For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
#1894470
Misty

Interesting to see how much we value our own personal health when we have to financially contribute to it (I know we pay taxes for the NHS but the NHS was not expecting to shell out what it has to keep us all supplied with free testing kits.


It’s possible one of us misunderstands the function of testing?

I don’t see what good it does me personally to confirm whether I am covid positive. As far as I’m concerned what it does is allow me to decide whether I wish to share that ‘gift’ with others.

This move is just the precursor to completely removing self-isolation restrictions totally. Then we can share an office/shop/pub/car/cinema (theatre/opera for johnm) with someone coughing like a hag. The way the inconsiderate always expected us to. It’s their ‘uman right! :roll:
Flyin'Dutch', JAFO, kanga and 1 others liked this
#1894482
Cessna571 wrote:Hang on…

Didn’t we recently free up £300 million a WEEK?

I’m pretty sure that’s what Boris said and why my mother in law supported that particular venture.

I can’t see how it will have cost more than £300 million per week.

No need to give up anything or tax anyone.


Just think what it would have cost us if we'd been bankrolling their recovery as well.
Loco parentis, Supercat liked this
#1894491
@A4 Pacific I fully understand the point of testing to help protect others. The point I was maybe not so eloquently making was… would people be so keen to test (for their or others benefit) if the tests weren’t ‘free’.

I also get that they’re not really free, but many people do see them as that. I’ve long thought that there may be some advantage in billing people for medical services even if not actually made to pay to make them aware of the cost of their treatment. How much does it really cost when paramedics get called out to someone with a bit of a cough for example? There’s no easy answer, but I think there’s an appreciation lack of appreciation of the value of our medical services.
#1894530
We're willing to give up "free" Covid tests then. No?

I was thinking more about 10-20% of value of our pension pot and a massive hike in inheritance tax, although that's the kids who will be giving it up.
#1894539
eltonioni wrote:We're willing to give up "free" Covid tests then. No?

I was thinking more about 10-20% of value of our pension pot and a massive hike in inheritance tax, although that's the kids who will be giving it up.


As a residential landlord (relatively small scale), I've been battered enough tax wise in recent years. That is a part of my pension, it's affected now, it's affected if I sell, a chunk will disappear when my kids inherit. Rules have changed and been applied retrospectively, I've given enough of that business.

Time to look closer at those that actively avoid/evade (you choose) tax in this country and make them contribute. Not just targetting my usual victim, Amazon, but all the other profit exporters, Starbucks, Uber, etc,etc,etc. My main business in retail & engineering, although tiny in relation to those, pays a vastly higher proportion of corporation tax in the UK, not through bad planning, I'm just not big enough to run through foreign shell companies.

We will all pick up a bit of the tab, but lets start making tax fair.
smokescreen, eltonioni, Jim Jones and 4 others liked this
#1894682
Sooty25 wrote:
Cessna571 wrote:Hang on…

Didn’t we recently free up £300 million a WEEK?

I’m pretty sure that’s what Boris said and why my mother in law supported that particular venture.

I can’t see how it will have cost more than £300 million per week.

No need to give up anything or tax anyone.


Just think what it would have cost us if we'd been bankrolling their recovery as well.


EXACTLY!

So, we need to stop all the negativity and put the £350 Million a Week to good use.

I presume it’s how we are paying for the pandemic?

If Boris had any sense, he’d just announce he’s using it to pay for the pandemic.

He could be lorded as the best PM in history.
#1894686
TBH, the pandemic has saved anybody the hassle of really explaining the financial pro's and con's of B....t.

The media being as shallow as it is, and keen to fill pages with the easiest material, has pushed it into a distant second place. A shame really, because an impartial media house could have highlighted both the operational flaws and the successes. A less distracted Govt might have focused its time and resources on making it a success.

The sad thing about our political set up, is even after a major event, whether it be pandemic or br...t, you still end up with parties or MP's living in the past and being obstructive rather than thinking, "how do we make the best of this?"
Flyin'Dutch', eltonioni, Milty and 1 others liked this
#1894693
Sooty25 wrote:TBH, the pandemic has saved anybody the hassle of really explaining the financial pro's and con's of B....t.


The non-partisan Office for Budget Responsibilty has made an assessment and stated that the impact on GDP of the pandemic is half of that of the B word.
kanga liked this
#1894699
Cessna571 wrote:...

..
He could be lorded as the best PM in history.


Not my place to comment on whether he will or should eventually be ennobled, but there is clearly a very current debate on whether he should be lauded :wink:
Last edited by kanga on Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1894701
Sooty25 wrote:
eltonioni wrote:We're willing to give up "free" Covid tests then. No?

I was thinking more about 10-20% of value of our pension pot and a massive hike in inheritance tax, although that's the kids who will be giving it up.


As a residential landlord (relatively small scale), I've been battered enough tax wise in recent years. That is a part of my pension, it's affected now, it's affected if I sell, a chunk will disappear when my kids inherit. Rules have changed and been applied retrospectively, I've given enough of that business.

Time to look closer at those that actively avoid/evade (you choose) tax in this country and make them contribute. Not just targetting my usual victim, Amazon, but all the other profit exporters, Starbucks, Uber, etc,etc,etc. My main business in retail & engineering, although tiny in relation to those, pays a vastly higher proportion of corporation tax in the UK, not through bad planning, I'm just not big enough to run through foreign shell companies.

We will all pick up a bit of the tab, but lets start making tax fair.


There is a reasonable economic argument that the only fair tax is on land. A wealth tax is a reasonably good proxy and would raise vast sums without doing much harm.
#1894710
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:TBH, the pandemic has saved anybody the hassle of really explaining the financial pro's and con's of B....t.


The non-partisan Office for Budget Responsibilty has made an assessment and stated that the impact on GDP of the pandemic is half of that of the B word.


and that to some extent confirms my point. If the Govt had not had the pandemic to treat as a priority, it may have been focused more on resolving the challenges of B...it. OBR have probably not run a scenario of what the pandemic would have cost us had we remained in. As 4th largest contributor providing 13% of the EU budget, one assumes we'd have picked up the tab for 13% of their bill, plus had vaccines delayed in the way they were in the 27 states.

Starting, or changing the direction of any commercial enterprise has a negative impact on its output, the real time to review it is after 5 or 6 years once the change of direction has fully taken effect. Throw a pandemic in at the start and even that may be delayed. The problem is, with a portion of our media and certain elements within parliament, they are still working against the concept of B....t as if it isn't going to happen. But it has and we all need to accept it, work forward now and make the best of it we can. None of us need to be "dragging an anchor" at this point.
Supercat liked this
#1894724
Pete L wrote: There is a reasonable economic argument that the only fair tax is on land. A wealth tax is a reasonably good proxy and would raise vast sums without doing much harm.

It's an easy argument but the truth is that land is already heavily taxed at the point of transaction. Land is no different to a pile of metal and plastic, you have to do something to make it worth something. and all those doings are taxed along the way too, as is the output, and the output from that and the output from the output that eventually happens on the land.

The harm is that the end consumer (thee and me) pays for it all.

We quite rightly tax production and profit. Taxes on mere possession (whether that be land, windows, horses, or children) belong in the dark ages from whence they came.
#1894727
Pete L wrote:There is a reasonable economic argument that the only fair tax is on land. A wealth tax is a reasonably good proxy and would raise vast sums without doing much harm.

And how many times is it “fair” to tax any given article? Until it ceases to exist?
And how is one to pay this tax without selling the article? At which point you lose the opportunityto tax it again..........
And do you propose stopping taxing the income that is used to buy these articles?
This is called Communism - where people are no longer allowed to own “stuff” and cannot profit from the fruits of their labours. Are you happy to give your life for the “good”of others and live on what somebody else deems you worthy of getting?
flybymike, Nick, Supercat liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7