budget

[RobinBHM]

Many in the farming community said it did more for farming than any programme in many years.

The biggest damage was Brexit.

 

[AJB Temple]

So who do you think supplies the medicines, bedding, machines used in the NHS? And builds the hospitals, surgeries, A&E units, etc? It's BUSINESS and if the NHS didn't buy who would do it in the UK? Or do you want to pay hiked up USA style heath insurance charges? The NHS is a DRIVER of growth in our country!

Just think about this nonsense and have a look at where the cash goes.

 

[RobinBHM]

It's OK. Re-wilding is fine. Very socialist friendly. Kneeler, rachel and angie are well known experts on agriculture. Luckily we have Steve Reed in charge of farming and rural affairs. He's definitely an expert as he has a printing background and was a Lambeth councillor. His lifestyle choice is to be gay with no children, so might not empathise with people seeking to keep a small family farm profitable for future generations. Obviously the perfect man for the job when dealing with the farming coimmunity.

Oh come on, that’s a blatant strawman as you well know.

 

[RobinBHM]

Just think about this nonsense and have a look at where the cash goes.

NHS has been used as a way to launder tax receipts into private healthcare providers, all parties but mostly Tories

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-raking-money-private-health-29017569

https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6982

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18255016.revealed-links-conservatives-private-healthcare/

 

[Jacob]

And here in a nutshell is how the left destroy prosperity. Jacob actually thinks the NHS drives the economy and wealth of all of us.

You don't seem to have realised that vast amounts of the NHS budget gets spent in the "open market" and businesses all over the place flourish thereby, not just the drug companies.
They also employ a huge army of people who spend their wages in the "open market" and help business flourish.
They also make an enormous invisible "profit" in terms of the value of the improved health of their victims.
Many of these people are then made fit and available for work and help businesses flourish.
And so it goes on. What goes around comes around.
You are seriously deluded and really need to think a little more about these simple obvious facts!

Perhaps it would be even better if 100% of GDP was consumed by public spending.

Why?
Public spending exists to fill in the gaps where free markets don't/can't help - i.e. with nearly half of the economy.
What we've had latterly (since Thatcher) is a miserable exercise in free-market crackpot ideology, with privatisations all over the place, failing horribly, which surely you have noticed? Everybody else has!
You could start by reading the Einstein article you posted. You obviously haven't looked at it so far.
https://archive.org/details/why-socialism/page/n1/mode/2up

 

[Jacob]

Dyson of vacuum cleaner fame has been hoovering up Lincolnshire farmland for tax purposes for several years now as well!

Good to know we can still tax these rich *****rs who clear off abroad!
Land taxes are pretty fundamental to the oligarchs as land ownership has always been their main means of exploitation, the most obvious means of extracting unearned income in the "rentier" economy.
So Reeves may have done something slightly radical here, and about time too.

 

[Blackswanwood]

It's OK. Re-wilding is fine. Very socialist friendly. Kneeler, rachel and angie are well known experts on agriculture. Luckily we have Steve Reed in charge of farming and rural affairs. He's definitely an expert as he has a printing background and was a Lambeth councillor. His lifestyle choice is to be gay with no children, so might not empathise with people seeking to keep a small family farm profitable for future generations. Obviously the perfect man for the job when dealing with the farming coimmunity.

Hang on - since when has being gay been a lifestyle choice? Are there no gay farmers?

You’ve called out the playground stuff in another thread Adrian yet here you are deploying it with a dose of casual homophobia.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

And here in a nutshell is how the left destroy prosperity. Jacob actually thinks the NHS drives the economy and wealth of all of us. Perhaps it would be even better if 100% of GDP was consumed by public spending.

I'm absolutely certain that isn't what Jacob said. If I may be so bold, and do as you did: this shallow caricature, completely devoid of any analysis, is in a nutshell, how the right destroy social prosperity.

Firstly, the NHS does not exist in a vacuum. Like ALL Public Services they are there to *support* the Economy and to "set the conditions" under which an Economy can thrive. The Economy does not exist in a vacuum. People ARE the Economy, they are not separate and distinct.

The NHS *supports* the Economy in a number of ways.

1. The businesses that operate in and around the NHS are fed by the NHS. Those businesses contribute to the Economy. More often than not, NHS will not be the only customer of these businesses, such that the businesses might not be able to survive if there were no NHS.

2. The overall level of public health has a direct correlation with employment and employability. A capitalist Economy requires two basic ingredients - capital (the money for investment) and labour (the workforce). Capitalism *requires* a small level of unemployment and a workforce that are mobile enough to travel to the work. (Hence transport is also a public service - not just public transport - but all of the infrastructure that goes towards transportation such as physical roads and railways) and the Economy would be damaged without mobility of workforce. The NHS directly supports the Economy by directly contributing to increase and improve the labour market. Without the NHS the Economy would suffer direct harm.

In sum, any narrative - usually exclusively from the right - which denigrates the vital importance of Public Services is superficial, shallow and does not bear any kind of scrutiny.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

No they haven’t.

EU funding support has not been replaced.

And I would assume this would have directly affected the entire farming sector, not just a small number of farms?
I'm absolutely certain that we didn't see any reporting of this from the same media that is so vexed about this recent change in the budget? Did we? Perhaps because those media outlets supported Brexit? Go figure...

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Dyson of vacuum cleaner fame has been hoovering up Lincolnshire farmland for tax purposes for several years now as well!

I did wonder if it was the same individual, or another of the same name. Most of the farms in and around my vicinity have the Dyson name on their signpost/name plaques.

 

[RobinBHM]

They most certainly do. 45% of GDP is public spending

Public services, esp infrastructure can grow the economy.

Strong public services esp health are a pre requisite for growth…sick people aren’t very productive

But public service spending such as goods, infrastructure, wages as % gdp is really around 20%, the rest is cost of borrowing, pensions, benefits etc.

 

[Blackswanwood]

And I would assume this would have directly affected the entire farming sector, not just a small number of farms?
I'm absolutely certain that we didn't see any reporting of this from the same media that is so vexed about this recent change in the budget? Did we? Perhaps because those media outlets supported Brexit? Go figure...

I’m not sure it’s correct that the funding has not been replaced. There was a commitment to maintain at the same level for the duration of the last parliament and new schemes were launched which I think worked differently to the CAP payments.

@RobinBHM - are you saying the new schemes don’t work or the commitment was dropped?

Something I hadn’t realised until I read a bit more today is that farmers will get 50% relief on any balance over £1m. Still not what they were hoping for but perhaps not quite as bad as the initial headline suggested.

 

[RobinBHM]

I’m not sure it’s correct that the funding has not been replaced. There was a commitment to maintain at the same level for the duration of the last parliament and new schemes were launched which I think worked differently to the CAP payments.

@RobinBHM - are you saying the new schemes don’t work or the commitment was dropped?

Something I hadn’t realised until I read a bit more today is that farmers will get 50% relief on any balance over £1m. Still not what they were hoping for but perhaps not quite as bad as the initial headline suggested.

The EU subsidies amounted to £3.5b are being phased out over 5 years, but are supposedly being replaced with the sustainable farming incentive…..but it hasn’t.

Also the EU regional development fund hasn’t been replaced so l regions like Cornwall and Wales are losing out.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Dan Neidle, tax exert says it will affect just 500 farms, possibly as few as 100

Gan Niedle is a tax lawyer. His conclusion may be right but only if the legislation allows other loopholes to be exploited. Otherwise his observation seem close to garbage.

• the average size of farms in England is ~250 acres
• agricultural land sells for (typically) £7-10k per acre
• the average farm is worth £2-3m.
• there are 216,000 farm holdings covering 71% of UK land
• 54% of farms are owner occupied, 14% wholly tenanted and 31% mixed tenure

Farm data
Farming is a low profit activity which does not make a commercial return on the capital value of land. Exploitative supermarkets may be responsible!!

Farms which are owner farmed - which seems to be the majority - will have a real problem. Farms generate insufficient profit and cash flow to borrow to cover any inheritance tax liability which will subsequently need to be repaid.

The liability will only be met by selling land. This potentially reduces the size of a holding below that which is economically viable, and reduces the incentive for farmers to properly invest in land improvements (drainage, soul quality etc).

The result may be a degradation in UK farming activity and output, encouraging agricultural imports. Bad news in the future where sustainable environmental behaviours and reduced food miles need to be encouraged.

I have no problem taxing those who use farmland as a means to avoid inheritance tax. Legislation needs to be very carefully drafted with exemptions to avoid accusations of "simply crass"

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I'm absolutely certain that isn't what Jacob said. If I may be so bold, and do as you did: this shallow caricature, completely devoid of any analysis, is in a nutshell, how the right destroy social prosperity.

Firstly, the NHS does not exist in a vacuum. Like ALL Public Services they are there to *support* the Economy and to "set the conditions" under which an Economy can thrive. The Economy does not exist in a vacuum. People ARE the Economy, they are not separate and distinct.

The NHS *supports* the Economy in a number of ways.

1. The businesses that operate in and around the NHS are fed by the NHS. Those businesses contribute to the Economy. More often than not, NHS will not be the only customer of these businesses, such that the businesses might not be able to survive if there were no NHS.

2. The overall level of public health has a direct correlation with employment and employability. A capitalist Economy requires two basic ingredients - capital (the money for investment) and labour (the workforce). Capitalism *requires* a small level of unemployment and a workforce that are mobile enough to travel to the work. (Hence transport is also a public service - not just public transport - but all of the infrastructure that goes towards transportation such as physical roads and railways) and the Economy would be damaged without mobility of workforce. The NHS directly supports the Economy by directly contributing to increase and improve the labour market. Without the NHS the Economy would suffer direct harm.

In sum, any narrative - usually exclusively from the right - which denigrates the vital importance of Public Services is superficial, shallow and does not bear any kind of scrutiny.

That a fit and healthy population is critical to economic activity and growth is sound.

Approx 50% of the NHS budget is spent on those over 65. It may be a moral choice - it has nothing to do with productivity and GDP growth.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I’m not sure it’s correct that the funding has not been replaced. There was a commitment to maintain at the same level for the duration of the last parliament and new schemes were launched which I think worked differently to the CAP payments.

@RobinBHM - are you saying the new schemes don’t work or the commitment was dropped?

Something I hadn’t realised until I read a bit more today is that farmers will get 50% relief on any balance over £1m. Still not what they were hoping for but perhaps not quite as bad as the initial headline suggested.

I wasn't sure about replacement of subsidies either - hence asking the question. Although I do strongly suspect from the vanishingly small amount of info that I can find, that that subsidies were not being replaced by very much, if at all.
And the vanishingly small amount of info, versus the large amount of bruhaha current being thrown around about the recent budget tells its own story, wouldn't you say? Some people say we have a "left wing bias" in our press. This single story arc would tend to suggest the opposite...

 

[AJB Temple]

You don't seem to have realised that vast amounts of the NHS budget gets spent in the "open market" and businesses all over the place flourish thereby, not just the drug companies.

You are a twerp. It was me that pointed this out to you, but well done for paying attention for once.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

That a fit and healthy population is critical to economic activity and growth is sound.

Approx 50% of the NHS budget is spent on those over 65. It may be a moral choice - it has nothing to do with productivity and GDP growth.

Ahem, yep, that's about the size of it. (Your first sentence ought to be in bold.)

Now then, are you implying that because 50% of NHS is spent on the elderly/retired that the NHS is not directly supporting the Economy? I thought I'd covered that in point no 1. (Businesses operating in and around the NHS are being directly supported to contribute to the Economy.) You need to be clear here how a non-publicly funded health system would work for the retired and elderly. Take into account that prescriptions are currently free for those on a pension. You have two clear choices for this in a non-publicly funded health system. You either keep it free - in which case it would cost the tax payer more to fund (citation = USA system). Or you cast the elderly adrift and tell them to fund their own private health care in what would be a more expensive health care system. Take into account health insurance and actuary adjustments - elderly would be priced out of the market due to unaffordability of insurance (I'm assuming here that you understand that healthcare insurance gets exponentially more expensive with age).

You are quite correct about it being a moral choice. But I don't think you realised just how "non trivial" the implications of that choice might be!

Since you brought this up, the direct question I would pose is: "what would YOU choose?"

 

[Ozi]

And I would assume this would have directly affected the entire farming sector, not just a small number of farms?
I'm absolutely certain that we didn't see any reporting of this from the same media that is so vexed about this recent change in the budget? Did we? Perhaps because those media outlets supported Brexit? Go figure...

The small holding I have a small stake in has seen a slight reduction in subsidies a significant change in how they are applied and a massif increase in paperwork required