Tax Avoidance = Immoral
Discussion
Countdown said:
johnfm said:
You forgot Honk Kong, Singapore, BVI etc in your list Eric.
If they are taking less in tax then they will be providing less in services. It's a zero sum game.Would be interesting to know how many care homes they provide for the Elderly
I think if the 'waste' term is reduced, the 'Services' term can stay the same, while Tax Take and Borrowing go down.
NHS IT Procurement
ID Cards
Countless Military Procurement Failures
MP and Senior CS Pensions
Translation services
Child Benefit for more than 2 children
Housing Benefit of more than £400/week
johnfm said:
Countdown said:
johnfm said:
You forgot Honk Kong, Singapore, BVI etc in your list Eric.
If they are taking less in tax then they will be providing less in services. It's a zero sum game.Would be interesting to know how many care homes they provide for the Elderly
I think if the 'waste' term is reduced, the 'Services' term can stay the same, while Tax Take and Borrowing go down.
Size and scope of state down = more savings.
Clegg and Miliband won't get any of that. CMD just might.
Steffan said:
Unfortunately the UK has slid into being a society over the last forty odd years, where utter selfishness and sole concern with No 1, has become the mantra for a great many individuals.
Exemplified by feckless, reckless, dishonest self serving politicians who are driven by greed, self aggrandisment and the celebrity culture.
I personally consider the feckless benefits scroungers worse than tax avoider's because the tax avoider's have generally made some effort initially to become rich enough to need to avoid tax,. Whereas the feckless benefits scroungers are frequently on the take from the cradle to the grave.
But it is a moot distinction. The culture of selfishness is utterly destructive.
Exemplified by feckless, reckless, dishonest self serving politicians who are driven by greed, self aggrandisment and the celebrity culture.
I personally consider the feckless benefits scroungers worse than tax avoider's because the tax avoider's have generally made some effort initially to become rich enough to need to avoid tax,. Whereas the feckless benefits scroungers are frequently on the take from the cradle to the grave.
But it is a moot distinction. The culture of selfishness is utterly destructive.
and whilst it seems, but is most likely just a propagation from the media, that young gullible people consider success to be only reaching the dizzy heights of 'fame'. We are a shallow narrow minded society, greed orientated ready to 'do it over' anyone if it means a profit. I am just thankful that I made an exit to the rat race years back.el stovey said:
The Don of Croy said:
el stovey said:
I don't think our tax is too high but I agree the wastage and handouts to the feckless are far too high. I think people wouldn't mind paying more if they thought the money was being wisely spent on schools, hospitals, apprenticeships and schemes to help people get an education and jobs. Not on people who simply can't be arsed getting a job or failing schools or hospitals.
More equitable societies with higher taxation tend to be happier places and generally 'better' countries to live in. The lower the difference between earnings through taxation leads to lower levels of alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy etc etc etc. High taxation is a good thing for a society , as long as the money is wisely spent.
If you're happy to pay more tax, then I please be my guest.More equitable societies with higher taxation tend to be happier places and generally 'better' countries to live in. The lower the difference between earnings through taxation leads to lower levels of alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy etc etc etc. High taxation is a good thing for a society , as long as the money is wisely spent.
Do you not think that the problem is the state is too big, ergo it will never raise enough in tax to operate as it sees fit? The inbuilt inefficiencies in having such a monolith controlling 50% plus of a nations spending would ensure an ever expanding budget, squeezing out the productive sector. Sound familiar?
My five easy steps to making The UK great again.
1. Pay unemployed benefits in vouchers for food utility bills etc. Cap child benefit at one child.
2. Reduce the size of the state and state pensions, military spending and foreign aid.
3. Increase spending on health and education.
4. Provide Jobs and apprenticeships by supporting traditional industries and employers in poor areas. Also create compulsory training and jobs for people out of work for more than six months reducing decay (cleaning the streets/parks repairing roads etc) making the place look nicer.
5. Provide a sense of trust and society by compulsory national service and everyone has annual civic days where we all have to do worthwhile community work.
2. Currently ongoing, except foreign aid which I agree should be cut.
3. Agreed.
4. Strongly agree most except I disagree with enforced work programs for the unemployed.
5. Agree National Service but disagree enforced Community work.
What about emigration?
crankedup said:
and whilst it seems, but is most likely just a propagation from the media, that young gullible people consider success to be only reaching the dizzy heights of 'fame'. We are a shallow narrow minded society, greed orientated ready to 'do it over' anyone if it means a profit. I am just thankful that I made an exit to the rat race years back.I despair at the low ambition and entitlement culture of the youth that I meet. "It's against moy ooman rights, innit?" and "Wot's in it for me?".
Work hard at school, get yourself an education, work hard in any organisation and you will achieve what you want to achieve.
One set of grandparents came to England from Europe as penniless immigrants in the 30s. They worked hard and created a culture that valued achievement. My other set of grandparents were the children of servants - that grandfather became a teacher and my father went the same way, as did my mother. I was brought up to believe that I could achieve whatever I wanted, if I worked hard enough for it. I did just that and have succeeded.
We need to instil a love of learning and a belief in the value of education in our children.
Edited by AstonZagato on Monday 25th June 17:52
johnfm said:
(Tax Take) + (State Borrowing) = (Services) + (Waste)
I think if the 'waste' term is reduced, the 'Services' term can stay the same, while Tax Take and Borrowing go down.
NHS IT Procurement
ID Cards
Countless Military Procurement Failures
MP and Senior CS Pensions
Translation services
Child Benefit for more than 2 children
Housing Benefit of more than £400/week
State borrowing shouldn't be part of the equation as, at some point, it would need to be repaid. With regards to "waste" I've seen plenty of waste in private sector organisations. basically the further away the shareholder is from expenditure, the greater the waste. I think if the 'waste' term is reduced, the 'Services' term can stay the same, while Tax Take and Borrowing go down.
NHS IT Procurement
ID Cards
Countless Military Procurement Failures
MP and Senior CS Pensions
Translation services
Child Benefit for more than 2 children
Housing Benefit of more than £400/week
Murph7355 said:
Culturally the family look after their own elderley in some of these instances, hence they do not need central taxation to fund it. They are also a bit harder nosed generally about what is affordable/necessary. In fact I would bet that social aspects like this are treated very differently in all such places.
Very much so. The Nanny State means that we don't need to rely on friends/family/community so feck em.With regards to "looking after our own elderly" unfortunately many PHers seem to think that the State (i.e. everybody else) should look after them whilst they get a nice fat inheritance.
Beacuse "they've paid their tax" haven't they.
Countdown said:
...unfortunately many PHers seem to think that the State (i.e. everybody else) should look after them...
Judging by that remark you have no basis to speak on behalf of PHers, which was generally obvious anyway.There are threads where various PHers speak in favour of the eastern (orient) way of families looking after their elderly, and children taking care of their parents in particular, including financially. A throw-away jocular remark in the House Price thread from tonker about watching out for offspring expediting their inheritance is just that...I think
IIRC one was the Boomer thread, and other threads carry similar comments including from a PHer based in Singapore and another in Thailand where it was suggested that this is something the UK would benefit from, but they can speak for themselves as my memory may not be accurate and I wouldn't want to misattribute anything. If you missed it, you may wish to take this as FYI, and if my memory really is going then I'll gladly supply a correction.
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
...unfortunately many PHers seem to think that the State (i.e. everybody else) should look after them...
Judging by that remark you have no basis to speak on behalf of PHers, which was generally obvious anyway.Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
...unfortunately many PHers seem to think that the State (i.e. everybody else) should look after them...
Judging by that remark you have no basis to speak on behalf of PHers, which was generally obvious anyway.AstonZagato said:
crankedup said:
and whilst it seems, but is most likely just a propagation from the media, that young gullible people consider success to be only reaching the dizzy heights of 'fame'. We are a shallow narrow minded society, greed orientated ready to 'do it over' anyone if it means a profit. I am just thankful that I made an exit to the rat race years back.I despair at the low ambition and entitlement culture of the youth that I meet. "It's against moy ooman rights, innit?" and "Wot's in it for me?".
Work hard at school, get yourself an education, work hard in any organisation and you will achieve what you want to achieve.
One set of grandparents came to England from Europe as penniless immigrants in the 30s. They worked hard and created a culture that valued achievement. My other set of grandparents were the children of servants - that grandfather became a teacher and my father went the same way, as did my mother. I was brought up to believe that I could achieve whatever I wanted, if I worked hard enough for it. I did just that and have succeeded.
We need to instil a love of learning and a belief in the value of education in our children.
Edited by AstonZagato on Monday 25th June 17:52
My lad took on work at the burger flippers, worked long hard hours and climbed the ladder of promotion. However, he did not see his future with the Company and decided on a change of career, landed an adult apprenticeship training as an electrician. After three years of almost zero pay he qualified, landed a job with Babcocks International and continues a fulfilling and rewarding career. Great Company offers as much training and promotion as is possible really stretching the individual employee.
So, despite or maybe because of my views and his unstinting commitment to hard work, its worked out well for him. I agree, its the way kids are brought up and educated.
turbobloke said:
johnfm said:
Countdown said:
johnfm said:
You forgot Honk Kong, Singapore, BVI etc in your list Eric.
If they are taking less in tax then they will be providing less in services. It's a zero sum game.Would be interesting to know how many care homes they provide for the Elderly
I think if the 'waste' term is reduced, the 'Services' term can stay the same, while Tax Take and Borrowing go down.
Size and scope of state down = more savings.
Clegg and Miliband won't get any of that. CMD just might.
Edited by crankedup on Monday 25th June 19:55
Countdown said:
Murph7355 said:
Culturally the family look after their own elderley in some of these instances, hence they do not need central taxation to fund it. They are also a bit harder nosed generally about what is affordable/necessary. In fact I would bet that social aspects like this are treated very differently in all such places.
Very much so. The Nanny State means that we don't need to rely on friends/family/community so feck em.With regards to "looking after our own elderly" unfortunately many PHers seem to think that the State (i.e. everybody else) should look after them whilst they get a nice fat inheritance.
Beacuse "they've paid their tax" haven't they.
Countdown said:
johnfm said:
(Tax Take) + (State Borrowing) = (Services) + (Waste)
I think if the 'waste' term is reduced, the 'Services' term can stay the same, while Tax Take and Borrowing go down.
NHS IT Procurement
ID Cards
Countless Military Procurement Failures
MP and Senior CS Pensions
Translation services
Child Benefit for more than 2 children
Housing Benefit of more than £400/week
State borrowing shouldn't be part of the equation as, at some point, it would need to be repaid. With regards to "waste" I've seen plenty of waste in private sector organisations. basically the further away the shareholder is from expenditure, the greater the waste. I think if the 'waste' term is reduced, the 'Services' term can stay the same, while Tax Take and Borrowing go down.
NHS IT Procurement
ID Cards
Countless Military Procurement Failures
MP and Senior CS Pensions
Translation services
Child Benefit for more than 2 children
Housing Benefit of more than £400/week
Yes, there is waste in the private sector. It is generally weeded out when investor returns diminish to the point where cuts need to be made.
Waste in private sector organisations isn't something necessarily paid for by taxes, in fact most if it isn't and there is a clear incentive to reduce it.
Unlike the public sector, where in addition basically all waste is paid for via taxation.
As for borrowing not being represented, the expression represents reality so it needs to be included.
Unlike the public sector, where in addition basically all waste is paid for via taxation.
As for borrowing not being represented, the expression represents reality so it needs to be included.
crankedup said:
and whilst it seems, but is most likely just a propagation from the media, that young gullible people consider success to be only reaching the dizzy heights of 'fame'. We are a shallow narrow minded society, greed orientated ready to 'do it over' anyone if it means a profit. I am just thankful that I made an exit to the rat race years back.crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
johnfm said:
Countdown said:
johnfm said:
You forgot Honk Kong, Singapore, BVI etc in your list Eric.
If they are taking less in tax then they will be providing less in services. It's a zero sum game.Would be interesting to know how many care homes they provide for the Elderly
I think if the 'waste' term is reduced, the 'Services' term can stay the same, while Tax Take and Borrowing go down.
Size and scope of state down = more savings.
Clegg and Miliband won't get any of that. CMD just might.
Edited by crankedup on Monday 25th June 19:55
In fact, you could get by with about 60: 20 in the Cabinet, 20 shadow cabinet and 20 floaters. A majority vote with 600 or 60 is pretty much the same. They do, afterall, have a veritable army of civil servants - thousands of them.
Then there is the armed forces procurement & logistics. Tens of thousands. Nearly as many in procurement as front line troops.
The NHS employs over 1 million clinical staff. For a population of 65 million!
Pension provision for upper level Civil Servants and NHS staff: £40k+ pensions with 10% or so contribution? Unaffordable.
Swathes of translators for the courts and the NHS? Spend that money TEACHING newly minted UK citizens to read and speak English. Encourage this by not spending further millions translating everything into 20 languages.
I think there is plenty of low hanging fruit, before we even get to no child benefit after 2 kids, smaller caps on HB (to be augmented by a couple of related schemes - house building and renovation in cities to provide more housing, means/needs testing of all council house recipients so people who move up the career ladder get their own housing, and an incentive of reduced corporation tax for companies who pay a 'living wage' so that HB is not as necessary for working people).
I am pretty sure that the £700 bio/year spend can be cut.
The safety net is important for society - but the hammock has to go.
Countdown said:
johnfm said:
Yes, there is waste in the private sector. It is generally weeded out when investor returns diminish to the point where cuts need to be made.
Or when the business goes bankrupt. Not sure if we should be running schools/hospitals along the same mentality tbh.NIHCE already uses commercial criteria in its methodology, examining good value for money and weighing up the cost and benefits of treatments. This affects hospitals as well as GP dispensations.
Schools have used commercial criteria in judging their own efficiency and in being judged with Ofsted looking at the effectiveness with which schools deploy resources to achieve value for money (previous framework and reports), more recently the role of the school business manager has increased dramatically with the National College offering at least three accredited qualifications, buying clubs of varying types exist to support procurement, school collaboration to achieve economies of scale is rife including federations.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff