• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

scaramanga said:
That's very true. Equally, £150k pa is not super rich either.

Whilst we're discussing it, the differential tax rate at £100k is hideous, as is the removal of childcare benefit at £60k
Click to expand...


How they can justify the basic doubling to create the middle rate but the top rate only going up by 50% more is staggering.
Not that they give a fudge of course.
 
I hate to say I agree. There is a lot of tax to pay in this nation. I believe in state ownership (especially for profit) but also a smaller state, and less government spending. So much of what our government spends could be utalised better. Probably 50% of taxes could be spent with more care and savings. There is very little value for money in state spending compared to entrepreneurial uses of resources and invention associated with private industry. What does that make me?

Have there been any movements or politicians who've advocated a smaller state but public ownership (for profit or utility)?
 
SpurMeUp said:
I hate to say I agree. There is a lot of tax to pay in this nation. I believe in state ownership (especially for profit) but also a smaller state, and less government spending. So much of what our government spends could be utalised better. Probably 50% of taxes could be spent with more care and savings. There is very little value for money in state spending compared to entrepreneurial uses of resources and invention associated with private industry. What does that make me?

Have there been any movements or politicians who've advocated a smaller state but public ownership (for profit or utility)?
Click to expand...
I don't think the two are compatible.

Competition is required to make cost savings anything other than a "nice to have". I get quite irritated when I don't get value for money, yet most of the comparable public services I receive are far worse than the open market alternatives. Not only that, but I pay much more for them too.

I believe in Germany one can opt out of the state insurance and pay, instead for private insurance. A far better system than our disgusting method of taking a fortune in tax and then providing a system so terrible one has to pay for private healthcare on top.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't think the two are compatible.

Competition is required to make cost savings anything other than a "nice to have". I get quite irritated when I don't get value for money, yet most of the comparable public services I receive are far worse than the open market alternatives. Not only that, but I pay much more for them too.

I believe in Germany one can opt out of the state insurance and pay, instead for private insurance. A far better system than our disgusting method of taking a fortune in tax and then providing a system so terrible one has to pay for private healthcare on top.
Click to expand...

On the surface I agree. How can a smaller state and state ownership be compatible?

But we're lumping together a whole heap of different state activities into one. For me, the state owning profitable utalities like Thames Water (regularly making £1b+ profits per annum) is not incompatible with the government also spending money more carefully (or more creatively) on things like grants, benfits etc. Utility companies don't really have competition. Why not have them run like private businesses with the £1b pa going back into the UK Exchequer rather to off shore accounts?

In short, why can't government enterprises be run more like private ones to benifit tax payers and reduce tax?
 
SpurMeUp said:
On the surface I agree. How can a smaller state and state ownership be compatible?

But we're lumping together a whole heap of different state activities into one. For me, the state owning profitable utalities like Thames Water (regularly making £1b+ profits per annum) is not incompatible with the government also spending money more carefully (or more creatively) on things like grants, benfits etc. Utility companies don't really have competition. Why not have them run like private businesses with the £1b pa going back into the UK Exchequer rather to off shore accounts?

In short, why can't government enterprises be run more like private ones to benifit tax payers and reduce tax?
Click to expand...
That train of thought is based heavily on the assumption that Thames Water would continue to make profits if owned and managed by the state. That's a massive assumption.
 
scaramanga said:
That train of thought is based heavily on the assumption that Thames Water would continue to make profits if owned and managed by the state. That's a massive assumption.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's not an assumpton however. The question is simple: how can state owned companies be insulated from public demands to be run like private enterprises? Essentially with the tax payers being share holders. It should not be a massive undertaking. Put in place a board, performance bonuses etc
 
the dza said:
How was it done with East Coast Mainline when that was taken into de facto government ownership? It turned a profit, high customer satisfaction, everything was fine, better infact than the privatised version.

It shouldn't be too hard to replicate that across other natural monopolies that are better off being owned by our state (as opposed to the states of other nations).
Click to expand...

That's it. Forgot simplistic ideologies for a second, just look at what works and what does not. The ideologies of the past are useless now. They need reinventing. Which is why both major parties have serious problems. The Coservatives don't know what they stand for anymore, and Labour are too ridgidly set in a old style socialism. Take the good from both ideologies and there is something there that has not been exploited or explored. Labour have valid ideas but they have to move away from a high tax ethos. It won't get them elected and it does not represent what they are trying to do either.

The truth of the matter is a lot of your taxes you pay are wasted. How can a government address that? Not by privitisation but by incentivising innovation, some risk, and excellence in both the civil service and state owned industries. In short have them act more like private entities. ANd bring people along for the ride, get them to publicly reform services that could be better. People who are work in public sectors know where the waste is. They see it every day. But we're not harnessing them.
 
SpurMeUp said:
I agree. It's not an assumpton however. The question is simple: how can state owned companies be insulated from public demands to be run like private enterprises? Essentially with the tax payers being share holders. It should not be a massive undertaking. Put in place a board, performance bonuses etc
Click to expand...
That's how most public enterprises have been run. With very, very few exceptions they've either been terrible for customers, a huge loss of money or both.
 
the dza said:
How was it done with East Coast Mainline when that was taken into de facto government ownership? It turned a profit, high customer satisfaction, everything was fine, better infact than the privatised version.

It shouldn't be too hard to replicate that across other natural monopolies that are better off being owned by our state (as opposed to the states of other nations).
Click to expand...
East Coast Mainline isn't a monopoly - that's why it was successful.

In the words of its CEO, putting railways under state control "would be a disaster."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...r-state-control-would-be-a-disaster-6dndggt3l

We can't replicate that through nationalisation because that would take away the very competition that made this scenario successful.
 
scaramanga said:
That's how most public enterprises have been run. With very, very few exceptions they've either been terrible for customers, a huge loss of money or both.
Click to expand...

So run them properly. Thames Water makes billions which leaves the UK to offshore tax havens. We don’t even know who owned the company. That profit could be going back into the nation cutting your taxes. Forget your ideologies for a moment and accept it makes sense.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
parklane1 said:
Last week it was Farage who you were saying would kill the NHS, now its Trump. You are good for a laugh though.:p
Click to expand...

If you can't see the link between the two... Then I really don't know what to say.

brexit (hard brexit) will devour all that is good about this country.

The signs are there.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Which May immediately talked down. Its a storm in a teacup.

"Donald, will the NHS be on table when we talk trade deal"

"Yes, everything should be"

May - "Well thats why they call it negotiation"

Its confirmation of nothing, a non story.
Click to expand...

They lied so much and were soo wrong about how negotiations with the EU would go... But now you believe their retoric about negotiating a trade with the US?? Are you being serious?

As some one that pretty much called exactly what would happen with the negotiations with the EU. Let me in detail explain what will happen to us in negotiations with the US after no deal and us being in a desperate position negotiating with a bigger trade partner:

anal sex, no lube, no foreplay just hard violent penatration that will leave us permently scared and vulnerable. It will make the negotiations with the EU look like a glorious moment in our history. Of course it won't be sold as such... It will be sold as loving consentual sex... But we will be the ones forever walking funny.
 
DTA said:
They lied so much and were soo wrong about how negotiations with the EU would go... But now you believe their retoric about negotiating a trade with the US?? Are you being serious?

As some one that pretty much called exactly what would happen with the negotiations with the EU. Let me in detail explain what will happen to us in negotiations with the US after no deal and us being in a desperate position negotiating with a bigger trade partner:

anal sex, no lube, no foreplay just hard violent penatration that will leave us permently scared and vulnerable. It will make the negotiations with the EU look like a glorious moment in our history. Of course it won't be sold as such... It will be sold as loving consentual sex... But we will be the ones forever walking funny.
Click to expand...

And I suppose I need to "own it" for some reason as well?

Remove your delusion and look at all of what was actually said, rather than the single (misrepresented) soundbite that suits your narrative and allows for such an eagerly delivered tirade.

When asked a leading question he said everythings on the table (as most would expect in trade negotiations) and was immediately countered. As you would expect in trade negotiations. As it should be.

Storm in a teacup.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
And I suppose I need to "own it" for some reason as well?

Remove your delusion and look at all of what was actually said, rather than the single (misrepresented) soundbite that suits your narrative and allows for such an eagerly delivered tirade.

When asked a leading question he said everythings on the table (as most would expect in trade negotiations) and was immediately countered. As you would expect in trade negotiations. As it should be.

Storm in a teacup.
Click to expand...

If you support brexit you should own it,a should every other Brexiter, it will be the ultimate result of your actions and support.

Thing is, it's not just him that said it, is it?
 
DTA said:
If you support brexit you should own it,a should every other Brexiter, it will be the ultimate result of your actions and support.

Thing is, it's not just him that said it, is it?
Click to expand...

I support independence and the opportunities it presents.

I support leaving a controlling, insular, racist group.

After that we will have to see what happens.

I need not "own" anything, thats your own perversion.
 
Its reported as though they are favourites, though I think largely due to the referendum result (60% leave if memory serves).

Will be interesting to see how it actually plays out.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
And I suppose I need to "own it" for some reason as well?

Remove your delusion and look at all of what was actually said, rather than the single (misrepresented) soundbite that suits your narrative and allows for such an eagerly delivered tirade.

When asked a leading question he said everythings on the table (as most would expect in trade negotiations) and was immediately countered. As you would expect in trade negotiations. As it should be.

Storm in a teacup.
Click to expand...

The Americans have been fairly consistent on the trade deal. Everything traded should be on the table. The ambassador and then Trump got leading questions about the NHS which they answered the same way. No one thought to ask whether US defence procurement would also be on the table.

People forget that the NHS does have involvement with trade. It buys pharmaceuticals and it outsources some services. The NHS contracts with private hospitals for some operations and also for care homes. Some US companies are already involved in the latter. Many people object to outsourcing, but that is a separate argument. If something is outsourced we want the best deal for the NHS regardless of who supplies it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back