Just to stir the pot, has anyone noticed...

[sploo]

I remember speaking to a Swedish chap decades ago who was emigrating to the States as the Swedish system was penal - because assets, savings etc. were taxed as well as earnings he was paying 105% of his actual earnings. Sounds like a tax regime Jacob (and one or two others) would be proud of.

That's either punitive... or very fair (depending on how much other income he was making from assets and savings).

Of course, if I'm out of work for a period of time (£0 earnings) but I'm still paying taxes on savings interest, council tax etc, then my tax rate would be massive compared to my earnings; so it does kinda depend on the specifics of what that guy was actually earning/owned.

No tax system is ever going to be 100% fair as there will always be outliers; for whom the tax system effectively overcharges, due to their specific circumstances.

 

[John Brown]

I remember speaking to a Swedish chap decades ago who was emigrating to the States as the Swedish system was penal - because assets, savings etc. were taxed as well as earnings he was paying 105% of his actual earnings. Sounds like a tax regime Jacob (and one or two others) would be proud of.

Really? Another friend or relative anecdote? I used to work for a Swedish company, and some of the directors were extremely rich, what with also being involved with Stena Line and Bang and Olufsen, amongst others. They whinged a bit about the high marginal tax rates, but didn't actually jump ship.

 

[mark w]

Indeed, if you compare a pie chart of tax in the 1970s with tax now you can clearly see that VAT has replaced tax once paid by UK top earners.

The thing that few people understand is that tax does not fund anything.

The purpose of tax is the control of inflation.

When governments collect tax, that money is destroyed.

Take a piece of paper, draw a line down the middle.

Write "One pound" on one side and "I owe One pound" on the other.

Tear down the line. Spend the bit of paper with "One pound" written on it into the economy and put the bit with "I owe One pound" in a drawer labelled "National Debt".

Congratulations! You have just created money, spent it and are now running a deficit.

So, what happens when you tax back one of your "One pounds" ?

Where does it go?

It goes into the drawer with the "I owe One pound".

And then what happens?

You have a drawer with a "One pound" and an "I owe One pound".

That sounds suspiciously like the answer is zero.

One minus one is traditionally zero.

That, of course is not how government accounts for tax.

Oh no. They pretend its money they can spend. But its not.

No liability survives contact with its issuer. All tax is destroyed. All spending is new.

If what you say is correct, where did Michelle Mones 60 million hard cash come from?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Really? Another friend or relative anecdote? I used to work for a Swedish company, and some of the directors were extremely rich, what with also being involved with Stena Line and Bang and Olufsen, amongst others. They whinged a bit about the high marginal tax rates, but didn't actually jump ship.

Not an anecdote, I met and spoke to the man.

 

[Jacob]

I remember speaking to a Swedish chap decades ago who was emigrating to the States as the Swedish system was penal - because assets, savings etc. were taxed as well as earnings he was paying 105% of his actual earnings. Sounds like a tax regime Jacob (and one or two others) would be proud of.

Sounds like he was a very rich man. USA taxes benefit the wealthy and is a very uncivilised place for the less well off compared to Sweden. Top rates if income tax in Sweden are 52.2% so your figure is probably nonsense.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

This was 50+ years ago. The 105% was the accumulation of all taxes not just income tax (I did say that at the time).

All figures you choose not to believe you dismiss as nonsense, you don't really need to tell us.

 

[John Brown]

Not an anecdote, I met and spoke to the man.

Still an anecdote.

 

[John Brown]

From what I've read there is apparently a plane leaving Nigeria every Wednesday specifically for health tourism.

From what I've read, health tourism accounts for 0.3% of the NHS budget. Significant, but probably not the place to start, if trying to reduce costs or increase efficiency.

 

[Jacob]

Not an anecdote, I met and spoke to the man.

Sounds like a golf club bar anecdote!

 

[Jacob]

From what I've read there is apparently a plane leaving Nigeria every Wednesday specifically for health tourism.

They'd be expats and entitled.
I'd stop reading the Daily Mail if I were you - it's not doing you any good.
https://www.william-russell.com/blo...ourism is defined as,albeit at a higher cost.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Sounds like a golf club bar anecdote!

I don't give a toss what you think it sounds like.

 

[evildrome]

If what you say is correct, where did Michelle Mones 60 million hard cash come from?

So, lets say someone in Government wants to give "Michelle" some money.

Government instructs the Exchequer to instruct the Bank of England to credit the reserve account of "Michelle"'s bank.

"Michelle"'s bank then credits her deposit account.

And that's it.

That's the whole deal. The BOE create reserves "ex novo"... from nothing.

Government literally spends its own money unit into existence.

Exactly the same way the Umpire awards points to the players.

Fiat currencies are points systems.

What can the Umpire exchange for a point? Nothing other than another point.

What will the BOE exchange for a pound? Nothing other than another pound.

Why?

Because they're both points systems.

So, the million dollar question... what's all this pish about "borrowing" ?

Well, Bonds WERE a way to finance government.

We used to have this thing called the "Gold Standard" where you could, and this is very important, exchange your pounds for gold at a fixed exchange rate.

Let's say the government controlled £100 worth of gold, so the government could create £100 and circulate it.

But what if the government wanted to spend £10 but couldn't have more money in circulation than it had gold because of the Gold Standard?

So, it sells a bond for £10, now there is £90 in circulation and now the government can spend £10.

Except that’s gone. We left the gold standard in 1931.

Its over. Convertibility is over. Which means governments have no need to borrow money.

But they kept all the same language and accounting entities from the Gold Standard.

So its looks like we're still in the Gold Standard but we're not.

 

[Keith Cocker]

I don't give a toss what you think it sounds like.

“All figures you choose not to believe you dismiss as nonsense, you don't really need to tell us. ”

 

[planesleuth]

If you are quoting from info from the internet it has to be true right? Can't you lot go and do something useful...sweep the roads or help the NHS ...even polish your doorstep like your granny did ???? What a load of h****s***

 

[Jester129]

Please get off the fence and say what you think!

 

[trvlr]

Late in one this original debate...B/B saved the NHS? Really? They merely continued/accelerated down the path initiated by Thatcher and co., and all governments have done so since. We're still paying for their (B/B) misjudged PPP rackets... Reduction of A&E facilities, closure of many local (cottage style) hospitals; closure of wards and a reduction in bed numbers across the board. Continued/accelerated use of third party outfits for what was once in-house in all GP practices and hospitals. Small wonder that the few remaining A&E points are seriously over loaded/over worked...

Loss of burseries for training new (cadets as they were called in olden days) nurses; closure of nurses accommodation/residences... continuining top heavy admin system of staff and fewer actual feet on the ground in the wards. Allowing nurses, junior doctors pay to fall way behind the incresed cost of living - with the now inevitable strikes various as they seek some acceptable redress.

Why does a mega buck premium clinic (the Clever) open a brand new hospital in London on Wilton Rd - directly opposite the west end of the Buck House garden wall; if not anticipating an increase in, and/or a further push to privatise more and more NHS one way or another...?

 

[mark w]

Late in one this original debate...B/B saved the NHS? Really? They merely continued/accelerated down the path initiated by Thatcher and co., and all governments have done so since. We're still paying for their (B/B) misjudged PPP rackets... Reduction of A&E facilities, closure of many local (cottage style) hospitals; closure of wards and a reduction in bed numbers across the board. Continued/accelerated use of third party outfits for what was once in-house in all GP practices and hospitals. Small wonder that the few remaining A&E points are seriously over loaded/over worked...

Loss of burseries for training new (cadets as they were called in olden days) nurses; closure of nurses accommodation/residences... continuining top heavy admin system of staff and fewer actual feet on the ground in the wards. Allowing nurses, junior doctors pay to fall way behind the incresed cost of living - with the now inevitable strikes various as they seek some acceptable redress.

Why does a mega buck premium clinic (the Clever) open a brand new hospital in London on Wilton Rd - directly opposite the west end of the Buck House garden wall; if not anticipating an increase in, and/or a further push to privatise more and more NHS one way or another...?

I agree with most if what you say but facts are facts, under Labour waiting lists dropped and under the Tories they have risen (again) massively. Its a difference of wills, Labour want a National Health Service and, despite what they say, the Conservatives don't.

 

[DrPhill]

I agree with most if what you say but facts are facts, under Labour waiting lists dropped and under the Tories they have risen (again) massively. Its a difference of wills, Labour want a National Health Service and, despite what they say, the Conservatives don't.

Actions lie louder than words.

 

[mark w]

Actions lie louder than words.

Nope, I don't get it, you'll have to explain that one to me.

 

[mc281]

I agree with most if what you say but facts are facts, under Labour waiting lists dropped and under the Tories they have risen (again) massively. Its a difference of wills, Labour want a National Health Service and, despite what they say, the Conservatives don't.

If facts are facts let's also compare the number of treatments between the two very different dates. Disregarding any political viewpoint..... Never let the facts get in the way of a rant Eh?