Aye my friend is very much of that breed, hence why he’s rejected him so completely.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Unless we pay everything cash on demand, we will always use future cashflows- some of this debt will be inflated away anyhow.
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.
I haven't heard anyone claim pensions caused the 2008 recession before, I must admit. I daresay one could justify the opinion in some tenuous way though, if one were desperate to do so.
Your man's on QT tonight.
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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This will boil your piss.
the larger health budget is necessary because we have a generation of baby boomers now retiring and getting old though, right?
Yes that's right and the vast majority will have being paying their income tax and NI from the early 1960's and some are still paying! All governments use current tax intake to pay current debts, its not 'invested' at all. That means every generation has to pay for the previous one, which overall is a reasonable exchange; however when something like the baby boomer spike occurs (and remember has been there for years) and successive governments have known about it but done little to off set the burden falling on the current and future generations, then we have the problems we are now facing.
Also I recall Margaret Thatcher as Education Minister stopped free school milk for pupils, just as the baby boomers (peak numbers) arrived in education, so I suppose some effort to address the balance was attempted???
Ergh. I wish the worst on people like this. They're a fecking scourge to every person on Earth.
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
Who, diabetics?
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.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))
Polarised Politics
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).
Last edited:
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".
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'm more of a Singapore and pre-Chinese involved Hong Kong man myself (but no did not see it). Happy to debate any point you think I would disagree with that was "ignorant".
If you want to have a greater insight into some of my views (not all) I'd suggest watching Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman videos on YouTube.
Last edited:
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
Maybe We should have an annual referendum type vote to decide how our taxes are spent? What could possibly go wrong.
I vote for a pomzi scheme
This is why democracy doesn't work in the current form. It caters to short term idiotic vote winning platitudes like "£350m a week" or "free student fees and all debt wiped out". When I give my staff a pay rise it's because it's sustainable long term. If my business barely breaks even the previous year, I get paid minimum wage and my staff have no pay rises. If we do well they get pay rises and I get a dividend.
If my business' turnover stays identical (with inflation) my salary stays the same and my staff get no pay rise, our business doesn't collapse! If the economy grows 1%, every single government department demands a 5% increase and because of short term political pressure some will get it (NHS/securities particularly).
If I ran a vote every year on staff pay rises every single one would tick the maximum box. What they don't realise is by doing that they are literally voting for themselves to be unemployed.
What you don't get is that business owners merely pass costs into the consumer. You ask me to pay a £20 minimum wage, that's fantastic... I increase the price of my products by a correlating x% and everyone celebrating more money suddenly pays much more for everything they want to buy.
If someone said I pay 35% corporation tax tomorrow I'd put my prices up as would all my competitiors. I still need to earn my £x salary and also need to declare a £x dividend. You add £250k to my CT bill, I add the same net value to my product prices and my competitors all do the same.
If you read my previous post or understood the issue in question... That a ponzi/pyramid scheme has no bearing on tax, money or peoples willingness to contribute or otherwise. This kind of scheme is destined to fail irrespective of ethics, morals, finance or willpower. It's predisposed on there being an everlasting source of young tax earners to pay for the aging population.
5m elderly people getting paid for by 10m youngsters is great. But what happens when those 10m youngsters become elderley? You need 20m youngsters to pay for them. When they're elderly you need 40m to pay for them, then 80m, then 160m, then 320m.
Do you believe that the only problem with that business model is the willingness of people to pay taxes?
Last edited:
Well yeah, but the problem is that roads are an inherently difficult area in which to create competition, are they not? The government may not do a great job on them but there's at least an incentive not to feck up because if you do then people can kick you out. If a private company fecks up a road then people still need to make that road, and even if the government then intervene to solve the problem it's not something that goes away automatically.
Your assumption here again is that because there's a profit incentive private business automatically get it right. Which isn't always the case. There's still plenty of gross incompetence and negligence and there are often plenty of feck ups. Plenty of private companies squander their own profits and rarely do the ones responsible for making those decisions ever actually find themselves held accountable.
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.
The general answer you tend to get in regards to this sort of stuff is that people can use alternative methods of transport, but then that ignores the chaos that would cause - if trains are a shambles and are left to private enterprises without even the possibility that the government may intervene if necessary, then it would quite clearly be unpractical both environmentally and spatially for people to just stop using trains and drive instead.
I am about to spend £265 on VED for a car that won't be driven more than 2K miles in the next 12 months, where as people are paying half that or less and driving 5, 10, 20 times more miles than me.
So I agree that you should pay for what you use, via fuel duty, that way foreign hauliers and tourists also pay their share for the upkeep of the roads.
However, the reality is that VED, and fuel duty, doesn't even get spent on the roads.
So I agree that you should pay for what you use, via fuel duty, that way foreign hauliers and tourists also pay their share for the upkeep of the roads.
However, the reality is that VED, and fuel duty, doesn't even get spent on the roads.
And, yet, the likes of John Lewis Partnership, whose employees have a stake and a say, seem pretty successful. Employees occasionally sacrifice pay rises for the long-term good.
Your assumption that everyone is a myopic, short-term oriented idiot, who cannot see beyond the next few months, is insulting, especially to your employees.
Are you serious? Private roads just enrich the private companies who own them. Governments could borrow the money for new roads they deem necessary at almost zero interest and if they then put a toll on the road until the debt is paid off so be it but private ownership is as disastrous shit show everywhere it happens.
That's completely different. If the workers own a stake they have an interest in the long term prospects and a share of the profitability. Of course those turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas.
There's a huge difference between that and them merely voting on their own salary increase.
The problem is that government is inheritantly inefficient as it has no incentive to be efficient.
If my business had literally no competition we'd have no reason to be run efficiently. The only thing that keeps us on ours toes is the threat of another business usurping us and putting us out of business. We have to stay one step ahead.
This is the reason for monopoly law. Why people think monopolies should be banned in the private sector but embraced in the public sector is beyond me. In both sectors they're terrible and the only person who loses out is the consumer.
Private roads would enrich their owners, if they were ran very well. You'd see busy roads getting expanded instantly as the profits would be based on traffic flow. Rather than having thousands of miles of car parks in rush hour.
They'd be well maintained as people would take other routes if they weren't. In areas where only one route were an option you'd see competing businesses building competing road networks.
What you're saying was also said about the water system in the UK. Without government involvement we've almost eradicated droughts, hose pipe bans are an absolute rarely and record levels of investment is going in. It's also cheaper as a % of GDP than it was under government ownership, despite profits to the owners. This is obvious of course as there was no incentive for the government to invest in water, firstly as it isn't sexy to voters like the NHS and secondly because there was no disincentive to implementing a house pipe ban. For private industry the disincentive is huge: they make less profit it they demand people use less of their product.
To all in this thread I'd urge you to watch a few YouTube videos where Milton Friedman talks about freedom, free markets, capitalism and Libertarianism is general.
I'll bow out at this point though as this conversation could comfortably absorb half my weekend and I'm unlikely to convince people (Friedman might though).
I have a lot of time for that Rory Stewart bloke. He won't get in because he doesn't want a hard / no deal Brexit but I guess he's a necessary voice to balance things out.
Nah, it isn't all that different. If you don't assume your employees are idiots and explain to them there is a trade off between a huge pay rise and a secure job for the forseeble future, it is very unlikely they won't see the sense in sacrificing a huge pay rise to secure their jobs.
This isnt even about altruism or even the common good. It is just rational self-interest. There are many cases where this happens and in most instances the workers have no material stake but just see the sense of sustaining a business. You could, of course, assure even more coperative behaviour by giving your employees a stake in the business!
Last edited:
he may be the only one that can save the torys from self destruction so I hope he does not get in, I want to see the party extinguished.
They called him a ‘live action Gollum’ on Have I got News for you.
It’s strange to see a Tory that seems to take their job very seriously and that doesn’t seem to be using it as a vehicle solely for self-aggrandisation and/or self-enrichment
Not sure if this has been posted here. The Remain case in a nutshell.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date