| Loving Burnham's visions and promises 14:55 - Sep 29 with 17392 views | NthQldITFC |
To paraphrase: "I may have to pay a political price, but I'm going to do these things that our country needs."
Cue the usual, fossilised cynicism from both sides of the spectrum, but I have a good feeling about this bloke.
It won't be possible to achieve everything, but I'd rather someone took a political risk and gave it a bloody good go - there's no point pissing around with an eye on five years time, we need some fundamental change based on all of us, first of all, providing a solid, social base, and developing responsibly from there where possible. |  |
| |  |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:20 - Oct 2 with 1004 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:56 - Oct 1 by J2BLUE |
You're self employed aren't you? It must be a lot harder when you're not automatically enrolled by an employer. It would probably make sense to give the self employed some sort of tax break to help people get started. |
The self employed already get tax breaks. How many pay tax to the same level as those who get no choice (PAYE)? I’d be very interested to hear from any self employed people that do. To be honest I can’t see why anybody self employed would.
Morality doesn’t come into it. When I was having some work done on my house, much of the materials and some of the work was done cash in hand. We all know why. Did I care? No, because the work cost me less. Immoral? Yep. But most people I guess would do the same and quite frankly if I could legally avoid paying tax I would.
This is why government should look at the tax gap as a priority and invest in closing the loopholes by for example extending Making Tax Digital to its full potential (I saw the pilot of this HMRC project 10 years ago).
Right to Buy? If ever there was an idiotic scheme it was that. Raising short term cash in return for ruining housing provision which was prior to that was broadly mixed and balanced was in essence jam today, f tomorrow. Just like flogging off utilities. I thought it crazy at the time. I do now. And no, I didn’t buy any ‘tell sid’ shares. I might have the morality of a junkyard dog but that was a step too far.
In terms of decline, it began at the end of the 19c with the rise of US and Germany as industrial powers. They invested, we did not. Two world wars exhausted this country in every way and post war the economy ant infrastructure supporting it (e.g. railways) was worn out.
The solution was investment. The old industries died primarily through lack of it. The government blamed the unions. Convenient and fundamentally wrong. Remember ‘Red Robbo’? I do. Well to my knowledge he didn’t design the appalling Austin Allegro. A design using a 1950s engine and heater box thrown together over five sites so badly it took longer to correct the faults on it than to build VW Golf. The Germans were using technology in modern factories to build far better cars faster. The solution was obvious.
How did we arrive at that? After the war, while U.K. manufacturing was old, it existed. The US of course was busy extracting what it could from this country (last payment about 15 years ago) and was the world’s economic giant not least because everywhere else was wrecked.
Britain because of the empire and lack of supply elsewhere could sell everything it made. So it did. Invest? No need. But there was because as soon as others recovered the U.K. became uncompetitive. But still people like shipyard owners sweated the assets riveting ships while the competition welded them together in a fraction of the time until they went bust. Wrung out like a dishcloth. Gone.
So when Thatcher blamed everything on the workforce and went for steelworkers and miners, she not only engineered a social catastrophe in those areas (and didn’t give a monkeys), but entirely missed the point. It was only ever about investment. And to this day politicians don’t get it. Austerity beloved by them all is the precise opposite to what was needed, but away went dead eyes Osborne and that sweating buffoon Cameron. Idiots. Shame Alastair Darling had the right strategy but was booted out.
Will Burnham with his 1970 tax and spend policies use the money he rinses out of people to invest or spaff it up the wall? Time will tell |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:34 - Oct 2 with 939 views | WeWereZombies |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:20 - Oct 2 by Churchman |
The self employed already get tax breaks. How many pay tax to the same level as those who get no choice (PAYE)? I’d be very interested to hear from any self employed people that do. To be honest I can’t see why anybody self employed would.
Morality doesn’t come into it. When I was having some work done on my house, much of the materials and some of the work was done cash in hand. We all know why. Did I care? No, because the work cost me less. Immoral? Yep. But most people I guess would do the same and quite frankly if I could legally avoid paying tax I would.
This is why government should look at the tax gap as a priority and invest in closing the loopholes by for example extending Making Tax Digital to its full potential (I saw the pilot of this HMRC project 10 years ago).
Right to Buy? If ever there was an idiotic scheme it was that. Raising short term cash in return for ruining housing provision which was prior to that was broadly mixed and balanced was in essence jam today, f tomorrow. Just like flogging off utilities. I thought it crazy at the time. I do now. And no, I didn’t buy any ‘tell sid’ shares. I might have the morality of a junkyard dog but that was a step too far.
In terms of decline, it began at the end of the 19c with the rise of US and Germany as industrial powers. They invested, we did not. Two world wars exhausted this country in every way and post war the economy ant infrastructure supporting it (e.g. railways) was worn out.
The solution was investment. The old industries died primarily through lack of it. The government blamed the unions. Convenient and fundamentally wrong. Remember ‘Red Robbo’? I do. Well to my knowledge he didn’t design the appalling Austin Allegro. A design using a 1950s engine and heater box thrown together over five sites so badly it took longer to correct the faults on it than to build VW Golf. The Germans were using technology in modern factories to build far better cars faster. The solution was obvious.
How did we arrive at that? After the war, while U.K. manufacturing was old, it existed. The US of course was busy extracting what it could from this country (last payment about 15 years ago) and was the world’s economic giant not least because everywhere else was wrecked.
Britain because of the empire and lack of supply elsewhere could sell everything it made. So it did. Invest? No need. But there was because as soon as others recovered the U.K. became uncompetitive. But still people like shipyard owners sweated the assets riveting ships while the competition welded them together in a fraction of the time until they went bust. Wrung out like a dishcloth. Gone.
So when Thatcher blamed everything on the workforce and went for steelworkers and miners, she not only engineered a social catastrophe in those areas (and didn’t give a monkeys), but entirely missed the point. It was only ever about investment. And to this day politicians don’t get it. Austerity beloved by them all is the precise opposite to what was needed, but away went dead eyes Osborne and that sweating buffoon Cameron. Idiots. Shame Alastair Darling had the right strategy but was booted out.
Will Burnham with his 1970 tax and spend policies use the money he rinses out of people to invest or spaff it up the wall? Time will tell |
'quite frankly if I could legally avoid paying tax I would.' - ah, the rock star stance ( https://www.nme.com/news/music )
But the cash in hand tradesman who doesn't declare earnings is, unpatriotically, evading his responsibilities to the Crown (in the form of HMRC) and breaking the law. And if he boasts about it to you then you are complicit and breaking the law too. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:40 - Oct 2 with 913 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:20 - Oct 2 by Churchman |
The self employed already get tax breaks. How many pay tax to the same level as those who get no choice (PAYE)? I’d be very interested to hear from any self employed people that do. To be honest I can’t see why anybody self employed would.
Morality doesn’t come into it. When I was having some work done on my house, much of the materials and some of the work was done cash in hand. We all know why. Did I care? No, because the work cost me less. Immoral? Yep. But most people I guess would do the same and quite frankly if I could legally avoid paying tax I would.
This is why government should look at the tax gap as a priority and invest in closing the loopholes by for example extending Making Tax Digital to its full potential (I saw the pilot of this HMRC project 10 years ago).
Right to Buy? If ever there was an idiotic scheme it was that. Raising short term cash in return for ruining housing provision which was prior to that was broadly mixed and balanced was in essence jam today, f tomorrow. Just like flogging off utilities. I thought it crazy at the time. I do now. And no, I didn’t buy any ‘tell sid’ shares. I might have the morality of a junkyard dog but that was a step too far.
In terms of decline, it began at the end of the 19c with the rise of US and Germany as industrial powers. They invested, we did not. Two world wars exhausted this country in every way and post war the economy ant infrastructure supporting it (e.g. railways) was worn out.
The solution was investment. The old industries died primarily through lack of it. The government blamed the unions. Convenient and fundamentally wrong. Remember ‘Red Robbo’? I do. Well to my knowledge he didn’t design the appalling Austin Allegro. A design using a 1950s engine and heater box thrown together over five sites so badly it took longer to correct the faults on it than to build VW Golf. The Germans were using technology in modern factories to build far better cars faster. The solution was obvious.
How did we arrive at that? After the war, while U.K. manufacturing was old, it existed. The US of course was busy extracting what it could from this country (last payment about 15 years ago) and was the world’s economic giant not least because everywhere else was wrecked.
Britain because of the empire and lack of supply elsewhere could sell everything it made. So it did. Invest? No need. But there was because as soon as others recovered the U.K. became uncompetitive. But still people like shipyard owners sweated the assets riveting ships while the competition welded them together in a fraction of the time until they went bust. Wrung out like a dishcloth. Gone.
So when Thatcher blamed everything on the workforce and went for steelworkers and miners, she not only engineered a social catastrophe in those areas (and didn’t give a monkeys), but entirely missed the point. It was only ever about investment. And to this day politicians don’t get it. Austerity beloved by them all is the precise opposite to what was needed, but away went dead eyes Osborne and that sweating buffoon Cameron. Idiots. Shame Alastair Darling had the right strategy but was booted out.
Will Burnham with his 1970 tax and spend policies use the money he rinses out of people to invest or spaff it up the wall? Time will tell |
RTB is very much before my time, but seems to me to be a rather cynical ploy to get more conservative voters. I suspect that worked being Essex is full of beneficiaries of the scheme and heavily leans to the Tories.
With regards to 1970’s tax and spend, as long as people aren’t expecting 1970’s levels of investment in public services, otherwise they’ll be disappointed. It goes back to my earlier point re the demographics- 1970’s we had a far higher ratio of working taxpayers. That’s why we have record individual tax burdens and generally poor services. Since that ratio has halved, individual taxpayerss would in theory need to pay twice as much to get the same level of funding - I suspect any nationalised industries would therefore be run on a shoestring.
Railways have so far been decent in terms of freezing prices, but unsurprisingly fares haven’t reduced. I think that will be largely how they would operate since the underlying costs are still much higher than back in the 70’s. Get water done though, hare brained idea to privatise a monopoly. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:55 - Oct 2 with 884 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:34 - Oct 2 by WeWereZombies |
'quite frankly if I could legally avoid paying tax I would.' - ah, the rock star stance ( https://www.nme.com/news/music )
But the cash in hand tradesman who doesn't declare earnings is, unpatriotically, evading his responsibilities to the Crown (in the form of HMRC) and breaking the law. And if he boasts about it to you then you are complicit and breaking the law too. |
Ok, so you’d have said ‘no, no I want to pay 20% more so the government gets its tax’. Fine.
But given cash in hand is how a lot of people operate and always have I doubt it all goes down on their tax return. I bet allowable expenses are errrr generous on returns too. They were for my dad. He paid my mum to be his secretary. Well, she made his tea I suppose. By all means correct me if I’m wrong, especially in my assertion that self employed avoid paying tax if they can.
Maybe you and the Tory government are right when they told HMRCs tax inspectors that all people were fundamentally honest when it came to paying tax so 1000s of Inspectors could.be retired; paid off. That’s what actually happened.
Nobody boasted about anything to me but it doesn’t take a genius to work out how it goes. Nor is it a ‘rock star stance’ (wish I was one). It’s the stance of somebody on PAYE who’s paid every single penny - unlike some. Do I mind? No, but I’d find ways not to if I could.
That’s just how I feel. I’m sure many if not most feel different. Clearly you do which is fine. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:03 - Oct 2 with 871 views | giant_stow |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:20 - Oct 2 by Churchman |
The self employed already get tax breaks. How many pay tax to the same level as those who get no choice (PAYE)? I’d be very interested to hear from any self employed people that do. To be honest I can’t see why anybody self employed would.
Morality doesn’t come into it. When I was having some work done on my house, much of the materials and some of the work was done cash in hand. We all know why. Did I care? No, because the work cost me less. Immoral? Yep. But most people I guess would do the same and quite frankly if I could legally avoid paying tax I would.
This is why government should look at the tax gap as a priority and invest in closing the loopholes by for example extending Making Tax Digital to its full potential (I saw the pilot of this HMRC project 10 years ago).
Right to Buy? If ever there was an idiotic scheme it was that. Raising short term cash in return for ruining housing provision which was prior to that was broadly mixed and balanced was in essence jam today, f tomorrow. Just like flogging off utilities. I thought it crazy at the time. I do now. And no, I didn’t buy any ‘tell sid’ shares. I might have the morality of a junkyard dog but that was a step too far.
In terms of decline, it began at the end of the 19c with the rise of US and Germany as industrial powers. They invested, we did not. Two world wars exhausted this country in every way and post war the economy ant infrastructure supporting it (e.g. railways) was worn out.
The solution was investment. The old industries died primarily through lack of it. The government blamed the unions. Convenient and fundamentally wrong. Remember ‘Red Robbo’? I do. Well to my knowledge he didn’t design the appalling Austin Allegro. A design using a 1950s engine and heater box thrown together over five sites so badly it took longer to correct the faults on it than to build VW Golf. The Germans were using technology in modern factories to build far better cars faster. The solution was obvious.
How did we arrive at that? After the war, while U.K. manufacturing was old, it existed. The US of course was busy extracting what it could from this country (last payment about 15 years ago) and was the world’s economic giant not least because everywhere else was wrecked.
Britain because of the empire and lack of supply elsewhere could sell everything it made. So it did. Invest? No need. But there was because as soon as others recovered the U.K. became uncompetitive. But still people like shipyard owners sweated the assets riveting ships while the competition welded them together in a fraction of the time until they went bust. Wrung out like a dishcloth. Gone.
So when Thatcher blamed everything on the workforce and went for steelworkers and miners, she not only engineered a social catastrophe in those areas (and didn’t give a monkeys), but entirely missed the point. It was only ever about investment. And to this day politicians don’t get it. Austerity beloved by them all is the precise opposite to what was needed, but away went dead eyes Osborne and that sweating buffoon Cameron. Idiots. Shame Alastair Darling had the right strategy but was booted out.
Will Burnham with his 1970 tax and spend policies use the money he rinses out of people to invest or spaff it up the wall? Time will tell |
"The self employed already get tax breaks. How many pay tax to the same level as those who get no choice (PAYE)? I’d be very interested to hear from any self employed people that do. To be honest I can’t see why anybody self employed would."
I used to pay PAYE and was even paying the accountant £25 a payslip to be paid weekly. Then i met an accountant who was on my side, not the tax man's (or his) and put a stop to all that and pay a combo of taxes. Much cheaper.
I guess that sounds bad, but remember the self-employed carry bags of risk, no holiday pay, obviously no employment protection and no easy way to claim unemployment benefits. Indeed the only benefit me or mine have ever claimed is child & new mother not working allowances.
Edit: further to DJR's post below, for clarity I'm not a contractor - its (very) micro business with c 70-80 clients [Post edited 2 Oct 9:20]
|  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:12 - Oct 2 with 824 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:20 - Oct 2 by Churchman |
The self employed already get tax breaks. How many pay tax to the same level as those who get no choice (PAYE)? I’d be very interested to hear from any self employed people that do. To be honest I can’t see why anybody self employed would.
Morality doesn’t come into it. When I was having some work done on my house, much of the materials and some of the work was done cash in hand. We all know why. Did I care? No, because the work cost me less. Immoral? Yep. But most people I guess would do the same and quite frankly if I could legally avoid paying tax I would.
This is why government should look at the tax gap as a priority and invest in closing the loopholes by for example extending Making Tax Digital to its full potential (I saw the pilot of this HMRC project 10 years ago).
Right to Buy? If ever there was an idiotic scheme it was that. Raising short term cash in return for ruining housing provision which was prior to that was broadly mixed and balanced was in essence jam today, f tomorrow. Just like flogging off utilities. I thought it crazy at the time. I do now. And no, I didn’t buy any ‘tell sid’ shares. I might have the morality of a junkyard dog but that was a step too far.
In terms of decline, it began at the end of the 19c with the rise of US and Germany as industrial powers. They invested, we did not. Two world wars exhausted this country in every way and post war the economy ant infrastructure supporting it (e.g. railways) was worn out.
The solution was investment. The old industries died primarily through lack of it. The government blamed the unions. Convenient and fundamentally wrong. Remember ‘Red Robbo’? I do. Well to my knowledge he didn’t design the appalling Austin Allegro. A design using a 1950s engine and heater box thrown together over five sites so badly it took longer to correct the faults on it than to build VW Golf. The Germans were using technology in modern factories to build far better cars faster. The solution was obvious.
How did we arrive at that? After the war, while U.K. manufacturing was old, it existed. The US of course was busy extracting what it could from this country (last payment about 15 years ago) and was the world’s economic giant not least because everywhere else was wrecked.
Britain because of the empire and lack of supply elsewhere could sell everything it made. So it did. Invest? No need. But there was because as soon as others recovered the U.K. became uncompetitive. But still people like shipyard owners sweated the assets riveting ships while the competition welded them together in a fraction of the time until they went bust. Wrung out like a dishcloth. Gone.
So when Thatcher blamed everything on the workforce and went for steelworkers and miners, she not only engineered a social catastrophe in those areas (and didn’t give a monkeys), but entirely missed the point. It was only ever about investment. And to this day politicians don’t get it. Austerity beloved by them all is the precise opposite to what was needed, but away went dead eyes Osborne and that sweating buffoon Cameron. Idiots. Shame Alastair Darling had the right strategy but was booted out.
Will Burnham with his 1970 tax and spend policies use the money he rinses out of people to invest or spaff it up the wall? Time will tell |
"The self employed already get tax breaks. How many pay tax to the same level as those who get no choice (PAYE)? I’d be very interested to hear from any self employed people that do. To be honest I can’t see why anybody self employed would."
When I was self-employed, I chose through principle not to incorporate, and had no expenses to deduct, so I gained no advantage. But because others did manipulate the system, the civil service toughened the rules and made self-employment more financially punitive for people like me whose self-employment was genuine and who income was on top of pension income. I therefore gave up. [Post edited 2 Oct 9:35]
|  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:17 - Oct 2 with 803 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:55 - Oct 2 by Churchman |
Ok, so you’d have said ‘no, no I want to pay 20% more so the government gets its tax’. Fine.
But given cash in hand is how a lot of people operate and always have I doubt it all goes down on their tax return. I bet allowable expenses are errrr generous on returns too. They were for my dad. He paid my mum to be his secretary. Well, she made his tea I suppose. By all means correct me if I’m wrong, especially in my assertion that self employed avoid paying tax if they can.
Maybe you and the Tory government are right when they told HMRCs tax inspectors that all people were fundamentally honest when it came to paying tax so 1000s of Inspectors could.be retired; paid off. That’s what actually happened.
Nobody boasted about anything to me but it doesn’t take a genius to work out how it goes. Nor is it a ‘rock star stance’ (wish I was one). It’s the stance of somebody on PAYE who’s paid every single penny - unlike some. Do I mind? No, but I’d find ways not to if I could.
That’s just how I feel. I’m sure many if not most feel different. Clearly you do which is fine. |
Good old British values eh? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:30 - Oct 2 with 773 views | WeWereZombies |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:55 - Oct 2 by Churchman |
Ok, so you’d have said ‘no, no I want to pay 20% more so the government gets its tax’. Fine.
But given cash in hand is how a lot of people operate and always have I doubt it all goes down on their tax return. I bet allowable expenses are errrr generous on returns too. They were for my dad. He paid my mum to be his secretary. Well, she made his tea I suppose. By all means correct me if I’m wrong, especially in my assertion that self employed avoid paying tax if they can.
Maybe you and the Tory government are right when they told HMRCs tax inspectors that all people were fundamentally honest when it came to paying tax so 1000s of Inspectors could.be retired; paid off. That’s what actually happened.
Nobody boasted about anything to me but it doesn’t take a genius to work out how it goes. Nor is it a ‘rock star stance’ (wish I was one). It’s the stance of somebody on PAYE who’s paid every single penny - unlike some. Do I mind? No, but I’d find ways not to if I could.
That’s just how I feel. I’m sure many if not most feel different. Clearly you do which is fine. |
As a qualified accountant I don't really have a choice if I don't want to risk losing the letters after my name. But even though I am retired now and don't need them much I would feel some shame if I got done for aiding tax evasion. So you can go down another Irish set of rock star's route and ask if everybody else is doing it (and DJR is evidence that is not the case) why can't we ? Because it isn't a victimless crime, we as a state all lose out and have less for education, health, defence and policing (amongst other things.) | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:13 - Oct 2 with 722 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:30 - Oct 2 by WeWereZombies |
As a qualified accountant I don't really have a choice if I don't want to risk losing the letters after my name. But even though I am retired now and don't need them much I would feel some shame if I got done for aiding tax evasion. So you can go down another Irish set of rock star's route and ask if everybody else is doing it (and DJR is evidence that is not the case) why can't we ? Because it isn't a victimless crime, we as a state all lose out and have less for education, health, defence and policing (amongst other things.) |
Some did get their comeuppance during COVID when suddenly years of underdeclaring their income/profits on their tax returns meant they got less financial support than they were actually due. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:19 - Oct 2 with 714 views | OldFart71 |
Burnham has just taken over where Starmer left off. The difference is he's blaming Thatcher rather than the Tories previous 14 years.
Anyone who lived through the ghastly 70's will know about the strikes. The power going off. I remember working in a warehouse and leaving off and going to a match at Portman road in the afternoon as the power had gone off.
Don't get me wrong Maggie made mistakes. Not the selling of Council houses, but not allowing replacements to be built. Privatization clearly hasn't worked with the Water companies.
But without Maggie curbing the Unions the country would have gone down the pan.
Burnham's speech was rousing, but contained little or no content regarding the really important issues.
As a pensioner I have no problem with the Triple Lock being changed. But there was no mention of anyone else receiving benefits from the state having to take any of the burden either.
I pay more tax every year as I get the State Pension plus a Company pension. My income is no more than a reasonably paid worker or someone on Universal credit and the higher level of PIP's.
Moving closer to Europe won't alter how the UK is doing. Most of Europe is a lame duck and has higher debt than we have. The main reason for Brexit not working was because the man who instigated the vote, Mr or Lord as he is now, Cameron, thought the vote would go the way of staying. He along with May, Blair and many others were all pro Europe.
Just one of the reasons it hasn't worked as it should because so many didn't want to leave. But we would have been no better off staying. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:38 - Oct 2 with 652 views | J2BLUE |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:19 - Oct 2 by OldFart71 |
Burnham has just taken over where Starmer left off. The difference is he's blaming Thatcher rather than the Tories previous 14 years.
Anyone who lived through the ghastly 70's will know about the strikes. The power going off. I remember working in a warehouse and leaving off and going to a match at Portman road in the afternoon as the power had gone off.
Don't get me wrong Maggie made mistakes. Not the selling of Council houses, but not allowing replacements to be built. Privatization clearly hasn't worked with the Water companies.
But without Maggie curbing the Unions the country would have gone down the pan.
Burnham's speech was rousing, but contained little or no content regarding the really important issues.
As a pensioner I have no problem with the Triple Lock being changed. But there was no mention of anyone else receiving benefits from the state having to take any of the burden either.
I pay more tax every year as I get the State Pension plus a Company pension. My income is no more than a reasonably paid worker or someone on Universal credit and the higher level of PIP's.
Moving closer to Europe won't alter how the UK is doing. Most of Europe is a lame duck and has higher debt than we have. The main reason for Brexit not working was because the man who instigated the vote, Mr or Lord as he is now, Cameron, thought the vote would go the way of staying. He along with May, Blair and many others were all pro Europe.
Just one of the reasons it hasn't worked as it should because so many didn't want to leave. But we would have been no better off staying. |
Removing the triple lock is not a burden. It's not like you're getting a below inflation rise each year. It's just a small correction for a policy which should never have been implemented. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:57 - Oct 2 with 615 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:14 - Oct 2 by DJR |
No health system is perfect but France and Germany, as well as countries like Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherland, come out higher than the UK in the various reports on the best healthcare systems in the world.
As regards your second paragraph, and leaving aside the fact that other western European countries with decent public services have similar or higher rates of home ownership than the UK, the fact that the German housing system is different to the UK doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad system, not least because of more regulation of the rental sector.
As it is, my wife's sister and her husband, who live in Germany do own their own but they have friends that do not and who seem content and comfortably well-off.
Finally, I've often thought that wealth tied up in the home is in some ways rather illusory because it can only be accessed on down-sizing or death, although I suppose it does have the advantage of funding care home fees when people get older. 
And perhaps the main advantage of home ownership in recent decades in the UK, given the relaxation of rent controls and the like, is an absence of precariousness, subject of course to rising interest rates. [Post edited 2 Oct 8:15]
|
“Finally, I've often thought that wealth tied up in the home is in some ways rather illusory because it can only be accessed on down-sizing or death, although I suppose it does have the advantage of funding care home fees when people get older”
I think Maggie’s right to buy has helped lower income families to own some capital. It’s difficult to know what other assets could make more sense expect maybe explicitly forcing people to save for retirement. although the left will naturally focus on the mega rich, it’s the success of brining people out of poverty that is the biggest success in capitalism. Socialist models keep people poor. With no capital you have very little individual financial autonomy are at the whims of the state. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:02 - Oct 2 with 605 views | mellowblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:34 - Oct 2 by WeWereZombies |
'quite frankly if I could legally avoid paying tax I would.' - ah, the rock star stance ( https://www.nme.com/news/music )
But the cash in hand tradesman who doesn't declare earnings is, unpatriotically, evading his responsibilities to the Crown (in the form of HMRC) and breaking the law. And if he boasts about it to you then you are complicit and breaking the law too. |
Absolutely, but often the temptation is too much. It must be costing the country hundreds of millions. Right across the board from casual ebayers to decent sized builders. Possibly why HMRC are bringing in quarterly digital reporting for the self employed (that and getting the tax quicker?). Only last week I got a 20 quid discount off my septic tank emptying man for cash. Do I feel guilty, Hell No. What cost £80 20 years ago is now £180 (without discount), you have to save where you can. The guy's tractor gives him 7 miles per gallon. Working rurally for those off-stream from municipal drainage you can imagine the diesel price implications for him. No red fuel for him. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:39 - Oct 2 with 573 views | itfcjoe |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:05 - Oct 1 by Clapham_Junction |
Some important context here:
Council house building averaged around 140,000 a year in the decade prior to RTB being introduced. It then declined sharply, dropping to around 30,000 a year by 1985 and under 2,000 a year by 1996. The two main issues were that it became largely pointless building housing if it might have to be sold shortly afterwards (and at well below market price) and RTB receipts initially largely going to the Treasury and unhelpful rules on how the remainder could be spent.
There was no equivalent increase in private sector housebuilding, which had averaged 170,000 per annum in the decade prior to RTB – it actually dropped to 160,000 in the decade after.
This has created numerous legacy issues, including an overall shortage of housing, a particular shortage of social housing (which combined with the abolition of rent controls have meant that the government's housing benefit bill is billions higher than it would otherwise be) and councils having the increased costs and hassle of dealing with leaseholders. A lot of former social housing is now rented out privately at far higher rates than the neighbouring council properties – I think in Tower Hamlets around 80% of RTB flats are now private rents, often in a worse state than the council equivalents but three times the cost.
It's one of the most disastrous domestic policies ever enacted by a British government IMO. |
I'm currently watching all the back catalogue of 7 Up, and it's amasing just how many of them just live in council houses through 70s and 80s as no big deal, all working, some highly educated, some not - nowadays you just don't hear of it |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:55 - Oct 2 with 553 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:39 - Oct 2 by itfcjoe |
I'm currently watching all the back catalogue of 7 Up, and it's amasing just how many of them just live in council houses through 70s and 80s as no big deal, all working, some highly educated, some not - nowadays you just don't hear of it |
You may not hear of it. The difference is that its all run by social housing providers rather than local authorities, and private landlords funded, for profit, by housing related benefits.
It is still about 17% of households (excluding the private ones supported by housing related benefits).
Enjoy your lofty position away from the plebs! [Post edited 2 Oct 12:56]
| |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:19 - Oct 2 with 524 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:30 - Oct 2 by WeWereZombies |
As a qualified accountant I don't really have a choice if I don't want to risk losing the letters after my name. But even though I am retired now and don't need them much I would feel some shame if I got done for aiding tax evasion. So you can go down another Irish set of rock star's route and ask if everybody else is doing it (and DJR is evidence that is not the case) why can't we ? Because it isn't a victimless crime, we as a state all lose out and have less for education, health, defence and policing (amongst other things.) |
Each circumstance is different. It all comes back to human nature. Why pay more than you have to? That’s why one needs tax inspectors, robust rules and mechanisms. The 2024/25 theoretical tax gap according to AI was £59.2bn. More than the defence budget. So clearly some people are not meeting your moral high standards or the % contribution compulsorily made by PAYE earners.
I’m all for people paying what they owe. I do, but I don’t think it’s as you paint it. My father’s accountant turned profit into a technical loss. There was nothing illegal about it because things like in paying my mother a wage it could never be proven whether she did any work or watched Bargain Hunt. I used to chide mercilessly over the morals of it. Why? Because I always enjoyed winding him up and he and I really knew that as long as it wasn’t illegal (he too had a professional ‘reputation’ to protect) it was just playing the system to his advantage.
Many years ago in a different life I got to see 100s of people (or their files/applications) who wanted a mortgage. The rules of the time were provide three years accounts and what could be lent would be set against them. Time after time you’d say ‘sorry can’t help you. Your accounts say your income means you can only borrow x’. The inevitable response was ‘of course I earn sufficient to pay back x. That’s just the accounts’ etc etc. ‘well, what you save on tax, you lose on borrowing’.
That was my experience.
Human nature is what it is. Have a read of Hans Von Luck’s book Panzer Commander. He was imprisoned in Russia after the war in a Labour camp. Because he was skilled he got involved in building projects. All the Russians from the building designer to the bloke who hoiked the cement bags off the lorry were paid exactly the same. Soviet socialist nirvana. Everyone is equal.
Problem is the workers would work their allotted time, no more. Why should they? The architect did the bare minimum. The suppliers supplied the cheaper green wood instead of the seasoned and trousered the difference. Concrete suppliers? Well a saving in sand here, 10% less there - the saving being sold on elsewhere.
Everyone was looking for a little more. Result? Half the buildings fell down before they’d even been finished. Was what the workers did ‘unpatriotic’ and wrong? In terms of their rules, yes. But that’s what people do.
Unlike the Tory government, I don’t believe everyone is honest. Most people try do the right thing, but there will always be those that seek more than that and by and large if somebody can get away with something, they will. It’s why we need a police force, justice system, society rules, mechanisms like HMRC.
Just my cynical view. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:34 - Oct 2 with 498 views | EdwardStone |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:19 - Oct 2 by Churchman |
Each circumstance is different. It all comes back to human nature. Why pay more than you have to? That’s why one needs tax inspectors, robust rules and mechanisms. The 2024/25 theoretical tax gap according to AI was £59.2bn. More than the defence budget. So clearly some people are not meeting your moral high standards or the % contribution compulsorily made by PAYE earners.
I’m all for people paying what they owe. I do, but I don’t think it’s as you paint it. My father’s accountant turned profit into a technical loss. There was nothing illegal about it because things like in paying my mother a wage it could never be proven whether she did any work or watched Bargain Hunt. I used to chide mercilessly over the morals of it. Why? Because I always enjoyed winding him up and he and I really knew that as long as it wasn’t illegal (he too had a professional ‘reputation’ to protect) it was just playing the system to his advantage.
Many years ago in a different life I got to see 100s of people (or their files/applications) who wanted a mortgage. The rules of the time were provide three years accounts and what could be lent would be set against them. Time after time you’d say ‘sorry can’t help you. Your accounts say your income means you can only borrow x’. The inevitable response was ‘of course I earn sufficient to pay back x. That’s just the accounts’ etc etc. ‘well, what you save on tax, you lose on borrowing’.
That was my experience.
Human nature is what it is. Have a read of Hans Von Luck’s book Panzer Commander. He was imprisoned in Russia after the war in a Labour camp. Because he was skilled he got involved in building projects. All the Russians from the building designer to the bloke who hoiked the cement bags off the lorry were paid exactly the same. Soviet socialist nirvana. Everyone is equal.
Problem is the workers would work their allotted time, no more. Why should they? The architect did the bare minimum. The suppliers supplied the cheaper green wood instead of the seasoned and trousered the difference. Concrete suppliers? Well a saving in sand here, 10% less there - the saving being sold on elsewhere.
Everyone was looking for a little more. Result? Half the buildings fell down before they’d even been finished. Was what the workers did ‘unpatriotic’ and wrong? In terms of their rules, yes. But that’s what people do.
Unlike the Tory government, I don’t believe everyone is honest. Most people try do the right thing, but there will always be those that seek more than that and by and large if somebody can get away with something, they will. It’s why we need a police force, justice system, society rules, mechanisms like HMRC.
Just my cynical view. |
I think we need to adjust the tax system so that it is incredibly simple to do the right thing and very risky to do the wrong....and doing the wrong thing will lead to punishment
I believe the Greek crisis that nearly collapsed the EU come about because the vast number of Greeks saw tax as an avoidable inconvenience and the authorities saw enforcement as a option not a certainty
It is very clear that the more robust speed enforcement on the motorways has radically altered the nation's driving habits... mine included as I drive along at a very steady 70 mph with my halo shining |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:38 - Oct 2 with 494 views | mellowblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:19 - Oct 2 by Churchman |
Each circumstance is different. It all comes back to human nature. Why pay more than you have to? That’s why one needs tax inspectors, robust rules and mechanisms. The 2024/25 theoretical tax gap according to AI was £59.2bn. More than the defence budget. So clearly some people are not meeting your moral high standards or the % contribution compulsorily made by PAYE earners.
I’m all for people paying what they owe. I do, but I don’t think it’s as you paint it. My father’s accountant turned profit into a technical loss. There was nothing illegal about it because things like in paying my mother a wage it could never be proven whether she did any work or watched Bargain Hunt. I used to chide mercilessly over the morals of it. Why? Because I always enjoyed winding him up and he and I really knew that as long as it wasn’t illegal (he too had a professional ‘reputation’ to protect) it was just playing the system to his advantage.
Many years ago in a different life I got to see 100s of people (or their files/applications) who wanted a mortgage. The rules of the time were provide three years accounts and what could be lent would be set against them. Time after time you’d say ‘sorry can’t help you. Your accounts say your income means you can only borrow x’. The inevitable response was ‘of course I earn sufficient to pay back x. That’s just the accounts’ etc etc. ‘well, what you save on tax, you lose on borrowing’.
That was my experience.
Human nature is what it is. Have a read of Hans Von Luck’s book Panzer Commander. He was imprisoned in Russia after the war in a Labour camp. Because he was skilled he got involved in building projects. All the Russians from the building designer to the bloke who hoiked the cement bags off the lorry were paid exactly the same. Soviet socialist nirvana. Everyone is equal.
Problem is the workers would work their allotted time, no more. Why should they? The architect did the bare minimum. The suppliers supplied the cheaper green wood instead of the seasoned and trousered the difference. Concrete suppliers? Well a saving in sand here, 10% less there - the saving being sold on elsewhere.
Everyone was looking for a little more. Result? Half the buildings fell down before they’d even been finished. Was what the workers did ‘unpatriotic’ and wrong? In terms of their rules, yes. But that’s what people do.
Unlike the Tory government, I don’t believe everyone is honest. Most people try do the right thing, but there will always be those that seek more than that and by and large if somebody can get away with something, they will. It’s why we need a police force, justice system, society rules, mechanisms like HMRC.
Just my cynical view. |
I have read Von Luck's book, was quite a good egg really; there are many good autobios from the German side. The German workmanship was often secretly admired on the Soviet side, as the Germans even in captivity had standards they kept to. And the Germans certainly had contempt for the Russian system. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:54 - Oct 2 with 461 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:38 - Oct 2 by mellowblue |
I have read Von Luck's book, was quite a good egg really; there are many good autobios from the German side. The German workmanship was often secretly admired on the Soviet side, as the Germans even in captivity had standards they kept to. And the Germans certainly had contempt for the Russian system. |
I read that he ‘doctored’ his own history a bit, but regardless, I get the sense he was as you describe him. Certainly my view, anyway.
You are right about German workmanship. I think it was admired by all sides really and when you look at the kit of the time from machine guns to tanks to aircraft, you can see why. A country of engineers. Innovative ones at that.
The Russian system was catastrophic and wasteful. Not read much about it recently, but I get the impression that whatever version of that they have now, it’s still catastrophic and wasteful. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:53 - Oct 2 with 395 views | mellowblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:54 - Oct 2 by Churchman |
I read that he ‘doctored’ his own history a bit, but regardless, I get the sense he was as you describe him. Certainly my view, anyway.
You are right about German workmanship. I think it was admired by all sides really and when you look at the kit of the time from machine guns to tanks to aircraft, you can see why. A country of engineers. Innovative ones at that.
The Russian system was catastrophic and wasteful. Not read much about it recently, but I get the impression that whatever version of that they have now, it’s still catastrophic and wasteful. |
He certainly pushed an if not anti-Nazi then certainly not pro-Nazi storyline. And he did not approve of the SS military which is convenient. Fought in all the main theatres bar Italy and Southern Europe.
I have always admired the German war equipment designs, uniforms, guns, planes. tanks ships. the whole kaboodle (probably back to my Airfix childhood days). Trouble with the German stuff it tended to be over-engineered (just because they can) and over-specced for that level of engineering and production could never keep up with needs. The Tiger was a case in point. The Russians got it right with the T34, though inferior it was manouvereable, had a decent cannon was reliable and fairly simple to service and could be quickly built. The numerical advantage they had by mid 1943 was stark. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:03 - Oct 2 with 368 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:57 - Oct 2 by balcombeblue |
“Finally, I've often thought that wealth tied up in the home is in some ways rather illusory because it can only be accessed on down-sizing or death, although I suppose it does have the advantage of funding care home fees when people get older”
I think Maggie’s right to buy has helped lower income families to own some capital. It’s difficult to know what other assets could make more sense expect maybe explicitly forcing people to save for retirement. although the left will naturally focus on the mega rich, it’s the success of brining people out of poverty that is the biggest success in capitalism. Socialist models keep people poor. With no capital you have very little individual financial autonomy are at the whims of the state. |
There is an academic debate to be had about whether social democracy is a branch of, or separate from, socialism but I was talking about social democracy.
Here is a definition.
"Social democracy is a political ideology that advocates for state intervention in capitalist economies to reduce inequality, promote social welfare, and ensure fair wealth redistribution through progressive taxation and public services."
Clause IV committed the Labour Party to a much fuller form of socialism ("the common ownership of the means of production") but in practice it never moved much beyond social democracy, and clause IV was later amended.
I was therefore advocating for the sort of social democracy that in many western Europe countries has far from made people poorer.
As an aside, I was in Paris on the night of the victory of the Mayor of Paris, Jacques Chirac. Apart from being an amazing night when much of Paris celebrated on the streets into the early hours, I came to the conclusion that the change from a Socialist President to a right one wing would have little or no impact on what I regarded as the social democracy in that country..
Of course, in some ways the UK has carried on with a social democratic model, but the issue for me is that we have done so on the cheap.
As regards your comment about capital, it is interesting to note that income inequality declined from the 19th century to reach historic lows in the late 70s but rose sharply during the 1980s, before largely stabilising thereafter.
And in terms of the Gini Coefficiennt, the UK fares badly on income inequality compared to many of the western European countries that I have in mind. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:04 - Oct 2 with 366 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:53 - Oct 2 by mellowblue |
He certainly pushed an if not anti-Nazi then certainly not pro-Nazi storyline. And he did not approve of the SS military which is convenient. Fought in all the main theatres bar Italy and Southern Europe.
I have always admired the German war equipment designs, uniforms, guns, planes. tanks ships. the whole kaboodle (probably back to my Airfix childhood days). Trouble with the German stuff it tended to be over-engineered (just because they can) and over-specced for that level of engineering and production could never keep up with needs. The Tiger was a case in point. The Russians got it right with the T34, though inferior it was manouvereable, had a decent cannon was reliable and fairly simple to service and could be quickly built. The numerical advantage they had by mid 1943 was stark. |
In practical usage terms, the T34 was the best medium tank of the war. It got better over time too with one piece casting for the turret, for example.
The Tiger, though beautiful, was over engineered. It was also underpowered so unreliable. Parts were not by and large interchangeable, it was too heavy for bridges, some rolling stock and transporters and lacked support. When it was transported, it had use travel tracks.
By comparison, the maligned Sherman would fit on everything from LCTs to rail wagons. Weight was not an issue. It was production line manufactured, easily repaired and maintained. Ok it had a high profile making it a good target, a petrol engine that turned it into a ‘Ronson’ or ‘Tommy cooker’, but it was quick, quite manoeuvrable and packed a punch with the Firefly 75cm high velocity gun.
The principle was that if a Tiger could knock 10 Sherman’s out, you’d have 11 so would win - exactly the same principle as T34. Numbers count. Tiger looks the business though! [Post edited 2 Oct 15:06]
| | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:17 - Oct 2 with 297 views | mellowblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 15:04 - Oct 2 by Churchman |
In practical usage terms, the T34 was the best medium tank of the war. It got better over time too with one piece casting for the turret, for example.
The Tiger, though beautiful, was over engineered. It was also underpowered so unreliable. Parts were not by and large interchangeable, it was too heavy for bridges, some rolling stock and transporters and lacked support. When it was transported, it had use travel tracks.
By comparison, the maligned Sherman would fit on everything from LCTs to rail wagons. Weight was not an issue. It was production line manufactured, easily repaired and maintained. Ok it had a high profile making it a good target, a petrol engine that turned it into a ‘Ronson’ or ‘Tommy cooker’, but it was quick, quite manoeuvrable and packed a punch with the Firefly 75cm high velocity gun.
The principle was that if a Tiger could knock 10 Sherman’s out, you’d have 11 so would win - exactly the same principle as T34. Numbers count. Tiger looks the business though! [Post edited 2 Oct 15:06]
|
Tiger certainly looked the business, very prone to overheating too. as for fuel useage. terrible. Another issue was that to maintain the engine which was very often, the engine had to be hoisted out. Hardly convenient. It required 10 hours service time per hour of operation. Such needs could never be satisfied in combat conditions so they failed regularly. Seeing the one at Bovington is on my to do list.
As you say Shermans were well knowing for catching fire when hit, "brewing up" was the term often used. Must have been terrifying, but at least it was known to be easier than most to exit in a hurry.
Forgive me, just a slight correction, the 75 mill was the standard US gun, the Firefly version carried the British 76.2 mm gun, the good old 17 Pounder which transformed it due to higher velocity. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:25 - Oct 2 with 221 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:17 - Oct 2 by mellowblue |
Tiger certainly looked the business, very prone to overheating too. as for fuel useage. terrible. Another issue was that to maintain the engine which was very often, the engine had to be hoisted out. Hardly convenient. It required 10 hours service time per hour of operation. Such needs could never be satisfied in combat conditions so they failed regularly. Seeing the one at Bovington is on my to do list.
As you say Shermans were well knowing for catching fire when hit, "brewing up" was the term often used. Must have been terrifying, but at least it was known to be easier than most to exit in a hurry.
Forgive me, just a slight correction, the 75 mill was the standard US gun, the Firefly version carried the British 76.2 mm gun, the good old 17 Pounder which transformed it due to higher velocity. |
Ta for that. I’m always happy to learn. Tanks and battlefield stuff really isn’t my area of expertise tbh (aviation (all, then naval warfare and armour and infantry a distant third).
Recovery and repair was a big problem for the Germans. Most U.K. and US damaged or wrecked Sherman’s were recovered and repaired, even if they had to hose out what was left of the crew, or broken for spares. The system was very efficient, as it was for damaged aircraft.
For the Germans it wasn’t and many a tank was left in the field when it should have been recovered. Not being able to move in daylight without being attacked by P47s and Typhoons didn’t help. Tigers were expensive and time consuming to build too. I have seen the Bovington one but many years ago. That museum needs a revisit!
I did get the chance to drive some armoured vehicles years ago including a tank. Great fun but hellish noisy and the thought of being in one with somebody shooting at you? No thanks. Only trapped in a submarine scares me more. The casualty rate was horrific. The James Holland book Brothers in Arms is well worth a read. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
