they issue a bond and the new asset pays for the bod plus some. The tif funding plan I mentioned is a new wrinkle to try to bring development to blighted or poor areas. Most of the bonds floated here are to upgrade infrastructure when paying outright isn't possible. The bonds have tax advantages for investors so that the coupon rate is cheaper than a secured loan would be.


----------



## GweithdyDU (6 Oct 2022)

Jorny said:


> Here in Sweden we just suffered through one of the most stupid elections ever. No ideas, no visions no serious reforms. A lot of jabbering and cheap arguments about being tough on crime.
> 
> One thing that drove me nuts is the "debate" on the skyrocketing price of electricity in the southern parts of the country. The only thing that has been proposed are subsidies for the consumers. Being fairly far on the left side of politics I havet no problems with goverment interventions to protect people in need and regulating markets if need be. But now it is just about handling out money to everyone who is using a lot of electricity.
> 
> ...


No need for apologies. (fellow left-ist ish, (see other posts) lol


----------



## GweithdyDU (6 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> Do you know they get given a brand new car as soon as they say they have a child?


Source/reference please. Cheers


----------



## Fergie 307 (6 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> For those old enough to remember the Beatles song "Taxman", the lyrics were wrong - "there's 1 for you 19 for me". The real rate of tax was 83% + 15% investment income surcharge - 98% in total.
> 
> The wealthy put a huge amount of effort into tax avoidance, and (I suspect) evasion. The "brain drain" denuded the UK of doctors, scientists, lawyers, etc who sought a better lifestyle and income overseas. Mrs Thatcher reduced the tax rate fairly rapidly to 40% and the tax take went up!
> 
> ...


Liking much of what you say. I found it interesting that cutting the top 45p tax rate was only going to cost an estimated 2 billion. If that figure is correct then that certainly suggests that a lot of people are avoiding paying it. Problem is often that schemes they enter into often dont just avoid a particular band but, like the scheme Jimmy Carr was involved in, actually lead to paying no tax atall. I think the first thing that needs doing is a radical overhaul, and simplification, of our tax system. This should be coupled with draconian enforcement. But we all need to remember that as things are, with I have no doubt massive evasion, the richest 1% are still accounting for 30% of the tax take. So the wealthy who do pay their dues are to be applauded, not villified. Imagine how much more that would be if we could oblige them all to do it. If we can achieve a situation where everybody paid their dues, individuals and companies alike, then we could all pay less.


----------



## Fergie 307 (6 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> Just floating this ( im not an economist )
> If everyone beyond say 18k a year paid a flat rate of 20%, no exceptions, including on bonuses and any other 'benefits' of their job / investments, would we be better or worse off? At the mo a lot of high earners get away with cheating their tax bills, so a 20%, non negotiable rate for all, would be fair?
> Including big tech and corporations, i.e google and amazon forvexample


I think that is broadly the idea behind Truss eliminating the top rate. Tax people at a level they believe is reasonable and they are less likely to try and avoid paying it, so the overall take actually increases. In itself a perfecty sensible argument, and Thatcher proved that it could work. Problem is you need to have measures in place first to ensure compliance, or IMO anyway. To just do it in present circumstances was daft. If she had wanted to be radical she could have taken 2p off the 40p rate. That would have helped a lot of people, and might well have stimulated some growth.


----------



## Yorkieguy (6 Oct 2022)

GweithdyDU said:


> Source/reference please. Cheers


Karen on Facebook?


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> Did they?? I know the stevie ray vaughn version, didnt know the beetles wrote it
> 
> I saw an article on flipboard a few days ago when a guy ( the author i believe ) complaned that his benefits didnt rise to match inflation and his mortgage payments  i didnt read the article ( couldnt be bothered ), but one commenter was astounded that his benefits factored in to help get the mortgage !


Why? He's got to have somewhere to live. Do you think he (and his family) should take to the streets if they can't afford the mortgage, or rents for that matter?


----------



## clogs (6 Oct 2022)

In my other post it should have said my elec went from just over a 100 euro's to almost 800 for the same amount....

I would be happy if all companies pay a standard UNAVOIDABLE tax of 15% on profit made in the UK....Amazon, StarBucks etc....
There should be no tax deductables...if the company can afford a Roll's or a Lear Jet ten it's cost and servicing should come out of the profit thats left.....
the only tax deductables should be for genuine research....
Lastley if u are to be and MP, or high flying civil servant etc, your tax and income should become available to the public ....
that would go some way to the pocket fillers being outed.....
Now for the big'un.....
all the sabre rattling from China should be met with a total ban on all imports...time to put the commies in their place.....
I feel for the norm Chinaman who can't escape their system....
it's time for a revolution......


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I think that is broadly the idea behind Truss eliminating the top rate. Tax people at a level they believe is reasonable and they are less likely to try and avoid paying it, so the overall take actually increases.


 Don't be silly!


Fergie 307 said:


> In itself a perfecty sensible argument, and Thatcher proved that it could work.


 No she did not. It's a popular loony-right fairy story.


Fergie 307 said:


> ... If she had wanted to be radical she could have taken 2p off the 40p rate. That would have helped a lot of people,


Not really. It's a huge number of people and a big drop in tax revenue, but small amount per person, taken from people not the poorest in society by any means. The poorest don't benefit from tax cuts - they don't pay tax.


Fergie 307 said:


> and might well have stimulated some growth.


The way to stimulate growth is to take money from where it is not needed (where it is saved) to where it is needed (where it is spent). Redistribute downwards. It's childishly simple.
It also remedies problems of poverty and deprivation at a stroke and improves society and civilisation for all.
Trussonomics is very radical but childishly moronic. Will achieve exactly the opposite of what is claimed. Increased rents, mortgages, other costs, stops people spending. Increased interest rates encourage the better off to save. Trickle up theory works. Trickle down theory is very silly.


----------



## Scruples (6 Oct 2022)

Stan said:


> Last year's pension increase covered 3 out of 12 months increase in electricity. ( That is last year's increase only). It didn't cover the increases in petrol, council tax, food....
> 
> This year? F*** knows!
> 
> ...


So, now you're beginning to see the futility of life.


----------



## Amateur (6 Oct 2022)

Its funny how most posts sit inside a structure that we all accept and work within hoping it will be fair to the working classes.
The truth is this is only one level of society.
Many Asian communities are themselves set up to be functioning societies outside the system.
While many benefits drug addicts, drug suppliers travelling communities, county line working kids all exist outside the normal tax paying system most of us here live within.
But we always attack the rich for not contributing enough while these other sections of society go untouched.
Yet today anyone who tries to level up the system, (s) and I include immigrants in boats in this, find themselves attacked by judges, courts and the self righteous all fighting for their own causes outside our laws and order tramlines that we here accept as the rules.


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

Amateur said:


> Its funny how most posts sit inside a structure that we all accept and work within hoping it will be fair to the working classes.
> The truth is this is only one level of society.
> Many Asian communities are themselves set up to be functioning societies outside the system.
> While many benefits drug addicts, drug suppliers travelling communities, county line working kids all exist outside the normal tax paying system most of us here live within.


Nothing particularly Asian about it. Many Asian communities provide us with doctors, nurses and other workers at all levels.


Amateur said:


> But we always attack the rich for not contributing enough


We attack the politicians who don't tax the rich enough, or care for the poor enough, and those who defend this.


----------



## AlanY (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Why? He's got to have somewhere to live. Do you think he (and his family) should take to the streets if they can't afford the mortgage, or rents for that matter?


Not quite sure why I should pay his mortgage or rent, though. The guy should get a job. Or work two jobs. Otherwise benefits becomes a lifestyle choice and that is not what was intended with the welfare system. It is supposed to be a safety net. A temporary measure. I have worked and paid my taxes for 48 years without once having to fall back on benefits. When times were hard, I had a second job as a taxi driver evenings and weekends. It was dung, but it fed the kids and kept the house warm. The benefits system needs a root and branch overhaul to get it back to what it should be. People who choose not to work can also choose to be cold and hungry.


----------



## Amateur (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Nothing particularly Asian about it. Many Asian communities provide us with doctors, nurses and other workers at all levels.
> 
> We attack the politicians who don't tax the rich enough, or care for the poor enough, and those who defend this.


Im talking functioning communities outside the norm.


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

AlanY said:


> Not quite sure why I should pay his mortgage or rent, though. The guy should get a job. Or work two jobs.


Many people do just that.


AlanY said:


> ..... People who choose not to work .....


People don't choose not to work - except the idle rich of course!


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

Amateur said:


> Im talking functioning communities outside the norm.


Yes there are criminals of various sorts who dodge paying taxes. Asians don't particularly feature highly in this group. The most egregious examples are the mega rich tax dodgers, they come from all walks of life and send their kids to Eton.


----------



## Suffolk Brian (6 Oct 2022)

Couple of bits.
The first house my (then) wife an I went after was a bog standard end terrace two up two down in Watford in Hertfordshire. £5000. The council offered us a 100% low start mortgage, starting at £80 per month, going up to £100 after 5 years. I lay awake at night wondering where the hell I would get £100 a month from.
Income tax. I have a pet opinion that everyone should pay 20p in the £1 on everything. No more, no less. No tax free pay/income, no sliding scale, nothing. Just 20p in the £1.
Another beef. We are pensioners. A penny off National Insurance. What the hell? As pensioners we don’t pay National Insurance, so how does that help us. We cannot go on strike, “demanding” 10% raise. Pensioners always suffer. Always - unless you can afford to live somewhere hot and probably exotic and have a good accountant.
Merging the last two points, why not merge income tax and National Insurance? We all know that N.I. money doesn’t get spent directly on the health service, so why cover it up. How about a single flat rate tax in place of them both. We would all know where we stand then.


----------



## DrPhill (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> The way to stimulate growth is to take money from where it is not needed (where it is saved) to where it is needed (where it is spent). Redistribute downwards. It's childishly simple.
> It also remedies problems of poverty and deprivation at a stroke and improves society and civilisation for all.
> Trussonomics is very radical but childishly moronic. Will achieve exactly the opposite of what is claimed. Increased rents, mortgages, other costs, stops people spending. Increased interest rates encourage the better off to save. Trickle up theory works. Trickle down theory is very silly.


rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lack_of_character_it_s_a_lack_of_cash


----------



## Amateur (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Yes there are criminals of various sorts who dodge paying taxes. Asians don't particularly feature highly in this group. The most egregious examples are the mega rich tax dodgers and they come from all walks of life and send their kids to Eton.


Their entire money borrowing system is outside the tax system.

And the mega rich criminal also sends his son to Eton?
Hes different?


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

Suffolk Brian said:


> ......I have a pet opinion that everyone should pay 20p in the £1 on everything. No more, no less. No tax free pay/income, no sliding scale, nothing. Just 20p in the £1.
> ......


It would be grossly punitive on the less well off. A much higher proportion (often all) is spent on essentials. A 20% tax would be a tax on essentials; food, heat, living etc. not a tax on surplus wealth.
Whereas a multi millionaire is not likely to suffer any inconvenience if deprived of half a million or so.
Money is worth much more, tax much more punitive, in real terms, to the less well off, and vice versa.


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

flying haggis said:


> ..... savers have been suffering ....


 Poor things! At least they've got a bit of cash stashed away!


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

Amateur said:


> Im talking functioning communities outside the norm.


Imaginary functioning communities outside the norm


----------



## Jorny (6 Oct 2022)

One of the largest problem is that in many countries (especially here in Sweden), wages are taxed more than profits from capital. This basically means that the rich are taxed less and the poor more. It also distorts the economy and leads to an ever increasing financialization where resources are moved away from the real economy of goods and services and towards the financial sector.


----------



## Fergie 307 (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Don't be silly!
> 
> No she did not. It's a popular loony-right fairy story.
> 
> ...


The only problem with the idea of increasing taxes on the rich is that it assumes that they will stay put and take it, which of course they wont, so it doesnt work in practice. Healey famously announced that he would tax the rich until they squeaked, and introduced a top rate which equated to something like 98%. Very popular with the left im sure, but how much revenue did it raise, pipper all. Simply because the vast majority of those liable either found loopholes to avoid it, or voted with their feet and left the country. When Thatcher dropped the rate actual revenue increased overall. I do get annoyed when people keep saying"the rich should pay more tax". They DO pay more tax, if your salary was £1 million you would pay well over £400k in taxes, way more than you are going to take out of the system. What we need to crack down on is those who seek to avoid paying it. Increasing the rates just penalises the law abiding and does nothing to adress this. And I agree entirely the the idea of cutting taxes has no immediate benefit to the most needy, and was a stupid idea. Cant help wondering how many who voted for Truss are now regretting it, but then from speaking to a few people I know who got to vote, they were annoyed that the two final candidates, voted for by MP's, were the last people they wanted to see on the ballot.


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

Jorny said:


> One of the largest problem is that in many countries (especially here in Sweden), wages are taxed more than profits from capital. This basically means that the rich are taxed less and the poor more. It also distorts the economy and leads to an ever increasing financialization where resources are moved away from the real economy of goods and services and towards the financial sector.


Exactly. This is why corporation tax should be cranked up. It encourages businesses to invest, and even to pay higher wages!
Otherwise it gets frittered away as dividends, supplementing unearned incomes.


----------



## Jorny (6 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> The only problem with the idea of increasing taxes on the rich is that it assumes that they will stay put and take it, which of course they wont, so it doesnt work in practice. Healey famously announced that he would tax the rich until they squeaked, and introduced a top rate which equated to something like 98%. Very popular with the left im sure, but how much revenue did it raise, pipper all. Simply because the vast majority of those liable either found loopholes to avoid it, or voted with their feet and left the country. When Thatcher dropped the rate actual revenue increased overall. I do get annoyed when people keep saying"the rich should pay more tax". They DO pay more tax, if your salary was £1 million you would pay well over £400k in taxes, way more than you are going to take out of the system. What we need to crack down on is those who seek to avoid paying it. Increasing the rates just penalises the law abiding and does nothing to adress this. And I agree entirely the the idea of cutting taxes has no immediate benefit to the most needy, and was a stupid idea. Cant help wondering how many who voted for Truss are now regretting it, but then from speaking to a few people I know who got to vote, they were annoyed that the two final candidates, voted for by MP's, were the last people they wanted to see on the ballot.


The problem is that most rich people do not get their income as salary. They can even have very low salarys and get their income from various arrangements of capital.


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> The only problem with the idea of increasing taxes on the rich is that it assumes that they will stay put and take it, which of course they wont, so it doesnt work in practice............


It always has worked in practice in the past, not necessarily very efficiently I agree. There are huge areas which could be taxed more efficiently. Literally in the case of land, which can't be moved or hidden away.


----------



## Fergie 307 (6 Oct 2022)

Jorny said:


> The problem is that most rich people do not get their income as salary. They can even have very low salarys and get their income from various arrangements of capital.


I agree, and this is in itself a form of tax avoidance. This is why the system needs to be reformed. You should pay tax on your income overall, whatever its source.


----------



## Fergie 307 (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> It always has worked in practice in the past, not necessarily very efficiently I agree. There are huge areas which could be taxed more efficiently. Literally in the case of land, which can't be moved or hidden away.


Jacob you keep on about the benefits of trickle up, can you give an eample of where this has been put into practice.


----------



## Yorkieguy (6 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> Don't get me started on immigration.
> Do you know they get given a brand new car as soon as they say they have a child?



I assume that comment about 'immigrants' refers to asylum seekers. 

Where did you get the fanciful notion that they get a 'brand new car' from?

If you're not interested in the facts, just file this under 'burn before reading'. 
Otherwise, here's what they actually get while their application is being considered:

Somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both.

Housing:

You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.

Cash support:

You’ll get £39.63 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries. Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.

(So, that's just £5.66 a day for food, clothing, and such things as sanitary products).

Extra money for mothers and young children:

You’ll get extra money to buy healthy food if you’re pregnant or a mother of a child under 3. The amount you get will depend on your situation.


*Your situation**Extra payment per week*Pregnant mother£3Baby under 1 year old£5Child aged 1 to 3£3

And no - no car, and no i-phone either.

The broad term often used by hard-of-thinking racists to describe asylum seekers is 'illegals'.

It won't make any difference to those with a racist mindset, but anyone washed up on these shores who claims asylum is not an* 'illegal immigrant' *- they're an '*asylum seeker*'. Most are from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and have made a perilous journey, the least dangerous part of which is sailing across the busiest shipping lane in the world in an overloaded inflatable. (In 2019, 68% of the world’s refugees came from *just five countries*: Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Myanmar). 45% of separated children applying for asylum in the UK in the year up to June 2020 were from Iran, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Most who arrive here uninvited (thousands of Afghans have been invited here after the collapse of Afghanistan because they'd worked as interpreters etc for the British Government and their lives are in danger. (Thousands have been left behind, betrayed by the UK/US Governments). It was Tony Blair who took the UK into Iraq based on a pack of lies, which has destabilised the whole of the Middle East, and who took us into Afghanistan - both unwinnable wars propagated by the USA, which have made the world a far more dangerous place.

And no - we don't take more refugees than other European countries. In proportion to its population, the year ending Dec 2021 the UK ranks *18th in Europe* for asylum applications. The country with the highest numbers of refugees in the European Union is Germany. It hosts some 1.2 million refugees, 243,200 asylum seekers and 26,700 stateless persons.

2021 asylum applications:

Germany 127,730, France, 96,510, UK, 44,190.

Immigration statistics, year ending December 2021

Why aren't they put to work?

They're no allowed to. (Albeit some unscrupulous employers exploit them to work illegally for slave wages in menial jobs). This is to deter 'Economic Migrants' from coming here (usually from Eastern Europe, who are not in danger and are therefore are 'illegal'). Asylum seekers can only apply for permission to work if they have waited over 12 months for an initial decision on their asylum claim or for a response to a further submission for asylum; and they are not considered responsible for the delay in decision-making. (They can do voluntary unpaid work).

If an asylum seeker's application is upheld, they then become a *'refugee'* with indefinite leave to remain.

Refugees are allowed to work in any role consistent with their skill level.

If their application for asylum is refused, in a long drawn-out process, they're returned to their country of origin.

if they overstay, only then do they become an *illegal immigrant.*

Source of information:

Summary of latest statistics

Asylum support - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Working in the UK while an asylum case is considered - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Can Refugees work in the UK? See:

Can Refugees work in the UK? | Sona Circle

Sensible balanced debate on this topic is impossible - it's highly polarised and generates more heat than light. Meanwhile, work-shy Brits who used to bemoan Eastern Europeans for 'stealing our jobs' no longer have that excuse but still don't want to get off their backsides to pick fruit and veg for £60k a year:

Fancy picking vegetables? It could earn you £62,000 a year (thelondoneconomic.com)

Nothing will change.


----------



## Amateur (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Imaginary functioning communities outside the norm


If you say so.


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Jacob you keep on about the benefits of trickle up, can you give an eample of where this has been put into practice.


I was being ironic. In a free market wealth trickles up inexorably towards the better off, and stays there, It doesn't trickle down except very marginally.


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

Yorkieguy said:


> I assume that comment about 'immigrants' refers to asylum seekers.
> 
> Where did you get the fanciful notion that they get a 'brand new car' from?
> 
> ...


I think julianf was being ironic! Some irony deficit going on here? I thought that was an American ailment?
I agree with the above. In fact I think boat people etc should be given Duke of Edinburgh awards for initiative and courage, as soon as they arrive. They are obviously highly motivated and we need immigrants to support the economy.
"£62k per year " cabbage picking was "up to....etc" i.e. if you are very lucky you might hit that rate for a day or so. It's short term and seasonal too. They should pay a reasonable rate overall though.


----------



## sammy.se (6 Oct 2022)

Adam W. said:


> Not only that, but here in DK, our gas bill has gone up to a whopping £3000 per quarter.


That sounds insane. How much % of income is that in DK? £12k per year on gas is inconceivable, nut maybe your typical income is £200k???? ;-)


----------



## sammy.se (6 Oct 2022)

BucksDad said:


> It really does feel like we are on the cusp of societal breakdown. We had the industrial revolution to create economic growth, we then had the invention of the microchip which created another wave of growth. I am not sure where the next wave of economic growth for our country is going to come from because we can't manufacture anything and technological progress is now painstakingly slow in comparison to the past 50 years. I think we are the next Italy.
> 
> No government seems to have provided any credible plan to resolve the cost of housing or build more homes quickly.
> With regards to mortgages, if the rates keep going up, I think the government will intervene and force the banks to make mortgages interest only for a few years


British Tik Tok influencers


----------



## houtslager (6 Oct 2022)

thetyreman said:


> my prediction is another massive recession which will be an amazing opportunity like 2008 to buy things cheap again, the sooner it happens the better, and I'd love that tories get the blame this time, but they do everything in their path to prevent it and protect bankers instead, I can imagine civil unrest the way things are going.


Someone give me my old SLR please, I'd take a few out before the real revolution comes.


----------



## johna.clements (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> I was being ironic. In a free market wealth trickles up inexorably towards the better off, and stays there, It doesn't trickle down except very marginally.


If you look at the income distribution of countries with a more equal distribution the very rich are just as rich. The rich know that wealth trickles upward.

The very rich also know (the pragmatic ones) that if the poor have more income and so become better educated and healthier they can generate more wealth which will trickle up. 

The very rich know that their children do not have to work to be comfortably off and most likely their grand children if the wealth is managed.


The problem is the people below them. They have to work to maintain a comfortable life. 

They can help their children too buy a house but can not pay for them to live comfortably if they do not get a good job.

If the poor compete with their children, because they are better educated, then some of their children will loose out. They have to stop the poor from becoming able to compete with their children.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (6 Oct 2022)

As a society we seem to have created a set of logical, moral and pragmatic inconsistencies. It is much better to have a clear vision and strategy, than wander incoherently achieving little.

*Some believe that fairness*, and even progress, flows from redistribution of wealth. This ignores basic human behaviours - greed/avarice, competitive urges, selfishness etc. 

Even if 99 out of 100 were motivated only by a "moral compass", "1" would impose their will on the rest. Make it too difficult to operate in the UK and the "1" will simply go elsewhere leaving the UK bereft of the energy, innovation, risk appetite that may otherwise have benefitted society.

*Immigration -* some would welcome all asylum seekers based on moral arguments and the benefits flowing from their energy and commitment in making a very difficult journey. Others see asylum seekers as a drain on resources better spent on those of UK origin. Some may simply be racist using other arguments to justify the unacceptable.

Politicians realise that having an explicit policy will likely alienate some part of their support - so there is no shared view, nor a realistic prospect of developing one. They need to do better.

IMHO - we do need to defend our borders from uncontrolled immigration but should help those in genuine need with a bias towards those with UK contacts (eg: family). 

The immigration service needs radical overhaul - it is unacceptable that it can take years to conclude a case - a time limit of (say) 6 months should be allowed. Outcome -tick in the box or deportation (either to their country of origin if known or Ruanda). No extended legals.

*Protecting living standards - *there is a touching belief in the power of government to somehow protect all from the impacts of rising prices, interest rates and energy costs. Politicians fail to communicate a tough reality - borrowing to sustain a standard of living which is unearned is unsustainable (except as a short-term fix - eg: pandemic). This is true of individuals and nations.

That simply taxing the rich to help the poor is the solution does not stand scrutiny. The top 10% of incomes pay 60% of taxes. The bottom 50% pay 10%. Increasing tax on the wealthy simply risks avoidance or emigration.

Public expenditure is at record levels, yet we are dissatisfied with the level of public service (NHS, education, police etc). Are we creating expectations which realistically cannot be delivered, being run very inefficiently, or hamstrung by burdensome administration and regulation. Simply pumping more money is a simplistic solution which does nothing to address underlying issues.


----------



## Mark65 (6 Oct 2022)

SLR=FN
Dont forget to remove the safety sear or jam something under it, it turns fully auto then.


----------



## Dibs-h (6 Oct 2022)

Amateur said:


> Their entire money borrowing system is outside the tax system.


Entire - No.

Some - Yes.

2 Examples.

*Group Basis:*

Say 36 people get together and chip in £100/month - that's 3.6K being generated every month and you'll pay in for 12 months (paying in 1.2K).

Every month 3 folk will get 1.2K. If you got it in month 1 - you've effectively got an interest free loan for 11 months. You are still paying in £100/month. If you got it (just) after month 12, i.e. the end - you just ended up saving £1.2K.

If you wanted to "save" more than £100/month - you'd get 2 or more "slots" etc.

12 months duration is the norm altho some do run for 24.

You can't just rock up and join one. You either have to be well known to the organisers or be vouched for by an existing member.

The "schemes" are set up to comply with money laundering regs and many use BACS for payments in/out.

Many schemes will entertain "requests\etc" - effectively allowing you to get the £1.2K at the end of month 2 (or 3 or 4 etc), if your circumstances are extenuating.

*Individual Basis:*

Say if someone wanted to buy a house, before selling their existing one, i.e. a bridging loan type scenario - and needed £200K, they could ask their relatives\friends and could in theory borrow £10K (on average - some more, some less) from 20 people, say for 1 year. Some may lend for a shorter period and some for a longer period.

Back in the late 90's when I bought my house - I used both although the sums were less than 10K in total.


----------



## bansobaby (6 Oct 2022)

Flynnwood said:


> Hypothesis:
> If you simultaneously put 600 hundred BBC cameras in front of 600 politician's, giving them 3 seconds to answer this:
> What is seven times eight?


I reckon roughly 10% would get it right within the 3 seconds (marginally _*lower*_ than if it were a sample of the general population), 30% would um and ah and eventually get it right, 20% would get it totally wrong and the rest would just immediately start flapping their gobs and going into default mode of not answering the question......
An interesting hypothesis indeed....


----------



## julianf (6 Oct 2022)

GweithdyDU said:


> Source/reference please. Cheers



My mate down the pub. He works for MI5.


----------



## julianf (6 Oct 2022)

Yorkieguy said:


> I assume that comment about 'immigrants' refers to asylum seekers.
> 
> Where did you get the fanciful notion that they get a 'brand new car' from?
> 
> ...



I think the people of this country have had enough of experts


----------



## Dibs-h (6 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> I think the people of this country have had enough of experts


Predicted many moons ago.







*Edit:* Wrongly attributed to Dostoevsky but interesting nonetheless. LOL


----------



## selectortone (6 Oct 2022)

Dibs-h said:


> Predicted many moons ago


And taken to its logical conclusion in the 1961 short story 'Harrison Bergeron' by Kurt Vonnegut.

_In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic._
(Wikipedia)


----------



## Spectric (6 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> that a lot of people are avoiding paying it. Problem is often that schemes they enter into often dont just avoid a particular band but, like the scheme Jimmy Carr was involved in, actually lead to paying no tax atall.


This is a major issue, if they closed all the loop holes and everyone paid their share of tax then the government would still see more revenue even without the 45% band. The fact they are very wealthy allows them to invest in good accountants who then use any get out clauses they can to avoid paying tax and move money into tax havens so all a sensable chancellor needs to do is shut down all these options and collect the tax due. This cannot be done by a conservative government because it would impact a lot of there backers who would be very upset if they had to pay tax so not happening.



Fergie 307 said:


> I think that is broadly the idea behind Truss eliminating the top rate. Tax people at a level they believe is reasonable and they are less likely to try and avoid paying it, so the overall take actually increases.



Not that simple, if all the people who should be paying the 45% rate actually paid it then you would be looking at more than 2 billion. Reducing a billionares tax bill by 5% sounds like a lot to us but to them reducing it to as close to zero sounds a lot better.



Fergie 307 said:


> Cant help wondering how many who voted for Truss are now regretting it,



Why would they regret it, ok it is political suicide in the longer term but they have delivered a real kick where it hurts to the tory Mp's who they see as being the ones who brought Boris the clown down. I doubt this lot will ever fully unite behind that gobby muppet because they never wanted her in the first place.

On the subject of immigration we all know this has to be dealt with, spending 1.5 billion a year cannot be sustainable and our crumbling services are already under severe pressure so you need a fair system like the Australian points system. Everyone knows where they stand and can clearly see if they could have enough points to be granted settlement status.


----------



## DrPhill (6 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> My mate down the pub. He works for MI5.


They make furniture don't they?


----------



## Fergie 307 (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Many people do just that.
> 
> People don't choose not to work - except the idle rich of course!


Ah, the great myth beloved of the left, the idle rich versus the noble poor. Both of course, like all sweeping generalisations, complete nonsense.


----------



## Fergie 307 (6 Oct 2022)

Any evidence w


johna.clements said:


> If you look at the income distribution of countries with a more equal distribution the very rich are just as rich. The rich know that wealth trickles upward.
> 
> The very rich also know (the pragmatic ones) that if the poor have more income and so become better educated and healthier they can generate more wealth which will trickle up.
> 
> ...


Any evidence whatsoever for your last paragraph. Of course not, silly me.


----------



## Fergie 307 (6 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> This is a major issue, if they closed all the loop holes and everyone paid their share of tax then the government would still see more revenue even without the 45% band. The fact they are very wealthy allows them to invest in good accountants who then use any get out clauses they can to avoid paying tax and move money into tax havens so all a sensable chancellor needs to do is shut down all these options and collect the tax due. This cannot be done by a conservative government because it would impact a lot of there backers who would be very upset if they had to pay tax so not happening.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tax issues not helped by large numbers of tax inspectors and investigators losing their jobs in government cutbacks. Bearing in mind that many recovered amounts of unpaid tax far in excess of their own salaries, must count as one of the more breathtakingly stupid ideas of government.


----------



## ey_tony (6 Oct 2022)

I consider myself well traveled, having visited many countries across the world in my time and I'd consider myself reasonably well versed in understanding other societies but I've never in all honesty come across a section of any of those societies which vilifies success quite like the tribal left of the UK. It's an appalling trait.

In virtually every country I've visited, success is applauded and even respected but it seems that for a certain element of British society, success is something to be despised and punished through punitive taxes.
I think the UK needs to have a serious rethink and decide if it wants a full on Socialist system or a Capitalist approach as what we have at present isn't working.


----------



## Adam W. (6 Oct 2022)

sammy.se said:


> That sounds insane. How much % of income is that in DK? £12k per year on gas is inconceivable, nut maybe your typical income is £200k???? ;-)


It's a huge amount and we don't use much gas at all. At the moment we have one radiator and the UFH on in the bathroom. We've screwed it right down, but it's based on the previous years consumption and we pay on account.

It puts the £3000 pa forcast in the UK into perspective though and we'd love to pay that little and be able to heat the house.


----------



## baldkev (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Why? He's got to have somewhere to live. Do you think he (and his family) should take to the streets if they can't afford the mortgage, or rents for that matter?


Why you ask... firstly to secure a mortgage using benfits in the equation is one thing, but to then moan that the free money isnt enough is going a bit far, in my opinion. He should be grateful for the help, not moaning he's disadvantaged, afterall theres a shedload of us, including me, that work and pay for our mortgages with no outside help.... and to feel entitled enough to moan that the rates have gone up is plain wrong.


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> Why you ask... firstly to secure a mortgage using benfits in the equation is one thing,


You can't get a mortgage if you are unemployed and/or on benefits. OTOH you aren't expected to go homeless if you find yourself destitute and with a mortgage, or a landlord, around your neck


baldkev said:


> but to then moan that the free money isnt enough is going a bit far, in my opinion.


Benefits are pretty minimal and if prices go up benefits need to keep pace



baldkev said:


> n.., afterall theres a shedload of us, including me, that work and pay for our mortgages with no outside help....


You could end up in the same boat if you lose your job


baldkev said:


> and to feel entitled enough to moan that the rates have gone up is plain wrong.


Plain inevitable if you are living on the (shifting) breadline

I don't know why so many have it in for the poor, but it's very traditional.
Governments like it because it transfers blame from themselves to people on the edge. The right wing media help enormously. 
Everybody knows the list of people they want you to hate/blame: the unemployed, the homeless, single mothers on benefits, immigrants, students, unions, Corbyn, witches, homosexuals, muslims, black people especially black women wearing hijabs, travellers, and so on - and on and on.
But these people are not responsible for the state of the economy - you'll find them at the top of the heap; in fact mostly wealthy old Etonians, for various historical reasons!


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

ey_tony said:


> I consider myself well traveled, having visited many countries across the world in my time and I'd consider myself reasonably well versed in understanding other societies but I've never in all honesty come across a section of any of those societies which vilifies success quite like the tribal left of the UK. It's an appalling trait.
> 
> In virtually every country I've visited, success is applauded and even respected but it seems that for a certain element of British society, success is something to be despised and punished through punitive taxes.


Success is applauded and respected here too. Taxes aren't punitive they are what keeps the system going. No person is successful without the massive state provided infrastructure which taxes pay for. Most successful people are intelligent enough to recognise this for themselves.


ey_tony said:


> I think the UK needs to have a serious rethink and decide if it wants a full on Socialist system or a Capitalist approach


Neither. It's just that things need doing and paying for to keep things going. By definition the better off have to pay because they've got the money. Could draw a diagram if that would help?
Taxation is the price of civilisation.



ey_tony said:


> as what we have at present isn't working.


No it isn't going too well. Childish right-wing economics brought us free market neoliberalism, brexit, now Trussonomics and whatever clown act will follow.


----------



## baldkev (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> You can't get a mortgage if you are unemployed and/or on benefits. OTOH you aren't expected to go homeless if you find yourself destitute and with a mortgage, or a landlord, around your neck
> 
> Benefits are pretty minimal and if prices go up benefits need to keep pace
> 
> ...


Well im not rich. In fact jacob, I'll send you my bank details and you can set a direct debit up so i can take a day off every now and then, or order chinese each week or get sky or a new iphone or take up vaping..... you wont miss it and you clearly like the idea of wealth redistribution  thanks matey


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> Well im not rich. In fact jacob, I'll send you my bank details and you can set a direct debit up so i can take a day off every now and then, or order chinese each week or get sky or a new iphone or take up vaping..... you wont miss it and you clearly like the idea of wealth redistribution  thanks matey


If you are a bit skint you might be entitled to something. Try Benefits ? 
I'm happy to pay my taxes to support the community!


----------



## baldkev (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> If you are a bit skint you might be entitled to something. Try Benefits ?
> I'm happy to pay my taxes to support the community!


I dont want benefits, i can get enough work to keep me busy.... maybe i should look into tax avoidance 

It was lloyds bank by the way, I'll accept 50 a week, that'll buy a few ciders


----------



## johna.clements (6 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Any evidence whatsoever for your last paragraph. Of course not, silly me.


You may not believe that people do the best for their children but I do. If you want evidence of that well...


----------



## ey_tony (6 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Success is applauded and respected here too. Taxes aren't punitive they are what keeps the system going. No person is successful without the massive state provided infrastructure which taxes pay for. Most successful people are intelligent enough to recognise this for themselves.
> 
> Neither. It's just that things need doing and paying for to keep things going. By definition the better off have to pay because they've got the money. Could draw a diagram if that would help?
> Taxation is the price of civilisation.
> ...


You do spout some left wing garbage! You must be so proud of yourself!


----------



## NickDReed (7 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> People don't choose not to work - except the idle rich of course!


Can you clarify what you actually mean by that statement? 

Are you suggesting that individuals that earn, or have the potential to earn below a certain amount never make a conscious decision to not work?


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Oct 2022)

ey_tony said:


> I consider myself well traveled, having visited many countries across the world in my time and I'd consider myself reasonably well versed in understanding other societies but I've never in all honesty come across a section of any of those societies which vilifies success quite like the tribal left of the UK. It's an appalling trait.
> 
> In virtually every country I've visited, success is applauded and even respected but it seems that for a certain element of British society, success is something to be despised and punished through punitive taxes.
> I think the UK needs to have a serious rethink and decide if it wants a full on Socialist system or a Capitalist approach as what we have at present isn't working.


I has always struck me as very strange how we are happy to celebrate elitism in many areas, sport for example, and yet often have a go at those who succeed in business. And I have to agree, the hard left seem to love the class system. Anyone "working class" who, through business acumen and hard work, becomes wealthy seems to be viewed almost as a traitor to their class, and become one of the oppressors. Rather than become rich they should remain virtuously poor, or so it seems.


----------



## Adam W. (7 Oct 2022)

ey_tony said:


> I consider myself well traveled, having visited many countries across the world in my time and I'd consider myself reasonably well versed in understanding other societies but I've never in all honesty come across a section of any of those societies which vilifies success quite like the tribal left of the UK. It's an appalling trait.
> 
> In virtually every country I've visited, success is applauded and even respected but it seems that for a certain element of British society, success is something to be despised and punished through punitive taxes.
> I think the UK needs to have a serious rethink and decide if it wants a full on Socialist system or a Capitalist approach as what we have at present isn't working.


If you want taxes, I suggest you come to Denmark and experience proper taxation and its benefits first hand. Calling taxation at 45% punitive is laughable.


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

ey_tony said:


> You do spout some left wing garbage! You must be so proud of yourself!


 Left wing garbage is what keeps civilisation going.
You only have to look at what happens when the unwoke get into power. Brexit for instance, or trussunomics.


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I has always struck me as very strange how we are happy to celebrate elitism in many areas, sport for example, and yet often have a go at those who succeed in business. And I have to agree, the hard left seem to love the class system. Anyone "working class" who, through business acumen and hard work, becomes wealthy seems to be viewed almost as a traitor to their class, and become one of the oppressors. Rather than become rich they should remain virtuously poor, or so it seems.


We don't have a go at people who succeed at business. It's not true. You've missed the point.
Many of the unwoke are also unsuccessful.
Elite sports people often express their gratitude for the opportunities given them, more often than not from state schools and facilities. Some of the unwoke mega rich tend to think their achievements are entirely their own.


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> You may not believe that people do the best for their children but I do. If you want evidence of that well...


Your comment was to the effect that the rich deliberately limit the education of the poor to avoid competition with their own children. So I ask again, what evidence do you have to support that statement.


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Oct 2022)

Adam W. said:


> If you want taxes, I suggest you come to Denmark and experience proper taxation and its benefits first hand. Calling taxation at 45% punitive is laughable.


One of the most laughable things about the Truss approach. With the state of the NHS, social care etc, the last thing we need is lower taxation. Sooner or later we will have to wake up to the fact that we will all have to contribute more if we want these things to be done properly. Dare I ask what the rates are in Denmark?


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Your comment was to the effect that the rich deliberately limit the education of the poor to avoid competition with their own children. So I ask again, what evidence do you have to support that statement.


The main evidence is the pressure from the right to reduce spending on state education at every level. Surely you must have noticed - it's in the news all the time, from student loan, academisation, privatisation, down to inadequate and shrinking pre school facilities
OTOH private education is fiercely protected.
It's glaringly obvious, you can't possibly be unwoke on this one!


----------



## Adam W. (7 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> One of the most laughable things about the Truss approach. With the state of the NHS, social care etc, the last thing we need is lower taxation. Sooner or later we will have to wake up to the fact that we will all have to contribute more if we want these things to be done properly. Dare I ask what the rates are in Denmark?


VAT 25%
Minimum rate of income tax 52%
Personal allowance before tax is about £7000
Duty on cars 100%

University education is free, hospitals are good and elderly care is excellent, so is childcare. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the situation in Britain.


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Oct 2022)

Doesnt sound unreasonable to me. Particularly like the approach to cars, have always thought our appetite for buying new ones every other year or so insanely wasteful.


----------



## Tris (7 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> OTOH private education is fiercely protected.
> It's glaringly obvious, you can't possibly be unwoke on this one!


I'd take issue with this statement, 'public' schools are available to anyone who is prepared to pay the fees, and many provide full bursaries to high achieving pupils, regardless of background, as it will boost their exam pass rates. 
Locally our secondary schools have far better facilities than most of the private schools, what you are paying for us a class size of 15 pupils and not having the kids underfoot at home


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

Tris said:


> I'd take issue with this statement, 'public' schools are available to anyone who is prepared to pay the fees,


Most people simply can't afford the fees and public schools are closed institutions, for the better off only.


Tris said:


> and many provide full bursaries to high achieving pupils, regardless of background, as it will boost their exam pass rates.
> Locally our secondary schools have far better facilities than most of the private schools, what you are paying for us a class size of 15 pupils and not having the kids underfoot at home


In the bigger private ("public") schools you are also paying for amazing facilities with huge investment in science and the arts. This is why e.g. music and drama are dominated by the "posh" - they get the access to instruments and even their own theatres, far beyond what most state schools can provide. In fact many of these things, particularly the arts, are seen as wasted on state pupils, who should devote their energies to getting "proper" jobs, even though the arts is a major profit making and export industry.


----------



## Jameshow (7 Oct 2022)

Jacob I agree with you on much if what you say but your persistence with an unwoke diatribe is off-putting in the extreme. 

I do believe in socialism for essential services NHS education police fire etc. 

But free markets for the rest so we have a choice of products to purchase... 

I think by and large the working class believed in Boris as being "one of us" the back of class baffoon who made you laugh. Made mistakes but didn't rock the boat. 

Truss and kwazi though have stepped in the cockpit having read a dummies guide and are trying every leaver...... 

They have hermeraged the working class faster than Putin's young men.....

Who will pick up these votes? I hope starmer does with a centre left gov. Giving real hope to the working class that Corbyn ignored in the face of his liberal left backers.


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Jacob I agree with you on much if what you say but your persistence with an unwoke diatribe is off-putting in the extreme.


Sorry! 
"Unwoke" is a handy term. It counters the other side who accuse people or groups of being "woke". I assume they take pleasure/pride in being unwoke themselves and would not be offended!


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Oct 2022)

I think Corbyns big problem was that in padering to the few hundred thousand who paid their three quid or whatever it was, they completely lost touch with the majority of their core voters. Has always seemed to me that the traditional labour voter was quite conservative and traditional in their views. When the party leadership has strayed too far to the left they have always bombed, Foot, Corbyn. Both much further to the left than their prdecessors, and both suffered monumental defeat at the ballot box. Starmer is much more credible, and given the chaos in the tory party, will almost certainly win the next election. Almost inconcievable that the tories could have come up with someone even worse than Boris, but they have certainly managed it. Only question in my mind is just how much damage will she wreak before we can get shot of her.


----------



## julianf (7 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> Well im not rich. In fact jacob, I'll send you my bank details and you can set a direct debit up so i can take a day off every now and then, or order chinese each week or get sky or a new iphone or take up vaping..... you wont miss it and you clearly like the idea of wealth redistribution  thanks matey




I said before how evreyone on benefits has the latest iPhone and people got upset with me.

At least you agree.


----------



## Spectric (7 Oct 2022)

It is ok for sharpening topics to become a little warm because sharpening is factual and a required aspect of woodworking amongst others but lets not get warmed up about fantasy topics like this woke nonsense that has probably crawled out of the world of social media, it belongs in the land of unicorns and garden fairies.


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I think Corbyns big problem was that in padering to the few hundred thousand who paid their three quid or whatever it was, they completely lost touch with the majority of their core voters.


He got the biggest Labour turnout this century in 2017. 12,877,918 to be precise. Very close behind Treesa May. Much better than Miliband, Brown, Blair before him. Nearly 13 million not just a few thousand nutters.
2019 turnout was 10,269,051. Still a good figure and better than Miliband, Brown, Blair before him but played out badly in seats.
Difficult to pretend that Corbyn is marginal or irrelevant. The MSM certainly didn't think so!


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> It is ok for sharpening topics to become a little warm because sharpening is factual and a required aspect of woodworking amongst others but lets not get warmed up about fantasy topics like this woke nonsense that has probably crawled out of the world of social media, it belongs in the land of unicorns and garden fairies.


It's an insult wielded against "us" - I don't see why we shouldn't return it - they effectively chose to identify themselves as "unwoke" - if the cap fits wear it!


----------



## ey_tony (7 Oct 2022)

Adam W. said:


> If you want taxes, I suggest you come to Denmark and experience proper taxation and its benefits first hand. Calling taxation at 45% punitive is laughable.


I wouldn't disagree with your statement.
Unfortunately a large section of the Great British public want successive pendulum governments to provide high quality services, nothing wrong with that I'd add but many are just not prepared to dip their hands into their pockets and pay more for them and instead expect the more successful to contribute what should be their share. They also have an expectation of being provided with high quality services on the cheap as the saying goes.

I'm not a Tory and certainly not a Socialist and having worked for myself for over 50 years I'd probably consider myself if I had to categorise myself as a realistic Capitalist who actually understands many of the financial issues facing ordinary people and I actually care about the poor as I came from such a background myself so I know what it's like to struggle.

I've done OK in life but certainly not wealthy but I've always been in favour of paying sufficient taxes to fund the services we we expect our governments to provide. If we want a Socialist system of society providing high quality services then we should all pay our share of taxes and not shift the tax burden onto just one group.
Vilifying those who have been successful and fortunate to earn far more than the rest of the population is not their fault, but it seems that they are seen as the villains or pariahs and treated as scapegoats for all that is wrong with society which is unfortunately the mindset of many 21st Century left wing supporters still selling their tribal division narrative.

I was born and raised in a North East mining village so I saw the "them and us" narrative first hand and that was why I left as soon as I was able to!


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

ey_tony said:


> ...If we want a Socialist system of society providing high quality services then we should all pay our share of taxes and not shift the tax burden onto just one group.


It has to be the better off - because they have the money. They do also get the fringe benefits of living in a more civilised society.
n.b. all modern economies are to a large degree "socialist" already, whether or not it is recognised as such. It's not some sort of awful regime waiting just around the corner, sharpening their pitchforks!.
Calling things "socialism" or "capitalism" or any other "..ism" doesn't necessarily match reality, they are often very vague terms. Just ask a Marxist what Marxism is about - everyone will have a different idea! 
PS and everybody seems to think that Britain's most extreme socialist government so far - 1945, Attlee, Bevan and co, was a damn good thing.


----------



## ey_tony (7 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> It has to be the better off - because they have the money. They do also get the fringe benefits of living in a more civilised society.
> n.b. all modern economies are to a large degree "socialist" already, whether or not it is recognised as such. It's not some sort of awful regime waiting just around the corner, sharpening their pitchforks!.
> Calling things "socialism" or "capitalism" or any other "..ism" doesn't necessarily match reality, they are often very vague terms. Just ask a Marxist what Marxism is about - everyone will have a different idea!
> PS and everybody seems to think that Britain's most extreme socialist government so far - 1945, Attlee, Bevan and co, was a damn good thing.


You mean the better off have more disposable income and therefore they should pay more for every service they receive and yet you complain about them for instance educating their kids private schools?
Seems you not only want to tell them how much extra they should pay for everything but also how they should spend their money too! That to me sounds very much like an awful system waiting around the corner if you ask me!
I suppose you won't want them to use private healthcare even though by doing so it relieves some of the burden on the underfunded and failing NHS? The same as you don't want the wealthy to benefit from sending their kids to private schools even though it reduces the burden on the state education system. T

Unfortunately the world isn't fair and some are dealt a better hand than others but effectively punishing those who are more successful than others through social vilification seems a rather shallow, narrow minded tribal approach to life.
Me, I just prefer to get on with life and pay my taxes. I live within my means, I don't envy anyone who has more than me and I don't begrudge how they may benefit from their superior wealth. 
I have a silly mantra that I have no right to someone else's hard earned money! That's just how I think I'm afraid.


----------



## clogs (7 Oct 2022)

Marx"ISM and other commie reteric .....realy means, grind the poor into oblivion but just keep a few to wipe those at the top AxSE's...
everything run by commies is awful.....just name one country with that political system the realy works to the benifit of all....
*NONE *I'd say......
My father was an out n out Lab supporter and was most aggrieved when I voted blue.....not so much coz it was blue but it was better than those from the red side.....

Labour/Communism like unions are well past being helpful to anyone.....
Citizens from any communist country want to escape, Russia, China N Korea and others.....Why is that.........???????
All those that spout far left ideals need to go visit / stay in those "ideal" countries for a few months to get the feel of going hungry....

I lived in S Africa soon after Apartheid, the vast majority of the "working class" prefered *it* to what is ther now...tribalisem.....

now I'm going back to work so lastley all those migrants are 99% of the economic sort.....
to get to the UK, the land of free money and housing, had to travel thru politicaly safe stable countries.....
why do they come to the UK.....I wonder.....it's back to the left wing and hope it gives them more votes and those rich enough to know they wont have em as neighbours.........
"Vote for me I'll set you free"..bit like that looney christian moron Merkal.....they just wanted votes and cheap workers....
and we are THE ONES TO SUFFER.......we dont need the Coast Gaurd to help with the problem
Just GUN SHIPS.....get rid of a few and the rest will stay in France.....


----------



## david.tamlaght (7 Oct 2022)

ey_tony said:


> You mean the better off have more disposable income and therefore they should pay more for every service they receive and yet you complain about them for instance educating their kids private schools?
> Seems you not only want to tell them how much extra they should pay for everything but also how they should spend their money too! That to me sounds very much like an awful system waiting around the corner if you ask me!
> I suppose you won't want them to use private healthcare even though by doing so it relieves some of the burden on the underfunded and failing NHS? The same as you don't want the wealthy to benefit from sending their kids to private schools even though it reduces the burden on the state education system. T
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more.
The majority of people want the best of everything but don't want to pay for it,the NHS being the perfect example.
Those who do pay private for health or schooling often are on the receiving end of abuse ,despite actually lessening the load on the nation.
Weird thinking but we live in a weird world .
A lot of it is downright envy.
Joe Bloggs doesn't like John Smith having a better lifestyle than himself and so the abuse results.


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

ey_tony said:


> You mean the better off have more disposable income and therefore they should pay more for every service they receive


No. They should pay more tax, because they have more money. People with no money can pay no tax. People with little money can pay little tax. People with the most money should pay the most tax. It's not difficult to understand and it's how the world works.


ey_tony said:


> and yet you complain about them for instance educating their kids private schools?


No. I complain about under investment in state schools.


ey_tony said:


> ....
> I suppose you won't want them to use private healthcare even though by doing so it relieves some of the burden on the underfunded and failing NHS?


No it doesn't. Relatively easy and routine work gets done privately, nowadays expensively paid for by the state - the taxpayers. The difficult stuff gets done by the NHS. The NHS has been gradually privatised over a number of years


ey_tony said:


> The same as you don't want the wealthy to benefit from sending their kids to private schools even though it reduces the burden on the state education system. T


No. They should not have charitable status and should be subject to the same imposed standards as state schools so that we have a level playing field. As it is the wealthy get massive assistance in exam results and tend to dominate top University entrance. The result is they are over educated beyond their ability with the glaringly obvious effect of having blatantly idiotic old Etonians in positions of power and influence throughout the land. You know who they are just as well as me.


ey_tony said:


> Unfortunately the world isn't fair and some are dealt a better hand than others but effectively punishing those who are more successful than others through social vilification seems a rather shallow, narrow minded tribal approach to life.


Punishment has nothing to do with it. Nor vilification or tribalism. Anyway it's the left who attract most vilification. You shouldn't feel so sorry for yourself!



ey_tony said:


> I have a silly mantra that I have no right to someone else's hard earned money! That's just how I think I'm afraid.


So if you fell on hard times you'd just grin and bear it? Shuffle off and die? Do you not use publicly paid for facilities such as the road network, to name just one? Do you have a private army or do you rely on the police and the armed forces? Do you think the nation's health was better before the NHS ? and so on ad infinitum  
It's very odd how often one has to explain to some people how the world works, as though they've only just dropped from the trees and started walking upright!


----------



## johna.clements (7 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Your comment was to the effect that the rich deliberately limit the education of the poor to avoid competition with their own children. So I ask again, what evidence do you have to support that statement.


@Jacob has already replied.

How do you explain the massive reduction in further education spending since 2010.


----------



## ey_tony (7 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> So if you fell on hard times you'd just grin and bear it? Shuffle off and die?


I don't feel sorry for myself, far from it. I have no expectations of the state other than to provide the basic services for which I and millions of others have paid for with their taxes and I've always believed that I alone am responsible for how my life has turned out. If others have done better in life than me, then that's not their problem, it's mine!
Envy is a particular nasty burden to carry through life.
I do however firmly believe that we should as a caring society take care of the poorest in or society or those who through no fault of their own be it physical or mental health issues are unable to help themselves.

I've always done without in order to protect myself and family from the rigours of hard times and never expected anyone else to bail me out because I wasn't circumspect in my spending..
I started with absolutely nothing, always lived within my means, earned enough early on in life by doing without luxuries in order to buy things outright including my homes and never had credit unless it was interest free, in fact if I applied now for credit I'd probably have a very low credit rating because I've got very little credit history other than through domestic bills.

I have no issues with Socialist policies per se, some have been very good and should be applauded. My issues are with those who subscribe to the divisive Socialist line of thinking as I find the the majority of supporters inevitably resort to personal attacks and vilification of anyone who doesn't agree with their narrative or when they run out of coherent arguments. In football terms, they inevitably end up playing the man rather than the ball. Not a very nice trait to say the least.

As for level playing fields. I came from a poor background so had to drop the idea of further education in my teens in order to earn a living but I promised myself a decent education at some future point so started with foundation courses in maths and sciences with the OU and then when the time was right I applied as a mature student and was accepted into the local university on a full time three years honours degree course in Geophysics.
I had a very basic education at a Catholic school which was arguably worse than the education provided by the state schools at the time.
My school even had to negotiate with the local secondary modern in order to use their woodwork facilities. We certainly had no science labs or the likes
but it never held me back.

I know several families who send their kids to private schools. They are far from wealthy, in fact many are struggling desperately to afford to pay the fees and live an almost pauper's life in order to send their kids to those schools. They do without luxuries such as holidays or fancy cars and even struggle to pay everyday bills so not everyone who has had a private education has come from a wealthy background. Many have only received their education because their parents have done without.

A few years ago I did a quick survey of my classmates of that time and getting on for 90% of them were in business for themselves and they had the same education as myself so all this left wing level playing field business is mostly clap trap.


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

ey_tony said:


> .......
> 
> A few years ago I did a quick survey of my classmates of that time and getting on for 90% of them were in business for themselves and they had the same education as myself so all this left wing level playing field business is mostly clap trap.


Yes the OU was brilliant. Founded by the Labour party to make education more accessible - open to all in fact! Paid for by the tax payer. One of Labours greatest achievements. Certainly Harold Wislon's. That's socialism for you!
I did a few too. Last one was MST 121 Maths a few years ago. Felt I was getting rusty.

You don't think Eton or Harrow convey any advantage at all?


----------



## johna.clements (7 Oct 2022)

If people do not have equal access to education then the country is poorer.

If your parents are poor will the sacrifice a lot to help your education. 
If your parents are rich will they sacrifice a relatively little amount to help your education. 
If your parents are rich will they vote to keep some money to educate you rather than someone else who is more able.


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> If people do not have equal access to education then the country is poorer.


Could be thought of as "investment in human capital" if you are a capitalist.
Or "empowering" and "releasing individual potential" if you are a lefty.
Either way a good idea.
All the private stuff is just paying for ways to beat the system.









McCann on Boris & the Old Etonians - REBEL


An “insanitary mob of vicious delinquents” run British society. Eamonn McCann doesn’t…




www.rebelnews.ie


----------



## selectortone (7 Oct 2022)

david.tamlaght said:


> Those who do pay private for health or schooling often are on the receiving end of abuse ,despite actually lessening the load on the nation.


The problem there is, the more private hospitals there are, the weaker the NHS becomes.

When my wife was diagnosed with cancer she qualified for private health care through my employer. She had been in the NHS system and when she was transferred to a private hospital we were surprised to see that the surgeon and oncologist she had been referred to under the NHS were the same people in the private hospital.

It was over the road from the big NHS hospital. (Poole General and the Harbour Hospital if anyone's interested.) Chemotherapy was administered at the private hospital but when she needed radiotherapy or to use any heavy plant like MRI scanners they took her over to the NHS hospital where the private hospital had booked slots. It made me wonder how many NHS patients were being denied treatment by these block bookings.

I often saw our surgeon and oncologist scuttling across the road between the two hospitals from the window of her room.

She had a private room, a nice menu to choose from and her own TV. But apart from that the treatment she received was exactly the same as she would have done on the NHS. A little faster too, of course.

The rise of private healthcare in this country is slowly killing off the NHS. My grandad and great-uncle came back from WWI to the Durham mines and slums and thought "what the hell were we fighting for?". They joined the Labour Party and got their skulls cracked and in the case of my great uncle thrown in jail, marching and fighting for all the things we take for granted now - the NHS, state pensions, unemployment benefit, paid holidays, decent housing, refuse collection, sewage systems and all the rest.

Now it's all been privatised, or in the case of the NHS being privatised by stealth. And what have we got? Sewage on the beaches, a ridiculously expensive rail system in permanent chaos, once public utilities now run for the shareholder, not the consumer, and all the rest of what now constitutes our dreary lives. All for a fast buck. What a world.


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

selectortone said:


> The problem there is, the more private hospitals there are, the weaker the NHS becomes.
> 
> When my wife was diagnosed with cancer she qualified for private health care through my employer. She had been in the NHS system and when she was transferred to a private hospital we were surprised to see that the surgeon and oncologist she had been referred to under the NHS were the same people in the private hospital.
> 
> ...


Apparently things sometimes go wrong with those profitable routine procedures in the private sector, which they can't cope with, and may be too late by the time they've moved back to the NHS.


----------



## Tris (7 Oct 2022)

The NHS needs a complete rethink. My grandfather joined as a radiographer in 1948, at that time he developed all the film's, repaired the equipment in the hospital workshop when required, and set up a school of radiography. He would struggle to recognise the range of equipment used just for imaging the body today, and would be astounded by the cost of it all. When you multiply that increase in cost, complexity and capability across all departments it is little wonder that the NHS struggles to fulfil its original purpose and that's before you take in to account PFIs and privatisation as well


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

selectortone said:


> The problem there is, the more private hospitals there are, the weaker the NHS becomes.
> 
> When my wife was diagnosed with cancer she qualified for private health care through my employer. She had been in the NHS system and when she was transferred to a private hospital we were surprised to see that the surgeon and oncologist she had been referred to under the NHS were the same people in the private hospital.
> 
> ...



Does it really ruin the NHS, or does it make up for budget shortfalls with the NHS? If overall, the average person gets faster treatment with the combination setup - even if the NHS only patient gets the same speed, the outcome is better. 

The mistake is believing that the NHS is ever going to perform like the private system, or that the private system will ever be able to take over fully for the NHS. 

I would imagine that all of the things your grandfather fought for, including freedom, you have. And the public benefits that ultimately the public is unable to budget for, you have public private partnerships and your level of disposable income - or society's as a whole - is far greater than it was when those benefits were put in place and all public. 

We are in the era where everyone is a victim - everything around you is against you, that kind of mentality. The "I should be able to put this much in and get this much out", and on average, that equation is 1 unit and 2 units, respectively, because things become detached. 

We hear the same thing in the US - how much better things were in the 50s or 60s, but the reality is, people lived half the lifestyle and didn't feel entitled to more than that, so it didn't seem like they were fighting a constant budget battle. 






Average household income, UK - Office for National Statistics


Final estimates of average household income in the UK, with analysis of how these measures have changed over time, accounting for inflation and household composition.



www.ons.gov.uk





After adjusting for inflation, the median disposable income level is more than double that of the 1970s. What do you think it is vs. the 1950s? It's probably four times. so why is everyone feeling so victimized having four times the disposable income, after adjusting for inflation?

Because you're not living like your grandfather did, and when you're not living with the thrift and self deprivation, and still not happier, then are you making the right decisions? This isn't just for you, it's for society as a whole. 

It's a problem of personal entitlement, and you are generations removed from people who had to work for those benefits rather than getting them built in. The average person probably thinks that after all of those things are in place (state pension, NHS, etc) that's starting at zero, as if they're no cost, and the part of the population who is taking those services and not paying in anywhere near their cost will still be the loudest about what they're entitled to. That will be the average person, and people without much reasoning about how this whole system fits together will find the worst 5% of cases who really are disaffected by the system and pretend that it's everyone.


----------



## ey_tony (7 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Yes the OU was brilliant. Founded by the Labour party to make education more accessible - open to all in fact! Paid for by the tax payer. One of Labours greatest achievements. Certainly Harold Wislon's. That's socialism for you!
> I did a few too. Last one was MST 121 Maths a few years ago. Felt I was getting rusty.
> 
> You don't think Eton or Harrow convey any advantage at all?


The biggest advantage a parent can give their offspring is not money or wealth, it's teaching their kids the value of education. I lost my parents when they were quite young but their legacy of valuing education lingered with me.
The state education is fine. As well as having friends who are fortunate for their kids to attend private schools, I also have friends who are far from wealthy and their kids go to the local state school but even so, if the state educated kids put in the study with the same rigour as most kids attending private schools, the advantages are minimised, in fact they do as well as most privately educated kids. Some of the state educated kids I know even attend Oxford and Cambridge so state education is no barrier if the student is determined and they have supportive parents.
Unfortunately one can't do much about nepotism but that happens in all walks of life.

Most parents want their kids to do well, I know I did and I made sure they were equipped with an education that prepared them for life.

My oldest daughter wasn't remotely academic and didn't do well at all during her school years which is common but surprisingly her determination paid off and she is now a senior regional inspector of council nursing homes. She owns several rental properties and along with her sister she is the owner of more than one business, drives a Range Rover and recently for fun is part owner of two race horses.
The highest GCSE she attained was a D grade but it hasn't held her back as I understood her needs and taught her business and economics and she is a very successful person in her own right.

My other daughter has a law degree, also owns rental properties and is a partner in two businesses and also drives a Range Rover. She also delivers legal advice at the local university to the heads of social services as laws change.
She too went to a state school and has done well in life so state education is basically just as good as private in most instances.

As for your comment on the OU I fully agree, it's a brilliant way of learning and I'd recommend it to anyone wishing to take up further education. Unfortunately too many people see school as the only education they need and don't realise that academic education is an ongoing process and can be the key to a far better future.


----------



## julianf (7 Oct 2022)

Have either of you looked up the cost of OU degrees recently?


----------



## Dibs-h (7 Oct 2022)

ey_tony said:


> A few years ago I did a quick survey of my classmates of that time and getting on for 90% of them were in business for themselves and they had the same education as myself me, so all this left wing level playing field business is mostly clap trap.



Corrected it for you.


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> Have either of you looked up the cost of OU degrees recently?


Yes. Expensive. As with so many things it is being undermined by the tories, who really have only one item on their agenda - to keep taxation low.
I believe you can get the student loan for it, but it's still a deterrent.


----------



## selectortone (7 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> Does it really ruin the NHS, or does it make up for budget shortfalls with the NHS?


In the case of block bookings by private hospitals of major equipment like MRI scanners, radiotherapy units etc, in NHS hospitals, it puts NHS patients to the back of the queue. I have seen this with my own eyes. My wife was dying of cancer so I was hardly likely to object to queue-jumping, but how many NHS second-class citizens have been denied timely treatment for life-threatening conditions because of these practices?


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

Is NHS changing the timeline to collect extra revenue from private sources? If they are, that would seem to be suspect. 

or is one of the reasons that the NHS is able to get the volume of equipment they have because of that extra revenue?


----------



## ey_tony (7 Oct 2022)

Dibs-h said:


> Corrected it for you.


That's awfully kind of you


----------



## Terry - Somerset (7 Oct 2022)

It may come as something of a surprise, but the largest "sell off" in the NHS in the last 40 years came under the Blair government - mainly PFI deals.

NHS expenditure over the last 40 years has increased under every administration - in fairness at a faster rate under the Labour government. Whether this was prudent, reckless or contributed to austerity for several years following the financial crisis is debatable.

More fundamentally - what defines the NHS. It was originally established in 1948 to provide health care to all based upon need, and free at the point of delivery. 

The original intent was rapidly compromised when it came to dental and eye care. Medical capability has also changed radically without properly addressing how these changes may impact upon the NHS mission.

As the government is accepting responsibility for the provision of health care, how that commitment is discharged should be that which delivers the best outcomes. Cost and quality are the main drivers. Whether it is delivered using state or private sector resources is incidental. 

Most would not expect the NHS to run construction companies, farms to grow the food used by hospital kitchens, engineering companies to manufacture diagnostic equipment, etc. Nor do we need them to maintain hospital grounds, manufacture drugs, surgical equipment etc.

To summarise - the NHS has always used the private sector to deliver capability to the public sector.

Providing accountability remains firmly with government there should be no fundamental barrier to private sector involvement. That the NHS is somehow uniquely capable is flawed - they are excellent at many things but for from uniquely able at all. 

They could learn much from the private sector - a far better balance of private and public sector capability may produce a better health service.


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

selectortone said:


> In the case of block bookings by private hospitals of major equipment like MRI scanners, radiotherapy units etc, in NHS hospitals, it puts NHS patients to the back of the queue. I have seen this with my own eyes. My wife was dying of cancer so I was hardly likely to object to queue-jumping, but how many NHS second-class citizens have been denied timely treatment for life-threatening conditions because of these practices?


On the other hand - the worst thing to happen to me healthwise was complete break of quadriceps tendons in a fall. 10 years ago. Potentially permanent disability unless treated (sewn back together) very quickly 24 hours.
Was rescued by ambulance in deep snow, wooshed off to hosp, examined by teams of people including trainees with clip boards, sewn back together again very quickly. Two nights in hosp and thrown out.
My only complaint was that they kept waking me up in the night to see if I was OK and offering me cups of tea.
Lots of after-care, hosp visits and monitoring with adjustable splints, about a year to recover as it's a big one, worse than bone fracture.
So what?
I found an American chat group on the topic as it's a major sports injury, skiers etc (I just fell down some steps). The stories they had to tell were appalling - insurance checks, delays, enormous bills, delayed operations with bad outcomes , etc etc.
All NHS, I paid absolutely nothing and had top notch treatment.
Happy to pay taxes! All for one and one for all!


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> It may come as something of a surprise, but the largest "sell off" in the NHS in the last 40 years came under the Blair government - mainly PFI deals.


Blair was a bit of a delusion. All promises and little delivery


Terry - Somerset said:


> ....- a far better balance of private and public sector capability may produce a better health service.


The NHS is a brilliant service on a scale unimaginable to private health care and also extremely cost effective. It's become normal to talk it down and sell it off bit by bit.


----------



## selectortone (7 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> The mistake is believing that the NHS is ever going to perform like the private system, or that the private system will ever be able to take over fully for the NHS


The lions share of funding for private healthcare in this country comes from companies giving it as a benefit for their employees. The logical progression there is that the NHS gets starved to death and we end up in the serfdom you have in the USA where people are virtually indentured to their employers because of their health benefits and the astronomical cost of private medicine.

The philosophy behind the NHS is that it is run for the benefit of its customers, not shareholders. I know that's a difficult concept for many Americans. But if all the money that private companies here pay private health companies went to the NHS, and the government stopped de-funding it in real terms it would be a lot healthier.


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

selectortone said:


> The lions share of funding for private healthcare in this country comes from companies giving it as a benefit for their employees. The logical progression there is that the NHS gets starved to death and we end up in the serfdom you have in the USA where people are virtually indentured to their employers because of their health benefits and the astronomical cost of private medicine.
> 
> The philosophy behind the NHS is that it is run for the benefit of its customers, not shareholders. I know that's a difficult concept for many Americans. But if all the money that private companies here pay private health companies went to the NHS, and the government stopped de-funding it in real terms it would be a lot healthier.



You're not indentured, you can get a different job. But what's true is if you want to make minimal income and just coast effort-wise, the health care part of it will make that more difficult.

If you wanted to be self-employed starting at a later age, things would be difficult until you had a tax return for a low-paid year and could go out to the federal exchange and get a subsidy.

Here's where people go off track - they save no money at all and then complain that they're indentured to jobs because they couldn't afford a couple of hundred dollars a month for bridge coverage.

The truly poor here don't pay, though - they're on Medicaid.

I would imagine you have a hidden problem that nobody really wants to discuss with the NHS, which is utilization and demands from the average person now outstrip what the _average person_ is willing to pay, and it's easy to blame it on a small group who already is funding everyones' way at a disproportional share.

This is a natural progression - from grandparents and aunts and uncles who would've been more sparing and had great appreciation for what they were paying for, and contributing because the personal responsibility to society would've been there, to a huge cross section believing that what you get and what you pay should have nothing to do with each other. And that group becomes the majority.

I do think the system in the US causes a fundamental issue that people don't plan for - paying for healthcare in retirement prior to medicare eligibility. Once you're 65, pressure is off. Everything is super cheap and you bear almost no responsibility for being a heavy utilizer. But if you want to retire early, you have to fund that cost of faff around keeping your income low (which means you can't take a bunch of retirement income out to spend it on leisure) after the first year so that you qualify for subsidized coverage. I believe that before out of pocket costs, that's about 9% of income. The fedgov picks up the balance.


----------



## flying haggis (7 Oct 2022)

Part of the NHS's problem is that we are seen by many as the International Health Service. Anyone not from this country requiring health care in this country should have to have health insurance before the get treated or a means of paying for it upfront.


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

In the year 2000, GB paid 1021 pounds per capita for health care utilization. 

In 2021, this figure was 3405. Before covid in 2019, it was 2647. These are only the public health spending dollars. 

In 2000, gdp per capita was about 28,000 pounds, and in 2021, it was slightly over 47,000. 

Just as I mentioned above (but went and tracked down statistics), I think you are failing to factor in how much more health care is being utilized in the UK, and you have a group of taxpayers who probably aren't interested in paying a greater % of their earnings to cover the increased utilization. 

This only really ends one way - strain on the system and it's not a coincidence that private care has popped up.

Since 2007, GDP has been flat or declined slightly - or really since 2005. This stagnation goes from blair until now. The translation of this is that it's likely that the revenues toward the NHS based on payroll have changed little as the GDP also has not. 

This is where entitlement comes in. There are not enough "rich people" to just pay for everyone regardless of what they want. The middle class has to bear some part of this because they are incurring the cost and are the bulk of the group. 

2005 spending if bogeying the same period of time that GDP has stagnated has doubled. 

At what point do rank and file citizens start recognizing that they are actually incurring much greater costs and utilizing health care at a much higher rate and they will need to pay more because they are. AS in, utilizing shows that they value the care system - almost across the board, but not enough to allocate a much larger share of income?

In the US, this sort of happens automatically, though it's not neatly done - it's fractious. But we have a problem with overutilization here. At the same time, we also are saddled with paying (active workforce) the cost of this each year, and as long as we keep utilizing at a higher and higher rate, it suggests that we only want to complain about the price, not do something with it. 

The NHS has this detached as two separate issues - everyone wants to utilize, but paying for that seems to be detached in the minds of most as a political issue, and supposed corruption and cost leaks or small groups of additional covered folks get the blame. But those issues are tiny compared to the real problem- the fact that far more care per individual is being issued.


----------



## clogs (7 Oct 2022)

I for one have been very happy to pay my taxes to keep the NHS going...
but I do object to Karens getting bigger boobs and all the other transgender [email protected] that everyone has to pay for....
If u need IVF or ur bits cut off and folded in u should save up for it and pay privately.....
Unfortunately the system is overloaded.....
Not so long ago a foreign lady arrived in the UK with a difficult multiple birth.....
after the birth and initial care she did a runner back to west Africa and never paid.....
I would like to see ID cards, the rest of the world have em, so u dont pay in u get nowt....
Most countries in Europe, when u go for medical care they first want to see ur credit card....
no card no service or without the E111 or what ever it is now, if it still exsits....

I had a serious accident and badly damaged my shoulder joint...
It needed physio and an injection of steroids and 2 other chemicals to releive the pain etc....
it would be free if I used the local hospital but would take a few days.....
OR 
pay the same specialist in his private clinic and get it done as a walk in off the street...
€75euro's.....I'm happy to pay.....
the physio was done by my wife with instruction from youtube......hahaha...
as for the payment it would have cost that much to park at the hospital or more due to the many visits needed....
So I say I got it cheap....
My daughter is a trainee Paramedic......I'm grateful for all those that work within that organisation....
The county in which she works have been replacing the Ambulance fleet from Merc's to Fiats due to costs.....
They now realise that it was an expensive error.....somebody in charge should be sacked without pension for wasting the money....
My guess it was a hand back somewhere along the way....
It's just a shame the NHS run by overpaid donkey's....


----------



## Jacob (7 Oct 2022)

clogs said:


> ....
> Most countries in Europe, when u go for medical care they first want to see ur credit card....
> no card no service or without the E111 or what ever it is now, if it still exsits....


No prob before brexit. My wife had major sessions in a french then a german hosp at no cost (or a little fee for the room or something I seem to remember). Brexit was a ghastly mistake. So many things are simple if just reciprocated country to country.


clogs said:


> .....
> It's just a shame the NHS run by overpaid donkey's....


You mean the management? Staff are generally low paid. NHS generally considered very cost effective


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

My comments above, for anyone reading them aren't "criticism of the UK system from an american's point of view", they're more a matter of how politics gets people to focus on solving minor problems without addressing the significant issues that are actually the core of the problem. 

In the US, we don't have the choice for a basic health care system - I would use it. Especially if I could get the discount between NHS and the actual cost I pay in benefits. 

We have a huge problem here - that is, more care is provided by publicly funded systems than private, which surprises most people, and the private system high cost is subsidizing the public system. utilization here is out of control, and cost per service is also higher. but solving only one or the other doesn't fix our overall issue. The biggest part of the problem is the payment for services and the services you choose to utilize are not well attached. There are two payers, or three sometimes, and the average individual who continues to utilize more has no ideal who is paying how much. So the fact that we have a "private system" isn't really accurate - the information is too difficult for the average person to parse. 

And until you're an individual, there is no real personal incentive to be healthy outside of the medical sense of the word. 

Which is an issue for both us and the UK - the per capita costs will only continue to outstrip income as countries' full of obese people age. We are 42% obese in the US and the UK is at 28, exactly 2/3rds). The rate in the UK is about where it was in the US in 2000, which should mortify you guys. It looks like the change in those percentages (relative growth in obesity rates) has been about the same for both countries. Ours have gone up 50%, and so have yours.


----------



## John Brown (7 Oct 2022)

clogs said:


> I for one have been very happy to pay my taxes to keep the NHS going...
> but I do object to Karens getting bigger boobs and all the other transgender [email protected] that everyone has to pay for....
> If u need IVF or ur bits cut off and folded in u should save up for it and pay privately.....
> Unfortunately the system is overloaded.....
> ...


You might think the transgender thing is [email protected], but I expect the troubled souls who take such extreme action would disagree. Do you happen to have any idea what percentage of the NHS budget goes on gender reassignment? How does that compare to the cost of obesity, alcohol abuse or smoking?


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> You might think the transgender thing is cr[email protected], but I expect the troubled souls who take such extreme action would disagree. Do you happen to have any idea what percentage of the NHS budget goes on gender reassignment? How does that compare to the cost of obesity, alcohol abuse or smoking?



At what point was the smoking percentage of the population higher than it is now? Not disagreeing with the premise - these are the little bits that ignore addressing that the average person is ringing up twice as much service as they were 17 years ago, but the overall economic activity in the country is almost unchanged per individual.

Smoking related costs are generally on the decline from one country to the next, and the actual cost of pensioner and health care benefits for a lifetime smoker is less than it is for a nonsmoker. Why? Because they generally live long enough to have a full working lifetime, and the end of life care may be higher per year, but the shortened expected lifetime far more than offsets the higher per year costs. 

This is something that's bothered me for a long time - I work in a numbers-related profession. People hear that smokers cost the public benefit system more - they don't. I never bothered to look to find actual documentation until last year. The taxes paid by smokers subsidize other things unrelated to them and the actual directing of dollars toward healthcare is not the case here, though it's often given as a reason for the taxes. It's like saying people drive cars too heavy, implementing a tax and then diverting 5% of the new tax to road repairs and the other 95% is free pet money for politicians. 

Obesity is a bigger problem - it's increasing, it's more universal, the health care cost is more uniform and obese people don't pay a fat tax. 

I am at the lower end of the "obese" schedule in the US, by the way, but with no health care costs yet attributed to it.


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

Well, what I just said above hasn't been that unknown for that long - I just searched it again and the first hit is an article in the NEJM in the US...

....published by the Dutch Health Care Ministry in....wait for it.....

1997. 

Stating that initial cost declines would be moderate and outweighed by increased costs due to longevity in the long term. 

...and that didn't even address the difference in cost for public pensioners.


----------



## TRITON (7 Oct 2022)

The thing that annoys me the most about private healthcare here in the UK is all they have is consulting rooms. They have no medical infrastructure, no surgical units., no operating theaters. All of which is carried out at a publicly funded NHS hospital.
Sure they rent the time, but NHS operations are put off in favour of private clinics using the facilities.
And thats what we can expect for the future. If you're only NHS, you'll be pushed further down the waiting lists, or have a lesser service, as the private companies take over fully the hospitals the public have invested in.


----------



## Jameshow (7 Oct 2022)

TRITON said:


> The thing that annoys me the most about private healthcare here in the UK is all they have is consulting rooms. They have no medical infrastructure, no surgical units., no operating theaters. All of which is carried out at a publicly funded NHS hospital.
> Sure they rent the time, but NHS operations are put off in favour of private clinics using the facilities.
> And thats what we can expect for the future. If you're only NHS, you'll be pushed further down the waiting lists, or have a lesser service, as the private companies take over fully the hospitals the public have invested in.


Not true, there are plenty of private hospitals with theatres and wards etc. 

What I doubt they have is intensive care provision.


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

What is the tax rate that individuals pay for health care now vs 17 years ago? Has the actual payment per taxpayer doubled?

I guess my point here is that if the average person is consuming twice as much but the system isn't bringing in twice as much and other funding is needed, to have priority is kind of difficult to do in making a case. 

The combination (from the US standpoint) is weird unless the contribution by the private health care is what's allowing NHS to be solvent. 

In the US, medicare is provided at a low cost - medicare negotiates this so that the federal costs are lower than they would be if done at full cost. The system itself relies on private payers to make ends meet then, but I don't know that there is a difference in priority. if medicare-eligible scheduling was a little bit less customer friendly, realistically, medicare enrollees couldn't make the case that they should get the same priority as a first-dollar high-reimbursement private patient. One can exist without the other, but not the other way around.


----------



## John Brown (7 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> At what point was the smoking percentage of the population higher than it is now? Not disagreeing with the premise - these are the little bits that ignore addressing that the average person is ringing up twice as much service as they were 17 years ago, but the overall economic activity in the country is almost unchanged per individual.
> 
> Smoking related costs are generally on the decline from one country to the next, and the actual cost of pensioner and health care benefits for a lifetime smoker is less than it is for a nonsmoker. Why? Because they generally live long enough to have a full working lifetime, and the end of life care may be higher per year, but the shortened expected lifetime far more than offsets the higher per year costs.
> 
> ...


I admit that I knew that, too. I was making a point, and got carried away. However, it might be too early to say, but I would guess that transgender people are less likely to procreate, and maybe that should be factored in.
It's a pointless and nasty argument, and I'm sorry I let myself be dragged into it.


----------



## baldkev (7 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> I said before how evreyone on benefits has the latest iPhone and people got upset with me.
> 
> At least you agree.



To be balanced, i wasnt suggesting everyone on benefits has the latest iphone 
I was illustrating the ways I could burn money each month ( which i dont do )
My downfall is tools.... i can 'justify' those easily because i 'need' them for work  

Some people are good with money, others arent, but to be fair, most people buy stuff to make them feel better, its the scale that varies. Some people get trainers, some people get an iphone.... i want a mini digger


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> I admit that I knew that, too. I was making a point, and got carried away. However, it might be too early to say, but I would guess that transgender people are less likely to procreate, and maybe that should be factored in.
> It's a pointless and nasty argument, and I'm sorry I let myself be dragged into it.



That's a fantastic point, actually - would having the option and going a more nontraditional route result in lower future costs. It does, unfortunately, seem to be correlated with lower life expectancy, but I don't know what that's compared to. It may be the individual in general is part of a very high risk class and it actually goes the other way. 

The way you mentioned the smoking was what prompted me. There are so many things said that seem to make sense and they become a football. The smoking cost strain on society is one of them, and the public costs in the US are so heavily weighted to late life since public health care and retirement generally start at or near 65, and the tax burden much higher on smokers (to the point that for them, the average share of household income for a smoker is not bonkers) that it started to not make sense. So I looked it up, and of course, the info is freely available out there. 

Both political sides use this "common sense". 

In the US, more than 90% of road wear is caused by heavy trucks. If we could bother to wait a couple of days longer and use rail, a lot of this would be lessened. I've heard a lot of farmers complaining about the chance (I'm descended from farmers) that electric cars won't "pay their share" when they're driving trucks on subsidized licensing costs, receiving subsidized insurance and all kinds of other direct and nondirect payments (while building equity owning land) and are also notorious for overloading trucks when hauling to sell grain. it may not be a surprise to anyone here, I talk the same way in real life..."wait, who is paying a fair share and who isn't". 

you can bait someone like that into "they need to pay for the wear and tear on the roads that they won't be paying for...it's just common sense". 

I hate to be proven wrong, so it causes me to think and reflect. Most people don't care if they're wrong - it causes them to shift lanes and try to attack from a different direction. "without trucks you'd starve!!!".


----------



## baldkev (7 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> No. They should pay more tax, because they have more money. People with no money can pay no tax. People with little money can pay little tax. People with the most money should pay the most tax. It's not difficult to understand and it's how the world works.
> 
> No. I complain about under investment in state schools.
> 
> ...


Relating to private healthcare and your comments, his point was that it takes the burden off the nhs, not that the private sector doesnt do nhs work.... so yes, it reduces nhs costs and waiting times. The fact that the nhs subbies work out wasnt in question or part of the statement


----------



## Flynnwood (7 Oct 2022)

This did shock me yesterday. I've known this chap for nearly eight years, he's about 40 something and has done very well for himself financially (UK).

"We found my Dad dead on Friday at 8am. I called an ambulance and was told it would be about 45 minutes."

"Eight hours later, a funeral director arrived to take the body away. No Doctor involved. And no ambulance."

Fast forward to Wednesday:
"I've been running around trying to get a Death Certificate to register his death. 
At some point, someone asked me: 'What do you think he died of?'" 

(The son must have been quite stressed at this point, but he would not have made that up)

On a separate note. a colleague had met with a Paramedic this week. We are not certain of the size/location but the Paramedic said:
"We normally get around 5,000 calls per day. Yesterday it was 8,000."


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> On the other hand - the worst thing to happen to me healthwise was complete break of quadriceps tendons in a fall. 10 years ago. Potentially permanent disability unless treated (sewn back together) very quickly 24 hours.
> Was rescued by ambulance in deep snow, wooshed off to hosp, examined by teams of people including trainees with clip boards, sewn back together again very quickly. Two nights in hosp and thrown out.
> My only complaint was that they kept waking me up in the night to see if I was OK and offering me cups of tea.
> Lots of after-care, hosp visits and monitoring with adjustable splints, about a year to recover as it's a big one, worse than bone fracture.
> ...



You should cling to your anecdotes about care believing the outcomes and level of care in the NHS are better than the american system. 

I'm guessing your tax contributions are far less than your cost to the NHS system, so it's pretty easy to be a big fan of it. I think folks in this situation should do a little more to recognize that someone else is paying the way for them. 

Here's a more realistic story from people I know - they moved to london for work for four years. One of their kids had a broken bone, they went to a hospital and the hospital sent them to another one because they first didn't have xrays. It ended up taking most of their day for something routinely handled here (stabilizing the break, doing the work and discharging the patient kind of all in a row). The only thing they didn't like about England was the health care. I'm sure they didn't love the costs, either, but if you live in NYC here, it's barely different. 

If you are a payer in the US system, the care here is better. The system is overwrought with confusion in costs and excessive costs and utilization, but the care quality is high and the wait times are pretty much nothing. It's not easy to get good data on actual quality of care or outcomes because most rankings apply a very fat factor to whether or not care is public (which is not an outcome, but treated as if it is) when assessing care quality.


----------



## John Brown (7 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> To be balanced, i wasnt suggesting everyone on benefits has the latest iphone
> I was illustrating the ways I could burn money each month ( which i dont do )
> My downfall is tools.... i can 'justify' those easily because i 'need' them for work
> 
> Some people are good with money, others arent, but to be fair, most people buy stuff to make them feel better, its the scale that varies. Some people get trainers, some people get an iphone.... i want a mini digger


I want a Giant Hadron Kaleidoscope. 
You can't always get what you want.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (7 Oct 2022)

Decades ago, my grandmother had a stroke. Her recovery program included rehabilitation support - 3x30 min sessions per week. To have a reasonable chance of success 2 hours per day was needed. Ultimately events took their expected course - care home then coffin.

The demand for health services is several times that which is (or can) be provided. This is driven by the illusion that all ills can be solved, and that with treatment we may live forever.

We need to be clear about the health service we are prepared to pay for. Current budgets may suffice for good quality basic health care where treatment can save or extend a good quality life. 

Social and elderly care is underfunded - we need to be more explicitly honest - either cough up additional funding or recognise the futility of extending life beyond the point at which there is any real prospect of improvement or quality of life.

I accept that there will be a diversity of views - but for me "life" is the capacity to enjoy the company of friends and family, appreciate a fine wine or meal, enjoy a film or book etc. It is not the capacity of a heart to circulate blood and keep a body warm when all other stimuli are absent.

Incidentally most research into comparative health systems worldwide seems to show:

UK spending on health care as a % of GDP is fairly much in the middle of developed country ranges - the US spends most
the performance of UK health care is nothing exceptional - better than some in part, worse in others 
the NHS is one of few that are completely free at the point of use - many other countries make partial charges for services - see a GP, hospital stays etc
the UK makes amongst the least use of private healthcare - but there is no evidence that the basis of funding or the public/private split has a material impact on the quality of services provided
Bismark in the 19th century is usually regarded as the founder of the welfare state by introducing a system of universal health insurance
What does all this mean - "there is more than one way to skin a cat" - other approaches to healthcare work and may even improve upon current UK practice. A failure to embrace new ideas risks leaving the UK with a very average health service.


----------



## Dibs-h (7 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> Some people get trainers, some people get an iphone.... i want a mini digger


I'm with Kev!


----------



## Jameshow (7 Oct 2022)

Flynnwood said:


> This did shock me yesterday. I've known this chap for nearly eight years, he's about 40 something and has done very well for himself financially (UK).
> 
> "We found my Dad dead on Friday at 8am. I called an ambulance and was told it would be about 45 minutes."
> 
> ...


Sorry and shocked to hear it. 

Had your friend said my dad is dying the ambulance might have arrived. 

Iirk... 

A doctor would be expected to see the body and a PM done if not seem by Dr 2 weeks prior. Then a 2nd Dr to sign part 2.


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> You can't get a mortgage if you are unemployed and/or on benefits. OTOH you aren't expected to go homeless if you find yourself destitute and with a mortgage, or a landlord, around your neck
> 
> Benefits are pretty minimal and if prices go up benefits need to keep pace
> 
> ...




Really bizarre reasoning, Jacob. You're always fast to argue ideals that never play out in reality. Outcomes. Is it the fault of the rich that the per capita GDP on a real basis has slipped enormously? This is a really odd thing for the wealthy to root for given that likely affects their personal wealth.


----------



## Blackswanwood (7 Oct 2022)

Flynnwood said:


> This did shock me yesterday. I've known this chap for nearly eight years, he's about 40 something and has done very well for himself financially (UK).
> 
> "We found my Dad dead on Friday at 8am. I called an ambulance and was told it would be about 45 minutes."
> 
> ...


I’m not disputing that ambulance response times are bad (it’s had a lot of news coverage) but I do not believe an undertaker could move a body without death first being certified by a doctor.


----------



## John Brown (7 Oct 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> I’m not disputing that ambulance response times are bad (it’s had a lot of news coverage) but I do not believe an undertaker could move a body without death first being certified by a doctor.


I think this has been mentioned before, but don't blame the ambulance service. I spent some time in hospital recently, waiting for a triple bypass, and there were 17 ambulances lined up outside at one point, because there were either no beds, or no staff for the beds. I took two trips in an ambulance, one from Gloucester to Cheltenham, and one from Cheltenham to Bristol, and the paramedics were fantastic. It's not their fault if there's nowhere to unload patients.


----------



## Flynnwood (7 Oct 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> I’m not disputing that ambulance response times are bad (it’s had a lot of news coverage) but I do not believe an undertaker could move a body without death first being certified by a doctor.


Neither could I. Hence being shocked by it. I would have thought there was a legal basis for same.
Neither could I disbelieve this chap though. His financial status is secure and no reason to lie to me.


----------



## Jameshow (7 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> You should cling to your anecdotes about care believing the outcomes and level of care in the NHS are better than the american system.
> 
> I'm guessing your tax contributions are far less than your cost to the NHS system, so it's pretty easy to be a big fan of it. I think folks in this situation should do a little more to recognize that someone else is paying the way for them.
> 
> ...



Which hospital was that? 

I'm guessing the one with No A+E in big read letters outside the entrance?!!


----------



## Dibs-h (7 Oct 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> I’m not disputing that ambulance response times are bad (it’s had a lot of news coverage) but I do not believe an undertaker could move a body without death first being certified by a doctor.


I think it's a case of it can't be buried or cremated (or anything else classed as disposal of a body) without a doctors cert.

Other than that, some places will have mortuaries and therefore the remains will be released to an undertaker after the death cert has been signed. In other places - I suspect the situation is a bit more "out-sourced" and the remains will be with the undertaker until the death cert comes and only then burial\cremation\etc.


----------



## baldkev (7 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> I want a Giant Hadron Kaleidoscope.
> You can't always get what you want.


Thats just plain greedy! I hope you won't try to get the dss to pay for it 


John Brown said:


> I think this has been mentioned before, but don't blame the ambulance service. I spent some time in hospital recently, waiting for a triple bypass, and there were 17 ambulances lined up outside at one point, because there were either no beds, or no staff for the beds. I took two trips in an ambulance, one from Gloucester to Cheltenham, and one from Cheltenham to Bristol, and the paramedics were fantastic. It's not their fault if there's nowhere to unload patients.


I know a paramedic. Its so bad that if the hospital dont have any beds, the paramedics keep the patients at home and stay there for the entire shift. So a bed shortage literally takes an ambulance out of service for a whole shift, for every patient that needs a bed.... in april we went to derriford paediatrics a and e on a wednesday might. Carnage. I wouldnt want to be stuck there with a seriously ill child and the staff must dread going to work


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Which hospital was that?
> 
> I'm guessing the one with No A+E in big read letters outside the entrance?!!



Not sure I could manage to squeeze the name of the hospital out of them without them saying "why?"

"well, because I wanted to put your story online...I'll use your real names, too...no problem right?" hah

It came up when I asked them about the health care setup and I said something like "I heard it's not as bad as it's described here, aside from another English fellow I know who lives here and gushes about the american system, but he's of means".

The friend mentioned here (not English) said "I don't, know, we didn't use it. it's terrible, here's how we figured that out".

It was a break sustained in club soccer, so maybe outside of the city? Every single small office here that treats walk ins has an xray for income generation purposes, so I was stunned that a medical center there wouldn't have an xray. the explanation was something along the lines of "it doesn't make fiscal sense to have Xray available at every location".

It does in the US because every location wants the revenue from the Xray.

(if i could pay half as much for health care, I'd travel to another location for an Xray - that was their interpretation, not mine).


----------



## mikej460 (7 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> Not sure I could manage to squeeze the name of the hospital out of them without them saying "why?"
> 
> "well, because I wanted to put your story online...I'll use your real names, too...no problem right?" hah
> 
> ...


mmm, I get the same offer from my dentist, every time I visit they say 'we just need to do an Xray as you haven't had one for a while' which I politely refuse as it is expensive and usually unnecessary. Here in the UK dentists are mostly private; there is a recognised lack of nhs dentists so we either pay per visit or opt for an insurance scheme aka the US system which the Government is reluctant to change.


----------



## D_W (7 Oct 2022)

mikej460 said:


> mmm, I get the same offer from my dentist, every time I visit they say 'we just need to do an Xray as you haven't had one for a while' which I politely refuse as it is expensive and usually unnecessary. Here in the UK dentists are mostly private; there is a recognised lack of nhs dentists so we either pay per visit or opt for an insurance scheme aka the US system which the Government is reluctant to change.



Xrays are part of basic dental service here, usually done once a year. Dental isn't very expensive here if you're insured, at least not until you get into semi surgical type work, but it's probably more expensive than it would need to be. 

Cosmetic stuff is common., Neither of my kids needs braces, but both are getting them -sign of the times. 

My dentist said more or less that the xrays allow them to see things they can't see or feel just picking at teeth. 

For whatever reason, basic services are almost the same nominal cost here as they were when I was a kid 30 year ago (about $70 for a cleaning and exam every 6 months - cost for the claim to the insurer, none for me. Not sure if the xray is added and I haven't noticed due to no copay). 

I'm sure there are extensive cost studies for NHS dental stuff and they've consciously made that choice. A friend here has a spanish wife, and he's opting to do what they do in spain - when you get older (i've had a pair of root canals and crowns, which can be expensive since it's not usually 100% covered), he said in spain if teeth cause an issue, instead of RCT, let alone things like implants, they just pull the teeth. Which is also cheap here, but usually the option chosen by uninsured folks. 

Not to mention the lower cost services offered at local medical/dental schools, but not sure if you're the beta tester there. 

Dental tries to do medical style cost/service pushes, but the general public just doesn't care that much about vision and dental.


----------



## mikej460 (7 Oct 2022)

I think the same attitude exists here to some extent, happy to pay £60 a month for Broadband/TV/Landline but only pay for teeth if something goes wrong. I'm guilty as charged...


----------



## Spectric (7 Oct 2022)

There was someone on Tv who said one of the issues with the NHS is not that it is underfunded but that it overspends on stuff that does not contribute to medical care, ie to many pen pushers rather than scalpel wavers and employing people on stupid money to manage diversity and other nonsense which is not the role of a hospital.


----------



## Dibs-h (8 Oct 2022)

mikej460 said:


> mmm, I get the same offer from my dentist, every time I visit they say 'we just need to do an Xray as you haven't had one for a while' which I politely refuse as it is expensive and usually unnecessary. Here in the UK dentists are mostly private; there is a recognised lack of nhs dentists so we either pay per visit or opt for an insurance scheme aka the US system which the Government is reluctant to change.


They don't ask at mine, they just take them - but there is no charge for them thankfully. But it's a private dentist who charges a monthly "fee" but it get's a check-up with the dentist every 6 months and a visit to the hygienist (he's a flippin sadist but that's a different topic) as part of all that.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> There was someone on Tv who said one of the issues with the NHS is not that it is underfunded but that it overspends on stuff that does not contribute to medical care, ie to many pen pushers rather than scalpel wavers and employing people on stupid money to manage diversity and other nonsense which is not the role of a hospital.


The story generally told is exactly the opposite; that one reason why the NHS is highly cost effective is precisely because it does (or did) not have excess admin and a surplus of managers. It was regarded as a exemplary that it could function with so much self-management.
This has changed in recent years as the intrusion of privatisation has made it less efficient and more costly.

Interesting how the general drift of threads like this is to find fault and complain. It's part of the process of undermining state-run institutions, as conducted by the right wing media, in pursuit of profit for "investors" i.e. taking these public assets from ourselves and giving ownership to financial gamblers and other sharks, out of our control.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Dibs-h said:


> They don't ask at mine, they just take them - but there is no charge for them thankfully. But it's a private dentist who charges a monthly "fee" but it get's a check-up with the dentist every 6 months and a visit to the hygienist (he's a flippin sadist but that's a different topic) as part of all that.


Mine still does excellent NHS service. It's a small part of their business but even dentists have a social conscience! It involves a crude charging system of several bands of treatment. I'm not sure how the dentist recoups their costs, or if they just get the paid fees.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> I think this has been mentioned before, but don't blame the ambulance service. I spent some time in hospital recently, waiting for a triple bypass, and there were 17 ambulances lined up outside at one point, because there were either no beds, or no staff for the beds. I took two trips in an ambulance, one from Gloucester to Cheltenham, and one from Cheltenham to Bristol, and the paramedics were fantastic. It's not their fault if there's nowhere to unload patients.


It's deliberate but disorganised under-investment designed to break up the NHS and make sure the parts don't work well together, so they can be sold off to the usual pirates.


----------



## sawdust1 (8 Oct 2022)

Around here all the small towns had small cottage hospitals, all these have been closed down and sold off so now everyone has to travel miles to the main big hospital in the city for any treatment. Before this happened patients could be discharged to one of these local hospitals (easier for loved ones to visit) now they cannot be discharged if they have nowhere to go thus leading to bed blocking.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Does annoy me to hear that the goverment are advising nurses to think very carefully before considering strike action. Maybe the government should think carefully about paying them properly, then maybe so many wouldnt be leaving. Same goes for social care. If that ends up with us paying more tax to fund it, then fair enough. Reality is that they know they probably wont strike, anymore than the police did a few years ago. A sense of duty will keep them at work until they just cant manage anymore, so they are over a barrel. I always think it is a shameful reflection on our society that we pay people more to make us a coffee than to look after us or our elderly relatives.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> The story generally told is exactly the opposite; that one reason why the NHS is highly cost effective is precisely because it does (or did) not have excess admin and a surplus of managers. It was regarded as a exemplary that it could function with so much self-management.
> This has changed in recent years as the intrusion of privatisation has made it less efficient and more costly.
> 
> Interesting how the general drift of threads like this is to find fault and complain. It's part of the process of undermining state-run institutions, as conducted by the right wing media, in pursuit of profit for "investors" i.e. taking these public assets from ourselves and giving ownership to financial gamblers and other sharks, out of our control.


FGS Jacob. I take it the mirror and the Guardian also report ambulances queueing at A&E departments? How do you come to the conclusion that the Mail or the Torygraph are undermining the NHS with such reporting, when your favourites are presumably not? I think you will find that there is a pretty broad consensus that the NHS is underfunded, and social care even more so.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> FGS Jacob. I take it the mirror and the Guardian also report ambulances queueing at A&E departments? How do you come to the conclusion that the Mail or the Torygraph are undermining the NHS with such reporting, when your favourites are presumably not? I think you will find that there is a pretty broad consensus that the NHS is underfunded, and social care even more so.


That's what I'm saying, It was not like this in earlier days and it's not bad management now causing the various bottlenecks; it's underfunding. Particularly the social care bottleneck it seems.
Conveniently, the right wing and their media see privatisation as the solution.


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

I have read through a substantial number of these posts, so will now expresss some views formed during my 63 years of life.
I did not grow up poor, but wore hand me down clothes, slept between sheets sewn from Mortons flour bags, no central heating, ice on the inside of the windows, zero forign holidays, porrige as a meal bytimes, zero carry out food, got to the seaside a couple of times a year, and overall learned the values of thrift.
Got a credit card at 17, and still run the same one, bought my own 2nd hand car post Uni, maintained it myself, only owned 6 cars over 44 years(and intend to take another 10 years out of the current one), started in a scale 3 council job(and finally rose to the dizzy heights of SO2) married a lassie who became a humble "underpaid" teacher.
So we were never anywhere near big earners.
We are now more than "well off" property wise, and "comfortable" income wise, but I prefer not to go into details.
Sounds like fantasy, no!
simply sensible spending, with No particular hardship ensuing.
I remain amazed at how much money is spent in/on pubs, bookies, hairdressers, ciggies/vaping, chip shops, disposable clothing and flash cars, latte coffees, short breaks, etc etc.
Simply staggering unaccountable sums, mostly "frittered" away.
But everyone bleats about "poverty".
Marcus


----------



## NickDReed (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Does annoy me to hear that the goverment are advising nurses to think very carefully before considering strike action. Maybe the government should think carefully about paying them properly, then maybe so many wouldnt be leaving. Same goes for social care. If that ends up with us paying more tax to fund it, then fair enough. Reality is that they know they probably wont strike, anymore than the police did a few years ago. A sense of duty will keep them at work until they just cant manage anymore, so they are over a barrel. I always think it is a shameful reflection on our society that we pay people more to make us a coffee than to look after us or our elderly relatives.


Genuine question, how much do you consider per annum is the proper pay for a nurse?


----------



## John Brown (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> I have read through a substantial number of these posts, so will now expresss some views formed during my 63 years of life.
> I did not grow up poor, but wore hand me down clothes, slept between sheets sewn from Mortons flour bags, no central heating, ice on the inside of the windows, zero forign holidays, porrige as a meal bytimes, zero carry out food, got to the seaside a couple of times a year, and overall learned the values of thrift.
> Got a credit card at 17, and still run the same one, bought my own 2nd hand car post Uni, maintained it myself, only owned 6 cars over 44 years(and intend to take another 10 years out of the current one), started in a scale 3 council job(and finally rose to the dizzy heights of SO2) married a lassie who became a humble "underpaid" teacher.
> So we were never anywhere near big earners.
> ...


I completely agree. Similar experience, except for the flour bags. It does flabbergast me the amount spent at Starbucks or on "brunch" out etc. And I'm pretty far to the left.

It is still a fact, though, that inequality is increasing, and I also agree with Jacob in that trickle-down is a myth.


----------



## PhilipL (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Your comment was to the effect that the rich deliberately limit the education of the poor to avoid competition with their own children. So I ask again, what evidence do you have to support that statement.


Private (subsidised) education.


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

Private education actually subsidises the public sector, since the parents of the private school educated child pay twice.
And no system is better "subsidised" than the abysmal state sector, who urinate money away constantly building new schools to replace 20-30 year old "failed" schools.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> I have read through a substantial number of these posts, so will now expresss some views formed during my 63 years of life.
> I did not grow up poor, but wore hand me down clothes, slept between sheets sewn from Mortons flour bags, no central heating, ice on the inside of the windows, zero forign holidays, porrige as a meal bytimes, zero carry out food, got to the seaside a couple of times a year, and overall learned the values of thrift.
> Got a credit card at 17, and still run the same one, bought my own 2nd hand car post Uni, maintained it myself, only owned 6 cars over 44 years(and intend to take another 10 years out of the current one), started in a scale 3 council job(and finally rose to the dizzy heights of SO2) married a lassie who became a humble "underpaid" teacher.
> So we were never anywhere near big earners.
> ...


Well done!


Marcusthehat said:


> I remain amazed at how much money is spent in/on pubs, bookies, hairdressers, ciggies/vaping, chip shops, disposable clothing and flash cars, latte coffees, short breaks, etc etc.
> Simply staggering unaccountable sums, mostly "frittered" away.
> But everyone bleats about "poverty".
> Marcus


I don't see the connection. Are you saying that only poor people buy these things?
Come to think, I'm not paricularly "well off" and looking at that list I personally haven't spent any money on any of those things this year except perhaps one or two visits to a chippy, a cafe, and a short break camping in Wales.
Is that OK? 
PS and been in a pub twice.
PPS Anyway the poor are entitled to try to enjoy life and not expected to go around in sack cloth and ashes in penance. Good luck to them!


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Private education actually subsidises the public sector, since the parents of the private school educated child pay twice.


In the hopes of gaining an unfair advantage over those who can't afford it. If they can afford private education and health care then obviously they could afford higher taxes and to rejoin the human race


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob,
You continue to pedal the politics of envy and hatred of the better off.
Re education in particular.
Regardless, my pertinent observations started at University, where I watched with bemusement as some spent their terms grant money in a couple of weeks and then went begging, most giving zero consideration to the idea they were responsible for their own misfortune.
I simply expect people to be able to do simple sums and live within their means, or educate themselves or get a better paying job. Not bang out multiple brats to big up their benefits.
Trickle down cannot work, since those on benefits mostly will not work.
And I am aware some proportion of benefits claimants are genuine, but living here in NI the levels of fraud are truely staggering.
Aspiration and education are the only answers, with some deferred gratification certainly helping.
Blaming "themmuns" for ones own failings is not an answer.
And I do not begrudge anyone "a beer" but lifetime observations allow me to reasonably ascertain how much is spent on booze, ciggies and gambling, by those who generally can least afford it. These habits are an insatiable maw that is beyond any economic system to provide for.
Marcus


----------



## planesleuth (8 Oct 2022)

Bring back the ship money tax Charlie..then we have a good reason to take the old boys club out again. Raise the Republican Armies!


----------



## NickDReed (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> In the hopes of gaining an unfair advantage over those who can't afford it. If they can afford private education and health care then obviously they could afford higher taxes and to rejoin the human race


Is the issue with those you consider to be wealthy not paying what you consider to be sufficient taxes? Or is the issue that they can afford to access alternative means, facilities and material possessions? 

Or is it both?


----------



## johna.clements (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Private education actually subsidises the public sector, since the parents of the private school educated child pay twice.
> And no system is better "subsidised" than the abysmal state sector, who urinate money away constantly building new schools to replace 20-30 year old "failed" schools.


Private schools get a £2.5 billion tax break a year.


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

But who pays the taxes? That "they" get a break from, surely such institutions are to be cherished and possibly emulated?
I would again wonder why the state sector finds it necessary to replace virtually new school buildings, while the denigrated private sector schools soldier on in ancient buildings.
The simple answer is mismanagement by the unsackable govt employed staff.
I worked for a LA and the wife taught, we both saw it from the inside. Yes there were decent hardworking staff, generally outnumbered by the lazy and dissaffected.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> But who pays the taxes? That "they" get a break from, surely such institutions are to be cherished and possibly emulated?


Not really. The majority are second rate and many pupils have to go into state schools for some subjects. Yes the better public schools should be emulated in terms of investment, which can be absolutely massive.


Marcusthehat said:


> I would again wonder why the state sector finds it necessary to replace virtually new school buildings, while the denigrated private sector schools soldier on in ancient buildings.


Underfunding the state. Overfunding the private. Not difficult to understand!


----------



## johna.clements (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> But who pays the taxes? That "they" get a break from, surely such institutions are to be cherished and possibly emulated?
> I would again wonder why the state sector finds it necessary to replace virtually new school buildings, while the denigrated private sector schools soldier on in ancient buildings.
> The simple answer is mismanagement by the unsackable govt employed staff.
> I worked for a LA and the wife taught, we both saw it from the inside. Yes there were decent hardworking staff, generally outnumbered by the lazy and dissaffected.


 Thanks for agreeing that they do not pay twice.

You may think it is a good idea to keep "temporary" buildings that cost a fortune to maintain and heat, most people do not.


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

But they do pay twice, first through their taxes for to educate their children, which they do not uptake of, then they pay privately to educate their children, I am not up to speed with the details of the supposed "tax breaks" the private sector schools recieve, but, with good reason, deeply distrust any figures bandied about by those on the left.
How about attempting to copy the good private schools instead of constantly denigrating them, while ignoring the appalling wastage and poor standards in the state run sector.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> But they do pay twice,


Their choice. Be better if they were taxed more instead and sent their kids to better invested state schools


Marcusthehat said:


> ...with good reason, deeply distrust any figures bandied about by those on the left.


You could check them yourself!


Marcusthehat said:


> How about attempting to copy the good private schools instead of constantly denigrating them, while ignoring the appalling wastage and poor standards in the state run sector.


I agree. They should spend as much on state schools as is spent on the private sector.
I don't think there is appalling wastage or low standards in the state sector at all, though they could do with more money of course.
My kids all went comprehensive; 1 BA, 2 MAs, 1 PhD and university lecturer.


----------



## johna.clements (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> But they do pay twice, first through their taxes for to educate their children, which they do not uptake of, then they pay privately to educate their children, I am not up to speed with the details of the supposed "tax breaks" the private sector schools recieve, but, with good reason, deeply distrust any figures bandied about by those on the left.
> How about attempting to copy the good private schools instead of constantly denigrating them, while ignoring the appalling wastage and poor standards in the state run sector.


 They do not pay twice.
If the tax breaks, which refund most of the cost of a state school place, where not real why are the private schools so concerned about there possible removal.


----------



## D_W (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Not really. The majority are second rate and many pupils have to go into state schools for some subjects. Yes the better public schools should be emulated in terms of investment, which can be absolutely massive.
> 
> Underfunding the state. Overfunding the private. Not difficult to understand!



The problem with schools is they use the money/funding grab as an excuse and avoid discussing what improves outcomes for students per unit of measure. 

Clearer rules, better organization and minimizing nonsense. But that kind of thing is the antithesis of the ultra liberal - measuring success by outcome...or actual success rather than whether or not you followed an ideal. 

And also dancing around what creates a household for a good student - the same thing, basic rules, a reasonable family. There is far too much excuse making for the effect of that - two parents at home, whether two men, a man and a woman or two women - two parents, and someone checking in and encouraging students. 

The idea that "society can take up that role and the family isn't important" is sheer stupidity. And its' a difficult thing for people to talk about because the kids of unsuitable households or just incomplete aren't at fault - so it's danced around. And who will pay for it in the future? Some percentage of the next generation of kids.


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

Thank you DW.


----------



## Jameshow (8 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> The problem with schools is they use the money/funding grab as an excuse and avoid discussing what improves outcomes for students per unit of measure.
> 
> Clearer rules, better organization and minimizing nonsense. But that kind of thing is the antithesis of the ultra liberal - measuring success by outcome...or actual success rather than whether or not you followed an ideal.
> 
> ...


Obvs not been in a UK school where performance is drilled down to pupil and examined! 

Of course funding isn't performance related otherwise the best schools get even more and the worst get less.


----------



## D_W (8 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Obvs not been in a UK school where performance is drilled down to pupil and examined!
> 
> Of course funding isn't performance related otherwise the best schools get even more and the worst get less.



Everything is also measured here with standardized tests. But examining what actually causes improvement is highly censored. 

Both of my parents were teachers. The teachers unions don't like testing - they want to measure their performance based on how they wish things would work and like to criticize anything that actually compares students as not properly measuring "their gift", which is described as not covered by any tests. 

Unfortunately, improvement in cognitive ability is the single biggest factor predicting how well someone will do in life. It isn't the only factor, just the biggest one. And ignoring things that could substantially impact that performance and substituting ideals sounds good on TV and maybe in writing books, but we are generally all measured at work in a whole magnitude of ways. 

But, no, it's not a lack of testing and seeing the metrics here, it's a lack of being willing to address what provides good results if it buts up against ideals. 

Now, does this mean my parents were on board? At least one of them wasn't - one of them wanted to see the factors that cause kids to perform well at school addressed with parents. But that was way out of bounds by the end of their careers.


----------



## Spectric (8 Oct 2022)

You cannot blame the education system for everything, they cannot perform miracles like so many others. A housebrick will always be a housebrick no mater where you send it to be educated. The system today is aimed too much at academic's and skill should not just be measured in exams and academic ability because we are all different, we need to stop the degree is a must production line and accept that some people will be better suited to hands on skills and bring back technical and skills colleges. You really do not need a degree to become a master craftsman, but having a degree will not make you a master craftsman.


----------



## D_W (8 Oct 2022)

This kind of reminds me of an interview with a homeless person that I saw the other day. 

I thought he was kind of complaining about not having things handed to him (like "just give me free space in an unoccupied office building, a car, free food and I won't be homeless"). He was saying that, but then he said "what does NYC spend on homelessness every year - a billion dollars? they don't care about the homeless people - you have empty office space that would house all of the homeless several times over, spend the money on that. Instead, what you get is money given to a foundation, the foundation pays employees, has "program expenses", rents office space, buys a whole bunch of brand new vans, and at the end of all of it, they drive around handing out a few cheese sandwiches. 

The only thing the homeless get out of all of it is the cheese sandwiches, but the rest of it is a business - it's a public dollar funded business that does almost nothing to change outcomes because little of the money actually reaches homeless people, but there's so much money that it's easy to apply and follow the rules and set up a not for profit business that helps the homeless. 

The public schools where I live are good. I haven't got any real complaints, but I live in an area where the schools are maybe in the top 20% of the US. They're not overly top tier like the top 1% or anything, but they meet my standards and their teachers are pragmatic for the most part. Some of that is because of the nature of the area (kind of middle class, very slightly conservative combination moderate working class and white collar). 

Where I grew up in a rural area, the schools weren't as good, the teachers far more detached from the community (very liberal vs. a community who just wanted "stick to the facts and make the kids smarter" kind of stuff), and the school had every excuse for why student performance on the average wasn't very good. It wasn't good because the teachers weren't very good and the teachers weren't very good not for lack of talent, but because they fought tooth and nail to try to keep from doing anything from measuring the students and improving measurements because "that got in the way of the gift". 

My mother was a good teacher, but she was a good teacher because she did the basics in a workmanlike way and always showed up. She had her mind kind of tainted by this idea that as someone with average SAT scores, the gift made her superior to most other people in town. This whole gift idea is just something pounded into the teachers by the union. Luckily for her students, she showed up and did what she was to do because she was raised on a farm where you at least do your job, period, and then everything else comes after that. The gift was sort of a mental sideshow, a pat on the back. It just resulted in nonsense at home "you know who is ruining the world? It's businesses and rich doctors!!". 

I sense someone on here also thinks they have the gift....but the gift doesn't give anything else to anyone. Only action and improving outcomes does, and that means you have to measure them and be willing to improve them, not dismiss them in favor of ideals if they don't work out.


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

Boils down to "ya caint fix stupid".
Nor sack them, not dare to mention the results of their unfixed stupidity.
Btw. Some politicians are also stupid, or certainly appear to be as they continually make the "right" soundbite excuses for their equally cognitively challenged constitutants.


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

P.S.
As an entirely non religious person, but "reared" Presbyterian, I bytimes mull some of the wisdom in the King James bible.
Like, "the poor will always be with us"
How very, very presceint!
Marcus


----------



## D_W (8 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> You cannot blame the education system for everything, they cannot perform miracles like so many others. A housebrick will always be a housebrick no mater where you send it to be educated. The system today is aimed too much at academic's and skill should not just be measured in exams and academic ability because we are all different, we need to stop the degree is a must production line and accept that some people will be better suited to hands on skills and bring back technical and skills colleges. You really do not need a degree to become a master craftsman, but having a degree will not make you a master craftsman.



This is part of measuring outcomes. postsecondary education is a huge industry and someone who is organized, conscientious and maybe not super bright would make a super trade worker - they will show up and do the job, and perhaps a very successful business person. 

But if they are funneled to a fourth tier college (the lowest type in the US) and funneled into a business management degree, where do they go?

Part of the refusal to recognize outcomes here is the inability to reconcile with the fact that 95% of the time, the metrics will be a good predictor and kids and their parents should be informed of where their children may make their biggest mark for themselves or the world. 

I'm not the smartest guy in the world - I understand outcomes and working to improve them rather than avoiding them. But I could not cut it as a surgeon or physicist, etc, and it doesn't bother me. A step down from me may have been "I couldn't cut it without struggling to get through college", and I would've accepted that, and so would have my parents. 

A friend of mine has a brilliant mother. He is average intelligence by all measures, and not the greatest motor in the world if you know what I mean. His mother has basically disowned him because he is the chief pilot for the state government and she wanted him to be something she could boast to her friends about. He is happy being a chief pilot despite being pushed in the wrong direction all of his life and being told how lazy and dumb he is. Lucky for him (this isn't normally the case), his parents divorced, so on the weekend, he had two days of his dad telling him he's proud of him for being average, doing what he can do and being a genuinely good person. 

Since he was average intelligence, the schools disagreed with his choice to go to a trade school to learn to be a commercial pilot - they wanted him to go to a third tier school and try to "make something of himself". 

Chief pilot is a job that will give him a full pension that's guaranteed by the state constitution code, it pays him like a late tenure teacher in the rust belt (this is nothing to sniff at, figure $45 -$50 an hour equivalent salary) and it keeps him out of struggling in some job where other people are better cut out for it.


----------



## Spectric (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Some politicians are also stupid


You don't need to be intelligent or too clever to be a politician, you just need to be able to keep a straight face whilst not telling the truth or answering an honest question, try and say what your constituents want to hear and be self motivated, ie believe you know better than any expert and put your needs first.


----------



## D_W (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Boils down to "ya caint fix stupid".
> Nor sack them, not dare to mention the results of their unfixed stupidity.
> Btw. Some politicians are also stupid, or certainly appear to be as they continually make the "right" soundbite excuses for their equally cognitively challenged constitutants.



beyond that, "you may be below average intelligence, but that doesn't mean there aren't things you can't do well, so how can you find those without letting yourself off the hook and avoiding reality". 

mother's brother wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he learned to repair TVs and eventually sold appliances and added furniture later and lived a pretty good life and I'm pretty sure he was proud of what he accomplished. My mother thinks he was functionally illiterate because she had never seen him write after school - his wife did that side of the business. He got up every day and made sure the business was tended to and customers were tended to. Guess what people don't care about when they buy appliances and furniture - whether or not the salesperson can do a derivative, translate french and debate Dostoyevsky interpretations. School would be a rough place for him now.


----------



## D_W (8 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> You don't need to be intelligent or too clever to be a politician, you just need to be able to keep a straight face whilst not telling the truth or answering a honest question, try and say what your constituents want to hear and be self motivated, ie believe you know better than any expert and put your needs first.



Bingo - you need to pretend to stick to ideals in public and never break character. It doesn't hurt to be intelligent, but intelligent and brutally honest or principled won't work so well.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

NickDReed said:


> Genuine question, how much do you consider per annum is the proper pay for a nurse?


Based on the fact that a newly qualified nurse gets £27k, only rising to the low 30s after five years, and the Matrons and other highly qualified nurses are still well below 50k. I would say that an immediate 10% increase would be reasonable. Not sure what the arrangements are currently pre qualification. This might help keep those we have, and attract more to the profession. Of course, given the training time, this will not alleviate the problems in the short term. To do that it seems to me we have to try and get many of those who have recently left to return, better pay might help, and to recruit overseas, the commonwealth countries being an obvious starting point. Anecdotally I am told that many nurses from the EU left as a result of Brexit, largely because the government didn't do enough to reassure them that their future would be secure here, and encourage them to remain. This is also something that could be worked on in the hope of getting at least some to return. The situation in the care sector is even worse, a friend of my wife has two daughters, both of whom are carers. The hours they put in are brutal, but they have little choice as the pay is so poor that without overtime they would not be able to make ends meet. I know that both are contemplating leaving because, although they love the work, they are just burning out and see no prospect of any improvement.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> In the hopes of gaining an unfair advantage over those who can't afford it. If they can afford private education and health care then obviously they could afford higher taxes and to rejoin the human race


So Jacob, the rich are not part of the human race?? What about one of my friends. He borrowed £50 from his dad to buy a rusty Escort van to start his business in his late teens. As far as I am aware he has no formal school qualifications to his name. He is now a multi millionaire with a Ferrari and an Aston Martin in the garage. His businesses employ several hundred people, and he runs an apprenticeship scheme to ensure the right skills are available for the business to continue to thrive. At what point did he become the sort of parasite you seem to consider the rich to invariably be. The simple fact is that yours are the politics of envy, nothing more. I would certainly like his lifestyle, but I am realistic enough to know that I am not talented, or brave enough to do what he has done, or take the risks he has in the course of getting to where he is today. And yes he sends his kids to private school, because he would like them to have a better education than he did, and why the heck shouldn't he. The taxes he pays personally, and through his businesses contribute massively more to the economy than he will ever take out.


----------



## D_W (8 Oct 2022)

The median salary in the US for a registered nurse is $75k at this point. There are a lot of opportunities to work OT here or to work as a traveling nurse for more. 

What does nurse mean in the UK - we've got at least three levels "CNA" (nurse assistant), "LPN" (licensed practical nurse) and "RN" (registered nurse). 

That figure is for RN. There is also CRNP (nurse practitioner, someone who works like a physician's assistant) that has median earnings in the low 100s.


----------



## Dibs-h (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> I have read through a substantial number of these posts, so will now expresss some views formed during my 63 years of life.
> I did not grow up poor, but wore hand me down clothes, slept between sheets sewn from Mortons flour bags, no central heating, ice on the inside of the windows, zero forign holidays, porrige as a meal bytimes, zero carry out food, got to the seaside a couple of times a year, and overall learned the values of thrift.
> Got a credit card at 17, and still run the same one, bought my own 2nd hand car post Uni, maintained it myself, only owned 6 cars over 44 years(and intend to take another 10 years out of the current one), started in a scale 3 council job(and finally rose to the dizzy heights of SO2) married a lassie who became a humble "underpaid" teacher.
> So we were never anywhere near big earners.
> ...


Reading your post brought back some memories for me, many not really pleasant tho.

My upbringing could be more described as a "Cinderella" one (literally in many respects) - except no Prince - and with all the issues and brutality that came with it.

The enduring lesson from that and other things was to learn skills that whilst they may not directly translate to employment (although they could if push came to shove) - they would save large sums of money over a lifetime & mostly as you need those things done in life.

I've only ever paid for my car\s over the years to be MOT'd and tyres to be fitted. I do all the work on our cars - from oil changes all the way up to timing chains\belts.

Even the house - re-roofed it completely. I've learnt to plaster, tile, etc.

Don't take the above as bragging - in almost all cases, I knew nothing about these sorts of things, but read up, asked questions and cracked on.

What started out as doing things out of necessity and being broke - I now enjoy. Although when working on a car on the drive, all the folk walking their dogs down to the woods (of all ages) look at me like I'm an alien. LOL i.e. it's not a thing seen very often.

Poverty can be climbed out of (not always admittedly), but when preparation meets opportunity - at least you've got a chance of success. Sadly in some cases today, there just is no preparation (or the willingness for it) and without that there is no chance of success.

I do like my lattes tho.  But we have a bean to cup machine at home.


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

Well iffen we are going to pay nurses better, how about addressing the issues with underperforming nursing and medical staff, plus those lying off on the sick, this at all levels, they are as bad as the Police in covering up neglect and malpractise.
This from first hand observations by myself and my wife, while my wife had 4 replacement joint operations and I was in with pancreatitis.
Generally gaggles of nurses all "gassing" away, round the nurses station, but "too busy" to attend to patient needs.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Well iffen we are going to pay nurses better, how about addressing the issues with underperforming nursing and medical staff, plus those lying off on the sick, this at all levels, they are as bad as the Police in covering up neglect and malpractise.
> This from first hand observations by myself and my wife, while my wife had 4 replacement joint operations and I was in with pancreatitis.
> Generally gaggles of nurses all "gassing" away, round the nurses station, but "too busy" to attend to patient needs.


You do seem to have a big chip on your shoulder!


----------



## naughtymoose (8 Oct 2022)

Trussonomics has one aim.

Defund the State, so that Big Money can then run it.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> .....At what point did he become the sort of parasite you seem to consider the rich to invariably be.


I didn't say that at all. What I do say is that if they have the money they should pay the taxes.


Fergie 307 said:


> The simple fact is that yours are the politics of envy, nothing more.


Dear oh dear, another right-wing media cliche! Are you going to accuse me of being "woke" too?  Are yours the politics of cliches? Thick Lizzy's certainly are!


Fergie 307 said:


> ....The taxes he pays personally, and through his businesses contribute massively more to the economy than he will ever take out.


Glad to hear it!


----------



## Spectric (8 Oct 2022)

I would say her lights are on but there is no one at home. I think she models herself on this character, just a shame she is missing the zip and wearing a russian hat is not doing her any favours but perhaps she is starting to feel left out in the cold in parliament .


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Well iffen we are going to pay nurses better, how about addressing the issues with underperforming nursing and medical staff, plus those lying off on the sick, this at all levels, they are as bad as the Police in covering up neglect and malpractise.
> This from first hand observations by myself and my wife, while my wife had 4 replacement joint operations and I was in with pancreatitis.
> Generally gaggles of nurses all "gassing" away, round the nurses station, but "too busy" to attend to patient needs.


of course there will be malpractice, laziness and so forth in any profession, can you thereby infer that it is the norm? I have found some of the recent scandals around maternity care, blood products and so on truly sickening. But I firmly believe that they are the exception. Unfortunately far too many in the Police, the Army and the Medical profession, to make just a few, have a vested interest in covering these things up. Never seems to occur to them that, however painful it may be in terms of reputational damage etc at the time, it is better to address them head on and be seen to take appropriate action. If you cover up then the likelihood of doing so successfully is pretty remote. When the truth emerges you then have not only the damage from the original scandal, but also the additional damage from being seen to have covered it up.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> You cannot blame the education system for everything,


You can blame it for the incompetent and dim-witted old Etonians wielding power over us!


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> I would say her lights are on but there is no one at home. I think she models herself on this character, just a shame she is missing the zip and wearing a russian hat is not doing her any favours but perhaps she is starting to feel left out in the cold in parliament .
> 
> 
> View attachment 145044


You can certainly see why many conservatives would have preferred to have kept Boris. Not a sentiment I share but my goodness have they scored an own goal with her!
High time the other lot had a go, they can't be any worse, can they


----------



## Spectric (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> High time the other lot had a go, they can't be any worse, can they



We do have a massive skills shortage in the Uk and this can clearly be seen in politics, it gets worse in the house of lords where they don't even need to be elected to sit there. What we want is something like the lottery machine where you put all of the politicians from all parties in and then let it chuck out at random the number required to form a government so you end up with a more balanced mob where you get a lot more variation in backgrounds and experience without any of them trying to toe the party line at all cost. The current system is not broken because that could be fixed, it is totally shattered and needs a serious overhaul. One solution would be mandatory voting and a proportional representation system.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> .... He is now a multi millionaire with a Ferrari and an Aston Martin in the garage. ....


You see these as signs of success? I see them as signs of having too much money and reduced to spending it on big toys. An eminent case for severe increase of taxation! The money could be far better spent elsewhere.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> I didn't say that at all. What I do say is that if they have the money they should pay the taxes.
> 
> Dear oh dear, another right-wing media cliche! Are you going to accuse me of being "woke" too?  Are yours the politics of cliches? Thick Lizzy's certainly are!
> 
> Glad to hear it!


I agree entirely that the rich should pay their taxes like everyone else, which is why we need a radical shakeup of our tax system. The fact that the Jimmy Carrs of the world can come up with convoluted, but perfectly legal, ways of essentially paying no tax at all is a disgrace. If you could bang a few of them up for a few years, together with their advisors, so much the better. Same applied to corporations engaged in similar schemes. Where I suspect we will disagree is that I don't see any reason why someone successful should pay a significantly greater proportion of their income in tax, which is what I believe you are advocating. A modest increase above a certain level, fair enough, as we have now. But we need to give much more emphasis on actually collecting what is due. To do that we need to make things simpler, and invest more in enforcement. Maybe a mandatory fine of ten times the amount evaded, and a lengthy spell at his majesty's pleasure, I dare say we can agree on that if nothing else


----------



## D_W (8 Oct 2022)

what we get for politicans, both there and here, are a big byproduct of the fact that education has lost a lot of its pragmatism and focus on outcomes. 

Which is a tool that both the poor and not so cognitively inclined folks could be taught - it doesn't take cognitive wizardry. Chart where you are, what you're going to do, what the outcome is and change what you expect to be what creates good outcomes. 

it literally could be done in 5 minutes per day - we often don't remember the outcomes of things or link them well - it's a human loophole of some sort. 

But writing them and linking things together ...

....well, that's helpful in real life, and it sure would be helpful in getting a realistic assessment of outcomes from politics....along with removing some of the nonsense in explaining away failures as caused by someone else. One group gets poorer, the other gets richer (an individual blaming others for failures becomes poor - the politician becomes rich. But that hides that the politician isn't viewing the outcome of their policies or accomplishments as the outcome - they're viewing whether or not they can get people to believe something from them is better just because it comes from them).


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> ....I don't see any reason why someone successful should pay a significantly greater proportion of their income in tax, which is what I believe you are advocating.


It's because they have more money than they need.
These things are quite simple really.



Fergie 307 said:


> .. But we need to give much more emphasis on actually collecting what is due. To do that we need to make things simpler, and invest more in enforcement. Maybe a mandatory fine of ten times the amount evaded, and a lengthy spell at his majesty's pleasure, I dare say we can agree on that if nothing else


Yes I agree. And higher taxes. Also a tax on land itself would be good - you can't stash it away in an overseas bank account.


----------



## D_W (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> You can blame it for the incompetent and dim-witted old Etonians wielding power over us!



I would imagine butt-on-couch fantasizing about ideals has a lot more to do with who is "having power wielded over them".


----------



## Spectric (8 Oct 2022)

Everything is out of proportional and we know the system is broken when a skilled surgeon earns way less than some herbert whose only mission in life is to kick a ball into a net, providing the weather is ok.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> You see these as signs of success? I see them as signs of having too much money and reduced to spending it on big toys. An eminent case for severe increase of taxation! The money could be far better spent elsewhere.


And please tell me how, in relative terms, this is any different to you or I buying a nice lathe for example. Probably similar outlay in terms of a percentage of our financial worth, and in both cases something for our enjoyment rather than a necessity. Why should you or I be able to spend our disposable income for our own enjoyment and he cant? I can remember we'll when I bought my first half decent SLR camera. I didn't need it, I wasn't going to earn my living using it, I just enjoyed photography. That was 50 years ago, and I think it cost 20 odd quid. Now I am wealthier so I can afford bigger and better toys, my wife and I have just spent a five figure sum on a caravan for example. So why should the state be able to determine what I spend my money on, or be able to decide whether the things I enjoy are frivolous and so should be denied me?


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Everything is out of proportional and we know the system is broken when a skilled surgeon earns way less than some herbert whose only mission in life is to kick a ball into a net, providing the weather is ok.


Bad I agree, although there is at least some skill involved. Far worse in my view are those who are able to make a fortune by just televising or streaming every aspect of their, in many cases fairly meaningless, existence. The Kardashians spring to mind.


----------



## D_W (8 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Everything is out of proportional and we know the system is broken when a skilled surgeon earns way less than some herbert whose only mission in life is to kick a ball into a net, providing the weather is ok.



I'm not sure that's a good gauge of out of whack, it's just evidence of what people will pay for.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> And please tell me how, in relative terms, this is any different to you or I buying a nice lathe for example.


In relative terms extremely far apart. Compare the price of a lathe to a Ferrari. My lathe cost £100.

Oddly enough we just saw a line of Aston Martins passing as we came back from the shops. Must be a club meet or something. Instantly reminded me of rich kids in pedal cars somehow.


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob,
No chips, rather a small farm upbringing where there were no excuses or free lunches, like working in the bottom of a sheaugh, installing drain pipes, while the Rds Service van sat the other side of a hedge, with the blokes sitting in,"because it was too wet to work" and seeing this "ethos" replicated down through the years across all Government or Council organizations I encountered(the Rivers Agency were the absolute worst btw). In hindsight I should have realized I could not make any changes for the better much sooner than I did. Being matey and able to discuss the football, or being a member of the right lodge, was much more important than being a productive employee(I was a supervisor btw)
There was ALWAYS a gaggle of Council staff "discussing" how to proceed, instead of getting on with work. Like 4 of them, including a mechanic, and the tractor driver failing to dismount a Quickie tractor loader, that I then took off in minutes myself, and safely.
I had never encountered a Quickie loader before, but grasped the basic principles, cos they were simply so blinking obvious. Like fold down legs and hydraulics with extra long hoses
There were multiple other equally frustrating examples of wanton stupidity and non productivity.
Marcus.
P.S.
I can make mistakes and break stuff too, I am not claiming to be all seeing perfect, but the level of undisclipined neglect, misuse and damage in the Council was appalling, to me at least. But they just kept fixing the broken stuff or buying new stuff.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Jacob,
> No chips, rather a small farm upbringing where there were no excuses or free lunches, like working in the bottom of a sheaugh, installing drain pipes, while the Rds Service van sat the other side of a hedge, with the blokes sitting in,"because it was too wet to work" and seeing this "ethos" replicated down through the years across all Government or Council organizations I encountered(the Rivers Agency were the absolute worst btw). In hindsight I should have realized I could not make any changes for the better much sooner than I did. Being matey and able to discuss the football, or being a member of the right lodge, was much more important than being a productive employee(I was a supervisor btw)
> There was ALWAYS a gaggle of Council staff "discussing" how to proceed, instead of getting on with work. Like 4 of them, including a mechanic, and the tractor driver failing to dismount a Quickie tractor loader, that I then took off in minutes myself, and safely.
> I had never encountered a Quickie loader before, but grasped the basic principles, cos they were simply so blinking obvious. Like fold down legs and hydraulics with extra long hoses
> ...


I've done a fair bit of labouring too. Pick, shovel, barrow. Amongst other things, digging out deep foundation pits for a steel works. JCBs were not that common then (about 1963). Very hard work but you soon got to see why labourers are often seen standing about - firstly because it would be impossible to work that hard continuously and secondly there's always something else going on, such as waiting for the foreman or a surveyor to have a look.
I've also worked on farms - they had their first muck spreader but nothing to load it with except me! Several hours of slippery hard labour. drive it out and empty it in about 10 minutes, back for the next load. Very non productive though I was working very hard all the time except when actually driving the tractor. They previously had been spreading by horse and cart, for the last time ever, with little heaps spaced about, left over winter. My other job was to go out with a muck fork and spread these heaps. Shovel full in the air and swipe it like a tennis racket.
So I utterly sympathise with labourers leaning on shovels. Good luck to them.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

I think the problem with Jacob's argument regarding taxation is quite simple. If you tax people at a level they find unacceptable, then they won't willingly pay their dues. They will either find ways of avoiding it, fixable through better laws and enforcement, or simply leave for somewhere with a level of taxation they find more agreeable. In the latter case you not only lose the higher rate contribution, but all their tax revenue. If they are the entrepreneurial type them their capacity to generate wealth will be undiminished, but the value that creates will be fuelling someone else's economy rather than our own. Add the fact that whatever business they created may not do as well, or even fail entirely without their direction and you lose even more revenue. The facts are fairly simple in that even now, with our very poor tax system and enforcement, a relatively small proportion of the wealthiest in our society generate a disproportionately large slice of our tax income. Fix the loopholes so that those avoiding paying their dues can no longer do so, and that will go up even further both in overall and percentage terms. Some may consider even 45% to be unacceptable if they had to pay it, and might leave, I suspect the majority would grin and bear it.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> I've done a fair bit of labouring too. Pick, shovel, barrow. Amongst other things, digging out deep foundation pits for a steel works. JCBs were not that common then (about 1963). Very hard work but you soon got to see why labourers are often seen standing about - firstly because it would be impossible to work that hard continuously and secondly there's always something else going on, such as waiting for the foreman or a surveyor to have a look.
> I've also worked on farms - they had their first muck spreader but nothing to load it with except me! Several hours of slippery hard labour. drive it out and empty it in about 10 minutes, back for the next load. Very non productive though I was working very hard all the time except when actually driving the tractor. They previously had been spreading by horse and cart, for the last time ever, with little heaps spaced about, left over winter. My other job was to go out with a muck fork and spread these heaps. Shovel full in the air and swipe it like a tennis racket.
> So I utterly sympathise with labourers leaning on shovels. Good luck to them.


Been there, done that. You're right damn hard work. First encounter with a muck spreader was quite an eye opener. Only lasted as long as it took one of my so called mates to think it very funny to turn the thing on full tilt whilst I was in the firing line!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (8 Oct 2022)

It's entirely clear that our political leadership and driving philosophies should come principally from the ill-educated working class. Evidence of intellect or talent is not a requirement, only a fixed belief that inequality, personal wealth, inherited wealth and choice are to be eliminated.

That little or no evidence exists that any society has flourished in the long term under such beliefs misses the point. They are morally justified and thus dogma trumps reality.

I can't imagine what would drive a parent to seek the best education for their children. Funding for class sizes of no more than 15, budgets for participation in sport and the arts, extra coaching for those who have difficulty with some subjects is unacceptable unless universal.

Similarly, health care provided by the best trained professional physicians and nursing staff should be available to all unconstrained by waiting lists and a lack of resources. There would then be no need for private healthcare.

Along similar lines, and in the interests of equity, Caribbean holidays, fillet steak, Bentleys, en-suite bathrooms and other trivia associated with the unfairly moneyed should be made illegal until all can enjoy.

Is this a desirable realistic prospect or an unattractive, unrealistic, unattainable, aspiration. 

A purely personal view - irrespective of the moral arguments, of which I am anyway doubtful, it is an unworkable fantasy. It has been proven to work nowhere. It runs counter to behaviours which tend to drive progress (good and bad). 

I am firmly on the side of personal responsibility and freedom of choice, providing the basic needs of those less fortunate are provided for. I would happily pay for private education, faster healthcare, nicer holidays for myself and family if I had the wherewithal so to do and defend the right of those who "have" to spend it as they wish.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Jacob,
> No chips, rather a small farm upbringing where there were no excuses or free lunches, like working in the bottom of a sheaugh, installing drain pipes, while the Rds Service van sat the other side of a hedge, with the blokes sitting in,"because it was too wet to work" and seeing this "ethos" replicated down through the years across all Government or Council organizations I encountered(the Rivers Agency were the absolute worst btw). In hindsight I should have realized I could not make any changes for the better much sooner than I did. Being matey and able to discuss the football, or being a member of the right lodge, was much more important than being a productive employee(I was a supervisor btw)
> There was ALWAYS a gaggle of Council staff "discussing" how to proceed, instead of getting on with work. Like 4 of them, including a mechanic, and the tractor driver failing to dismount a Quickie tractor loader, that I then took off in minutes myself, and safely.
> I had never encountered a Quickie loader before, but grasped the basic principles, cos they were simply so blinking obvious. Like fold down legs and hydraulics with extra long hoses
> ...


Have a great cartoon somewhere, can't find it now. One guy in the hole actually digging, surrounded by several more with clipboards and their job titles on their tabards, health and safety advisor, risk assessment officer etc etc. Very funny but also probably not a million miles from the truth.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> It's entirely clear that our political leadership and driving philosophies should come principally from the ill-educated working class. Evidence of intellect or talent is not a requirement, only a fixed belief that inequality, personal wealth, inherited wealth and choice are to be eliminated.
> 
> That little or no evidence exists that any society has flourished in the long term under such beliefs misses the point. They are morally justified and thus dogma trumps reality.
> 
> ...


Indeed, you also seem to inevitably get to the Orwellian situation where some are conspicuously more equal than others, like the fat boy with the silly haircut playing rocket man whilst his subjects mostly live in abject poverty.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I think the problem with Jacob's argument regarding taxation is quite simple. If you tax people at a level they find unacceptable, then they won't willingly pay their dues.


They end up in court and/or pay their dues "unwillingly". 


Fergie 307 said:


> They will either find ways of avoiding it, fixable through better laws and enforcement, or simply leave for somewhere with a level of taxation they find more agreeable.


Goodbye and good riddance.
In fact people don't leave quite so readily as we all know. They've got plenty of cash left and regard taxes as a price worth paying.






History of taxation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> It's entirely clear that our political leadership and driving philosophies should come principally from the ill-educated working class. Evidence of intellect or talent is not a requirement, only a fixed belief that inequality, personal wealth, inherited wealth and choice are to be eliminated.
> 
> That little or no evidence exists that any society has flourished in the long term under such beliefs misses the point. They are morally justified and thus dogma trumps reality.....................etc


This is what is known as a "straw-man" argument. Straw man - Wikipedia Hope that helps.


----------



## selectortone (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> You see these as signs of success? I see them as signs of having too much money and reduced to spending it on big toys. An eminent case for severe increase of taxation! The money could be far better spent elsewhere.


How mean spirited is that? I have a similar friend who started with nothing and worked really hard his whole life to be in a position where he can afford a few nice toys. I don't begrudge him any of it. He's also the most generous guy you could ever hope to meet.


----------



## Jameshow (8 Oct 2022)

Removed


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

selectortone said:


> How mean spirited is that? I have a similar friend who started with nothing and worked really hard his whole life to be in a position where he can afford a few nice toys. I don't begrudge him any of it. He's also the most generous guy you could ever hope to meet.


More to the point - they seem to begrudge paying taxes.


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

Perhaps most of us would less begrudge paying taxes, if they were somewhat/a whole lot more carefully allocated and spent!


----------



## selectortone (8 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> More to the point - they seem to begrudge paying taxes.


Now you're just being deliberately obnoxious. How do you know how much tax my mate pays? How do you know what he does to help those less advantaged than he is? (Quite a lot, as it happens.)

The world according to Saint Jacob. A really miserable place.


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

selectortone said:


> Now you're just being deliberately obnoxiou., How do you know how much tax my mate pays? How do you know what he does to help those less advantaged than he is? (Quite a lot, as it happens.)


OK. But some of them seem to begrudge paying taxes and you can't run the NHS on charitable contributions.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Perhaps most of us would less begrudge paying taxes, if they were somewhat/a whole lot more carefully allocated and spent!


A very good point


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> A very good point





Marcusthehat said:


> Perhaps most of us would less begrudge paying taxes, if they were somewhat/a whole lot more carefully allocated and spent!


Would not the same apply to paying for privatised services?
Seems a point hardly worth making.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

selectortone said:


> Now you're just being deliberately obnoxiou., How do you know how much tax my mate pays? How do you know what he does to help those less advantaged than he is? (Quite a lot, as it happens.)
> 
> The world according to Saint Jacob. A really miserable place.


Indeed, Jacobsville not near the top of my list of holiday destinations, mind you if I had the spare cash to go there maybe it would be ragarded as frivolous by the thought police, and wouldnt be permitted


----------



## Jacob (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Indeed, Jacobsville not near the top of my list of holiday destinations, mind you if I had the spare cash to go there maybe it would be ragarded as frivolous by the thought police, and wouldnt be permitted


Where do your thought police fit into the argument? Is this another straw man?


----------



## rogxwhit (8 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Perhaps most of us would less begrudge paying taxes, if they were somewhat/a whole lot more carefully allocated and spent!


And there's a problem that might be inherent in that. When you have a state the size of the UK, it takes an apparatus of many actors to administer it. So a neat efficiency is probably a wild dream.


----------



## Marcusthehat (8 Oct 2022)

rogxwhit said:


> And there's a problem that might be inherent in that. When you have a state the size of the UK, it takes an apparatus of many actors to administer it. So a neat efficiency is probably a wild dream.


But even very small local govt or Councils(and I believe NI used to have 26 different Councils) were wildly inefficient/spent money very foolishly( and mostly to buy votes), and it only got worse as they got bigger.


----------



## rogxwhit (8 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> If you tax people at a level they find unacceptable, then they won't willingly pay their dues. They will either find ways of avoiding it, fixable through better laws and enforcement, or simply leave for somewhere with a level of taxation they find more agreeable.


If you're the government and you tax people more highly than they like, they will probably vote you out at the next round. This may be one of the weaknesses of democracy? But it was interesting to note Adam's figures for Denmark. 

Perhaps the hurdle is public acceptance. How might you achieve a condition where the popular vote can accomodate a reduction in personal wealth possession for a greater public good?

There are many cogent points scattered throughout lots of the above posts, but it seems to me that all the issues being considered are being set in the present and the very near future. 

Taking a (slightly) longer view, it seems likely that global warming / climate change are going to lead to the wholesale disruption of residence, means of production (and attendant economic models) along with habitat change and forced migrations. I imagine that things are going to get a lot more stressed than they are now. And it seems that we are piddling into the wind whilst standing on a cliff edge. 

As all that develops, and it could swing at frightening speed, changes will be forced upon us that we were far too blind to pre-empt. 

It's possible that warming will lead to major disruptions of atmospheric and oceanic currents, never mind sea levels. Which will all affect where we can live and how we produce food (which normally needs a degree of pre-planning). Will even nations remain a sensible concept then? It's a contiguous planet, after all. 

I was never much of a fan of sci-fi novels, but I've started to think how prescient some of them were. Perhaps a new reality of sink or swim is just around the corner for everyone?

Meanwhile, we plough on as we might.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

Looking at recent events can't help thinking government is in serious need of a Sergeant Wilson figure, " Do you think that's wise Mr Johnson, Ms Truss? ", certainly wouldn't be short of work


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Oct 2022)

rogxwhit said:


> If you're the government and you tax people more highly than they like, they will probably vote you out at the next round. This may be one of the weaknesses of democracy? But it was interesting to note Adam's figures for Denmark.
> 
> Perhaps the hurdle is public acceptance. How might you achieve a condition where the popular vote can accomodate a reduction in personal wealth possession for a greater public good?
> 
> ...


I think your initial point is very true. I am reminded of an appearance by Will Self on question time. He told the audience, "You get the politicians you deserve, you moan if they lie to you, but if they tell you the truth you won't vote for them". Pretty accurate I suspect.


----------



## johna.clements (8 Oct 2022)

rogxwhit said:


> If you're the government and you tax people more highly than they like, they will probably vote you out at the next round. This may be one of the weaknesses of democracy? But it was interesting to note Adam's figures for Denmark.
> 
> Perhaps the hurdle is public acceptance. How might you achieve a condition where the popular vote can accomodate a reduction in personal wealth possession for a greater public good?



In countries like Denmark it is likely that people accept that government generally does a good job. There are many posts above by people who think government is nearly always wrong. If a significant proportion of the population is against the government then the talent pool that government can draw on is reduced. If people are using there time to try to dismantle government then the government has to waste its efforts defending itself rather than being productive. 

In countries like Denmark with a higher government spend on the "community" most people are richer and have more social mobility than countries like the USA.


----------



## Spectric (8 Oct 2022)

Taxation is an essential part of modern society, it is what finances the country but it has to be fair and then spent wisely otherwise people will get upset. Why should someone earning 15K a year pay all the tax owed yet someone on say 200K a year can afford to pay someone to use tax avoidance schemes to not pay what should have been paid, these schemes need closing down and then the taxation could be made less for all.


----------



## Sideways (9 Oct 2022)

Mod Edit : As the origins of this post have been deleted, I think it's time to wrap it up.
Off topic threads are welcome but if you intend to start a rant, please start it in Off Topics 2.


----------

