Sassy Colin
Death or the gladioli!
Are you the people’s front of London?
Nah mate, The London People's Front.
Are you the people’s front of London?
Have a look at his voting record on welfare and see if you still think he's decent...
Yes, Tory MP's can smoke opium and it makes them quirky but poor people do it and they go to jail. Seems fair.
Re: Cleese's recent remarks ~ former Smiths singer Morrissey seems to suffer from the same combination of self-righteousness and outdatedness:
Yep, Morrissey is a deeply unpleasant man really, as that article makes clear. In fact I think it actually leaves some stuff out, like him telling Der Spiegel that refugees had made Germany the rape capital of Europe.
He's determined to be notorious and, nowadays, his music can't get him the required attention.Yep, Morrissey is a deeply unpleasant man really, as that article makes clear. In fact I think it actually leaves some stuff out, like him telling Der Spiegel that refugees had made Germany the rape capital of Europe.
A musician friend of mine absolutely worshipped Morrisey growing up. He’s the same age as me (32) and up until just a few years ago he’d listen to his music on an almost daily basis.
He absolutely can’t stand him now, said he no longer thinks of his music as coming from the same tortured, complex, emotional genius that it once did and instead he can only hear the whinging of a miserable man who is equally self centred and self loathing.
I think Stewart might be the first *tory* MP that appears to have a grasp of the facts around tariffs and WTO rules.
Indeed, I think a lot of people feel like that. Especially given his personality is very much front and centre in his music.
In fact the real irony is that his anti-Thatcher, anti-Tory, anti-royalist, anti-capitalist, pro-vegan, pro animal welfare, pro-LGBT sentiments probably influenced many of his rather cultish fans into holding the sort of liberal, left wing beliefs he is now transgressing.
Unless we pay everything cash on demand, we will always use future cashflows- some of this debt will be inflated away anyhow.I wasn't comparing us to anyone. Opting to build our economy via the model of a ponzi scheme is insanity though.
Unless we pay everything cash on demand, we will always use future cashflows- some of this debt will be inflated away anyhow.
It's not a Ponzi scheme we have per se- it's a system that just hasn't adapted to demographics, Zirp etc...There's a huge and fundamental difference between creating a system that uses debt as a vehicle to facilitate increased growth and profitability, and one in which ever increasing and forecasted debt is the legitimate business model.
The first model is predicated on the growth being more profitable than the interest. The second model is a house of cards that will inevitably fall down as growth isn't perpetual and the importing of young people to relentlessly try to offset the aged is merely creating a bigger ponzi for future generations.
This is why every recession gets deeper and will continue to get deeper. Imagine if Bernie Madoff were given a government bailout to keep his business allfloat. Would that have solved the problem? Of course not, his "fund" would have merely gotten bigger and bigger and the inevitable crash would have cost another zero or two.
It's not a Ponzi scheme we have per se- it's a system that just hasn't adapted to demographics, Zirp etc...
Maybe a pyramid scheme is better terminology?
The definition being "A pyramid scheme is a business model that recruits members via a promise of payments or services for enrolling others into the scheme".
The government promises ever increasing services that are only deliverable by enrolling an ever increasing amount of people into the tax system. The only difference is instead of "recruits", government "forces".
The health budget is the obvious example of this, but pensions and social care are also covered. Health spend was 0.5% of GDP post war, 1% of GDP by the 50's, 2% by the 80's, 3% by the 90's, 6% by 2000's, is over 7% now and is forecasted to need to hit 14% by 2060 (it'll be earlier than that without radical reform). That's as a % of growth... we're literally planning to fail.
the larger health budget is necessary because we have a generation of baby boomers now retiring and getting old though, right?
The cost of diabetes to the NHS is over £1.5m an hour or 10% of the NHS budget for England and Wales. This equates to over £25,000 being spent on diabetes every minute.
In total, an estimated £14 billion pounds is spent a year on treating diabetes and its complications, with the cost of treating complications representing the much higher cost.
The prevalence of diabetes is estimated to rise to 4 million by 2025.
the larger health budget is necessary because we have a generation of baby boomers now retiring and getting old though, right?
This will boil your piss.
Looking at this link in 2016 UK health spending was 9%, and US health spending was 17%. You seem to think a lower percentage is better, so do you think the US should be copying the UK? It's quite a difference.Maybe a pyramid scheme is better terminology?
The definition being "A pyramid scheme is a business model that recruits members via a promise of payments or services for enrolling others into the scheme".
The government promises ever increasing services that are only deliverable by enrolling an ever increasing amount of people into the tax system. The only difference is instead of "recruits", government "forces".
%
The health budget is the obvious example of this, but pensions and social care are also covered. Health spend was 0.5% of GDP post war, 1% of GDP by the 50's, 2% by the 80's, 3% by the 90's, 6% by 2000's, is over 7% now and is forecasted to need to hit 14% by 2060 (it'll be earlier than that without radical reform). That's as a % of growth... we're literally planning to fail.
Ergh. I wish the worst on people like this. They're a fecking scourge to every person on Earth.
the larger health budget is necessary because we have a generation of baby boomers now retiring and getting old though, right?
Looking at this link in 2016 UK health spending was 9%, and US health spending was 17%. You seem to think a lower percentage is better, so do you think the US should be copying the UK? It's quite a difference.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS
I misunderstood, you're not arguing about efficiency or sustainability at all, you're merely saying you don't want to pay taxes for anybody else's benefit but your own. The rest certainly contains some truths but given the bolded is actually a smokescreen to try and make your real aim appear less cnuttish than it is. Doesn't work for me, but each to their own.I think the 9% is both publicly funded and privately funded. The same is the case is the US. Private healthcare could be 30% of GDP for all I care because it isn't paid for via general taxation. If everyone earning £50+k wants to spend £5k a year on healthcare that's not my business.
Neither a low nor high % is good or bad in and of itself. But a model that is predicated on growing by more than 1% per decade of GDP is obviously unsustainable.
Bear in mind the current health budget is 19% of tax spend. So assuming that total spend is correlated to GDP over the next 40 years we will be spending 38% of tax take on health... To afford this we'd need to either privatise the entire education system or privatise everything else apart from health, social protections and education. This is ignoring the fact that social protections are forecasting the same level of deficit, meaning the only two departments that could be financed would be health and social protections. We'd have to eradicate education, defence, general public services services, foreign aid, police etc.
And in terms of "austerity" how Labour have been able to sell this false myth is beyond me. The Tories have been taxing and spending at a greater level than ever before. The country feel like they've been victims of austerity because we've been allocating more and more money to the pyramid scheme departments at the expense of other departments. Show me on the green line below where the alleged "austerity" is?
To show what austerity actually looks like a similar image for Greece (viewing the average line focusing on 2008 to present))
I misunderstood, you're not arguing about efficiency or sustainability at all, you're merely saying you don't want to pay taxes for anybody else's benefit but your own. The rest certainly contains some truths but given the bolded is actually a smokescreen to try and make your real aim appear less cnuttish than it is. Doesn't work for me, but each to their own.
If you're saying you would be happy to pay the same amount in tax as you do now so long as half of it was spent via charities then I'll happily withdraw my allegation of cnuttism, but if you're really still just trying to come up with arguments to pay less then it stands I'm afraid.Not true at all. I'm comfortable paying for other people but I'm not comfortable putting money into a pyramid/ponzi scheme. If we had a proper plan surrounding long term healthcare funding then that would be great.
I'd have to pay for others in any system as I wouldn't see thousands of people without healthcare. Whether this be via charitable donations, an insurance based system with premiums covering the uninsured (like vehicle insurance) or the current "system". I for one have faith in humanity and believe that if tax was for example 20% of GDP instead of 40%, we'd see an increase in the donations into the many billions, which would go into private charities that would squander far less every year (as they have a personal, financial and moral interest in keeping their businesses affloat).
However the stupidity of the current system is criminal (it literally would be if a private firm were running it in this way).
If you're saying you would be happy to pay the same amount in tax as you do now so long as half of it was spent via charities then I'll happily withdraw my allegation of cnuttism, but if you're really still just trying to come up with arguments to pay less then it stands I'm afraid.
Cnuttishness apart, whether charities are actually more efficient than governments is somewhat open to question. I'm not a fan of them personally, but if anyone comes up with some convincing evidence to the contrary I'm open to persuasion.
I'd happily pay, especially if I were to decide where my donation went.
I'd donate at least twice as much to education and defence vs what I currently pay. At least the same for healthcare (if it weren't being squandered), but less for transport (roads are a shambles), local councils, interest, foreign aid, pensions, welfare etc.
From what I've read charities are more efficient, but not ones who become colossal in size (as they end up acting identically to government). The benefit of a charity is they're audited in the way of a normal company so they can't create the type of pyramid scheme model that pensions and health "enjoy".
Did you watch Panorama this week? It would seem not as your Thatcherite views on spending suggest ignorance of the highest level.I'd happily pay, especially if I were to decide where my donation went.
I'd donate at least twice as much to education and defence vs what I currently pay. At least the same for healthcare (if it weren't being squandered), but less for transport (roads are a shambles), local councils, interest, foreign aid, pensions, welfare etc.
From what I've read charities are more efficient, but not ones who become colossal in size (as they end up acting identically to government). The benefit of a charity is they're audited in the way of a normal company so they can't create the type of pyramid scheme model that pensions and health "enjoy".
So you would pay less for the roads because they are crap...that makes totally sense. Those roads that carries students and teachers to schools/universities (education), ambulances, doctors and patients (health care), you and all the trucks and peoples necessary for an economic system to work efficiently.
Is what I can't stand about people "I don't wanna pay for this but I would pay for that". They don't realize how some of the things might indirectly affect in the present and even less in the future (even directly). Not to speak the lack of empathy. Social system countries had been improving over the years if decently funded through taxes. Some of the services you will use them, some not.
Some people will use more, some people will use less. Don't be a non empathetic cnut
Some people will abuse the system. News to you, no system is perfect. And being true, most of the society does not abuse it and when it does, is corrected
Did you watch Panorama this week? It would seem not as your Thatcherite views on spending suggest ignorance of the highest level.
I'd pay less for roads because the money is spent awfully. Instead of resurfacing they constantly patch, which is a ridiculous false economy. They also pay the lowest cost to resurface because they don't pay an extra few for them to bee done quickly, which is a false economy as the commercial impact is far greater than the extra cost. I'd contribute to roads if the decision makers weren't commercially illiterate idiots.
As a business owner I'd privatise the roads. Pay for what you use and they roads would be immaculate as otherwise they'd lose the business. The M6 toll road is the best road on the road, because the profits are reinvested instead of squandered.
Address the point rather than making ideological platitudes. The primary point being: how are we paying for this pyramid/ponzi scheme?
I vote for a pomzi schemeMaybe We should have an annual referendum type vote to decide how our taxes are spent? What could possibly go wrong.
You don't pay less for crappy things that needs to be improved. You protest/vote to use the money wisely.
Yes, make workers on minimum wage to make them pay direct taxes. Super smart in an economy. Business owners should pay for this roads that are used for their wares, also for their workers as they use them as resource. The same. they should pay for education as their resources comes ready for productions thanks to the education system. Also healthcare. No one in their right mind would use a road daily if it is not for going to work. So as a consequence, private business should pay for it, not the workers.
Is not ideology, are facts. Business should pay for public expenditure in everything that is used for their benefit. 99% would not study engineering, IT, professional studies if it would not be to be dedicated to the private business most of the times. Money that private business spends on paying the fees for ports, ariports and specially roads don't cover all the benefits than private companies extract from public investment on them.
Whithout any kind of production, many of university grades will not exist as they aim to produce, the same of infrastructures. So if businesses wants to use them, they have to pay. Much more that what they are paying. Specially looking at the raising inequality
How to pay for this NON ponzi schemne. Pay your fecking taxes and make the government to use wisely instead of lobbying to benefit only the private companies
I'd pay less for roads because the money is spent awfully. Instead of resurfacing they constantly patch, which is a ridiculous false economy. They also pay the lowest cost to resurface because they don't pay an extra few for them to bee done quickly, which is a false economy as the commercial impact is far greater than the extra cost. I'd contribute to roads if the decision makers weren't commercially illiterate idiots.
As a business owner I'd privatise the roads. Pay for what you use and they roads would be immaculate as otherwise they'd lose the business. The M6 toll road is the best road on the road, because the profits are reinvested instead of squandered.
Address the point rather than making ideological platitudes. The primary point being: how are we paying for this pyramid/ponzi scheme?
Right. How on Earth would this work?As a business owner I'd privatise the roads. Pay for what you use and they roads would be immaculate as otherwise they'd lose the business. The M6 toll road is the best road on the road, because the profits are reinvested instead of squandered.
Right. How on Earth would this work?
Firstly, road choices don't operate on free market principles. They are literally physical paths between locations. They are needed to allow people to travel between destinations.
What happens if a single business monopolises a particular area? How is that policed? What exactly do you do if the road still isn't well maintained but there's no option? I assume the government bails out "National Roads" due to the inherent unprofitability of maintaining an entire countries road network as occurs on the train network? Do we only privatise the profitable roads?What if you live in a rural area, or is that the stupid fault of the people who live there? Etc, etc.
A country cannot be run on the same principles as a business. The country is not a business, and, thankfully, is not yet entirely run in that manner. Nor are the finances of a country remotely comparable to household income and expenditure management.