Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll

Every vote for something is a vote against a whole bunch of other things though. My vote is against letting Labour back in to ruin the economy again. My vote is against letting the SNP get a ruinous foothold in Westminster. My vote is to prevent a repeat of the LibDems derailing legislation that would have made my vote count as much as one in Sunderland. My vote is to prevent idiots like Farage sidelining the country along racial and ethnic lines instead of continuing to build a country that's fair for everyone, rich or poor, working class or middle class, male or female.

It's just another way of expressing what I did above.

 

I'm not saying Stan is the intellectual colossus of our time but in this particular debate its like watching Albert Einstein debating three Hillbillies from Sh*tsville. One in particular should really know when he's out of his depth and just give it up because its cringe-inducing witnessing his witherings in response to coherent arguments backed up by statistics.

I'm not sure I can watch such a mauling continue. Maybe its time for the Mods to step in because this is such a mismatch its bordering on cruelty.

 

Where's your contribution? Or do you just slag off others and don't have the intelligence to hold an opinion of your own?

 

You're not the one to whom I'm referring Chaz

 

That's good to know, but my question is still valid...

 

I think you implied an answer to your own question Stan.

Certainly if NI was separated into welfare and NHS, there would be a tangible relation between a payment and the service.

Furthermore, the possibility would then be open to increase the premiums of high risk (on a self inflicted basis) cases like smokers, the obese etc. Obviously the determination of what's within someone's control is debatable with claims of addiction etc.

It does leave the option of increasing premiums based upon missed appointments (without X hours notice or medical or other justifiable reasons) too.

A chance to lower premiums based on an optional annual review would probably increase healthy eating and exercise.

Bit far fetched but I managed to avoid bemoaning political factions....

 

Bravo.

Actually I feel that a free at the point of delivery universal healthcare system is a mark of civilization that we should be proud of. It is by no means a right though, as most of the rest of the world can testify to. I am nervous about anyone paying for appointments etc, because there will always be some who feel they can't afford it and not getting themselves checked out when ill.

The reason health care is much less politicised in most of Europe is precisely because they have separate government run insurance schemes - you know exactly what you are paying for. Essentially we are trying to get GPs to do the same as Sick Funds in Germany - source our care for us. But of course GPs are also care providers and the whole thing gets really messy.

Interestingly, smokers (not so sure about the obese) are net givers to the NHS. A lot is spent on their care, but they give about £5bn more in tax (of course this goes into the general tax pot, not to the NHS). They also tend to die quickly and young, also reducing their cost. As an ex smoker I have researched this thoroughly. And about 90% of healthcare spending per person is, on average, incurred over the last few months of their life, whatever they die of.

My problem with the NHS is, as Chaz and Sooper have pointed out, that it is a political sacred cow (though I think all parties are guilty of this not just Labour, though they do shout loudest) that is virtually impossible to change in any meaningful way. In the real world I suspect that most people would not care less who provided their care, public or private sector, as long as it was free at the point of delivery (paid for out of taxation/state insurance), timely, delivered by a qualified and caring individual and in reasonable facilities (I took my Mum for a heart scan a couple of weeks ago in a hospital built in the early 2000's. It was a design disgrace, a real insult to patients, apparently I was visibly angry). But there is so much capital and workforce tied up in frequently the wrong places, doing things that should be done elsewhere that ripping it up and starting again is hardly an option.

 

I only know i will never ever vote for ~I'm all right jack so **** you~Tory Toffs again.......

 

I'll put you down as Undecided then?

 

UKIP?

 

vote ukip is voting tory they are the same party...

 

Mate, I was only kidding. I can't wait for all this to end. It looks like we will have no outright winner anyway so another coalition.

 

And I'm not suggesting it will be another ConDem coalition, who knows?

 

So what are you going to do? I guess the value of a vote depends on where you live, as if you're in Oxfordshire, a vote for Labour will only really count as a way to make your conscience sit a little easier if you are left-leaning. Same as if you're a Tory voter in Sunderland.

However, UKIP and Conservative are NOT the same party, and in truth UKIP are probably more of a threat to a Conservative majority than Labour are, as they are quite cynically targetting the towns where a split vote will most harm the Tories. It's clear Nigel is looking to prop up a minority Tory government and push through his own far-right agenda, which would be far worse for Labour supporters than a Tory majority. I'd go so far as to urge Labour supporters in seats where it looks like a straight UKIP/Tory fight to vote for the Conservatives. That way they will remove the worst right-wing influences from the next Cabinet.

 

Policy debate of the day seems to be taxation for those with non-dom status, i.e who 'earn' their dosh overseas but live here. I haven't looked at this in detail but understand the kids of these people, born and raised here with British passports, can 'inherit' this status, which seems bizarre. Apparently you don't even have to earn your cash overseas to qualify either - the CEO (or is it Chairman?) of HSBC has this status - British citizen, who claims his 10 years living in Hong Kong and his expectation to 'die there' means he doesn't have to pay tax at the same rate as the rest of us. I wonder if he pays the top rate of tax in HK - a punishing 17%.

Big names falling into this category include Roman Abramovitch and our own Lakshmi Mittal. What I don't understand is they are saying the tax could raise 'hundreds of millions'. I would have thought billions if they were taxed at the same rate as everyone else on their income.

I suppose it could be argued that they are taxed on the cash in the place it is made and we benefit from all the money they spend here, but of course we know that people like this are adept at 'tax avoidance' whatever jurisdiction they are in, and will probably find a way out of it however the rules are changed.

The Education secretary what's her name Morgan was quite good in seeing off Naughtie (alright even I will admit that he is horribly biased. I hate the Today programme when he and that bastard Humphreys are on it) on education issues, but struggled on this one. I suspect the Tories will match it.

Don't think it will be a big vote winner, but a much more sensible target than the ludicrous Mansion Tax, which will force people on modest incomes or pensions out of their homes simply because they have lived there for 20 years.

Yeah, let's go for it. And if the ****ers threaten to run away, let them go. I don't particularly like being seen as some tax haven banana republic, all welcome if you bring cash.

 

Like you, Stan, I'd like to have more detail on this arrangement which apparently been around since the C18th and not been removed by any British Government. It sounds like a headline grabber to me, and may come round to bite Labour if it's shown that previous Labour governments have admitted that changes would result in less money coming in by abolishing the rule rather than more money (because some of the wealthy will move to other jurisdictions to pay their (reduced) taxes). As I speak, I'm hearing on the radio that Ed Balls may have previously dismissed changes for this reason.

Agree totally on your comments on the Mansion Tax. Again, it looks good as a headline, but when elderly widows are turned out of their family house in Fulham (where they've lived for 50 years) because they haven't the income to pay the tax, it won't go down well on any level.

 

The more I think about it the more I suspect that I could apply for non-dom status. I work for and am paid for by a US company and although I am on the payroll of its UK affiliate that's an administrative convenience and I spend much less than 5% of my time working on the UK business, and am out of the country around 4 months of the year. The rest of the time I am on the phone/video conference to people outside the country. So my income is generated abroad.I have lived in Hong Kong and Italy and have strong emotional attachments to both. Well, to Italian wine and food at least. My brother has lived in Madrid for 25 years, I have 50% Spanish neices and nephews. My wife is Welsh. I like German football. King hell, I'm a foreigner!

Perhaps foolishly for my self interest though I have never had a problem with paying tax, particularly progressive tax (not so keen on sales taxes which are so indiscriminate) it's part of the trade off. What pisses me off is poor quality, value and accountabiity in the way tax money is spent c.f. NHS discussion.

One taxation regime I would have a look at is that on pensions. I don't think you should pay any tax on these unless you are on a very healthy pension - £60k p.a. say - as this would encourage pensioners to spend more, keep them out of part time jobs that youngsters need, reduce the double jeopardy of being taxed twice on the same income and perhaps encourage more pension saving.

 

Re-being a foreigner - no, but it sounds like you're a valuable UK export!

NHS - agree. The NHS is too wasteful. I think much of it is the old "civil service syndrome". You have a budget. With six weeks until the end of the financial year, you've only used 60% of it. So senior management tell you, for f's sake spend the remaining 40% now, on anything, so that the budget isn't reduced next year. My uncle was in the civil service and he told me this was the approach in most, if not all, departments

 

4 months of the year not good enough sb
in nz its 183 days out of the country per year
expect we are similar to the uk

 

That's certainly why you see the roads being fixed in March. In my experience in the NHS they do actually tend to run out of money before year end, hence operations scheduled for March mysteriously cancelled until April.

Happens in big companies too. Every year I argue for zero basing the budget and building up from scratch based on what we want to achieve, every year it's rolled over....

is that why you all have second homes in Australia?