Discussion
road hog said:
In general how many would support tax increases to allow us a better armed forces and police force , NHS.
NHS entitlement would require some form of national insurance... beforehand.
Loads of threads asking this question on here. Ultimately the answer is most people would agree but there is plenty of scope to cut down on wastage first.NHS entitlement would require some form of national insurance... beforehand.
ARHarh said:
I agree cut wastage first. For instance my local council are due to cut 540 jobs. This begs the question, will things just not get done now, or have they been employing 540 more people than they need. I suspect the second option.
My mate is a hard working good guy, he works for the council as one of these rangersHe has been picking up all the jobs that are disappearing
One day taping up a broken kids slide, next day stood on a bridge holding a suicidal jumpers hand, next day posting leaflets about dog poo, next unblocking a drain with a knitting needle next day sorting out some antisocial behaviour
Basically there are lots of things not getting done and it filters to him.
He enjoys the variety but now of course it’s all just firefighting in a blind panic
Lots of things need nipping in the doo dar, but the people it will upset will vote accordingly
road hog said:
In general how many would support tax increases to allow us a better armed forces and police force , NHS.
NHS entitlement would require some form of national insurance... beforehand.
Have no doubt about it tax increases are on the way. In my opinion the bulk of the increase will be to support better defence or spending on defence and armed forces. The remainder of what is needed for this purpose will be from cuts to overseas aid and social care. NHS entitlement would require some form of national insurance... beforehand.
We could take a similar approach to Musk and his cutting of thousands of public sector jobs. There’s a whole bunch of folk who are not productive in the UK, they are either hiding in public sector jobs or strutting around town centres with a can of lager or cheap energy drink at all times of the day. They should be working. There’s also a whole bunch of folk sitting at home on benefits watching daytime TV and will never work because of various self-diagnosed mental health issues.
Obviously we have folk in the UK who genuinely need help. Unfortunately when the tax rises and cuts start, they could be the ones who will suffer. It’s wrong but unfortunately that’s the way things are.
In answer to the OP question: yes I would, provided we make serious efforts to weed out the members of society that are hell bent on bleeding the state dry. Get them working or cut their benefits.
ARHarh said:
I agree cut wastage first. For instance my local council are due to cut 540 jobs. This begs the question, will things just not get done now, or have they been employing 540 more people than they need. I suspect the second option.
My wife works for a local council in finance. She's employed to work 40 hours a week, but actually does more like 55 to 60. Even then, there's more more than she's able to do. All her colleagues all the managers she supports and all her colleagues are exactly the same.In real terms, even under 'Rachel from Accounts' crazy spending spree, funding is decreasing, yet they are being asked to do more with what they do get.
Your suspisions are unfounded.
My personal experience is that councils are terrible at asset management and monetising the many assets and opportunities that are open to them.
20 years ago mobile operators were falling over themselves to pay councils millions of pounds to install on their properties and whilst a handful seized the opportunity, the vast majority put moratoriums in place and missed out in millions of pounds of recurring revenue.
Fast forward to 7 or 8 years ago and a council was approached to install some very small pieces of equipment on a roof for which they'd receive over £100k a year. It took 4 years to get the agreement secured, during one meeting with the councils Business Development Manager he openly said that he'd put the agreement in a drawer and hoped it would go away.
More recently a council in special measures had an offer of over £30k a year to utilise a 4 square metre parcel of land and whilst the day to day individual at the council is desperate to get the deal done she's now waiting on the 4th manager to approve it and we are coming upto 4 years again for this one.
I personally can count over a million pound in income councils have failed to receive in relation to my one business alone.
20 years ago mobile operators were falling over themselves to pay councils millions of pounds to install on their properties and whilst a handful seized the opportunity, the vast majority put moratoriums in place and missed out in millions of pounds of recurring revenue.
Fast forward to 7 or 8 years ago and a council was approached to install some very small pieces of equipment on a roof for which they'd receive over £100k a year. It took 4 years to get the agreement secured, during one meeting with the councils Business Development Manager he openly said that he'd put the agreement in a drawer and hoped it would go away.
More recently a council in special measures had an offer of over £30k a year to utilise a 4 square metre parcel of land and whilst the day to day individual at the council is desperate to get the deal done she's now waiting on the 4th manager to approve it and we are coming upto 4 years again for this one.
I personally can count over a million pound in income councils have failed to receive in relation to my one business alone.
Ages ago my cousin was involved in importing specialist parts for cars (think fast + furious style), lots of small things like tv screens, stereo systems, lights,
Due to the value he didnt want to use just any old warehouse so approached the council about renting a place that was earmarked as technology, it was perfect, small warehouse the size of 2 garages, a small shop floor/office for 3 people, the council said no as he did fit their criteria,
He ended up renting office space for half what he offered the council and using a meeting room to store the boxes, the place the council had sat empty for years and has now been knocked through with the other 2 that didnt rent and is now a small gym
Due to the value he didnt want to use just any old warehouse so approached the council about renting a place that was earmarked as technology, it was perfect, small warehouse the size of 2 garages, a small shop floor/office for 3 people, the council said no as he did fit their criteria,
He ended up renting office space for half what he offered the council and using a meeting room to store the boxes, the place the council had sat empty for years and has now been knocked through with the other 2 that didnt rent and is now a small gym
Get rid of the dead wood / admin roles would free up some £££,
(My brother retired as a pharmacist, but soon got bored so took on an admin role within a well known London hospital. He completed his daily task by 11am, and asked other team members if they needed help. He was told by his peers to slow down and stretch out his work to last the day! His team had 6 members, but my brother said it only required 2, 3 at a stretch to complete all the daily tasks. My brother did his stint (2 years to qualify for the pension?), and left pronto!)
(My brother retired as a pharmacist, but soon got bored so took on an admin role within a well known London hospital. He completed his daily task by 11am, and asked other team members if they needed help. He was told by his peers to slow down and stretch out his work to last the day! His team had 6 members, but my brother said it only required 2, 3 at a stretch to complete all the daily tasks. My brother did his stint (2 years to qualify for the pension?), and left pronto!)
UK is grossly uncompetitive on the world stage because "social costs" are higher then the country can afford. So the government levies more taxes "to save the NHS" and thus makes the UK even less competitive. It's a vicious circle.
Put bluntly, no amount of tax increases will ever be enough to cover a "free" NHS. That's what has to change. Many other countries have a system where the state pays 2/3 of the medical cost and the patient pays the other 1/3, either from their own pocket or by buying appropriate insurance.
Since most Brits go on holiday and buy holiday insurance it's really not a big deal, although obviously sensitive to UK ears.
Put bluntly, no amount of tax increases will ever be enough to cover a "free" NHS. That's what has to change. Many other countries have a system where the state pays 2/3 of the medical cost and the patient pays the other 1/3, either from their own pocket or by buying appropriate insurance.
Since most Brits go on holiday and buy holiday insurance it's really not a big deal, although obviously sensitive to UK ears.
Most people support higher taxes so long as they land on other people. Usually "the rich" or big business. Sometimes smokers or the obese. People with expensive houses.
I'd go for old people myself. Bloody freeloaders had decent schools, free university, full employment, bought their houses out of a week's wages and retired in the 50s on big pensions. Now they go on like they're all Warren Buffet because they rode a property bubble and say I'd be able to afford a house worth 20x salary if I didn't buy fancy coffee. And they're up in arms about losing their winter heating allowance. p
s off.
I'd make Werthers £50 a tin and the TV licence £1,000 a year.
I'd go for old people myself. Bloody freeloaders had decent schools, free university, full employment, bought their houses out of a week's wages and retired in the 50s on big pensions. Now they go on like they're all Warren Buffet because they rode a property bubble and say I'd be able to afford a house worth 20x salary if I didn't buy fancy coffee. And they're up in arms about losing their winter heating allowance. p
s off.I'd make Werthers £50 a tin and the TV licence £1,000 a year.
BrokenSkunk said:
ARHarh said:
I agree cut wastage first. For instance my local council are due to cut 540 jobs. This begs the question, will things just not get done now, or have they been employing 540 more people than they need. I suspect the second option.
My wife works for a local council in finance. She's employed to work 40 hours a week, but actually does more like 55 to 60. Even then, there's more more than she's able to do. All her colleagues all the managers she supports and all her colleagues are exactly the same.In real terms, even under 'Rachel from Accounts' crazy spending spree, funding is decreasing, yet they are being asked to do more with what they do get.
Your suspisions are unfounded.
Like a lot of folks who work more hours than they get paid for out of some kind of loyalty it’s just the way it is now.
Life’s too short to work for nothing. No one else does, I don’t pay for a guy to fit me a new kitchen and he fits a new downstairs WC for nothing.
Panamax said:
UK is grossly uncompetitive on the world stage because "social costs" are higher then the country can afford. So the government levies more taxes "to save the NHS" and thus makes the UK even less competitive. It's a vicious circle.
Put bluntly, no amount of tax increases will ever be enough to cover a "free" NHS. That's what has to change. Many other countries have a system where the state pays 2/3 of the medical cost and the patient pays the other 1/3, either from their own pocket or by buying appropriate insurance.
.
This is nonsense. Whether you pay for it entirely through tax, or partly through tax and partly through insurance, or entirely through insurance, that doesn't change anything about how much the actual national healthcare costs (other than that collecting insurance has admin costs plus profit, whereas collecting tax just has admin costs). The idea that the UK can't afford healthcare is absurd. If you think that insurance-led healthcare is somehow inherently better value you should look at the US. Put bluntly, no amount of tax increases will ever be enough to cover a "free" NHS. That's what has to change. Many other countries have a system where the state pays 2/3 of the medical cost and the patient pays the other 1/3, either from their own pocket or by buying appropriate insurance.
.
If you were making a case that we should be trying to reduce healthcare costs through prevention and early intervention, then you might have a point. Or if you were thinking we should consider whether a profit motive in healthcare drives unhelpful and ultimately unproductive behaviours. But changing the model for collecting the money to pay for it is just deckchairs on the Titanic.
I find it pretty depressing that whenever this is asked, most people will say "oh yes, I'd pay more if I had to" but that's usually limited to public services they believe in, but at the same time they're 101% certain that really there's tonnes of wastage to fix first. Usually because of a "bloke down the pub" or "brothers, workmate's flatmate's sister used to work in the Council, and they all sit around drinking tea all day".
Be honest, just say no, or pick a scapegoat, like people on the dole or immigrants driving around in the Rolls Royce they were given as soon as they stepped ashore.
Whilst our National Government has been a two-horse race since 1916, but locally Councils have been run by lots of different parties, none have really shined, NHS England will have it's 10th CE this year, none of them has be appointed and proclaimed "Holy st Lads, turns out we've been spending billions a year on a Sky TV package we forgot to cancel".
Be honest, just say no, or pick a scapegoat, like people on the dole or immigrants driving around in the Rolls Royce they were given as soon as they stepped ashore.
Whilst our National Government has been a two-horse race since 1916, but locally Councils have been run by lots of different parties, none have really shined, NHS England will have it's 10th CE this year, none of them has be appointed and proclaimed "Holy s
t Lads, turns out we've been spending billions a year on a Sky TV package we forgot to cancel". Jasandjules said:
I pay more than enough tax and it is going up as it stands.
I bet if someone were to look, they would see a lot of waste that could be tackled first. I know a fair bit in the NHS for starters !
Agree,I bet if someone were to look, they would see a lot of waste that could be tackled first. I know a fair bit in the NHS for starters !
Think free prescriptions of Paracetamol etc. The NHS were giving them free but the ones they were buying were costing more than Tesco were selling them for. Folk shouldn't get stuff like that free when it's only a few pennies in the supermarket.
Free Gluten free bread. WTF
Folk on repeat prescriptions getting multiple, often expensive medicine and drugs that they weren't actually taking any more, just stockpiling.
I could go on. Scrap free prescriptions, make them £1/ item, that'll stop the "it's free I'll have it" brigade.
One area where everyone is unanimous on it being mediocre, and is rather core to the moment, is defence procurement.
Cancel little Jayden and Adidas's daily taxi to school and back of course, but the biggest ticket items are rife with failure, dead ends and waste.
We need to get a lot better at that very quickly.
And there are existing capabilities like some of our ships that have been doing very little for the sake of relatively piddly sums in wages and conditions.
If we were more joined up and with a greater sense of mission far more effectiveness would be unlocked with a modest outlay.
Cancel little Jayden and Adidas's daily taxi to school and back of course, but the biggest ticket items are rife with failure, dead ends and waste.
We need to get a lot better at that very quickly.
And there are existing capabilities like some of our ships that have been doing very little for the sake of relatively piddly sums in wages and conditions.
If we were more joined up and with a greater sense of mission far more effectiveness would be unlocked with a modest outlay.
Edited by bloomen on Monday 3rd March 17:30
I wouldn't support any tax increases for any reason.
We're already taxed to oblivion. To the point that's it's barely worth striving for personal improvement.
No system will ever continue to thrive where the fewer and fewer strong are expected to continually support the ever growing weak and feckless. Every tax increase just creates more government to be supported.
A part from a state education I've not claimed a bean in my life from the state and I've not used any NHS resource for the last 10 years. I haven't been lucky, I've worked bloody hard and lived within my means. Yet the harder I work the more the state wants to take from me to support other individuals lifestyles.
I'm all for giving people the occasional leg up to help them on their way but when you see the amount of people living pay check to pay check to fund a lifestyle they can't really afford it does make you wonder whether they are worth helping when the st hits the fan. That's not to mention those that think of their handouts from the state as their entitled wages and those that eat themselves to obesity then wonder why they're sick.
Then you get some self serving politician giving away billions to other countries to help them move their 0.0001% CO2 emissions to greener energies.
Trying to maintain the current path with ever increasing taxes will just put us deeper in the mire until the whole lot comes tumbling down.
So that's a very firm NO from me.
We're already taxed to oblivion. To the point that's it's barely worth striving for personal improvement.
No system will ever continue to thrive where the fewer and fewer strong are expected to continually support the ever growing weak and feckless. Every tax increase just creates more government to be supported.
A part from a state education I've not claimed a bean in my life from the state and I've not used any NHS resource for the last 10 years. I haven't been lucky, I've worked bloody hard and lived within my means. Yet the harder I work the more the state wants to take from me to support other individuals lifestyles.
I'm all for giving people the occasional leg up to help them on their way but when you see the amount of people living pay check to pay check to fund a lifestyle they can't really afford it does make you wonder whether they are worth helping when the s
t hits the fan. That's not to mention those that think of their handouts from the state as their entitled wages and those that eat themselves to obesity then wonder why they're sick.Then you get some self serving politician giving away billions to other countries to help them move their 0.0001% CO2 emissions to greener energies.
Trying to maintain the current path with ever increasing taxes will just put us deeper in the mire until the whole lot comes tumbling down.
So that's a very firm NO from me.
Edited by Harry H on Monday 3rd March 17:35
Harry H said:
I wouldn't support any tax increases for any reason.
We're already taxed to oblivion. To the point that's it's barely worth striving for personal improvement.
No system will ever continue to thrive where the fewer and fewer strong are expected to continually support the ever growing weak and feckless. Every tax increase just creates more government to be supported.
A part from a state education I've not claimed a bean in my life from the state and I've not used any NHS resource for the last 10 years. I haven't been lucky, I've worked bloody hard and lived within my means. Yet the harder I work the more the state wants to take from me to support other individuals lifestyles.
I'm all for giving people the occasional leg up to help them on their way but when you see the amount of people living pay check to pay check to fund a lifestyle they can't really afford it does make you wonder whether they are worth helping when the st hits the fan. That's not to mention those that think of their handouts from the state as their entitled wages and those that eat themselves to obesity then wonder why they're sick.
Then you get some self serving politician giving away billions to other countries to help them move their 0.0001% CO2 emissions to greener energies.
Trying to maintain the current path with ever increasing taxes will just put us deeper in the mire until the whole lot comes tumbling down.
So that's a very firm NO from me.
There's a lot in that which I can identify with.We're already taxed to oblivion. To the point that's it's barely worth striving for personal improvement.
No system will ever continue to thrive where the fewer and fewer strong are expected to continually support the ever growing weak and feckless. Every tax increase just creates more government to be supported.
A part from a state education I've not claimed a bean in my life from the state and I've not used any NHS resource for the last 10 years. I haven't been lucky, I've worked bloody hard and lived within my means. Yet the harder I work the more the state wants to take from me to support other individuals lifestyles.
I'm all for giving people the occasional leg up to help them on their way but when you see the amount of people living pay check to pay check to fund a lifestyle they can't really afford it does make you wonder whether they are worth helping when the s
t hits the fan. That's not to mention those that think of their handouts from the state as their entitled wages and those that eat themselves to obesity then wonder why they're sick.Then you get some self serving politician giving away billions to other countries to help them move their 0.0001% CO2 emissions to greener energies.
Trying to maintain the current path with ever increasing taxes will just put us deeper in the mire until the whole lot comes tumbling down.
So that's a very firm NO from me.
Edited by Harry H on Monday 3rd March 17:35
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff