Off Topic The General Election

Didn't realise. In fact I'll just use the envelope to post them a picture of Rafa Smiling. Tuey won't trace me then.

 

Sometimes, it depends on the hospital I think.

Now if the nurses were to give out blozzers that would tempt me back to the private sector.

Just for clarity that's female nurses.

 

I wasn't asking you to. I'm just saying in all neutrality that someone would need to be a massive cynic to not acknowledge that Jeremy Corbyn stands up for what he believes in with the principle aim of helping people rather than him having done what he's done for the last 30 years for his own benefit. You were saying they were all self-serving people - I wouldn't say they all are.

 

I read a post earlier today on another site "If you're eligible to vote but haven't registered to vote and then complain about ****, you're a massive twat. Thanks." I think that was aimed at the youngsters who are yet to register.

I'd say the same goes for all those who ARE registered to vote, but say "What's the point" and stay home. Everyone has the chance to change things OR keep things the way they are...depends on if you think the way things are now are fine and dandy.

 

Well said.
Each to their own I say. It pisses me off on social media where mags are at each others throat over political issues.
We should all just drink some cans and chill.
All this ****e will be over soon.

 

Can you show your arse as well please.

 

Sick puppy....

 

May need checking but Labours proposal on tax would mean an increase of 10% for someone on £100,000 a year, that's an additional £8800 in tax annually or an increase of around £733 a month, not £64, once you hit above £123,000 you don't get any personal allowance so would be facing a bigger hike as you progress from £100,000 upwards, of course this would be the same for anyone from £80,000 upwards as well as they would face a 10% increase on their taxable income.

 

This is wide of the mark.

The NHS allows us to bargain for drugs because it has massive purchasing power. Hence why drugs in this country are *much* cheaper than the US, which is purely market-driven (and a badly distorted market at that). Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/09/economist-explains-2

Worth remembering that you're not just paying for the production of a drug, the company who made it is also trying to recoup the cost of the ten R&D projects that failed alongside the successful one - and trying to make that money back before the patent expires in 10 years or so.

Funnily enough, if the NHS were the only consumer of pharmaceutical products, a lot of new drugs would not make a profit. The inflated prices paid in the US allow us a bit of a free ride.

 

You are also forgetting the cost of all those dead mice and puppies that they test them on.

 

...worth a mouse or two, don'tcha reckon?

 

I am not decrying the use of mice (or even Puppies) - just commenting that they all add to the cost of the drugs.

 

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, someone on £100k pa would pay on average £400 pa extra.
It's not exactly gong to bankrupt anyone.
Fair Tax proposal by Labour, and if anything they should have gone further.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9229

 

You left out some information, the IFS actually states that between £80k and £100k the average would be £400, someone on £100k would pay more than £400 extra tax, as for fair lets just do some comparison, someone who earns £12500 a year will pay £718.52 in tax and NI, someone who earns 10 times that £125000 will pay £49,323.52 in tax and NI, that's 10 times the salary but 68.64 times the tax and NI, even at a lower level someone who earns a modest £25000 a year pays £4718.52 in Tax and NI, that's twice the salary but 6.67 times the tax and NI burden.

It is also quite evident that squeezing the top of the income tax tree rather than increasing tax gathered has a tendency to leave government with either a static level of tax or even a decrease in tax from this small group who actually pay more than 40% of the total income tax gathered, those capable of doing so will move their tax base to other countries. At the same time with companies facing increases in corporation tax they will look to reduce costs, increase prices where possible, lay off staff or where they can relocate to more attractive tax bases, Dublin becomes rather attractive with a 12% corporate tax structure, again rather than increasing tax revenue the government will see static or even lower tax gathered, Labour have produced figures that rely on upon everyone sitting still and not changing their income structure, the IFS point out this failing in their planning.

 

But that's how it should be. Those of us who can pay more should pay more. We should be working on closing the tax loopholes for individuals and companies who want to trade in this country.

 

1. Dublin would have a lower rate of corporation tax even after the Tories' stated reduction, so why haven't companies moved en masse already?

2. The theory of high earners moving overseas to avoid tax - does it really happen on a massive scale, and are there more than anecdotal stories to support it?

3. It seems like your first paragraph is criticising the idea that redistributive taxation is 'fair' - well, this is how the Tories have kept it in one way or another since they got into power, they haven't brought in a flat rate of tax for everyone, so I'm assuming that it's generally agreed that it's okay to tax high earners multiples of what low earners are taxed. The only disagreement is over how much of a multiple we're talking about. The idea itself is not a Labour idea but one that's common to all major parties in the UK.

There are also certain unscaleable factors, like the minimum amount it costs to buy shopping for a family for a week, the minimum rental for a given area, council tax etc. None of these are markedly different for anybody, but a person on 100k has five times the gross income of someone on 20k, but the essential living costs are not greater by a factor of five.

 

I didn't miss out anything.
I wish I could have written the report, but, I'll let the IFS take credit for it.
Make what you want out of it, but, if you seriously expect most people on here to have sympathy for someone earning £125k paying a higher % Tax, you're having a laugh.

 

I had never even considered that before, that's a really good point

 

Someone posted a Conservative flier through my letterbox today...

Well, I won't be voting Labour...imagine Diane Abbott as home secretary? <puke>

 

There's no realistic way that Labour would win this election I think we would all agree? I can't see anyone who voted Tory in the last election not voting the same way 2 years later so they will already start with the same majority they had in 2015. Add to that quite a few UKIP votes will probably go to them and that the Labour turnout may be pretty low and they could win plenty of new seats and have a huge majority which would mean they could implement more drastic changes. Now, you may or may not be in favour of that and that's fair enough either way, but I see a vote for labour this time around a vote for as strong as opposition as possible. Diane Abbott will probably be gone when Corbyn goes which you've got to think will be only a couple of weeks from now when he is well beaten on 8th June. I've got to agree, though, that the shadow front bench is lamentably weak.