CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 10)

[anonymous-user]

ant1973 said:

Graveworm said:

soofsayer said:

We already do

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

75% of income tax is paid by the top 50% of earners.
12% is paid by the top 1% of earners.

That's earnings not tax the tax burden is much higher than that.
The top 50 percent earn 75% but pay over 90 percent.
The top 1% earn 12% but pay 27% of all income tax.
43% of adults pay no income tax at all. So those figures only represent the remainder; any income tax increases only directly impact 57 percent of adults.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 3rd March 18:54

You only have to look at the tone and tenor of the budget thread in general to establish that most people are happy to pay more tax. And happier still if someone else has to be more tax still. There's been a real shift in the last few years. Big tax is back in vogue. It's a generational thing. Most people have forgotten the lessons of the 70s, the high taxes and all that went with it. The last 12 months pretty conclusively establishes that most folk are comfortable with a large, intrusive state. I can only say that I am against that but now clearly very much in the minority. Still, that's democracy I suppose. Will be interesting to revisit the matter in say five years time.

Thanks graveworm for the correction. Add in the reality that high earners take less public services, it’s a one way system for sure, nothing democratic about it.

Ant - I think you are wrong. Most people think they either a) wont pay much more tax, no biggie, or b) they wont pay any. I doubt the supporters of high taxation ever think they will be footing the bill.

I’m sure that once pension income gets hit, and the net pay figure on payslips falls, people will realise that words on the telly end up having a direct impact on their household budget.

Ant - I’m with you on the tax view personally. I’m 50 in 2022. I have already paid a lot of taxes in my life so far and have become wise to the fact that it makes fk all difference to outcomes for everyone other than me and my family. Company electric cars are looking much more interesting than giving another 6% to hmrc amongst other expenses that will reduce our tax liability.

I don’t mind paying tax if it is spent well. I do take issue with spunking 400bn on this bks. And hearing today that public sector still get their contractual 1% pay rises (unions!) with even more money for the nhs, just shove it. Print the stuff instead.

[KTMsm]

Thin White Duke said:

I've always voted, not so much because of the old "people fought two world wars for your right to vote" but simply because I believed it was the best thing to do. Not voting seemed like a waste of time even if the parties available didn't have much between them.

I've always voted Tory because I think they're the best of a bad bunch.

I used to work with a bloke who said he didn't vote as he had no confidence in any party. He said there should be an option on the ballot paper of "No Confidence." I told him he could spoil his ballot paper which I believe is counted.

Anyway he once told me that the best thing the country could do to send a clear message to the establishment that none of them are worth the vote is for no one to vote. Not one single person.

I now think he was right.

I really do feel politically at sea. If I vote in May it will be for an independent or no one.

What Country has a better system / what system would you want ?

If no one voted what would that achieve ?

I used to think proportional representation was the fairest system but when you look at what happens - you get a lot of small parties that have to form coalitions and nothing gets done.

[ant1973]

soofsayer said:

ant1973 said:

Graveworm said:

soofsayer said:

We already do

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

75% of income tax is paid by the top 50% of earners.
12% is paid by the top 1% of earners.

That's earnings not tax the tax burden is much higher than that.
The top 50 percent earn 75% but pay over 90 percent.
The top 1% earn 12% but pay 27% of all income tax.
43% of adults pay no income tax at all. So those figures only represent the remainder; any income tax increases only directly impact 57 percent of adults.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 3rd March 18:54

You only have to look at the tone and tenor of the budget thread in general to establish that most people are happy to pay more tax. And happier still if someone else has to be more tax still. There's been a real shift in the last few years. Big tax is back in vogue. It's a generational thing. Most people have forgotten the lessons of the 70s, the high taxes and all that went with it. The last 12 months pretty conclusively establishes that most folk are comfortable with a large, intrusive state. I can only say that I am against that but now clearly very much in the minority. Still, that's democracy I suppose. Will be interesting to revisit the matter in say five years time.

Thanks graveworm for the correction. Add in the reality that high earners take less public services, it’s a one way system for sure, nothing democratic about it.

Ant - I think you are wrong. Most people think they either a) wont pay much more tax, no biggie, or b) they wont pay any. I doubt the supporters of high taxation ever think they will be footing the bill.

I’m sure that once pension income gets hit, and the net pay figure on payslips falls, people will realise that words on the telly end up having a direct impact on their household budget.

Ant - I’m with you on the tax view personally. I’m 50 in 2022. I have already paid a lot of taxes in my life so far and have become wise to the fact that it makes fk all difference to outcomes for everyone other than me and my family. Company electric cars are looking much more interesting than giving another 6% to hmrc amongst other expenses that will reduce our tax liability.

I don’t mind paying tax if it is spent well. I do take issue with spunking 400bn on this bks. And hearing today that public sector still get their contractual 1% pay rises (unions!) with even more money for the nhs, just shove it. Print the stuff instead.

Yeh - maybe you are correct. Think about what we could have done with £400bn. It's sickening what has transpired. Complete madness. I am now on a mission to legitimately avoid paying extra tax. I resent the fact that it is for business to sort this ridiculous mess.

[a311]

First time I can remember having to dig for the daily figures today, bumped down the headlines due to budget, and Sturgeon a bit no doubt.

Be good if we could just move on now.

[Ashfordian]

grumbledoak said:

Zoobeef said:

I just won't be voting. Whoever gets in, who gives a fk.

This is the only thing they will notice. If we all stop pretending that our vote matters they will have to stop pretending they have a mandate.

I will still vote but I will vote for the candidate that will do the most damage by getting my vote. I don't care which party they represent, the whole political class needs a shake up. So if Farage has a candidate and that will mean the Tories lose the seat, that is what will happen and the consequences will be what they are.

It needs this shock to the political system to realign their thinking(this happened with the 2019 GE). They think they have done well, only an electoral shock will make them and future politicians think are they really doing the right thing.

[robuk]

"The amount the government has to spend on state pensions will fall by £1.5bn by 2022, partly because of over-65s dying of Covid, forecasts suggest. The government will also receive an extra £0.9bn from inheritance tax, partly due to Covid-related deaths."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56272829

[bern]

Graveworm said:

bern said:

Thanks for sharing that. Incredible.

Still it's the very definition of democracy init G'worm?

So are all the other thousands of SIs every year undemocratic? 99.5% of the coronavirus related ones and all of the ones that form the regulations, could have been stopped by parliamentary vote and 30% were voted on.
The people signing the SIs are all democratically elected, courts and parliament can overturn them and hold them to account. The opposition agreeing makes all this mute.
Elected governments, making laws, is democracy, it doesn't mean that elected governments can't be wicked or wrong and go on to be evil but, until such time they stop you standing for parliament or voting them out (And I didn't vote for them in the first place), it is democracy.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 3rd March 16:08

So once you're voted in it's a free reign? No parliamentary scrutiny, no oversight. Just wave through the biggest change in this countries governance ever on a Wednesday afternoon when all the MP's have fked off for Easter. No biggie.

What's the point of 630 MP's? We could just have a dozen or so minister's, we could call it a politburo maybe?

[R Mutt]

Otispunkmeyer said:

I mean how many people know you should be disposing of the blue masks after 4-6hrs of use? (there are a few papers showing their effectiveness degrades after this time, and it’s PHE advice), That you should be washing those cloth reusable ones at least once a day? That you should be storing the mask folded neatly inside a ziplock bag? (Some of this is PHE advice, some CDC etc).

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 2nd March 20:35

A dental nurse told me she'd have to dispose of them every half hour (presumably between patients)

Edited by R Mutt on Wednesday 3rd March 20:15

[isaldiri]

soofsayer said:

I don’t mind paying tax if it is spent well. I do take issue with spunking 400bn on this bks.

Well it's probably a little more nuanced than that though.

The UK has spent an fortune and particularly badly but while it is very very clear the DHSC in particular has spanked fantastical sums on utterly stupid and pointless things under the guise of 'pandemic spending', in order not to have catastrophic unemployment and economic collapse no government of any major developed economy anywhere in the world regardless of covid response measures would have been able to avoid spending an absolute heap of money over the last year.

Lots of business failures and lots of unemployed people tend to be pretty grim for a country's economy... even posibly compared to the existing cost of say CBILs and furlough. Furlough is (like lockdowns I suppose) a very crude way of sticking a plaster over an immediate problem and worrying about the consequences later but it's still possibly better than doing nothing. And just like in 2008/9 there was a lot of ranting about the amounts spent on propping up the banks but a pretty decent chunk (I don't have the numbers at hand I admit and am going from memory) was ultimately recovered and the net cost to the taxpayer was nowhere close to the headline figures being bandied around. That will likely apply to some of the £400b being quoted as well.

It's still a horrific waste of money and in particular we are very clearly making things worse they should be now in dragging our feet out of the bloody lockdowns/restrictions but it is implausible the idea that the government (any government anywhere in the world) could have simply sat tight and not ended up spending a heap over the last year imo.

[Thin White Duke]

KTMsm said:

What Country has a better system / what system would you want ?

If no one voted what would that achieve ?

I used to think proportional representation was the fairest system but when you look at what happens - you get a lot of small parties that have to form coalitions and nothing gets done.

I really don't know. Perhaps I'll have to concede and repeat what Harry Callahan said in Magnum Force: Briggs, I hate the goddamn system! But until someone comes along with changes that make sense, I'll stick with it.


Or how about dispensing with political parties and the notion of left/right wing? Every MP is independent and from them a number are selected by some means to form the cabinet that runs the country.

[Elysium]

Graveworm said:

bern said:

Thanks for sharing that. Incredible.

Still it's the very definition of democracy init G'worm?

So are all the other thousands of SIs every year undemocratic? 99.5% of the coronavirus related ones and all of the ones that form the regulations, could have been stopped by parliamentary vote and 30% were voted on.
The people signing the SIs are all democratically elected, courts and parliament can overturn them and hold them to account. The opposition agreeing makes all this mute.
Elected governments, making laws, is democracy, it doesn't mean that elected governments can't be wicked or wrong and go on to be evil but, until such time they stop you standing for parliament or voting them out (And I didn't vote for them in the first place), it is democracy.

It is a failure of our democracy. Most SI's are are mundane in comparison to the current situation. It is not remotely normal or usual to pass regulations so quickly and easily that intrude on human rights to this extent. Parliament has been deliberately sidelined by the approach the Govt have taken, but Labours almost complete capitulation means it was largely unnecessary.

Parliament has allowed this.

Anyone who is interested in the constitutional significance of the actions the Govt have taken should watch Sumptions October lecture to the Cambridge Law Society:

https://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/events/Cambri...

A transcript is also available:

https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/privatelaw/Freshfi...

Lord Sumption said:

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the British state has exercised coercive powers over its citizens on a scale never previously attempted. It has taken effective legal control, enforced by the police, over the personal lives of the entire population: where they could go, whom they could meet, what they could do even within their own homes. For three months it placed everybody under a form of house arrest, qualified only by their right to do a limited number of things approved by ministers. All of this has been authorised by ministerial decree with minimal Parliamentary involvement. It has been the most significant interference with personal freedom in the history of our country. We have never sought to do such a thing before, even in wartime and even when faced with health crises far more serious than this one.

Since he wrote that, we have allowed them to do it all over again, without so much as a squeak of resistance.

[Thin White Duke]

Elysium said:

Since he wrote that, we have allowed them to do it all over again, without so much as a squeak of resistance.

Isn't that down to the vaccine rollout?

That alone seemed to quell most resistance, certainly the resistance that was building in November.

[survivalist]

R Mutt said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

I mean how many people know you should be disposing of the blue masks after 4-6hrs of use? (there are a few papers showing their effectiveness degrades after this time, and it’s PHE advice), That you should be washing those cloth reusable ones at least once a day? That you should be storing the mask folded neatly inside a ziplock bag? (Some of this is PHE advice, some CDC etc).

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 2nd March 20:35

A dental nurse told me she'd have to dispose of them every half hour (presumably between patients)

Edited by R Mutt on Wednesday 3rd March 20:15

The lady in Tesco gave me a packet of 5 masks crop for free when they made them compulsory in shops (July 2020?). The fit is so poor that, apart from feeling the elastic pulling on my ears, I barely notice the difference when taking a deep breath. Currently on number 3 out of 5. Don’t get me wrong, I’d replace them more frequently if they became unpleasant, but I can only assume that as they only impede a tiny percentage of my aerosol exhalation they barely catch any particles.

[Graveworm]

bern said:

So once you're voted in it's a free reign? No parliamentary scrutiny, no oversight. Just wave through the biggest change in this countries governance ever on a Wednesday afternoon when all the MP's have fked off for Easter. No biggie.

What's the point of 630 MP's? We could just have a dozen or so minister's, we could call it a politburo maybe?

Any one of the 630 MPs had a right to table a motion to stop any of the SI's within 40 days of them being levelled. If they won then it would have been overturned. It was taken to court which also had the power to overturn them. Both are examples of accountability and oversight. They could call a vote of no confidence in the government and form another government to change things.

Parliament voted on 30 percent of them.

And again it's a straw man, democracy is not about how well it works, it's the system, we have a democratic system, it hasn't been overturned or suspended. Some of the worst governments were democratically elected and some benevolent dictators were amongst the best. It's only as good as the people who stand and who get elected.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 3rd March 21:03

[Alucidnation]

Thin White Duke said:

Elysium said:

Since he wrote that, we have allowed them to do it all over again, without so much as a squeak of resistance.

Isn't that down to the vaccine rollout?

That alone seemed to quell most resistance, certainly the resistance that was building in November.

Christ, you keep blabbing on about 'resistance' and 'tides turning' when nothing of the sort has happened.

Things are now starting to look better, with a fantastic budget, monumental success with the vaccine roll out with a decent road map out of this st, so get over it ffs.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

isaldiri said:

Well it's probably a little more nuanced than that though.

The UK has spent an fortune and particularly badly but while it is very very clear the DHSC in particular has spanked fantastical sums on utterly stupid and pointless things under the guise of 'pandemic spending', in order not to have catastrophic unemployment and economic collapse no government of any major developed economy anywhere in the world regardless of covid response measures would have been able to avoid spending an absolute heap of money over the last year.

Lots of business failures and lots of unemployed people tend to be pretty grim for a country's economy... even posibly compared to the existing cost of say CBILs and furlough. Furlough is (like lockdowns I suppose) a very crude way of sticking a plaster over an immediate problem and worrying about the consequences later but it's still possibly better than doing nothing. And just like in 2008/9 there was a lot of ranting about the amounts spent on propping up the banks but a pretty decent chunk (I don't have the numbers at hand I admit and am going from memory) was ultimately recovered and the net cost to the taxpayer was nowhere close to the headline figures being bandied around. That will likely apply to some of the £400b being quoted as well.

It's still a horrific waste of money and in particular we are very clearly making things worse they should be now in dragging our feet out of the bloody lockdowns/restrictions but it is implausible the idea that the government (any government anywhere in the world) could have simply sat tight and not ended up spending a heap over the last year imo.

If nuanced means catastrophic.

It is actually worse than that, as I see it.

The stimulus after 2008 was intended to stimulate economic activity, it wasn't brilliantly distributed but did eventually find its way there.

Furlough and related schemes have been largely aimed at stopping economic activity, and has been very "successful."

I hope there is a strong bounce back, but I suspect it will be another decade of relative stagnation under crippling debt as government struggles to balance withdrawing stimulus spending with maintaining growth and all the while servicing a mountain of debt that keeps getting bigger.

[jimmythingy]

I've just found out today that my dentist is no longer doing NHS work after the the 1st May so I will have pay £16 per month each for the wife and I. This has been blamed on Covid and NHS funding cutbacks.

Also three other dentists in the area have done the same and the others have 3 year waiting lists.

Speaking to one practice, they said that due to Covid they are seeing half less patients but there substantial operating costs have not changed and can't see this changing for a long while.

I see the future will be paying for more NHS services

[Chromegrill]

steveo3002 said:

Sensei Rob said:

No, it's not a stupid idea.

It's nuanced, and I didn't feel like writing an essay. No matter, It can work:

Key workers (food production and distribution, medical staff, etc.) continue working with PPE. Police as well as the Army can patrol the streets to make sure civilians stay at home.

All shopping done online, so some staff will still need to enable that.

The banks put a hold on mortgages and loans for 8 weeks.

Yeah, there are drawbacks, of course. The alternative is what's happening right now, where people take half measures, fumble around and eff things up as normal.

Now ask yourself - would you have gone through 8 weeks of the above or do you think what we did was the better alternative?

1000s of people are needed to keep the wheels turning , who services the ambulances , who sells them fuel, who delivers the amazon crap you spend the furlough money on ? who pays the mugs that dont fit into the furlough scheme ?

Interesting that the idea of simply keeping virtually everyone at home for a few weeks to eliminate the coronavirus is proposed, and immediately jumped upon from a great height by many here as totally unworkable. I don't disagree.

However, there were plenty of people on this forum a while back plugging something even more draconian, namely that we should identify and lock down all the old and clinically vulnerable for a year or more, then let everyone else get on with life. It was called the Great Barrington Declaration. I was never sure who would be looking after the old and vulnerable, and whether they would also (along with their families and children) be expected to be in the locked down population or not. I argued then, and still do, that it was completely unworkable for exactly the same reasons that people here are arguing that eight weeks of strict Wuhan style lockdown would never be acceptable here.

[Red Devil]

Graveworm said:

MikeT66 said:

I'd have one caveat on that apology, Gary - that we do not return to this inhuman and anti-democratic madness again in September. Even if everything turns out OK, I think this is the closest we've come to effectively losing our democracy and way of life, and we must make procedural steps to ensure it does not happen again.

Whether you agree with it or not. A democratically elected government, largely supported by the democratically elected opposition and the democratically elected devolved administrations, passing laws to introduce restrictions, which are broadly supported by the majority, seems to be the definition of democracy at work.

"We run a civilised aristocratic government machine tempered by occasional General Elections. Since 1832 we have been gradually excluding the voter from government. Now we've got them to a point where they just vote once every five years for which bunch of buffoons will try to interfere with OUR policies"

The above was uttered 30 years ago. OUR refers to high level civil servants.
The question now is who behind the scenes is effectively pulling the policy strings besides the bureaucrats?
For starters look at the make-up of SAGE and it's sub-groups. Then look at the money trail and vested interests.

As Henry Kissinger trenchantly said "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac".
When it is wielded by powerful individuals without a mandate there is not the slightest fig leaf of accountability.

On the subject of popular support, in 1932 NASDAP gained a considerable (but not absolute) majority of the vote and seats in the Reichstag. People need to careful what they wish for.
Too many people fail to understand how fragile an institution democracy is. Especially now in the UK where there is no effective Opposition and Parliament is effectively a rubber stamp.

Lastly, some pertinent quotes by the philosopher George Santayana.

"Theory helps us to bear our ignorance of fact."
"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[monkfish1]

bern said:

Graveworm said:

bern said:

Thanks for sharing that. Incredible.

Still it's the very definition of democracy init G'worm?

So are all the other thousands of SIs every year undemocratic? 99.5% of the coronavirus related ones and all of the ones that form the regulations, could have been stopped by parliamentary vote and 30% were voted on.
The people signing the SIs are all democratically elected, courts and parliament can overturn them and hold them to account. The opposition agreeing makes all this mute.
Elected governments, making laws, is democracy, it doesn't mean that elected governments can't be wicked or wrong and go on to be evil but, until such time they stop you standing for parliament or voting them out (And I didn't vote for them in the first place), it is democracy.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 3rd March 16:08

So once you're voted in it's a free reign? No parliamentary scrutiny, no oversight. Just wave through the biggest change in this countries governance ever on a Wednesday afternoon when all the MP's have fked off for Easter. No biggie.

What's the point of 630 MP's? We could just have a dozen or so minister's, we could call it a politburo maybe?

The problem is, its the 630 MP's that voted to give the government free reign to do whatever it wanted. Whilst HMG must take the blame, those 630 MP's are the enablers of that. THEY voted to give away our freedoms. They are your elected representatives.

The worst thing of all is the same MP's keep voting for more of the same.

Technically its democratic. They could vote against the emergency powers when they come up for renewal and deprive HMG of many of the levers its currently deploying.. But they wont, bar 50 or so that actually have a spine. Makes you wonder why?