Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
......loading...... said:
For me it is this false sense that public sector doesn’t contribute. Public sector workers pay tax so they are indeed contributing to the state. They also do essential work and contribute that way. The state is as reliant on the public sector as the public sector is on the state.
Click to expand...

That’s literally in your head. No one said they don’t contribute or are not valuable.

From a purely mathematical point of view they are a net negative to the taxpayer.

The only way a goverment has any money at all to spend is to steal it from productive people.

The state and the public sector are the same thing.

They are both reliant on the private sector
 
So we should be seeing the plaudits for Starmer and Streeting for chopping NHS England an often derided layer of non productive management.

What's also coming to light is the increasing numbers of NHS staff being recruited from red list countries post Brexit coupled with the withdrawal of funding in those countries leading to more migration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ian Thumwood
Osvaldorama said:
That’s literally in your head. No one said they don’t contribute or are not valuable.

From a purely mathematical point of view they are a net negative to the taxpayer.

The only way a goverment has any money at all to spend is to steal it from productive people.

The state and the public sector are the same thing.

They are both reliant on the private sector
Click to expand...

It is comments like this that turn the whole board, left and right against what you say.

You are implying that the government steal money (they don't it is called taxation)
You are implying that the productive people are the 'workers' not the public sector people.


On the face of it you have a point, the public sector is paid by the government, but it is not as simple as saying oh that would be on the L of a P&L account.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to pay less tax and for it to be spent wisely, but I also appreciate the need for tax and the need for the public sector to keep the economy going.
 
  • Like
Reactions: claytonsaint, StJabbo1, SaintinNZ and 7 others
Saints_Alive said:
Yes, we all know it's a fact of life that the public sector doesn't create a profit itself but it is essential for businesses to function and contribute to the overall economy, the issue is what is Os trying to say? scrap it?
Click to expand...

No I don't think so, from what I've read he hasn't even hinted at that. He compared running the country with a business, profit and loss with the loss being public services. I honestly don't see that as an outrageous comparison.
He acknowledged the importance of those sectors but in the past he has said that more taxation would be unnecessary if current taxes were spent more effectively and that governments waste money.
You might not agree with with his reasoning but getting hung up on his business comparison was a bit over sensitive IMO. Maybe because it was from Os?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osvaldorama
thereisonlyoneno7 said:
It is comments like this that turn the whole board, left and right against what you say.

You are implying that the government steal money (they don't it is called taxation)
You are implying that the productive people are the 'workers' not the public sector people.


On the face of it you have a point, the public sector is paid by the government, but it is not as simple as saying oh that would be on the L of a P&L account.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to pay less tax and for it to be spent wisely, but I also appreciate the need for tax and the need for the public sector to keep the economy going.
Click to expand...

I don’t really care about people being against me. The truth is the truth. What I am saying is correct.

The nuts & bolts comparison makes sense and is appropriate.

I never said that there is no need for a public sector. Of course the public sector work hard and are valuable. That is your emotions getting the better of you. In fact I actually agree that they’re probably more valuable on a human level.
But they do not generate any income for the taxpayer and in fact cost money.

They don’t create profit

People & politicians in this country used to understand basic economic facts. Now people seem to think money comes from thin air and get upset if you start to apply basic logic.

On here it’s the same.

The only thing people are saying is “tax more” but it’s just ill-thought out.

The top 1% pay 30% of UK income tax and the top 10% pay 60%... and THEN ON TOP of that the wealthiest pay the additional taxes too.

People are already leaving in droves and they will continue to. What happens when the UK loses all of its entrepreneurs?

The idea that the rich should pay more taxes is too simple of a solution.

The country needs to be run MUCH better.

You do not give a crack addict a limitless credit card. You first cut off his access to crack.

The government treats taxpayers money like crack
 
The counter terrorism police are investigating the fire at Heathrow. Although they are saying there's no evidence of foul play, we all know it's those ****ing Russians sabotaging our infrastructure.
If you hear of an old Saints fan poisoned by Polonium-210 commonly found in tea leaves, or possibly Novichok commonly found on door handles or just accidently fell off the roof, you'll know I was right.

Or it was Just Stop Oil, one of the two.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5dg4p2l0o
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Osvaldorama
Osvaldorama said:
I don’t really care about people being against me. The truth is the truth. What I am saying is correct.

The nuts & bolts comparison makes sense and is appropriate.

I never said that there is no need for a public sector. Of course the public sector work hard and are valuable. That is your emotions getting the better of you. In fact I actually agree that they’re probably more valuable on a human level.
But they do not generate any income for the taxpayer and in fact cost money.

They don’t create profit

People & politicians in this country used to understand basic economic facts. Now people seem to think money comes from thin air and get upset if you start to apply basic logic.

On here it’s the same.

The only thing people are saying is “tax more” but it’s just ill-thought out.

The top 1% pay 30% of UK income tax and the top 10% pay 60%... and THEN ON TOP of that the wealthiest pay the additional taxes too.

People are already leaving in droves and they will continue to. What happens when the UK loses all of its entrepreneurs?

The idea that the rich should pay more taxes is too simple of a solution.

The country needs to be run MUCH better.

You do not give a crack addict a limitless credit card. You first cut off his access to crack.

The government treats taxpayers money like crack
Click to expand...

If I read between the arrogance, sensationalism and smugness, a bit of what you say makes sense. For those that just switch off now (I am tempted) I will summarise below:


The better off do pay a lot of tax.
It is not productive to tax them more.. They are leaving the country in droves.
The economy is not run well (Past or present I am not sure)
Treat your citizens like crack addicts.

Maybe I got a bit wrong there, but here is my view without figures plucked from Bob from the pub.

The better paid in society do pay too much tax (especially if PAYE). Bordering on a ridiculous amount. We need to start linking the personal allowance bands with inflation again and I would scrap the over 100k and you start losing your allowance rule. If you are in 100-125k territory you lose an effective rate of 60% of your earnings on that amount. I actually feel if you can collect all the correct tax with no loopholes or fraud, we could even reduce the higher rates of taxation as more would be collected overall. It actually does encourage people to earn more and then put more back into the economy. We need to do it in a way that the whole country gets better off, so the rich don't get richer and the poor poorer.

I personally think it is counter productive to tax them more, but maybe close the loopholes for the self employed and corporations, before we raise taxes. I think Labour have surprisingly started well with trying to give benefits to those that need it and not attack the better off yet. There is no golden bullet to how to fix it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lemons and Oranges
thereisonlyoneno7 said:
If I read between the arrogance, sensationalism and smugness, a bit of what you say makes sense. For those that just switch off now (I am tempted) I will summarise below:


The better off do pay a lot of tax.
It is not productive to tax them more.. They are leaving the country in droves.
The economy is not run well (Past or present I am not sure)
Treat your citizens like crack addicts.

Maybe I got a bit wrong there, but here is my view without figures plucked from Bob from the pub.

The better paid in society do pay too much tax (especially if PAYE). Bordering on a ridiculous amount. We need to start linking the personal allowance bands with inflation again and I would scrap the over 100k and you start losing your allowance rule. If you are in 100-125k territory you lose an effective rate of 60% of your earnings on that amount. I actually feel if you can collect all the correct tax with no loopholes or fraud, we could even reduce the higher rates of taxation as more would be collected overall. It actually does encourage people to earn more and then put more back into the economy. We need to do it in a way that the whole country gets better off, so the rich don't get richer and the poor poorer.

I personally think it is counter productive to tax them more, but maybe close the loopholes for the self employed and corporations, before we raise taxes. I think Labour have surprisingly started well with trying to give benefits to those that need it and not attack the better off yet. There is no golden bullet to how to fix it.
Click to expand...

Second homes, foreign ownership of uninhabited homes.

That’s where they need to start imho, though this area is a long way from my expertise, so I tend to keep quiet on this stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lemons and Oranges, ......loading...... and thereisonlyoneno7
Le Tissier's Laces said:
Second homes, foreign ownership of uninhabited homes.

That’s where they need to start imho, though this area is a long way from my expertise, so I tend to keep quiet on this stuff.
Click to expand...

I agree with second homes, if they are second homes, but this is where my views will diverge with the main board here is that there is nothing wrong with a private landlord renting out a couple of properties. The caveat here is that it is done correctly (upkeep etc) and a fair rent. As you implied there is nothing wrong with foreign ownership of properties, but they can't be left uninhabited. Also, I don't agree with foreign ownership to rent out. If you have a second property to rent out at least let the income (and subsequent taxes) come back into the economy.

This is a huge topic and one that some of us will be poles apart and there will be common ground on other bits. Surprisingly, there is no "I am right" though in it. It is all opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoot_spiderman, Lemons and Oranges and It'sOnlyAGame
thereisonlyoneno7 said:
I agree with second homes, if they are second homes, but this is where my views will diverge with the main board here is that there is nothing wrong with a private landlord renting out a couple of properties. The caveat here is that it is done correctly (upkeep etc) and a fair rent. As you implied there is nothing wrong with foreign ownership of properties, but they can't be left uninhabited. Also, I don't agree with foreign ownership to rent out. If you have a second property to rent out at least let the income (and subsequent taxes) come back into the economy.

This is a huge topic and one that some of us will be poles apart and there will be common ground on other bits. Surprisingly, there is no "I am right" though in it. It is all opinions.
Click to expand...

I live not far from Battersea Power Station - they’ve done a great job redeveloping it and the surrounding area, but the vast majority of the residential apartments are uninhabited and owned by foreign entities. It’s basically property banking on an industrial scale. They should tax the piss out of that stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thebronze14, BlackAndAmberGambler, shoot_spiderman and 9 others
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33706jy774o

I think Trump is a little like Os. The underlying cancellation of the program is actually a good idea IMO as it stops people coming to the US to take a job that an American could do. It is just the execution of the plan and the bluster and sensationalism that doesn't sit right with me.

Yes, stop the program, but just stop it now and don't deport those who in good faith were on the program.
 
thereisonlyoneno7 said:
I agree with second homes, if they are second homes, but this is where my views will diverge with the main board here is that there is nothing wrong with a private landlord renting out a couple of properties. The caveat here is that it is done correctly (upkeep etc) and a fair rent. As you implied there is nothing wrong with foreign ownership of properties, but they can't be left uninhabited. Also, I don't agree with foreign ownership to rent out. If you have a second property to rent out at least let the income (and subsequent taxes) come back into the economy.

This is a huge topic and one that some of us will be poles apart and there will be common ground on other bits. Surprisingly, there is no "I am right" though in it. It is all opinions.
Click to expand...
The renting issue is less with private renting and more about the lack of affordable homes and social rent homes and the stupid right to buy legislation

Fix those and the private market becomes more competitive and therefore higher quality
 
  • Like
Reactions: ......loading...... and thereisonlyoneno7
thereisonlyoneno7 said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33706jy774o

I think Trump is a little like Os. The underlying cancellation of the program is actually a good idea IMO as it stops people coming to the US to take a job that an American could do. It is just the execution of the plan and the bluster and sensationalism that doesn't sit right with me.

Yes, stop the program, but just stop it now and don't deport those who in good faith were on the program.
Click to expand...
"Trump is also considering whether to cancel the temporary legal status of some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled to the US during the conflict with Russia." If this goes ahead he and his administration will have yet more blood on their hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ......loading......, Ian Thumwood and thereisonlyoneno7
shoot_spiderman said:
The renting issue is less with private renting and more about the lack of affordable homes and social rent homes and the stupid right to buy legislation

Fix those and the private market becomes more competitive and therefore higher quality
Click to expand...

I think that the idea of the private market becoming of better quality due to competition is deeply flawed. The cheapest is rarely the best and i just feel that stripping things down too far ends up with a gig economy.

Competition will often mean the cheapest price and not the best service. Corners will be cut with safety, employee welfare, customer etc, etc.

The whole idea of Thatcherite competition is really old fashioned and most companies no longer work on this model. My employer's policy , for example, is very different from how things worked in 1980s and especially in the 1990s recession. Our policy is geared around client satisfaction and we succeed because we provide a good service which leads to repeat business. This is what client's want these days and we get alot of repeat business because of this company ethos including negotiated work. It is no longer about being the cheapest but providing a service that is seen to have value. I think this is the way the better part of the economy is going.

In all businesses, customers are happy to pay a bit more if it adds value. I think business is increasingly about adding value and not so much competition. Everyone benefits when you are adding value as opposed to stripping things back to a skeleton level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StJabbo1
Ian Thumwood said:
I think that the idea of the private market becoming of better quality due to competition is deeply flawed. The cheapest is rarely the best and i just feel that stripping things down too far ends up with a gig economy.

Competition will often mean the cheapest price and not the best service. Corners will be cut with safety, employee welfare, customer etc, etc.

The whole idea of Thatcherite competition is really old fashioned and most companies no longer work on this model. My employer's policy , for example, is very different from how things worked in 1980s and especially in the 1990s recession. Our policy is geared around client satisfaction and we succeed because we provide a good service which leads to repeat business. This is what client's want these days and we get alot of repeat business because of this company ethos including negotiated work. It is no longer about being the cheapest but providing a service that is seen to have value. I think this is the way the better part of the economy is going.

In all businesses, customers are happy to pay a bit more if it adds value. I think business is increasingly about adding value and not so much competition. Everyone benefits when you are adding value as opposed to stripping things back to a skeleton level.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of that. Basically, if business cannot compete on price alone, then the service and added value you can provide will give you more customers and more loyalty from customers. Somethings though are just price only. An example would be say Hellmans Mayonnaise (random :) ) in a supermarket. It is Hellmans and the same whether from Sainsbury's, Tesco etc. If all I wanted was a jar of Hellmans, I wouldn't care if Sainsbury's had appalling customer service, I would buy it if it were cheaper. In the service industry (and even renting) I agree 100%. The intangible added values will keep customers over a few pounds more cost to a certain extent, though in hard times, unfortunately cost is king.
 
No.7

I work in construction and procurement in my industry is decided upon many criteria as well as cost. I think supply chains have changed a lot since the Latham Report 30 years ago and we are in a very different world. This is why i feel the DOGE experience will ultimately backfire .
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back