I blame that 'Nick Clegg'.
Him and 'Bliar'.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:08, 2 replies, latest was 15 years ago)

And Gordon Clown
Actually I don't I blame that fucking self satisfied cunt Osbourne I hope he gets raped to death.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:13, Reply)

Yeah, the cunt.
He's done nothing of note since he was chucked out of Sabbath.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:17, Reply)

I disagree, Bark at The Moon is a cracking album.

( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:20, Reply)

There is a case that Cleg has got nothing to do with it.
It's the fucking internal NHS market place which forces say barnley primary care to compete with exeters primary care. So they have to buy everything seperatly and are punished if they overspend on items or services. And financial punishments for failing (relativly) arbitary targets.

It gets as farcical as individual clinics buying syringes individually when any company in the world would give the NHS a massive discount if they said "do you want to supply the whole of England with syringes for three years"

The finacial penalties are a joke, "you have to see x% of people in A&E within y hours" which doesn't take into account the number of people going through, so inner city glasgow has to get x% of 4000 a day, while somewhere like sussex has to get x% of 300, with the same £5k fine every month if they fail.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:14, Reply)

Your spelling has died.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:17, Reply)

You're lucky I'm not typing in caps I'm hitting the keyboard so hard.
Don't get me started on the redundacies that are taking place or the three year pay freeze, or the abolition of the PCT's and SHA's and the FUCKING GP CUNT-SORTIUMS
(PsychoChomp, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:20, Reply)

it's not that these are not very valid points
they probably are, i just don't know anything about it. but find an industry in the private or public sector that isn't going through the exact same thing. the bottom line is, the economy is fucked, there's fall-out, and it never ever falls on the people who caused the problem. they are swanning around now making millions because people are actually stupid enough to pay them to speak/write books.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:29, Reply)

The difference is instead of shareholders losing money
people lose their lives, that changes absolutly everything.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:32, Reply)

that's a bit facile
it's not as black and white as money-v-life, and you know it!

the bottom line is, however amazing a job the nhs does, someone has to pay for it. this is why lots of other countries don't have it. and the money simply isn't there to do that, esp given the massive number of non-contributors who use it now, as opposed to when the concept was established all those years ago. in fact, the more money you contribute into the tax pot, the less likely you are to use it, as you are more likely to have access to private healthcare. so to make it work, they have to do something.

if it were up to me, i'd take money away from other things that i think are pointless and pump it into the nhs, transport and education, but naturally the government never think to ask me...
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:38, Reply)

There isn't a "massive number of non-contributors"
You've been reading to much hyperventilating Daily Mail stranglewank journalism.

The private healthcare argument is massively spurious as the vast majority of medical situations require you to use the NHS first regardless of your wealth or private healthcare.

And of course someone has to pay. That's why you put taxes up and actually enforce collection of corporation tax, instead of bending over backwards and being taken by anyone who fanices it. Because, here's the thing - banks and big business aren't going to fuck off to another country if you actually start to tax fairly. they just aren't. So why even listen to that as a threat?

Your plan is fine, but you don't need to take money from other things. You just need more money. Easy. More tax. now THAT is fair.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:45, Reply)

you say it's right wing bollocks
but every time the country has ended up in the financial shit, it's followed a more left wing government.

the problem is that you are never going to get high earners to think they should "have to pay" more tax to support other people who choose not to work at all. so there will never be a definition of "fairly" because it will fluctuate depending on who is control.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:59, Reply)

Why are you assuming that I would tax high earners more?
I'd tax everyone more. High earners pay more money, but not proportionally more.

And that government thing is entirely untrue. It's happened once (Wilson's government) - I don't think you can call the previous Labour administration "left wing"

I'm not, incidentally, left wing. I'm very capitalist. I don't wave ineffectual fists at the nasty banks. Capitalism works. But the ONLY fair solution to financial crisis is wholesale tax increases, because it is the only thing that hurts everyone equally.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:06, Reply)

Apart from those who employ accountants to ensure they pay as little tax as possible
By abusing loopholes and tax havens and the like.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:08, Reply)

and lawyers
don't forget the lawyers.

but then the accountants and lawyers pay tax on their fees and salaries, so.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:10, Reply)

Nowhere near as much as the tax money saved by the rich
Closing tax loopholes would be the most fair method of raising more money, in my very ill-informed opinion.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:12, Reply)

Take the example of the banks then
They were too big to fail, they got a large amount of help from goverment and the government has now said they're not in the buisiness of micro managing the banks. Trusting them to sort themselves out.

Where as the NHS has had the soon abolisment of NICE (the only way it currently has to limit the use of overpriced undereffective drugs), a "real-terms increase" which in reality is cuts and a massive stuctural change imposed by the government. Totally the opposite to what happened to the banks.

This is all about ingrained mistrust of the people who work in the public sector by the government, and politicians in general to be able to do anything at all without them pointing out what they should focus on.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:48, Reply)

Well, no.
the problem is rather that the NHS (and education for that matter) isn't a business and shouldn't be treated as such. Since it isn't "allowed" to do what a business in the same position would do (refuse to treat patients if it's not commercially viable, etc)

There's no reason the any of the public sector should be going through this. All it needs is a political party in power with the balls to tax both the public and the corporate sector at a fair level.

I'm all for reform of the public sector to remove wastage and shit staff. But this is basically fucking idiocy of the highest order and it will bring the whole country to it's knees.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:37, Reply)

but take that too far
and you end up with the highest earning businesses/individuals being made to support everyone else. which is fine up to the point that it's fair. that point will be different for everyone. after that point, they will simply leave the country to get on with itself, and you end up with another "brain drain" like we had in the 70's when some people were being taxed at 90%.

i am not disputing the morals of it, obviously, but the harsh reality is that nothing comes for free, and if something has got to the point where it is unworkable, even if that has been caused by crap management or government, there has to be a massive shake-up to fix it.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:42, Reply)

There wasn't a brain drain in the 70s.
That's more right wing horseshit.

Apart from anything else, the "brains" in this country aren't paid enough for it to matter what the tax levels are. You can't apply the term "brain drain" when what you mean is "voracious money grabbing scum with the morals of a hyena drain"

and, frankly, if the highest earning individuals don't like it, they can go and live in a country with a tax system that more suits their morals. Companies will not leave. Won't happen. Didn't in the seventies, won't happen now.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:49, Reply)

i am absolutely intrigued
as to why you think people who work hard and want to be able to enjoy the rewards of that should be "money grabbing scum". so i am money grabbing scum because i work the hours i do after about 21 years in education and the last 10 years literally working my arse off, but that makes me "scum" because i resent being made to hand over even more of it to support people who have chosen not to work, or to have tens of children?

why?
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:01, Reply)

Who mentioned you?
I appreciate you do well for yourself but I doubt (no offence) you fall into the catergory of people I'm talking about, who happily feel it's OK to try and hold the country to ransom by threating to take their toys away if tax is increased.

No-one is questioning your right to earn for working hard. But let me ask you, since you take that tack, what gave you the right to be paid more for your hard work than me for my equally hard and equally difficult work? You justifiably answer that and I'll agree that you shouldn't be taxed more than me.

And the "supporting people who don't work" argument is tired and untrue. That's a tiny amount of what your tax pays for.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:13, Reply)

because you chose your job
and i chose mine. you could easily have gone into a job that paid more, you could easily have gone into a job that paid less.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:19, Reply)

That's not an answer
as it in no way justifies why you shouldn't pay more tax than me.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:21, Reply)

yes it does
i went into law for many reasons, but one of the factors was the salary. in return for this salary, it's blood sweat and tears. it's missed weekends. it's cancelled holidays. it's often not leaving the office at all from one day to the next. the recompense is financial. so why should i do all that for less recompense, when i could not work at all and hold my hand out for free stuff and then loll around scratching my arse on it.

distill out the hyperbole and you'll get the point!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:35, Reply)

Indeed. I'm sure it is.
And I work, effectively, all the time. My role is basically three jobs, any one of which would stretch one person, but I have to do all three. I absolutely guarantee you I work as hard as you do. So, why should you be paid more than me?

Like I said, I don't begrudge you your salary for a second. But until you can justify why you're worth more than me, then you can't justify why you shouldn't pay more tax.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:46, Reply)

Straw man.
Are you suggesting that we can all have 100k jobs if we wanted? Societal pressure says otherwise.

Sorry to bust in, I am massively enjoying the discussion.
( Kroney, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:21, Reply)

This is my point
there's nothing in rswipes job that makes it "worth" more or less than, say, mine - she's paid more because that's how capitalism works, and I have no problem with that, as she freely says, my choice. I can and have worked in the private sector for much more money in the past and I still do on a consultancy basis when I have the time.

But since it isn't "worth" more then I can't think of one single justifiable argument why she shouldn't pay more tax.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:27, Reply)

because i don't want to??

( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:30, Reply)

It's an honest answer
but sadly it's not a valid one. I don't want to pay any more tax either!
( Kroney, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:32, Reply)

honest, m'dear
very honest.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:34, Reply)

Didn't you cure cancer?
(in moths) I don't think there's many jobs that can ever be better than that.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:31, Reply)

not morally, maybe
but we can't all do that. every job contributes to society.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:32, Reply)

haha, I'm not playing the moral card.
that would be a shit argument. I don't think people like firemen and nurses should necessarily be paid more, either. But I do think the more well of should pay more tax. Well, everyone should pay more tax, but you know what I mean.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:36, Reply)

I think you may be confusing me, there
although I'm glad you reminded me of that genius thread, who was it again?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:33, Reply)

Ah here it is
www.b3ta.com/talk/5544929
(PsychoChomp, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:38, Reply)

Oh, that's fucking WIN.
Even I have to take some pleasure in that.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:52, Reply)