New Tory Leader

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

10 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If work conditions were better that's something I could possibly agree with, but not as it stands. A running friend of mine is a fairly big landlord up here, and he has one of the main residential contracts for new medical staff at the hospital here, and he knows full well what the turnover is like!

Would say that all those professions, including prison staff, need considerable pay rises.

Perhaps that's the trade off. 

Bring back nurses full bursary's, whack a bit on top of the starting salary, but in return need a 10 year commitment post training to the NHS, otherwise bursary owed on a pro-rata basis. Emigrate after 4 years.... 60% of bursary needs repaying. If hospitals in Dubai, America, Australia want to take our newly qualified nurses, that's fine, but the bursary issue ensures a 'transfer fee' of sorts. 

Its a fair trade off. 

[TheGunnShow 6,251]

35 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

I said this in in an earlier post - but I think earned and 'unearned' income should all be subject to the same tax rates.

That means everybody without exclusion pays the same rates of NI, dividends, PAYE, capital gains etc.

I say that as somebody who has always received the vast majority of my income via dividends (No NI component).

Same as all pensioners should be subject to full NI rates. If you have enough income above thresholds to pay it you should expect to do so.

This would bring in a lot more tax generally, stop some tax avoidance schemes and allow the tax thresholds to be raised - so could be 'neutral' fiscally yet help the lowest paid/incomes.

Yep, the issue I have with our tax model is the sheer number of loopholes. Not the UK, but it was beautifully highlighted when Warren Buffett explained in the late 2000s and also into the 2010s that he actually had a lower effective tax rate than his cleaner. In short, many who should pay far higher rates in income don't.

Warren Buffet asks why he pays less tax than his cleaner (taxresearch.org.uk)

[littleyellowbirdie 2,672]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I agree that Labour are obsessed with attacking the Tory party whilst generating very little by way of policy ideas themselves, can't remember a less radical opposition, that's why their by-election results have been so unimpressive.

Horsefly epitomises that, he's attacking me for choosing Liz Truss, would have attacked me for picking Rishi Sunak. Entire basis for voting Kier Starmer appears to be "anybody but the Tories", and its a view I sympathise with to an extent, I'll be voting Lib Dem next time because even I'm sick to death with the Old Etonians, but its a pretty weak foundation upon which to build a new government. 

Tony Blair was elected in 1997 on the back of a highly positive campaign and on the strength of some pretty radical ideas. Starmer will be elected by default because people are fatigued by the Tory's and they've run out of electable candidates. How dull and uninspiring.

It's the job of the Labour party, as the main opposition, to challenge, question, and criticise government policy; that's the way our adversarial system is supposed to work. That's not to say that the system works very well, but that's what their job is. 

As to alternative policies, any party that produces detailed policieis well ahead of a general election only gives government more opportunity to pick holes and discredit policy ideas, or alternatively adopt the policies if they're any good; Labour not producing a detailed policy platform at this point is both reasonable and tactically sound, when it's more important to keep focus on what the government is doing/not doing.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Utterly preposterous! So much for free market Toryism. Medical and nursing students pay an enormous amount for their education, and you want to add to that misery of debt by enforcing their employment in the NHS for 10-years servitude. We're desperate for doctors and nurses, and in one stroke you propose a 10-year enslavement policy that would drive recruitment to medical and nursing degrees in this country to near zero. What a stroke of genius that would be.

It costs £250k to train a doctor. They do not pay £250k.

It is completely fair that we shouldn't pay the majority of the cost to train a doctor only for them to go and work in a private hospital in Dubai or America. I'm surprised you support UK taxpayer money being used to staff hospitals in countries which don't offer universal free at the point of use healthcare.

[horsefly 4,373]

8 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Horsefly epitomises that, he's attacking me for choosing Liz Truss, would have attacked me for picking Rishi Sunak.

I made a simple humorous comment, "May I thank you on behalf of the entire labour Party". That was the entirety of my response to you stating you intended to vote for Truss. It was YOU that decided to turn that innocuous response into a feud. You need to learn to take responsibility for your own actions and words.

[Yellow Fever 3,892]

14 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Pensioners are still subject to income tax, pensions are taxable, anything over threshold. 

But no NI at present (apart from this latest 1.25% rise).

Pensioners as a group are not the poorest in society. A great many are well off with lots of 'unearned' income (BTL for instance or final salary pension schemes). Why shouldn't they pay normal NI as well if they have income above the NI threshold (they are of course the largest recipients of the NHS and care)?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

Just now, Yellow Fever said:

But no NI at present (apart from this latest 1.25% rise).

Pensioners as a group are not the poorest in society. A great many are well off with lots of 'unearned' income (BTL for instance or final salary pension schemes). Why shouldn't they pay normal NI as well if they have income above the NI threshold (they are of course the largest recipients of the NHS and care)?

This problem is solved by scrapping NI and rolling it into income tax. 

NI shouldn't exist at all.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

 

But the NI increase isn't progressive taxation, its regressive taxation, and Liz Truss opposed it and has pledged to scrap it.

 

National Insurance is a great concept. That the State controls and administers a fair system has to be better than abolishing it, as many want to, and replace it with, for most people, taxation at source. I would also advocate an NHS contribution based on the NI rates. If people are genuinely worried about their health, then a free at source health system is worth paying for.

[Yellow Fever 3,892]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

I made a simple humorous comment, "May I thank you on behalf of the entire labour Party". That was the entirety of my response to you stating you intended to vote for Truss. It was YOU that decided to turn that innocuous response into a feud. You need to learn to take responsibility for your own actions and words.

I think you could also have said 

Our thoughts and prayers are today for the Tory party in this time of sorrow.... 

[Yellow Fever 3,892]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

This problem is solved by scrapping NI and rolling it into income tax. 

NI shouldn't exist at all.

Yes we agree - but I don't think the largely elderly Tory voter base would vote for it 😉

Same as being awarded a 10% rise in pensions - and then expecting everybody else on the states ticket to accept 3 or 5%.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

National Insurance is a great concept. That the State controls and administers a fair system has to be better than abolishing it, as many want to, and replace it with, for most people, taxation at source. I would also advocate an NHS contribution based on the NI rates. If people are genuinely worried about their health, then a free at source health system is worth paying for.

All tax goes to the same place, to the Treasury, who then distributes it to various departments accordingly.

There is no real life link between National Insurance and the NHS or pensions, that's just how it was sold to the masses. 

[horsefly 4,373]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

It costs £250k to train a doctor. They do not pay £250k.

It is completely fair that we shouldn't pay the majority of the cost to train a doctor only for them to go and work in a private hospital in Dubai or America. I'm surprised you support UK taxpayer money being used to staff hospitals in countries which don't offer universal free at the point of use healthcare.

Idiotic as ever. The consequences of applying such a principle fairly would mean that NO child who has gone through the education system would be allowed to leave the country until they had worked here for ten-years. I thought you were supposed to be a Tory not a Stalinist.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes we agree - but I don't think the largely elderly Tory voter base would vote for it 😉

Same as being awarded a 10% rise in pensions - and then expecting everybody else on the states ticket to accept 3 or 5%.

The UK state pension is relatively low compared with other developed nations, particularly in Europe, which is why the Triple lock is so important. The average state pension in Germany is several thousand quid more than the UK state pension.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

9 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Perhaps that's the trade off. 

Bring back nurses full bursary's, whack a bit on top of the starting salary, but in return need a 10 year commitment post training to the NHS, otherwise bursary owed on a pro-rata basis. Emigrate after 4 years.... 60% of bursary needs repaying. If hospitals in Dubai, America, Australia want to take our newly qualified nurses, that's fine, but the bursary issue ensures a 'transfer fee' of sorts. 

Its a fair trade off. 

No. You are only advocating that because you believe we in the UK are the disadvantaged. I very much doubt there is anything further from the truth.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

10 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Idiotic as ever. The consequences of applying such a principle fairly would mean that NO child who has gone through the education system would be allowed to leave the country until they had worked here for ten-years. I thought you were supposed to be a Tory not a Stalinist.

No idea why you are talking about children, how odd. 

You have a very closed mind and are only capable of seeing things in black and white, that is becoming increasingly clear.

We impose a financial penalty on overseas institutions, as a "training fee", for doctors and nurses taken before 10 years NHS service. Easy. No different to how football works, with solidarity payments. Work on your creative thinking. No wonder Labour are so dull and void of ideas these days. 

Military has a service expectation when joining, this idea is not abstract.

Edited July 22, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

No. You are only advocating that because you believe we in the UK are the disadvantaged. I very much doubt there is anything further from the truth.

I would add UK private institutions to that, e.g. Spire hospitals.

If trained by NHS, 10 years service required otherwise exit penalty paid. I'm really surprised this wouldn't have any support from those who purport to be socialists like Horsefly, that are actually happy for the taxpayer to pay to train doctors for Spire hospitals and Harley Street. Unbelievable.

If leaving to work for Spire within 10 years, then Spire should owe the NHS a pro rata training fee. Its a common sense policy designed to protect the NHS and the taxpayer. Such a good policy that Kier Starmer really ought to consider borrowing it.

Edited July 22, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[horsefly 4,373]

2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The UK state pension is relatively low compared with other developed nations, particularly in Europe, which is why the Triple lock is so important. The average state pension in Germany is several thousand quid more than the UK state pension.

A few posts ago you were lauding Truss' policy of shrinking the state to pay for tax cuts. Subsequently you have called for increased pay for nurses, prison officers, and commitment to triple lock pensions. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,181]

Dianne Abbott 250/1 to be the next Labour leader, could be worth a few quid. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Midlands Yellow

[Yellow Fever 3,892]

6 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The UK state pension is relatively low compared with other developed nations, particularly in Europe, which is why the Triple lock is so important. The average state pension in Germany is several thousand quid more than the UK state pension.

Salaries are also low in the UK compared to others. 

The point is that pensioners as group are not the hardest up ! Those on only the state pension would largely be below the NI theshold. anyway. Are pensioners a special case on an identical income to a hard up working family paying both income tax and NI? 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

A few posts ago you were lauding Truss' policy of shrinking the state to pay for tax cuts. Subsequently you have called for increased pay for nurses, prison officers, and commitment to triple lock pensions. 

Increase pay for nurses in return for a length of service obligation. We can't afford to train nurses only for them to f*ck off to Dubai. That is a common sense policy aimed at cutting waste in the NHS. 

Same with Prison officers, most leave within a year. If you had any nous at all then you'd know that there are huge costs associated with recruitment and training in any industry and sector. Staff retention is fiscally responsible.

I'd cut tens of thousands of desk jockeys from departments like the HMRC and DWP. 

Labour are supporting real terms decreases to the state pension now then are you? As well as being fine with the NHS training nurses for private hospitals? Blimey, perhaps we should just swap party's, you sound like a mega Tory to me, you would be to the right of our party with Jacob Rees-Mogg! I'm more of a Ken Clarke, moderate centre-right, you should join the ERG! 

[horsefly 4,373]

4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

No idea why you are talking about children, how odd. 

You have a very closed mind and are only capable of seeing things in black and white, that is becoming increasingly clear.

We impose a financial penalty on overseas institutions, as a "training fee", for doctors and nurses taken before 10 years NHS service. Easy. No different to how football works, with solidarity payments. Work on your creative thinking. No wonder Labour are so dull and void of ideas these days. 

Yep! Still an idiot. The principle you invoked was that an individual who has benefitted from state investment in their education should be forced to work in this country for ten-years. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised you can't follow the logic of your own claim. 

I notice you haven't a word to say about the idiocy of implementing a system of 10-years enforced labour, that would ensure a massive drop in recruitment to medical and nursing courses. We are desperately in need of doctors and nurses, not desperate to send potential recruits abroad where they will have freedom to work wherever they wish. 

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

12 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I would add UK private institutions to that, e.g. Spire hospitals.

If trained by NHS, 10 years service required otherwise exit penalty paid. I'm really surprised this wouldn't have any support from those who purport to be socialists like Horsefly, that are actually happy for the taxpayer to pay to train doctors for Spire hospitals and Harley Street. Unbelievable.

If leaving to work for Spire within 10 years, then Spire should owe the NHS a pro rata training fee. Its a common sense policy designed to protect the NHS and the taxpayer. Such a good policy that Kier Starmer really ought to consider borrowing it.

Your maths is flawed. the £200K, not £250K, it costs to train a doctor contains £64K of student loans which are repayable.

Ann Widdicombe receives £120K a year pension because of her UK Government and short EU tenure.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Salaries are also low in the UK compared to others. 

The point is that pensioners as group are not the hardest up ! Those on only the state pension would largely be below the NI theshold. anyway. Are pensioners a special case on an identical income to a hard up working family paying both income tax and NI? 

So Boomers Wave I are aged 68-76 now. Many of these have high levels of disposable income. But.... they are, frankly, nearly dead.

It makes no sense to downgrade state pensions on the basis that those people are a bit flush, when Gen X, who are nowhere near as well off, are now aged 48-57 and therefore only a decade off retirement. I'd argue that Gen X really need us to protect state pensions. 

[horsefly 4,373]

Just now, TeemuVanBasten said:

Increase pay for nurses in return for a length of service obligation. We can't afford to train nurses only for them to f*ck off to Dubai. That is a common sense policy aimed at cutting waste in the NHS. 

FFS! You're supposed to be a Tory and you are in favour of enforced labour. NO party would be so insane as to introduce a scheme that would guarantee a massive reduction in recruitment to the professions in which we are desperately short of staff. There is a reason why NO party has suggested such a scheme, it is utterly absurd.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I notice you haven't a word to say about the idiocy of implementing a system of 10-years enforced labour,

Oh yeah, because this is definitely "enforced Labour" isn't it, you complete tool. '

I'm advocating the return of full bursary's, in return for a service commitment, not Labour camps. Moron.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

Just now, horsefly said:

FFS! You're supposed to be a Tory and you are in favour of enforced labour. NO party would be so insane as to introduce a scheme that would guarantee a massive reduction in recruitment to the professions in which we are desperately short of staff. There is a reason why NO party has suggested such a scheme, it is utterly absurd.

You are a moron.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

So Boomers Wave I are aged 68-76 now. Many of these have high levels of disposable income. But.... they are, frankly, nearly dead.

It makes no sense to downgrade state pensions on the basis that those people are a bit flush, when Gen X, who are nowhere near as well off, are now aged 48-57 and therefore only a decade off retirement. I'd argue that Gen X really need us to protect state pensions. 

Except the lobby by the Boomers is so important and makers and breakers that even the Tories think they have to protect us.

Remember when they said the Minimum Wage would cripple the country. Now they try and claim it as their own. And have the temerity to call it the Living wage which of course it isn't.

[horsefly 4,373]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Your maths is flawed. the £200K, not £250K, it costs to train a doctor contains £64K of student loans which are repayable.

Ann Widdicombe receives £120K a year pension because of her UK Government and short EU tenure.

The BMJ survey of 4286 medical students between 1997 and 2014 put the average debt on graduation at £80,000. I hate to think what that is now.

https://www.studymedicineeurope.com/article/uk-medical-students-face-mountain-debt#:~:text=A recent study published in the British Medical,more in interest despite earning less than men.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

Except the lobby by the Boomers is so important and makers and breakers that even the Tories think they have to protect us.

Remember when they said the Minimum Wage would cripple the country. Now they try and claim it as their own. And have the temerity to call it the Living wage which of course it isn't.

The boomers would be much less important if people under the age of 35 could be f*cked to vote. See: Brexit Referendum. 

[horsefly 4,373]

4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

You are a moron.

 

Well at least you are maintaining a consistent level of intellectual input. Not a word in response to the obvious flaws in your ridiculous suggestion that not even this Tory government would consider as anything other than insane.