Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters podcast: Reshuffles, Oprah and exclus

2

Comments

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,489

    HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    A quick google seems to imply a penny in the pound gets about £6bn. So it would be 5p in the pound or so. a staggering rise.
    It is not linear, though, as people change their financial behaviour.

    1p nets you 6 billion, but 5p nets you < 30 billion.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,279

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    You should respect peoples own religious beliefs but he seems to have lied which is unacceptable. At least Jacob Rees Mogg is honest
    So should we differentiate between bigotry and bigotry based on religious belief?
  • HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    A quick google seems to imply a penny in the pound gets about £6bn. So it would be 5p in the pound or so. a staggering rise.
    Thank you - and that highlights the dishonesty in the debate. It seems to be the view a 1% rise will resolve the crises when it will not touch it. Also how much of the 33 billion is needed for wage increases.

    This needs an honest national debate out of the politics of it
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,509

    HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    A quick google seems to imply a penny in the pound gets about £6bn. So it would be 5p in the pound or so. a staggering rise.
    Thank you - and that highlights the dishonesty in the debate. It seems to be the view a 1% rise will resolve the crises when it will not touch it. Also how much of the 33 billion is needed for wage increases.

    This needs an honest national debate out of the politics of it
    Bus gets you more than half the way.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,390
    Theresa May in it for the long haul. She will be announcing her 25 year environmental plan. Nothing else she touches lasts more than 25 hours, but good luck to her!
  • So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    You should respect peoples own religious beliefs but he seems to have lied which is unacceptable. At least Jacob Rees Mogg is honest
    So should we differentiate between bigotry and bigotry based on religious belief?
    No - if you believe in the teaching of the Catholic Church you will adhere to them yourself but you should respect other views as well.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721

    HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    A quick google seems to imply a penny in the pound gets about £6bn. So it would be 5p in the pound or so. a staggering rise.
    It is not linear, though, as people change their financial behaviour.

    1p nets you 6 billion, but 5p nets you < 30 billion.
    Another way of looking at it is that there's about 30m tax payers. So, to get £30bn you would need to get about £1,000 on average from each of them.

    There's only 4m or so higher rate tax payers, so to get the money from them only would be an additional £7,500 from them!!

    As said, these are unaffordable numbers.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,174

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    You should respect peoples own religious beliefs but he seems to have lied which is unacceptable. At least Jacob Rees Mogg is honest
    Why should we 'respect' other peoples religious beliefs if, due to reading a text in a certain way, they show no similar 'respect' towards other perfectly honest, law-abiding people?

    I supported Farron for the leadership (and I still think he did a better job than the current incumbent, although that is a low bar). But this is way out of order for him, and the Lib Dem party should state that he is wrong.
  • HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    About 6% on income tax.

    It could be made a voluntary tax so that all those people who say they would like to pay more to fund the NHS could do so.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,390
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    Should have written it on a bus.
    Joking aside, the costs of Brexit are going to be an issue when set against tight funding for public services.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 10,687
    edited January 11
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    A quick google seems to imply a penny in the pound gets about £6bn. So it would be 5p in the pound or so. a staggering rise.
    Thank you - and that highlights the dishonesty in the debate. It seems to be the view a 1% rise will resolve the crises when it will not touch it. Also how much of the 33 billion is needed for wage increases.

    This needs an honest national debate out of the politics of it
    Bus gets you more than half the way.
    So even the bus is only half way. There seems to be general agreement on here that a 5% increase in tax is needed for the NHS alone.

    And there is the mega problem
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,917
    Pete Hoekstra must be regretting agreeing to become ambassador to the Netherlands.
  • FF43 said:

    Theresa May in it for the long haul. She will be announcing her 25 year environmental plan. Nothing else she touches lasts more than 25 hours, but good luck to her!

    To be fair she is hitting on a very important issue and it will be popular
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,509

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    A quick google seems to imply a penny in the pound gets about £6bn. So it would be 5p in the pound or so. a staggering rise.
    Thank you - and that highlights the dishonesty in the debate. It seems to be the view a 1% rise will resolve the crises when it will not touch it. Also how much of the 33 billion is needed for wage increases.

    This needs an honest national debate out of the politics of it
    Bus gets you more than half the way.
    So even the bus is only half way. There seems to be general agreement on here that a 5% increase in tax is needed for the NHS alone.

    And there is the mega problem
    Nah. primarily a question of political will.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    A quick google seems to imply a penny in the pound gets about £6bn. So it would be 5p in the pound or so. a staggering rise.
    Thank you - and that highlights the dishonesty in the debate. It seems to be the view a 1% rise will resolve the crises when it will not touch it. Also how much of the 33 billion is needed for wage increases.

    This needs an honest national debate out of the politics of it
    Bus gets you more than half the way.
    So even the bus is only half way. There seems to be general agreement on here that a 5% increase in tax is needed for the NHS alone.

    And there is the mega problem
    And thats before all of the other costs which labour want. Housing, Police, Schools, universities etc etc etc.

    We can't afford it. Labour would bankrupt the country.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    A quick google seems to imply a penny in the pound gets about £6bn. So it would be 5p in the pound or so. a staggering rise.
    Thank you - and that highlights the dishonesty in the debate. It seems to be the view a 1% rise will resolve the crises when it will not touch it. Also how much of the 33 billion is needed for wage increases.

    This needs an honest national debate out of the politics of it
    Bus gets you more than half the way.
    So even the bus is only half way. There seems to be general agreement on here that a 5% increase in tax is needed for the NHS alone.

    And there is the mega problem
    Nah. primarily a question of political will.
    Political will doesn't trump economic reality.
  • So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    You should respect peoples own religious beliefs but he seems to have lied which is unacceptable. At least Jacob Rees Mogg is honest
    Why should we 'respect' other peoples religious beliefs if, due to reading a text in a certain way, they show no similar 'respect' towards other perfectly honest, law-abiding people?

    I supported Farron for the leadership (and I still think he did a better job than the current incumbent, although that is a low bar). But this is way out of order for him, and the Lib Dem party should state that he is wrong.
    I do not disagree with you but no one has a higher moral ground than anyone else. Tim Farron is out of order though
  • MaxPB said:

    German economy posts strongest growth for 6 years at 2.2% in 2017.

    Yesterday it was suggested we had grown by 0.6% last quarter, so that is equal to 2.4% annual increase
    2017 growth will be in the region of 1.8-2.0% once all of the revisions are done. The "slowdown" the UK economy experienced will end up being as fictitious as the double dip recession was. I just want to see how the remainers will spin ~1.9% as poor and Germany's 2.2% as the boom of the ages.
    And 2017 finally saw some economic rebalancing in the UK.

    For example it looks like the trade deficit as a percentage of GDP is going to be the lowest since 1998:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/d28l/pnbp
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,112
    edited January 11
    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,416
    On the NHS, the more I interact with the Swiss insurance system the more I'm on board with it. Everyone needs to have it, those on low or no incomes get it subsidised and you can choose you annual deductible portion, your level of cover, and insurance companies aren't allowed to deny you cover based on pre existing conditions.

    The three times I've needed to visit a doctor I got an appointment for the following day and I got referred to a specialist within two days.

    I've never needed emergency care bit I'm told it's extremely efficient with very low waiting times.

    The government could do a lot worse than just import the Swiss healthcare system.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    A quick google seems to imply a penny in the pound gets about £6bn. So it would be 5p in the pound or so. a staggering rise.
    Thank you - and that highlights the dishonesty in the debate. It seems to be the view a 1% rise will resolve the crises when it will not touch it. Also how much of the 33 billion is needed for wage increases.

    This needs an honest national debate out of the politics of it
    Bus gets you more than half the way.
    So even the bus is only half way. There seems to be general agreement on here that a 5% increase in tax is needed for the NHS alone.

    And there is the mega problem
    Nah. primarily a question of political will.
    So who is increasing tax by 5%
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511

    HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    Are the extra 11% all over 65 ?
    I doubt, people want hypothecated social insurance ringfenced for things like the NHS not more tax wasted
  • Remainers talking to themselves again
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,059
    Mysteriously, all the posters who claim that increasing funding for the NHS is unaffordable will absolutely insist that the defence budget is massively underfunded.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,390
    Jonathan said:

    This Young stuff is striking. Either due diligence isn't a thing or there is tacit approval for his position on certain issues.

    Toby Young got the gig because he's in with the Johnson/Gove/Nelson cabal. You don't do due diligence on your friends. Equally he's only interesting because of that relationship. A random member of a quango with objectionable ideas on race and intelligence and barely adult young women wouldn't get nearly the same attention.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,917
    He's a Brexiteer.
  • calum said:
    And he lost his job as well and he appointed Toby Young
  • Iain Martin is a Leaver.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,416

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    The answer is an insurance based system.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,614

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Their kids.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    Mr. Meeks, I'm one of those who want more Defence spending, but I've yet to hear anyone here claim it should double, which would be a comparable increase to the above mentioned rise in NHS spending.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 282
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

    May -6
    Corbyn -6
    Blair -42
    Clegg -24 (the next worst)
    Carney +10 - the only positive.

    Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

    SNIP
    Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.

    My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.
    It's amazing that people on the right who would normally not hesitate to say that central planning is terrible, think that government manipulation of trade flows for ideological convenience is what we 'need'.
    We need to do everything we can to foster free trade, and not give those who want to tie us to an ever-diminishing part of the world that we voted to leave, the opportunity to get us back in any time soon.

    What free trade do you envisage that will be freer than what omes to shove we will be leaving in name only.

    The customs union you mean, Norway is in the single market but outside the customs union in EFTA

    No, I mean the single market. Leaving the customs union is just the icing on the cake.

    Staying in the customs union would actually give more respect to the Leave vote than staying in the single market which requires free movement and ECJ jurisdiction and Labour is making some moves towards staying in the customs union if possible even if we still leave the single market. That would be similar to the position Turkey is moving towards
    Show me the ballot paper where 52% voted to end free movement. You cannot infer that from the result I am afraid, however much it suits your argument. Indeed many Leave voters support FOM. You are like a broken record, endlessly presenting your own views as if they were facts.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,059
    Iain Martin voted Leave. Though I'm not sure what his referendum choice has to do with the point at hand.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721

    Mysteriously, all the posters who claim that increasing funding for the NHS is unaffordable will absolutely insist that the defence budget is massively underfunded.

    Well it is, but again where's the money coming from.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,416

    Iain Martin is a Leaver.
    Yes, but he's also sensible and can see the malign effect Timothy and Hill are having on the government and country. I'm still yet to be convinced they aren't Labour plants.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 61,058
    edited January 11
    They are her Damian McBride.

    She condones such behaviour speaks volumes about Mrs May’s character.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    Technically any sex outside heterosexual first marriage is a sin as is lying too but the Church teaches we are all sinners compared to Christ
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    Mr. Max, that may well be true, but suggest changing the beloved NHS ('our NHS' as some call it) and there shall be rending of garments, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,059

    Mr. Meeks, I'm one of those who want more Defence spending, but I've yet to hear anyone here claim it should double, which would be a comparable increase to the above mentioned rise in NHS spending.

    Priorities, Mr Dancer. Let's deal with the current dying and ill rather than fund for creating a new batch.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,112

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Or we could just not pour infinite money into the NHS.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 282
    HYUFD said:

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    Technically any sex outside heterosexual first marriage is a sin as is lying too but the Church teaches we are all sinners compared to Christ
    May is another bible botherer. Perhaps she also thinks gay sex is a sin, secretly.
  • MaxPB said:

    Iain Martin is a Leaver.
    Yes, but he's also sensible and can see the malign effect Timothy and Hill are having on the government and country. I'm still yet to be convinced they aren't Labour plants.
    Next PB meet I’ll tell you about all the horror stories I’ve heard about those two.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,489

    Mysteriously, all the posters who claim that increasing funding for the NHS is unaffordable will absolutely insist that the defence budget is massively underfunded.

    Actually, most people looking at the figures are simply curious as to how the tax receipts could be raised.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,489
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    Technically any sex outside heterosexual first marriage is a sin as is lying too but the Church teaches we are all sinners compared to Christ
    May is another bible botherer. Perhaps she also thinks gay sex is a sin, secretly.
    This seems a straightforward smear.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,416

    MaxPB said:

    Iain Martin is a Leaver.
    Yes, but he's also sensible and can see the malign effect Timothy and Hill are having on the government and country. I'm still yet to be convinced they aren't Labour plants.
    Next PB meet I’ll tell you about all the horror stories I’ve heard about those two.
    I've heard the one about Gove already and a few others. They both seem like utter tits to me. I don't understand what the PM sees in them both, neither have any amount of political nous and they just seem unlikeable.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,390
    calum said:
    Timothy's assertions about Greening subverting investigations into universities seem implausible to me, and probably a slur. She seems pretty motivated by improving social mobility.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    Mr. Eagles, they're more incompetent than McBride but less malicious (or less 'absolutely bloody brilliant', if you prefer).

    Mr. Meeks, pish. Defence has been chronically underfunded and cut by all parties for far too long.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 282

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    You should respect peoples own religious beliefs but he seems to have lied which is unacceptable. At least Jacob Rees Mogg is honest

    Er, no. Respect is something that is earned, not granted unconditionally. I have no more respect for religionism than I do for those who believe that small bottles of pure water are medicines or that the world is flat or that the moon is made of cheese. I defend their right to hold such views, but that is a very different thing. Respect them? No.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    edited January 11

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax there is and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Or we could just not pour infinite money into the NHS.
    We could, works well for Zimbabwe and the Weimar republic....
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 282
    HYUFD said:

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    Technically any sex outside heterosexual first marriage is a sin as is lying too but the Church teaches we are all sinners compared to Christ
    Do you consider gay sex to be a sin?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,509
    MaxPB said:

    On the NHS, the more I interact with the Swiss insurance system the more I'm on board with it. Everyone needs to have it, those on low or no incomes get it subsidised and you can choose you annual deductible portion, your level of cover, and insurance companies aren't allowed to deny you cover based on pre existing conditions.

    The three times I've needed to visit a doctor I got an appointment for the following day and I got referred to a specialist within two days.

    I've never needed emergency care bit I'm told it's extremely efficient with very low waiting times.

    The government could do a lot worse than just import the Swiss healthcare system.

    Switzerland spend nearly twice per capita on healthcare.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948
    FF43 said:

    calum said:
    Timothy's assertions about Greening subverting investigations into universities seem implausible to me, and probably a slur. She seems pretty motivated by improving social mobility.
    I think we can all unite in agreement that Timothy is a first class arse.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    edited January 11
    Pong said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Their kids.
    It is their kids who would most vote against higher IHT as it is their inheritance, what an absurd point
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 1,926
    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    That's because most voters don't understand that increasing NI rather than IT hits the poorer and younger harder. Once that is explained to them...
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,390
    edited January 11
    MaxPB said:

    On the NHS, the more I interact with the Swiss insurance system the more I'm on board with it. Everyone needs to have it, those on low or no incomes get it subsidised and you can choose you annual deductible portion, your level of cover, and insurance companies aren't allowed to deny you cover based on pre existing conditions.

    The three times I've needed to visit a doctor I got an appointment for the following day and I got referred to a specialist within two days.

    I've never needed emergency care bit I'm told it's extremely efficient with very low waiting times.

    The government could do a lot worse than just import the Swiss healthcare system.

    The Swiss health system is good. It's also costly. The Swiss spend 12.1% of their GDP on health against 9.9% of a much lower per capita GDP in the UK.

    https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Health-Policy-in-Switzerland-July-2017.pdf
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,174
    We should got for a set-spending target per area of government spending. We already do it for defence (sort of) at 2%, and DFID at 0.7%.

    Do the same for all the other departments: say 10% health, education 6% etc. The budgets for the next year get set according to the previous year's figures (or aggregate multiple yeaars). Then the discussion shifts onto the much more helpful grounds of what those percentages should be.

    A party can also choose to have a contingency figure as well (in fact, that would seem very sensible).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,059

    Mr. Eagles, they're more incompetent than McBride but less malicious (or less 'absolutely bloody brilliant', if you prefer).

    Mr. Meeks, pish. Defence has been chronically underfunded and cut by all parties for far too long.

    No, too much has been expected of Defence. The one possible positive of Brexit is that it will finally dawn on the Colonel Blimps that a third of the world is no longer painted pink.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,112

    Mysteriously, all the posters who claim that increasing funding for the NHS is unaffordable will absolutely insist that the defence budget is massively underfunded.

    Maybe they think that actually being able to defend the country is worth the money, but infinite spending on an unreformed NHS isn't.

    NHS spending is three times defence spending by the way.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    Technically any sex outside heterosexual first marriage is a sin as is lying too but the Church teaches we are all sinners compared to Christ
    May is another bible botherer. Perhaps she also thinks gay sex is a sin, secretly.
    She is just politically astute enough not to say so in public
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023
    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax there is and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    Simple answer is to eliminate the NI taper as your income increases. Keep it at a flat 12%.

    Boom, done.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,692
    JonathanD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    That's because most voters don't understand that increasing NI rather than IT hits the poorer and younger harder. Once that is explained to them...
    They will feel exactly the same way. Voters are nowhere near as dumb as you like to claim.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

    May -6
    Corbyn -6
    Blair -42
    Clegg -24 (the next worst)
    Carney +10 - the only positive.

    Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

    SNIP
    Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.

    My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.
    It's amazing that people on the right who would normally not hesitate to say that central planning is terrible, think that government manipulation of trade flows for ideological convenience is what we 'need'.
    We need to do everything we can to foster free trade, and not give those who want to tie us to an ever-diminishing part of the world that we voted to leave, the opportunity to get us back in any time soon.

    What free trade do you envisage that will be freer than what omes to shove we will be leaving in name only.

    The customs union you mean, Norway is in the single market but outside the customs union in EFTA

    No, I mean the single market. Leaving the customs union is just the icing on the cake.

    Staying in the customs union would actually give more respect to the Leave vote than staying in the single market which requires free movement and ECJ jurisdiction and Labour is making some moves towards staying in the customs union if possible even if we still leave the single market. That would be similar to the position Turkey is moving towards
    Show me the ballot paper where 52% voted to end free movement. You cannot infer that from the result I am afraid, however much it suits your argument. Indeed many Leave voters support FOM. You are like a broken record, endlessly presenting your own views as if they were facts.
    80% voted for parties promising to end free movement in June
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,416
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax there is and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    Simple answer is to eliminate the NI taper as your income increases. Keep it at a flat 12%.

    Boom, done.
    And introduce a 57% top tax rate? Goodbye wealthy people.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,059

    Mysteriously, all the posters who claim that increasing funding for the NHS is unaffordable will absolutely insist that the defence budget is massively underfunded.

    Maybe they think that actually being able to defend the country is worth the money, but infinite spending on an unreformed NHS isn't.

    NHS spending is three times defence spending by the way.
    So you'd prefer to be able to invade Syria should the opportunity arise than to save lives in the here and now? That figures.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 1,926

    JonathanD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    That's because most voters don't understand that increasing NI rather than IT hits the poorer and younger harder. Once that is explained to them...
    They will feel exactly the same way. Voters are nowhere near as dumb as you like to claim.
    Either you think voters are psycopaths or you haven't followed the discussion.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    JonathanD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    That's because most voters don't understand that increasing NI rather than IT hits the poorer and younger harder. Once that is explained to them...
    Nope, that is because most voters support social insurance for healthcare like most developed countries and do not just want to see their taxes raised to be spent by wasteful socialists like your party leader. Given NI is only paid by those in employment and earning a wage your point is of course absurd anyway
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721
    MaxPB said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax there is and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    Simple answer is to eliminate the NI taper as your income increases. Keep it at a flat 12%.

    Boom, done.
    And introduce a 57% top tax rate? Goodbye wealthy people.
    also wouldn't raise enough. There's only 4m higher rate tax payers (which includes wealthy pensioners which don't pay NI), so even if you get an extra £1,000pa from all of them it gives you only £4b or so.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,037



    No - if you believe in the teaching of the Catholic Church you will adhere to them yourself but you should respect other views as well.

    How is that possible? The dogma of the Catholic Church is that the rejection of catholicae veritas is the mortal sin of heresy.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    Mr. Meeks, striking terrorists in Syria prevents them attacking us here. Saving lives.
  • Mr. Eagles, they're more incompetent than McBride but less malicious (or less 'absolutely bloody brilliant', if you prefer).

    Mr. Meeks, pish. Defence has been chronically underfunded and cut by all parties for far too long.

    Nick Timothy clashed with a civil servant over a minor thing.

    A few weeks later Nick Timothy put in a complaint about that civil servant saying he had broken the civil service guidelines on impartiality hoping to get the civil servant sacked.

    That civil servant’s crime?

    Posting a tweet wishing Ed Balls good luck on Strictly Come Dancing.

    Pathetic doesn’t do Nick Timothy justice.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,112
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    Technically any sex outside heterosexual first marriage is a sin as is lying too but the Church teaches we are all sinners compared to Christ
    May is another bible botherer. Perhaps she also thinks gay sex is a sin, secretly.
    It really is open season on any Christian these days. Yeah a lot probably don't like it, but they feel terrible about feeling that way and are never going to do anything about it.

    Compare with the attitude of Muslims...100% of which surveyed think that homosexuality is wrong:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

    And then look at what happens to gay people in Islamic countries. But yeah let's all spend our time condemning wet lettuce Christians like Tim Farron as that is where the real danger lies.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,390

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    I enjoy being the Devil's Advocate. I believe Farron regrets the lying, hence his statement. I don't agree with his views on gay sex at all, but I think he has every right to them, as long as he doesn't impose them on the rest of us. As he is a representative of his constituency and party, he also shouldn't allow those views to influence his representation.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,258

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    Technically any sex outside heterosexual first marriage is a sin as is lying too but the Church teaches we are all sinners compared to Christ
    May is another bible botherer. Perhaps she also thinks gay sex is a sin, secretly.
    It really is open season on any Christian these days. Yeah a lot probably don't like it, but they feel terrible about feeling that way and are never going to do anything about it.

    Compare with the attitude of Muslims...100% of which surveyed think that homosexuality is wrong:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

    And then look at what happens to gay people in Islamic countries. But yeah let's all spend our time condemning wet lettuce Christians like Tim Farron as that is where the real danger lies.

    Two wrongs make a right?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    edited January 11
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    Technically any sex outside heterosexual first marriage is a sin as is lying too but the Church teaches we are all sinners compared to Christ
    Do you consider gay sex to be a sin?
    Based on Christian teaching I would consider any sex before marriage, any sex by divorcees a sin too but I am also a sinner as much as the next person
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,037

    Mr. Meeks, striking terrorists in Syria prevents them attacking us here. Saving lives.

    Well that clearly hasn't worked.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,112
    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    On the NHS, the more I interact with the Swiss insurance system the more I'm on board with it. Everyone needs to have it, those on low or no incomes get it subsidised and you can choose you annual deductible portion, your level of cover, and insurance companies aren't allowed to deny you cover based on pre existing conditions.

    The three times I've needed to visit a doctor I got an appointment for the following day and I got referred to a specialist within two days.

    I've never needed emergency care bit I'm told it's extremely efficient with very low waiting times.

    The government could do a lot worse than just import the Swiss healthcare system.

    Switzerland spend nearly twice per capita on healthcare.
    Everything costs more in Switzerland, they have double the GDP per capita as well. Their healthcare costs as a % of GDP are similar and they have much better healthcare
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,059
    Like another old queen, I have no desire to make windows into men's souls. I'm far more interested in how they act.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023

    MaxPB said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax there is and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    Simple answer is to eliminate the NI taper as your income increases. Keep it at a flat 12%.

    Boom, done.
    And introduce a 57% top tax rate? Goodbye wealthy people.
    also wouldn't raise enough. There's only 4m higher rate tax payers (which includes wealthy pensioners which don't pay NI), so even if you get an extra £1,000pa from all of them it gives you only £4b or so.
    I'm proposing an extra 10% on the taxes of higher rate payers. Someone on £100,000 would be paying an extra 5 grand or so.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,258
    Dura_Ace said:

    Mr. Meeks, striking terrorists in Syria prevents them attacking us here. Saving lives.

    Well that clearly hasn't worked.
    How is that clear? There's been remarkably few attacks on the scale of 7/7 here let alone the scale of 9/11.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,258
    Alistair said:

    MaxPB said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax there is and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    Simple answer is to eliminate the NI taper as your income increases. Keep it at a flat 12%.

    Boom, done.
    And introduce a 57% top tax rate? Goodbye wealthy people.
    also wouldn't raise enough. There's only 4m higher rate tax payers (which includes wealthy pensioners which don't pay NI), so even if you get an extra £1,000pa from all of them it gives you only £4b or so.
    I'm proposing an extra 10% on the taxes of higher rate payers. Someone on £100,000 would be paying an extra 5 grand or so.
    Or they'll be paying tens of grand less as they won't be in the country anymore.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    Mr. Eagles, pathetic indeed.

    Mr. Ace, it's documented that we've successfully hit terrorists in Syria who were planning atrocities here.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,536

    Mr. Eagles, they're more incompetent than McBride but less malicious (or less 'absolutely bloody brilliant', if you prefer).

    Mr. Meeks, pish. Defence has been chronically underfunded and cut by all parties for far too long.

    Nick Timothy clashed with a civil servant over a minor thing.

    A few weeks later Nick Timothy put in a complaint about that civil servant saying he had broken the civil service guidelines on impartiality hoping to get the civil servant sacked.

    That civil servant’s crime?

    Posting a tweet wishing Ed Balls good luck on Strictly Come Dancing.

    Pathetic doesn’t do Nick Timothy justice.
    Nick "crap election" Timothy writing in the Telegraph is a disgrace.

    George "pasty tax, beaten by a bus in a referendum" Osborne editing the Evening Standard is refreshing or something.

    I see.


  • How about a tax of £100 per pizza that has pineapple on it

    And a tax of £100 per person who watches Die Hard at Christmas.

    NHS funding problems sorted overnight.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,416

    Alistair said:

    MaxPB said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax there is and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    Simple answer is to eliminate the NI taper as your income increases. Keep it at a flat 12%.

    Boom, done.
    And introduce a 57% top tax rate? Goodbye wealthy people.
    also wouldn't raise enough. There's only 4m higher rate tax payers (which includes wealthy pensioners which don't pay NI), so even if you get an extra £1,000pa from all of them it gives you only £4b or so.
    I'm proposing an extra 10% on the taxes of higher rate payers. Someone on £100,000 would be paying an extra 5 grand or so.
    Or they'll be paying tens of grand less as they won't be in the country anymore.
    Or they'll move their income into tax avoidance schemes. I've seen it happen first hand.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 1,926
    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    That's because most voters don't understand that increasing NI rather than IT hits the poorer and younger harder. Once that is explained to them...
    Nope, that is because most voters support social insurance for healthcare like most developed countries and do not just want to see their taxes raised to be spent by wasteful socialists like your party leader. Given NI is only paid by those in employment and earning a wage your point is of course absurd anyway

    I think you are confusing me with the wrong Jonathan.

    An increase in NI is more regressive than an increase in Income Tax as the threshold for NI is lower than that for Income Tax, meaning the poor pay more for an increase in NI than they would after an increase in IT.

    Also NI not being paid by the retired means the cost of an increase is more borne by the young.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 1,898

    How about a tax of £100 per pizza that has pineapple on it

    And a tax of £100 per person who watches Die Hard at Christmas.

    NHS funding problems sorted overnight.

    Plus those that have chocolate sprinkles on a cappuccino!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    edited January 11
    JonathanD said:

    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boomers demanding more spending on the NHS just after they've stopped working and paying tax.

    Anyone see a problem here?

    The NHS is a black hole, the more you spend the more it costs. Especially since it seems to be open for the whole world to use for free.

    The only real way now to pay for it will be brutal wealth/IHT taxes, and who's going to vote for that?
    Nobody as polling shows, IHT is the most unpopular tax and as this morning's yougov poll shows most voters will not pay a higher basic rate of income tax for the NHS only higher National Insurance
    That's because most voters don't understand that increasing NI rather than IT hits the poorer and younger harder. Once that is explained to them...
    Nope, that is because most voters support social insurance for healthcare like most developed countries and do not just want to see their taxes raised to be spent by wasteful socialists like your party leader. Given NI is only paid by those in employment and earning a wage your point is of course absurd anyway

    I think you are confusing me with the wrong Jonathan.

    An increase in NI is more regressive than an increase in Income Tax as the threshold for NI is lower than that for Income Tax, meaning the poor pay more for an increase in NI than they would after an increase in IT.

    Also NI not being paid by the retired means the cost of an increase is more borne by the young.
    You are clearly a leftwinger as tax rises come first. The lowest earners only don't pay income tax because the Coalition took them out of it but they will likely benefit from state pensions, healthcare, social care, unemployment benefits etc NI should be hypothecated to pay for. Pensioners will have paid NI throughout their working life though the biggest NI rises could be focused on over 50s who will have often paid off the mortgage and had children left home.

    Social insurance pays for most healthcare in most developed countries as it should here too with private health insurance taken out by those who can afford it
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    Mr. Eagles, your perverse and heretical views on Die Hard ought not be inflicted upon society any more than Alesha Dixon's puritanical carnophobia.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 5,967
    TOPPING said:

    John_M said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

    May -6
    Corbyn -6
    Blair -42
    Clegg -24 (the next worst)
    Carney +10 - the only positive.

    Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

    Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
    Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
    Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
    Would you have chosen Nige as the face of Leave?
    God no.
    And yet he knocked it out of the park.
    I think we all tend to concentrate too much on the campaign itself. Wobbles and angst aside, I'd decided we would probably be BOO after the Lisbon debacle. PB was also very helpful. The campaigns (on both sides) were terrible, and I took little notice of either (other than fulminating on here about the punishment budget/Turks are going to eat our babies etc).
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,037



    Mr. Ace, it's documented that we've successfully hit terrorists in Syria who were planning atrocities here.

    Yeah, that's what they tell you when they drop a £900k Storm Shadow on four raggy lads in a HiLux.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,490
    TOPPING said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

    May -6
    Corbyn -6
    Blair -42
    Clegg -24 (the next worst)
    Carney +10 - the only positive.

    Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

    Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
    Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
    Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
    Would you have chosen Nige as the face of Leave?
    Nope. I was quite happy for the likes of Michael Gove and Kate Hoey to be fronting the official campaign, although I don’t doubt that Farage played a part in getting certain demographics to the ballot box for the first time in decades.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 342
    edited January 11

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    Technically any sex outside heterosexual first marriage is a sin as is lying too but the Church teaches we are all sinners compared to Christ
    May is another bible botherer. Perhaps she also thinks gay sex is a sin, secretly.
    It really is open season on any Christian these days. Yeah a lot probably don't like it, but they feel terrible about feeling that way and are never going to do anything about it.

    Compare with the attitude of Muslims...100% of which surveyed think that homosexuality is wrong:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

    And then look at what happens to gay people in Islamic countries. But yeah let's all spend our time condemning wet lettuce Christians like Tim Farron as that is where the real danger lies.

    Two wrongs make a right?
    So you compare saying you think something is morally wrong but allowing people to get on with their lives and jailing (as occurs in over 70 nations where being gay is illegal), persecuting (as occurs in many more) and executing them in public squares (11 nations have the death penalty - one of which is hosting the football World Cup in 2022!). Tim Farron is really no threat to the rights of gay men in the world - he may not approve morally but he doesn't want to restrict their rights in any way.

    If he wasn't a Christian but of a certain other religion the media wouldn't go there.

    Yet a recent survey in the UK found 52 per cent of British Muslims thought being gay should be illegal and result in a jail sentence and only 18 per cent explicitly Thought it should be legal - the other 40 per cent wouldn't answer. That compares to only around 5 per cent of the general UK population who believed being gay should lead to you being jailed.
    .
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

    Those are attitudes which should really concern gay men and need addressing and challenging and countering - not Farron's moral quandaries.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,610
    TGOHF said:

    Mr. Eagles, they're more incompetent than McBride but less malicious (or less 'absolutely bloody brilliant', if you prefer).

    Mr. Meeks, pish. Defence has been chronically underfunded and cut by all parties for far too long.

    Nick Timothy clashed with a civil servant over a minor thing.

    A few weeks later Nick Timothy put in a complaint about that civil servant saying he had broken the civil service guidelines on impartiality hoping to get the civil servant sacked.

    That civil servant’s crime?

    Posting a tweet wishing Ed Balls good luck on Strictly Come Dancing.

    Pathetic doesn’t do Nick Timothy justice.
    Nick "crap election" Timothy writing in the Telegraph is a disgrace.

    George "pasty tax, beaten by a bus in a referendum" Osborne editing the Evening Standard is refreshing or something.

    I see.


    And Toby 'progressive eugenics' Young writing for the Speccie is..?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,490

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

    https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

    This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

    That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
    Should have written it on a bus.
    It was a serious question - do you have any idea how much tax rates need to rise for tge 33 billion annual increase
    Morning all,

    A 1p raise in income tax raises about £4.5 billion.
    At the margin yes. Raising it 10p wouldn’t raise £45bn though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    brendan16 said:

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.

    Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.

    Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?

    Technically any sex outside heterosexual first marriage is a sin as is lying too but the Church teaches we are all sinners compared to Christ
    May is another bible botherer. Perhaps she also thinks gay sex is a sin, secretly.
    It really is open season on any Christian these days. Yeah a lot probably don't like it, but they feel terrible about feeling that way and are never going to do anything about it.

    Compare with the attitude of Muslims...100% of which surveyed think that homosexuality is wrong:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

    And then look at what happens to gay people in Islamic countries. But yeah let's all spend our time condemning wet lettuce Christians like Tim Farron as that is where the real danger lies.

    Two wrongs make a right?
    So you compare saying you think something is morally wrong t want to restrict their rights in any way.

    If he wasn't a Christian but of a certain other religion he almost certainly wouldn't have been asked and the media wouldn't go there.

    Yet a recent survey in the UK found 52 per cent of British Muslims thought being gay should be illegal and result in a jail sentence and only 13 per cent explicitly said they thought it should be legal - the other 35 per cent wouldn't answer. That compares to only around 5 per cent of the general population - mostly Christians or atheists - who believed being gay should lead to you being jailed,

    Those are attitudes which should really concern gay men and need addressing and challenging and countering - not Farron's moral quandaries.
    Though of course in much of the Middle East sex outside of heterosexual marriage is illegal too
This discussion has been closed.