Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Budget

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That is going to really hit low paid workers. They should have put the starting rate before you start paying tax up to compensate but they extended it by £210 from £5225 to £5435. With the amount the minimum wage has gone up over the last few years (which is one of the few Labour policies I like) even more people are going to be paying tax.

    Its been widly said that if you earn less then £15K a year gross you are going to be worse off from the 5th April.

    Yep - but it got Brown a good headline in the Mail, which is what it was all about.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cameron: 'highest tax burden in history'

    Ed Balls: 'So what!?'

    Sums it up really.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    Cameron: 'highest tax burden in history'

    Ed Balls: 'So what!?'

    Sums it up really.

    We also now dont have people sitting in A&E for 24 hours, or waiting years for operations etc. There is a correlation there somewhere I think.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    We also now dont have people sitting in A&E for 24 hours, or waiting years for operations etc. There is a correlation there somewhere I think.
    Given the extortionate amount of tax that people have to pay in this country, we should have the best public services in the world, not to mention the best government in the world. Instead, we have pathetic jokes masquerading as public services, and the government is widely regarded as being filled with untrustworthy crooks. Do you honestly think that massive rises in taxation, including to the poorest in society, are justified in order to fund this racket?

    NHS funding was around £35billion a year in 1997, and looks set to be £110billion by 2010. Yet productivity in the NHS is actually DOWN as a result. I think that statistic tells us everything we need to know about Failed Labour.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Given the extortionate amount of tax that people have to pay in this country, we should have the best public services in the world, not to mention the best government in the world. Instead, we have pathetic jokes masquerading as public services, and the government is widely regarded as being filled with untrustworthy crooks. Do you honestly think that massive rises in taxation, including to the poorest in society, are justified in order to fund this racket?

    NHS funding was around £35billion a year in 1997, and looks set to be £110billion by 2010. Yet productivity in the NHS is actually DOWN as a result. I think that statistic tells us everything we need to know about Failed Labour.

    Certainly there are big questions as to whether the money has been wisely spent. But anyone who suggests that public services havent improved over the last ten years is bonkers.

    As for the NHS, if we as a nation were less violent and ate a vaugely healthy diet it would cost us a lot less.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    Cameron: 'highest tax burden in history'

    Ed Balls: 'So what!?'

    Sums it up really.

    Indeed. Camoeron making a meal out of something, but getting it comepletely wrong.

    Hansard quotes Balls as saying "So weak"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Certainly there are big questions as to whether the money has been wisely spent. But anyone who suggests that public services havent improved over the last ten years is bonkers.

    As for the NHS, if we as a nation were less violent and ate a vaugely healthy diet it would cost us a lot less.

    I don't think anybody denies that public services have improved. The issue is that we should have had a lot bigger improvements given how much taxes have increased by.

    We have similar - if not slightly higher taxes than Germany. Anybody who thinks we've got public services equal to Germany is 'bonkers.' I know where I'd feel safer walking around at night, where I'd rather catch a train, get an operation.

    Labour has hugely increased spending, debt and taxes, and, if you go abroad, it's quickly pretty obvious that we're not getting value for money.

    Championing religious schools, letting business/religious interests run city academies, introducing top-up fees - I find it hard to believe David Cameron could do any worse than a Labour govt so regressive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    We also now dont have people sitting in A&E for 24 hours, or waiting years for operations etc. There is a correlation there somewhere I think.
    budda wrote:
    Certainly there are big questions as to whether the money has been wisely spent. But anyone who suggests that public services havent improved over the last ten years is bonkers.

    As SG says, productivity levels don't justify the expenditure. It's a big black hole. A&E and Maternity services are closing down, waiting lists are massaged: you now have to wait to get onto a waiting list. The NHS needlessly kills about 17,000 people a year compared to our European counterparts, while we on average spend just as much as they do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    The NHS needlessly kills about 17,000 people a year compared to our European counterparts, while we on average spend just as much as they do.

    Do we really?

    Amount in US$ spent per person on health from the public and private sectors:
    Luxembourg 5,178
    Norway 4,080
    Switzerland 4,011
    Austria 3,418
    Iceland 3,294
    Germany 3,171
    Belgium 3,133
    Netherlands 3,092
    France 3,040
    Sweden 2,828
    Denmark 2,780
    Ireland 2,618
    United Kingdom 2,560
    Italy 2,414
    Finland 2,203
    Greece 2,179
    Spain 2,099
    Portugal 1,897

    Doesn't look like we spend as much as them somehow. And considering how much this has increased in the past 10 years, god knows how shitty it was before. No wonder we haven't caught up with the countries that are still spending more per head than us.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Price of public transport goes up = price of driving car goes down.

    Huh? :confused:

    I think if you take inflation into account, it's cheaper to run a car now than it was when labour came into power. So as a proportion of your income, you should be spending less running a car now than you would've 10 years ago.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    As SG says, productivity levels don't justify the expenditure. It's a big black hole. A&E and Maternity services are closing down, waiting lists are massaged: you now have to wait to get onto a waiting list. The NHS needlessly kills about 17,000 people a year compared to our European counterparts, while we on average spend just as much as they do.

    Comparisons between countries are only somewhat indicative - diet varies massively and that has a huge impact on health outcomes. That and the NHS is a lot less selective about who it treats than other countries, France especially.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do we really?

    Amount in US$ spent per person on health from the public and private sectors:
    Luxembourg 5,178
    Norway 4,080
    Switzerland 4,011
    Austria 3,418
    Iceland 3,294
    Germany 3,171
    Belgium 3,133
    Netherlands 3,092
    France 3,040
    Sweden 2,828
    Denmark 2,780
    Ireland 2,618
    United Kingdom 2,560
    Italy 2,414
    Finland 2,203
    Greece 2,179
    Spain 2,099
    Portugal 1,897

    Doesn't look like we spend as much as them somehow. And considering how much this has increased in the past 10 years, god knows how shitty it was before. No wonder we haven't caught up with the countries that are still spending more per head than us.

    Our spending on health per capita, is about the average for OECD countries: LINK. The difference is that the private sector here picks up relatively less of the slack. The fact is, what we're putting into the NHS is far from equal to what we're getting out of it. The increase in spending has not had a positive effect on mortality rates. The problem is not a lack of funding, the problem is that ours is a huge bureaucratic monolith that is 'Free at the point of delivery'.
    budda wrote:
    Comparisons between countries are only somewhat indicative - diet varies massively and that has a huge impact on health outcomes. That and the NHS is a lot less selective about who it treats than other countries, France especially.

    Even by a measure of death from certain conditions that healthcare can be expected to avoid ('mortality amenable to healthcare'), we're behind France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. LINK

    Whether he said 'so what' or 'so weak', that smug turd is representative of a government which has squandered our money. What is scary is that they still don't seem to give a toss.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    Whether he said 'so what' or 'so weak', that smug turd is representative of a government which has squandered our money. What is scary is that they still don't seem to give a toss.
    That's because our politicial elite are protected by their massive wages, huge benefits which are being widely abused as their refusal to publish expenses claims shows... our useless ministers have police protection. Most have never done a day's work in their lives - quite literally, politics IS their way of life. Isn't that a sad indictment of someone's existence?

    Let us also remember that Ed Balls is married to Yvette Cooper, another smug bitch who needs to be brought down a few pegs. Between them, they have made over £580,000 from taxpayers in the last year, adding expenses claims and wages together. No wonder he's saying "so what" - the bastard doesn't have a clue. The only thing that our politicians are brilliant at is lying convincingly on expenses claims.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    I've always believed that the levels of benefit fraud are exaggerated by the government. For example, I don't seriously believe that most of those on incapacity benefit could easily get off their arses and work tomorrow. But of course, no one ever sees adverts on the telly warning multi-millionaires in the City to pay their taxes. However, rich bastards like that can always call on the CBI, can't they?

    to a degree I agree I only know my dad had a lot of trouble getting recognised as disabled and it was a case of well he can work to a degree but no one will employ him. there are of course those that clain dissabled because they are too fat to get up and do a days work - Now I wonder how that happened. as for taxing the rich well its high time the rich were made to pay their way if you own a company thats making money hand over fist you should bloody well pay up, its not like you are personally working for that money you been driven around in a limo all day, but as far as I know if you work hard and earn some more yourself you get extra taxed now thats not too fair as I heard someone say I don't bother to work more than such and such hours because its not worth it with what I'd pay in tax on it. in case those twats in the goverment don't know working hard long hours is not nice and we like to be rewarded for it, but of course they are leniant on people that make million and billions whilst sitting in comfy offices. Also something should be done about the cost of MPs claiming unnecesarily, my local MP has 3 members of staff and is one of the most costly to the country but from what I hear he does fat all and their are other mps that get the same work done using 0-1 members of staff.
    the guy that grossly over paid his son (for doing nothing at all really) with our money rather than the made to give the money back and perhaps be kiked out of his party should have gone to jail for fraud ! he commited fraud, if I did that I'd be in jail but what did he get no punishment at all really. our money is being wasted and when its gone they just raise taxes, why should we pay more for alcohol ? I like to buy a bottle now and then and I am not a binge drinker and I don't care how many pence it is if its in the name of some crazy goverment idea that claims to help us but in reality just make life dearer its just crooked full stop.

    I agree that large cars should be made very exspensive to keep we don't need huge guzzling cars, I get on fine with a 1100 cc fiesta thats very economical and I've even done long distances in it if I had a family it would still be adequate but at most I would want a 1400 cc escort (thats even capable of towing a 0.5 ton trailer 2000 miles !) theres no need for big cars.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ?



    . And considering how much this has increased in the past 10 years, god knows how shitty it was before. No wonder we haven't caught up with the countries that are still spending more per head than us.
    Hers an idea of how bad it was before. When Mrs Hatchit came to power we were 13th in the world prosperity stakes ...year on year we dropped ...eventualy to 18th ...that iswhat new labour were up against. Under Thatcher virtualy ALL public investment stopped. Hospitals and schools had rain pouring throught the roofs. Schools were running out of books and parents were being asked for donations of books and money to keep things going.
    Then she privatised all manner of thiungs so that faceless monopolies would get the blame instead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree that large cars should be made very exspensive to keep we don't need huge guzzling cars, I get on fine with a 1100 cc fiesta thats very economical and I've even done long distances in it if I had a family it would still be adequate but at most I would want a 1400 cc escort (thats even capable of towing a 0.5 ton trailer 2000 miles !) theres no need for big cars.
    What about choice? Making them serious;y expensive helps rebuild the old snobbish devides ...the rich can flaunt it.
    How on earth is this supposed to help the environment? Every last bucket full of oil and shovel of coal is going to be burned ...every last hiss of gas sucked out of the earth. While Joe public pays an extra tenner on a flight ...this helps the environment how exactly? The ice caps are melting faster than anyone ever estimated ...new shipping lanes are openingg up and worse ...we are all rushing in there to extract every last bit of carbon possible ...carbon that couldn't be got at before ...we are going to burn the lot ...So ...banning bigger cars except for thre rich ...charging tenners on flights whilst building ever bigger airports ...raping the the arctic and antarctic are going to do what for the environment ...DON'T FALL FOR THE GREEN TAX CONS!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just for the record i have gone from having a number of vehicles ranging in size age and condition to having none. My wife has a new Vauxhall 1400 diesel ...which she kindly lets me use ...or ferries me around in.
Sign In or Register to comment.