mansion tax

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

How do those European health care systems operate? My understanding of the French system is that the State provides free health care for definitive treatments only, the remaining treatments are pay as you go.

Which probably makes direct 'cost' comparisons difficult at best.

I certainly think that the scope of what the NHS provides needs to be reduced and tightly managed to control costs.

[audidoody]

Rovinghawk said:

Not for the money they can make?

No. There's no real money in it unless you get lucky and sell out at the right time (but only after years of sleepless nights and stress). For the next quarter I will be reducing my salary and will hope to make it up early next year because of seasonal cash flow.

The odds of making real money are the same as a struggling musician making a Number One record.

I run my own business for one simple reason - so that no-one can ever fire me.

Every day I deal with corporate mediocrities who earn literally millions in bonuses, golden handshakes, golden parachutes, relocation costs and share options without risking a cent.

Edited by audidoody on Thursday 2nd October 15:55

[FredClogs]

audidoody said:

Rovinghawk said:

Not for the money they can make?

No. There's no real money in it unless you get lucky and sell out at the right time (but only after years of sleepless nights and stress). For the next quarter I will be reducing my salary and will hope to make it up early next year because of seasonal cash flow.

The odds of making real money are the same as a struggling musician making a Number One record.

I run my own business for one simple reason - so that no-one can ever fire me.

Every day I deal with corporate mediocrities who earn literally millions in bonuses, golden handshakes, golden parachutes, relocation costs and share options without risking a cent.

Edited by audidoody on Thursday 2nd October 15:55

^ See that.

The American dream, the idea that rich people should be taxed less because one day you're gonna be that rich person and when you are you don't want to be paying taxes is an illusion most people with the intelligence to be in a position of running their own company see through in a jiffy.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

How do those European health care systems operate? My understanding of the French system is that the State provides free health care for definitive treatments only, the remaining treatments are pay as you go.

Which probably makes direct 'cost' comparisons difficult at best.

I certainly think that the scope of what the NHS provides needs to be reduced and tightly managed to control costs.

Hope that somebody will come along and provide some first hand knowledge of their use of the 'Euro' model' of health care. Maybe our elected politicians could provide examples and costs, Hmmmm, that sounds like work so best I won't expect anything from them.

Second para', agreed. Although in such a fast moving sphere, as health care service is, the pace of medical science and implementations of these new treatments and equipment used, it must be nigh impossible to be able to make anything other than the basic analysis of costings with efficiency savings. NICE seem to partly ensure value for money = new treatments = value for money.

[turbobloke]

FredClogs said:

^ See that.

The American dream, the idea that rich people should be taxed less because one day you're gonna be that rich person and when you are you don't want to be paying taxes is an illusion most people with the intelligence to be in a position of running their own company see through in a jiffy.

Yes I see a sample size of one True or not, and I don't dispute the account, it's no reason to tax the bejesus out of those already there. The businesses that made it through and those high earners, they pay for everything and remain able to make their own decisions. Lower tax rates tend to encourage relocation inwards - or outwards if you rob people, ask Hollande - lower rates also incentivise effort and measured risk-taking, and in an already high tax regime will be very likely to increase the tax take compared to raising those rates further. Within reasonable limits, lower corptax, income tax and CGT would be a superb idea right about now. HM Treasury would find itself with more money very soon if not immediately.

[Mrr T]

crankedup said:

How do those European health care systems operate? My understanding of the French system is that the State provides free health care for definitive treatments only, the remaining treatments are pay as you go.

Quite old but worth a read.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/health_systems.php

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

FredClogs said:

^ See that.

The American dream, the idea that rich people should be taxed less because one day you're gonna be that rich person and when you are you don't want to be paying taxes is an illusion most people with the intelligence to be in a position of running their own company see through in a jiffy.

Yes I see a sample size of one True or not, and I don't dispute the account, it's no reason to tax the bejesus out of those already there. The businesses that made it through and those high earners, they pay for everything and remain able to make their own decisions. Lower tax rates tend to encourage relocation inwards - or outwards if you rob people, ask Hollande - lower rates also incentivise effort and measured risk-taking, and in an already high tax regime will be very likely to increase the tax take compared to raising those rates further. Within reasonable limits, lower corptax, income tax and CGT would be a superb idea right about now. HM Treasury would find itself with more money very soon if not immediately.

Following the financial crash of 2008 thousands of hard working middle class families lost their jobs. Not because these people were crap at their jobs but down to the Company they worked for going bust So Mr and Mrs middleclass eventually get turfed out of the family home, with the kids, because they could no longer make the mortgage payments. The lucky ones managed to set themselves up in the storm drain culverts which at least offered them a 'roof'. Rather dangerous home as they had to be aware that heavy rain could soon see the culverts fill with water.
The remaining groups not so lucky as to grab a culvert had to make do with a tent on any open space, little villages popped up overnight and quite a community spirit ensued in a vain attempt to 'keep up spirits'. No Government assistance whatsoever for these people, sink literally for some, or swim. Of course its tough luck for them, that is all, apparently.
Personally I prefer to pay reasonable taxation knowing that if I or family fall on hard times a safety net will be there.
Just leaves the question , what is a (its that word again) fair tax.

America - the land of plenty.

[crankedup]

Thanks for links MrrT. Should make interesting reading.

[FredClogs]

turbobloke said:

FredClogs said:

^ See that.

The American dream, the idea that rich people should be taxed less because one day you're gonna be that rich person and when you are you don't want to be paying taxes is an illusion most people with the intelligence to be in a position of running their own company see through in a jiffy.

Yes I see a sample size of one True or not, and I don't dispute the account, it's no reason to tax the bejesus out of those already there. The businesses that made it through and those high earners, they pay for everything and remain able to make their own decisions. Lower tax rates tend to encourage relocation inwards - or outwards if you rob people, ask Hollande - lower rates also incentivise effort and measured risk-taking, and in an already high tax regime will be very likely to increase the tax take compared to raising those rates further. Within reasonable limits, lower corptax, income tax and CGT would be a superb idea right about now. HM Treasury would find itself with more money very soon if not immediately.

I see no evidence for your assertion lower rates incentivise effort and high rates of Corp tax and CGT stop people from wanting to make a successful business work.

I also don't recognise your vision of the UK as somewhere which punitively taxes success, quite the opposite, I see a country with a myriad of stealth taxation which disproportionately taxes the poor far more than the wealthy.

Perhaps the fact we disagree means the government has the balance just right?

[turbobloke]

FredClogs said:

I see no evidence for your assertion lower rates incentivise effort and high rates of Corp tax and CGT stop people from wanting to make a successful business work.

I also don't recognise your vision of the UK as somewhere which punitively taxes success, quite the opposite, I see a country with a myriad of stealth taxation which disproportionately taxes the poor far more than the wealthy.

Perhaps the fact we disagree means the government has the balance just right?

My point was partly about incentivising businesses and high earners to pay even more tax, and partly about the prospect of a higher tax-take from lower tax rates when taxation levels are already high. CGT was an example of how a lower rate can achieve more revenue, it wasn't about how to make business owners prosper via successful SMEs.

There's evidence in the form of data from the USA and elsewhere that lowering the highest rate of tax increases tax revenues, there's evidence from Ireland that lowering CGT increases the tax-take from CGT, and the idea that lowering corptax would encourage businesses to invest and relocate is evident from French whine, in this case their complaints about lower corptax in Ireland as chance would have it, and how this was unfair (that word again). These actual outcomes have been posted more than once in PH threads on tax levels.

My proposal would be likely to increase the amount of tax in HMT coffers and I don't accept for one second that this is a low tax environment. There were over 100 stealth taxes introduced by Labour and most of them are still at work feeding an oversize state. Marginal rates of income tax which mean that more than half of additional income goes to a government are disincentives, but we're in that position.

Lower tax rates and a bigger tax take, that's a win-win and I can't see any rational objection to it that's worthy of consideration.

The irrational viewpoint possessed by a significant proportion of Labour supporters that higher rates of tax on top earners should be introduced even when they don't raise additional revenue should be ignored.

[sidicks]

FredClogs said:

I see no evidence for your assertion lower rates incentivise effort and high rates of Corp tax and CGT stop people from wanting to make a successful business work.

I also don't recognise your vision of the UK as somewhere which punitively taxes success, quite the opposite, I see a country with a myriad of stealth taxation which disproportionately taxes the poor far more than the wealthy.

The top 1% pay 30% of the taxes (income tax)

FredClogs said:

Perhaps the fact we disagree means the government has the balance just right?

Should we assume that you aren't in the 1% ?

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 18:25

[edh]

sidicks said:

The top 1% pay 30% of the taxes.

As you're such a stickler for accuracy, perhaps you'd like to consider that one again?

[turbobloke]

edh said:

sidicks said:

The top 1% pay 30% of the taxes.

As you're such a stickler for accuracy, perhaps you'd like to consider that one again?

Can't speak for sidicks but in context that looks like a harsh nitpick.

The post was about the top 1% (of earners so the context is income taxes) and from a previous HMRC referenced post, the top 1% pay 29.8% of income taxes.

That's 30% in anyone's money.

[edh]

Unfortunately our pensions guru was replying to a post about all taxes.

I'm sure he wouldn't want to mislead anyone..

He can take it...he's a grown up

Ah I see he's done a quick edit maybe for completeness he could show what % of the tax take that is?

Edited by edh on Thursday 2nd October 18:58

[DonkeyApple]

crankedup said:

Looking at the Governance system other side of pond. Very opposite to the U.K. model and yet the American Society seem no better off. Simplistically cutting somewhere down the middle of both systems should, in theory, provide something to suit most. Personally I would hate to see the loss of our NHS and a half decent strictly controlled safety net for basic living would be fine.

I agree. The other extreme of just cutting people loose doesn't fit in to our British sensibilities.

No one would want the NHS throttled back so long as it is sufficiently efficient and a welfare safety net is what puts the Great in GB frankly. The issue is that it has ceased to be a safety net because of political gerrymandering and lack of balls and allowed to become a lifestyle option. I won't ever blame a human who chooses to not work if he is still getting paid, to be honest it seems rather logical. I won't blame people who cross the sea to get paid big bucks to do nothing. They are simply being human. The error and fault lies with the Govt and we who elect them and just moan when they deceive and back track.

[sidicks]

edh said:

Unfortunately our pensions guru was replying to a post about all taxes.

I'm sure he wouldn't want to mislead anyone..

He can take it...he's a grown up

Ah I see he's done a quick edit maybe for completeness he could show what % of the tax take that is?

Edited by edh on Thursday 2nd October 18:58

It was already being edited before your sarcastic post, as whole it was fairly obvious to most people what was intended, you managed to make yourself look a bit foolish yesterday due to your lack of understanding, so we don't want that to happen again!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 19:17

[edh]

sidicks said:

edh said:

Unfortunately our pensions guru was replying to a post about all taxes.

I'm sure he wouldn't want to mislead anyone..

He can take it...he's a grown up

Ah I see he's done a quick edit maybe for completeness he could show what % of the tax take that is?

Edited by edh on Thursday 2nd October 18:58

It was already being edited before your sarcastic post.

if you can't take it.....

Anyway, I'm off to a party meeting now - I'm going to tell them how the nasty boys at PH keep picking on me....

[edh]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Did you see the programmes Gerry Robinson did a few years ago? very interesting. I'd suggest that what the NHS needs is some proper managers, not administrators.

[edh]

sidicks said:

edh said:

Unfortunately our pensions guru was replying to a post about all taxes.

I'm sure he wouldn't want to mislead anyone..

He can take it...he's a grown up

Ah I see he's done a quick edit maybe for completeness he could show what % of the tax take that is?

Edited by edh on Thursday 2nd October 18:58

It was already being edited before your sarcastic post, as whole it was fairly obvious to most people what was intended, you managed to make yourself look a bit foolish yesterday due to your lack of understanding, so we don't want that to happen again!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 19:17

Who's rattled your cage? Threats?... On the Internet?... Whatever next? Are you going to send the boys round to have a word with me?

If I'd have written something weak like "it was fairly obvious to most people what was intended" you'd have been the first to have a go.

[crankedup]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I will accept your 1.2.3. comments at face value, however it is not an easy task running such a behemoth Industry, you only need look at Tesco for evidence of that! So how or what in the direction of management would you suggest as a way of progress in terms of efficiency etc. For me the NHS seems to slowly evolve, an outsiders POV.
Most people are resistant to change, it's in the human gene that what you know is safe. So how to get those people to accept that the proposals are in best interests of all.
Don't ask me, I wouldn't want to think about it!