He was just thinking about fun times
Westminster Politics
- 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.
He was just thinking about fun times
I wonder which countries the Tories could possibly want to control our healthcare...
Why do the majority of these sleazeballs look like the lovechild of the banjo playing kid from Deliverance and a long forgotten pork sandwich that's been festering at the back of your fridge for six months?Delyn MP Rob Roberts invited intern to 'fool around' with him
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-53472289
He wanted to kill old people via negligence or what kind of fun are we talking here?
Honestly. At today PMQ, what ever Starmer questions the PM on, all Boris can answer is rubbish about Brexit.
He has quite clearly lost it.
Starmer yet again is making Boris look like the idiot he is.
Boris is the most inept and embarrassing PM I can remember in my lifetime.
He has quite clearly lost it.
Starmer yet again is making Boris look like the idiot he is.
Boris is the most inept and embarrassing PM I can remember in my lifetime.
The line about two articles is a great reminder about how disingenuous Boris really is about brexit.
The problem once again though is that if you didn't watch PMQs you wouldn't know how shite Boris was, since the press never mention it.
For years Cameron was viewed as a kind and composed PM but every week at PMQs he would answer questions with a purple face and insults.
boris awful again ,yet tories still lead the polls .Brexit maybe or if you voted tory willing to give them a chance.
on a side bbc politics live was poor today lisa nandy answered the same question on starmer 3 times over 10 minutes reducing the time on the Russia report.
on a side bbc politics live was poor today lisa nandy answered the same question on starmer 3 times over 10 minutes reducing the time on the Russia report.
Great thread:
It's like a bad tribute act to the Labour manifesto
Yeah it's most likely just continuing the Tory trend of chucking some ideas out into the press and then doing nothing. I'm not expecting an mass infrastructure program from the man whos response to a global pandemic was to give everyone a pizza hut voucher.
That's been the strategy for a while now. Pick up policies that sound like your opponents but are largely empty rhetoric.
They might go through with this as in the short term the money we're not sending to the EU can be used to gain political advantage. All those great projects funded by the EU that they never got credit for can be downsized and then rebranded as Boris victories. You know it's coming.
Welsh Labour as always asking the important questions
Great point.
It's such a perfect fit for both Boris(Who's only interested in spin)and for the Tory voters who only care about house prices and the spectacle of nationalism.
She's talking rubbish. Some women like it. As long as one doesn't apply pressure.
Over-40s in UK to pay more tax under plans to fix social care crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ise-taxes-for-over-40s-to-pay-for-social-care
They kept that one quiet during the Election.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ise-taxes-for-over-40s-to-pay-for-social-care
They kept that one quiet during the Election.
This is a great idea; about time. I would be amazed if Hancock has the balls and kudos to pull it off, though.
German model sounds more logical
Perhaps enhanced payments for over 40s now to catch up but a flat tax on everybody would seem more logical
Yeah anything like that that would be great, even if it has some issues and seems unable to cover the costs.
Surely it would make sense to adjust tax on wealth and income rather than age.
It is so stupid. Rich under 40s paying feck all tax while poor over 40s paying more.
It is a terrible idea. Tax should be based on wealth or income, not age.
As an alternative if we closed the tax loopholes, or even claimed the billions owed by companies like Amazon and Starbucks then it would not be necessary to increase tax on over 40s on a basic wage.
Maybe put the top rate of tax back up to 50p for high incomes as a start. They reduced tax for people earning over £150k from 50p to 45p per pound a few years ago. Now there is a blanket increase for all over 40s, rich or poor.
Tory logic.
I think it's fair to say that older people with above average income or wealth are the group that would be most able to pay more tax without any great difficulty, but quite what form that tax should take I'm not sure.
I was amazed for years that Tories would go on and on about inheritance tax, even the ones that weren't wealthy enough to pay it, but seemed to completely ignore the risk that they would lose the value if their house, however modest, if they went into care. I can only think the very wealthiest Tories were the ones to push that line, and the others were just plain gullible and swallowed it.
I was amazed for years that Tories would go on and on about inheritance tax, even the ones that weren't wealthy enough to pay it, but seemed to completely ignore the risk that they would lose the value if their house, however modest, if they went into care. I can only think the very wealthiest Tories were the ones to push that line, and the others were just plain gullible and swallowed it.
The highlighted is the key element. Not age.
In general I agree, but I said I'm not sure how to do it because it's not easy thinking of a way to tax more those with greater disposable income, with disposable being the key. £30k pa ain't rich for a 40 year old with kids and a mortgage, but it's more than enough for a pensioner with their house paid off. Raising a range of taxes that would apply more to them is possibly the answer, but I'm not clever enough to work it out, sorry.
This is not an income tax. I think age can be a fair criterion for an insurance tax to cover older peoples' care, especially if the cover itself is age dependent.
What, like NI that already exists and is linked to income?
Age is clearly not a fair criterion unless you believe a tax based in no factor other than not having died is reasonable.
I think a scheme that works more like the auto enrollment pension scheme would be better. Essentially you pay for your own care via an employer matched tax free savings scheme.
It wouldn't plug the hole immediately but if the take up is anything like pension auto enrollment it'll go a large way to fixing the problem long term. In the short term they could set the auto enrollment level at a higher % for the over 40s.
Poor people who die younger paying for the care of the wealthy who live longer via general taxation in my view is awful policy.
If there was a surplus from NI contributions, then we wouldn't need to be talking about a new scheme. And, why do think contributions for such a scheme would not be linked to income? From what I can gather, after accounting for age, it would still be based on income.
Your second sentence makes no sense. Just reflexively rejecting age as a criterion doesn't really advance the argument.
Agree with this.
I'm not suggesting there is an NI surplus. I am unsure which aspect of my second sentence makes no sense.
The points I'm making, if it is unclear, is that including a mechanism for paying into an insurance scheme to cover the costs of such care already. There is no need to create a new tax, least of all one that is linked to a factor as arbitrary as age.
I'd personally be wary of any new mechanism to fund this especially when they look to be moving social care to the NHS.
When social care costs keep increasing and more types of care inevitably get covered in that fee what do you think the argument will be then? Will the Tories take responsibility for any increases?
As soon as you allow a little direct funding from tax payers the government will absolve themselves of any responsibility and the NHS will suffer as a result.
From what i read it's also a mandatory tax or insurance suggestion and it doesn't take a superforcaster to see them use that to support a movement towards private treatment with an NHS forced to it's knees.
When social care costs keep increasing and more types of care inevitably get covered in that fee what do you think the argument will be then? Will the Tories take responsibility for any increases?
As soon as you allow a little direct funding from tax payers the government will absolve themselves of any responsibility and the NHS will suffer as a result.
From what i read it's also a mandatory tax or insurance suggestion and it doesn't take a superforcaster to see them use that to support a movement towards private treatment with an NHS forced to it's knees.
That last sentence is an interesting bit of spin on the purposes of taxation isn't it? If you're poor you'll be paying less or next to nothing through general taxation anyway and secondly it ignores that they're paying for their own care too.
Desperate for a barrier so he can avoid the tough questions.
I wonder if those who thought Johnson was doing a great job at PMQs will revise their assessment
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53588275
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53588275