General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'd like to see NI ring-fenced for support of the NHS and Pensions. Australia has two things I really like. One is compulsory "Super", ring-fenced exclusively for pensions. The other is compulsory voting. Also, their elections are a form of proportional representation - which seems to me waaaaay superior to our outmoded and unfair FPTP system.
Indirect Taxes includes VAT which accounts for 17% about the same as National Insurance. Fuel, Tobacco and Alcohol taxes add another 7% to take the total to 24%
I've got work at 6:00 on Friday. Don't know how or if I'll get enough sleep though. I MUST.
There is undoubtedly a strong, persistent bias in the British press. But..when you are one of the top 3 members of the shadow cabinet and trying to persuade people of the case for change, you need to do a lot better than this. Can you imagine Blair or even Kinnock appointing someone so fragile under pressure as shadow home secretary? If she thinks this is difficult, how will she cope with being blamed for things largely beyond her control like terrorism attacks or immigration numbers?
Ol' Maybot was at her robotic best in the Jon Snow interview.
I work nights so will get in and settled for 11 and im in it for the night.
My delivery route today included a lot of hospitals and schools in Wiltshire. Depressing. Of the four people I asked, only one said they'd be voting for Labour. The other three said they didn't like or trust Corbyn. When I asked why they all said they "just don't like/trust him". fecking media.
We used to have a tax rate that was twice what it currently us. That doesn't mean we used to tax them more.
Tax rates vs tax receipts are two very different things.
For one second ignore the names of the parties and think about what each one wants to achieve: as much power as possible.
Now think logically as to how one would go about achieving it. Step 1: Ignore the bottom 20% as they don't vote. Step 2: Ignore the young because they don't vote. Step 3: Get as much tax as possible from the top 5% as they represent a huge tax windfall for a small amount of vote losses. Result: you have 75% of the population who you're looking to try and make as happy as possible.
The Tories couldn't give a crap about losing the votes of 400,000 of the richest voters if they gained the votes of 2,000,000 of he middle earners. Plus who are the 400,000 going to vote for anyway? Labour?
Taxing the top 5% is the solution to all parties' problems. Unfortunately they aren't taxable in reality (more than they already are being taxed).
A cynical ploy would be to tell get electorate that you can extract more tax from these people. A more realistic play is to choose another group of people to tax or cut spending.
Behind Corbyns plans lie a large tax burden on the bottom 20% among others through potentially lost jobs (increasing minimum wage), potentially increased prices (increased tax burden on companies = higher prices) and/or potentially a squeeze on the middle earners as these are the people who can't avoid tax so always end up funding extra Government spending.
The key thing to ask yourself is are people generally self-serving and power hungry and what gives them more power and how is the best way of achieving this? If the answer is yes then you'll soon realise the same people will pay for extra Government spending irrespective of who you vote for.
Just drop some acid around 3am, you won't be able to sleep until Friday night.
It's not that simple.
First of all, the Labour manifesto is costed. Secondly, if you invest in infrastructure then it can pay for itself over time; the value it gives back to the economy can be greater than the debt potentially incurred in paying for it (plus potentially interest as well).
As far as the Tories are concerned May wanted a greater majority so that she wouldn't have to worry about rebellious back-benchers so much, and also so that she could trot out that she has a "mandate" for just about anything she wants to do.
Apart from Swindon, Wiltshire has pretty much always been blue. Wouldn't really get wound up. It's like someone going to Liverpool, asking four people and getting frustrated when they say they're not voting the Conservatives.
Did you read The Express, The Sun and The Daily Mail front page today?
Your logic is flawed. The Tories cut taxes for the top and hammer the middle with indirect taxes. You've said yourself the bottom 20% don't vote so there is no danger in upping their taxes and cutting the services they rely on. The middle classes are sold the dream that one day they'll be the at the top, they don't realise how badly they are being hit as the tax is indirect
I'd say pretty badly, judging from what I've seen. Or, to put it another way, about 100x better than Boris in his role.
Hopefully this illness thing is more to do with moving her away from such a key position.
I never understood the premise that Tories could be both loud, emotional & opinionated and still have a large portion of 'shy Tories'.
But lefties are only one dimensional.
Exactly.
There's never a response given that highlights this exact issue. We all know what it is, and nobody will admit it because she's just an easy target.
It's disgusting.
The greatest trick the tories have managed over the years is to pursuade people that letting the rich stockpile all the money, while selling off anything of value in the country, makes them 'good with the economy'.
Nationalisation need not be expensive, if done when contracts expire, for example. In the long run, we will all benefit from removing the profit making companies from the equation.
But isnt taxing the richer places and distributing that wealth to the poorer areas a good thing?
And actually i disagree. If we left the main family home alone, and taxes all other assets at 20%, that would apply to everyone equally. Whether you live in Northern Ireland or London
"Strong and stable!"
"When we look into the Brexit negotiations"? Wasn't she supposed to be "looking" into it now? That's why she wouldn't do a debate? Pathetic PM. She's beyond parody.
I particularly loved her line that 'only I am in position to negotiate brexit because the talks start in 9 days'.
No hint of irony from her. What a world she must live in.
No-one cuts the taxes for the top earners. There is literally no incentive for doing that. Cutting taxes for the top 5% would be the stupidest thing any party of any persuasion could do.
It might win a tiny minority of votes which would be irrelevant to the eventual election result, whilst at the same time alienating literally everyone else, especially when the black hole in finances would have to be paid for by the bulk of the voting electorate.
People would still vote for her. At this point she could walk into a cafe, piss on everybodies chips and laugh while they eat them and the patrons would still thank her very much and vote for her.
Of you're gonna tax inheritance after 350k then to me its only fair you top up someones inheritance ehn they only leave 1k behind. Thats my opinion anyhow
Besides pleasing the billion/millionaires who regularly donate to the party and own much of the country's media? Lets not forget the large number of Tory millionaires (I'd hazard most of their MPs are) and their mates who would benefit.
I've taken Friday off work. If it starts getting depressing I can always get pissed now.
Running through fields of wheat on Tuesday, shaking babies on Wednesday. Thursday's going to be wild.
MP's from both sides also massively over-represent landlords, hence the lack of appetite to do anything about the housing market which benefits them.
Turns out i'm not eligible to move to canada. so theres my plan in the event of a tory majority gone.
Its not about votes, the Tories are the top 5%, they get to keep more money.
Surrounding areas of London included. Obviously you are doing fine if you're earning 80k a year in London but I do think people forgot that is a whole lot different to earning that in say Manchester.
Henderson CEO said they just had to beef up the team in Luxembourg for its Sicav range to comply.
Optimistic. It's a matter of when, not if
You know thats exactly what they they did do right?
The first mistake you're making is that you think the top 5% are taxable to a level higher than they're currently being taxed.
However lets assume firstly that merely increasing tax rates would increase tax receipts and secondly let's assume that unlike any very wealthy person I've ever met these Tories do not want power, but instead their sole focus is enriching their friends.
The stupidest way to achieve this would be to cut taxes to the top 5%, alienate the rest of the population, get voted out after one term and watch as the opposition not only reverse their policies, but add extra taxes on top.
Not to mention the fact that all facts suggest the absolute opposite is happening. The richest 1% are paying more tax as a % of tax and in terms of physical tax receipts than ever before and the poorest 50% are paying less than ever before.
That's irrespective of government. Which is obvious because if two people have the same objective (winning your vote) they'll end up with the same result (squeezing the top as much as possible and screwing over non-voters who're irrelevant in favour of the voting majority).
Can you explain how using physical tax receipts?
Well if we're talking fairness...
Good schools for everyone.
Free school meals.
Free job training and further education.
A well funded, free health and social care system that not only offers top level service, but which works on prevention and early treatment of problems.
Availability of affordable housing for all.
These things are more important than whether someone receives an inheritance, imho.
Tinkering at the edges of tax rates is what both main parties have been doing for too long. It's time for a new approach. If that means we 'lose' some billionaires and big businesses then fine. There are plenty of budding entrepreneurs and small businesses that would happily fill the void, when not stiffled by mega corporations who have little regard for their customers or employees.