|
|
Post by Incognito on May 16, 2017 20:28:28 GMT
This may sound a bit simplistic, but if the "living wage" is £7.50 an hour (£15600 pa for 40 hours) why does the basic tax rate start at £11,000 pa? Seems a bit odd to collect tax on £4600 then pay out income support to make it up again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on May 16, 2017 20:29:53 GMT
Just seen a little stat. Under Labour, if you earn £100,000 pa you will pay £1000 pa extra tax. Meanwhile, if your children undertake a 3 year University Course they will not have a debt in the region of £80,000 when they come out. Seems a fair deal to me. I did a four year University Course, came out debt free and as a result of my degree am a higher rate tax payer. All three of my children are or have been at University and have massive debt (albeit at a very favourable rate at the moment. What odds on the Tories selling off the loans to private companies with a more aggressive collection policy post election) Jammo saying the figures don't add up. The manifesto is costed-perhaps he would care to point out the fundamental flaws to save us all the time of number crunching) Well I mean let's just pick one out of the hat shall we. Water nationalisation. How much will that cost and how will it be paid for? Last time I checked, rain didn't cost anything. Apparently it falls out of the sky. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 20:56:57 GMT
This may sound a bit simplistic, but if the "living wage" is £7.50 an hour (£15600 pa for 40 hours) why does the basic tax rate start at £11,000 pa? Seems a bit odd to collect tax on £4600 then pay out income support to make it up again? Attachments:
|
|
deadsetlegend
Junior Member
Enter your message here...
Posts: 378 
|
Post by deadsetlegend on May 16, 2017 20:59:17 GMT
This may sound a bit simplistic, but if the "living wage" is £7.50 an hour (£15600 pa for 40 hours) why does the basic tax rate start at £11,000 pa? Seems a bit odd to collect tax on £4600 then pay out income support to make it up again? I guess the Tories would say that they are letting you keep more of your hard earned money. Whilst I have no problem with labour hitting the richest people in society for extra tax I'd like to have seen them say they'd raise the basic rate of tax for everyone. The problem with us in this country is that we want/expect the best of everything regarding services but don't want to pay for them. To me its sheer madness. If we raised tax on everyone we'd not only generate more revenue to pay for these services but it would give people all over the country a sense of belonging and contributing to our society. |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on May 16, 2017 21:10:18 GMT
It wasn't a politically motivated post. Just can't see any sense in the system regardless which government.
|
|
|
|
Post by excitable on May 16, 2017 21:13:23 GMT
No costings for all the re -nationalisation except to say that all revenue not raised by taxation will be borrowed. Here we go again spend, tax and borrow. Unsafe and unsteady. I'm trying to wean myself off responding to any of your accounts as there is no way of doing so without it being construed as a CHOMP... ... however, nationalisation takes out the part of the process where the state pays for all the expensive infrastructure side of the service and some fat Steve Evans creams off all the proceeds from the profitable side of the service. This removes the wasted income and allows it to be reinvested into the service. So, in effect, the service pays for itself. Note how many times I used the word service in that little explanation. That's what it is supposed to be. A public service. Not a profit making enterprise. Unsurprisingly you have missed the point about the cost of nationalisation such as buying the rollingstock etc to run a railway and all the equipment to have a water company as well as buying all the shares from PEOPLES PENSION SCHEMES. I also have to assume that you are too young to have been a commuter on British Railways or to have eaten a BR sandwich or you wouldn't want to ever see it again with its vast overstaffing and and inefficiency. I come back to the fact that this is not costed and would be financed by borrowing. The new Labour slogan seems to be: WHAT EVER YOU WANT. YOU GOT IT |
|
|
|
Post by excitable on May 16, 2017 21:14:50 GMT
Well I mean let's just pick one out of the hat shall we. Water nationalisation. How much will that cost and how will it be paid for? Last time I checked, rain didn't cost anything. Apparently it falls out of the sky. And comes out of your tap even when it's not raining. Pr@t |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on May 16, 2017 22:17:32 GMT
Just seen a little stat. Under Labour, if you earn £100,000 pa you will pay £1000 pa extra tax. Meanwhile, if your children undertake a 3 year University Course they will not have a debt in the region of £80,000 when they come out. Seems a fair deal to me. I did a four year University Course, came out debt free and as a result of my degree am a higher rate tax payer. All three of my children are or have been at University and have massive debt (albeit at a very favourable rate at the moment. What odds on the Tories selling off the loans to private companies with a more aggressive collection policy post election) Jammo saying the figures don't add up. The manifesto is costed-perhaps he would care to point out the fundamental flaws to save us all the time of number crunching) Well I mean let's just pick one out of the hat shall we. Water nationalisation. How much will that cost and how will it be paid for? ? thats not the question I asked. Do pay attention. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on May 16, 2017 22:23:29 GMT
Anyhow.
McDonnell is suggesting that water privatisation could be done via a bond issue or by negotiating a price for the individual companies. Water in Wales, Scotland and, I believe , Ireland is in public ownership (and as a natural resource so it should be) and allows the profits to be ploughed back into the service rather than ploughed into the pockets of the shareholders. A proportion of your water rates simply goes into the pockets of shareholders. Just think on that.
Over time the nationalisation will pay for itself, is likely to lead to a reduction in bills of £100 or so, and, if the experience of other countries is anything to go by, will provide a much better service than that provided by the private companies driven by profit above everything else.
What's not to like?
Same applies to the railways, save that it will simply be easier not to renew the franchises.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 22:36:19 GMT
Anyhow. McDonnell is suggesting that water privatisation could be done via a bond issue or by negotiating a price for the individual companies. Water in Wales, Scotland and, I believe , Ireland is in public ownership (and as a natural resource so it should be) and allows the profits to be ploughed back into the service rather than ploughed into the pockets of the shareholders. A proportion of your water rates simply goes into the pockets of shareholders. Just think on that. Over time the nationalisation will pay for itself, is likely to lead to a reduction in bills of £100 or so, and, if the experience of other countries is anything to go by, will provide a much better service than that provided by the private companies driven by profit above everything else. What's not to like? Same applies to the railways, save that it will simply be easier not to renew the franchises. Well I dont think McDonnell was suggesting that 12 hours ago. People pay taxes on dividends anyway so I'm not really sure why its seen as a bad thing. You seem to be against anything that makes a profit or some one saving money. I think you really are kidding yourself though if you think people want to return to the days of unions bringing the country to a standstill. You always go on about the Conservatives being in with their chums in the city. How many Labour policies were influenced by old Len Mccluskey I wonder? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 22:47:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on May 16, 2017 22:51:20 GMT
He was.
As for the rest of your response, you're doing your usual trick of telling me what you think I think and then debunking it. As usual, you are way off the mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on May 16, 2017 22:52:57 GMT
Private purchase or bonds? Is that different to what I wrote? FFS |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 23:07:52 GMT
Private purchase or bonds? Is that different to what I wrote? FFS We're talking about how you pay for it. More borrowing and you claim it will soon pay for itself despite tax on profits and tax on dividends being wiped out. If there's one thing you Labour lot are not good at its economics. Its also interesting that some one came out today and said that Jeremy Corbyn is not like Nick Clegg because he keeps his promises. The guy has never done a thing of note in his life bar cosying up to IRA members after they've blown people to bits. Its actually staggering that people have papered over what he's been involved in. He'll get what's coming to him sure though I'm sure of it. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on May 16, 2017 23:12:12 GMT
"He'll get what's coming to him"?
Wow.
i'm not sure that that phrase is very wise given what happened to Jo Cox. While I am sure you didn't mean it that way, you may want to reconsider what you wrote there.
|
|
|
|
Post by eggchaserbull on May 17, 2017 8:14:42 GMT
I'm trying to wean myself off responding to any of your accounts as there is no way of doing so without it being construed as a CHOMP... ... however, nationalisation takes out the part of the process where the state pays for all the expensive infrastructure side of the service and some fat Steve Evans creams off all the proceeds from the profitable side of the service. This removes the wasted income and allows it to be reinvested into the service. So, in effect, the service pays for itself. Note how many times I used the word service in that little explanation. That's what it is supposed to be. A public service. Not a profit making enterprise. Unsurprisingly you have missed the point about the cost of nationalisation such as buying the rollingstock etc to run a railway and all the equipment to have a water company as well as buying all the shares from PEOPLES PENSION SCHEMES. I also have to assume that you are too young to have been a commuter on British Railways or to have eaten a BR sandwich or you wouldn't want to ever see it again with its vast overstaffing and and inefficiency. I come back to the fact that this is not costed and would be financed by borrowing. The new Labour slogan seems to be: WHAT EVER YOU WANT. YOU GOT IT I don't see why nationalisation needs to cost much at all. The Tories took assets from the people and gave them to their friends for a pittance; a Labour government should just pay a pittance to give them back to the people. |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on May 17, 2017 8:17:06 GMT
Last time I checked, rain didn't cost anything. Apparently it falls out of the sky. And comes out of your tap even when it's not raining. Pr@t Is it OK if I claim some chompage with that one? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 16:50:44 GMT
Anyhow. McDonnell is suggesting that water privatisation could be done via a bond issue or by negotiating a price for the individual companies. Water in Wales, Scotland and, I believe , Ireland is in public ownership (and as a natural resource so it should be) and allows the profits to be ploughed back into the service rather than ploughed into the pockets of the shareholders. A proportion of your water rates simply goes into the pockets of shareholders. Just think on that. Over time the nationalisation will pay for itself, is likely to lead to a reduction in bills of £100 or so, and, if the experience of other countries is anything to go by, will provide a much better service than that provided by the private companies driven by profit above everything else. What's not to like? Same applies to the railways, save that it will simply be easier not to renew the franchises. This business about re-nationalisation of the rail network has been bugging me for some time. This from a capitalist who has always thought privatisation of the rail network was absolutely the wrong thing to do. Having spent some research time on Wikipedia, the following may (or may not!) be of interest: 1. Network Rail is a state owned (and heavily subsidised) "not for profit" organisation. UK private rail operators pay through the nose to access the track infrastructure. 2. The transport group Arriva is a German company, a joint-stock (whatever that means) operation, known as DB (Deutsche Bahn), the single shareholder of which is the German Government (!). 3. In the UK, Arriva operate the following rail companies: Arriva Trains Wales, Chiltern Railways, Cross Country, Grand Central, Tyne & Wear Metro and Arriva Rail London. 4. DB Schenker acquired the EWS rail freight company and operates as DB Cargo UK 5. Arriva operate bus companies in Wales, London, the Midlands, the North East, the North West, The Home Counties, Southern Counties, Yorkshire plus the "Green Line" coach company in London and the Home Counties. All of the above indicates that a foreign state-owned organisation owns, controls and operates a large portion of our road and rail transport infrastructure. I imagine that the profit from these operations passes directly to their German owner. I ponder how and why this has been allowed to happen under our very noses. I also wonder how and why, if the Germans can enable a state organisation to operate successful transport undertakings, can we not do the same in the UK? Our trains are the most expensive on which to travel within Western Europe whilst at the same time being the most overcrowded. The whole thing is utter madness and really grinds my gears. Not that you would notice. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on May 17, 2017 17:14:39 GMT
It's the very biggest problem with privatization. Money paid by the public for the services is applied, in very simple terms, partly towards the service and its maintenance. However, because the companies who take the franchises are in it for the profit of themselves and their shareholders, profits do not go back into the infra structure. So it's the poor consumer who ends up paying more and more to try and maintain the services because money is being syphoned off elsewhere which should be utilized for the benefit of the consumer.
I'm not against profit making companies. They have a place. But not in the area of public services.
Re-nationalization is the logical way forward. And before share holders scream that it's unfair, they need a gentle reminder that any investment carries a risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by excitable on May 17, 2017 17:41:41 GMT
Other opinions are available and luckily CB's posts are just opinions ( such as we won't leave the EU )
|
|
