REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Parkins left foot]

Possibly not, but there are certainly people who don't want to be there and also pensioners who don't want go cold during the winter.

I appreciate that we could probably stop both and give foreign aid, but whilst the Government want to to cut then foreign aid would come higher than the some of the other stuff that have been cut or not even looked at.

Problem with foreign aid is that some gets wasted (which is probably inevitable) & this is the bit that gets highlighted by sections of the Media

 

[FrankMunro-371]

http://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/how-is-the-12bn-foreign-aid-budget-spent

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Problem with foreign aid is that some gets wasted (which is probably inevitable) & this is the bit that gets highlighted by sections of the Media

Good job none of our domestic spending gets wasted on say, providing West Ham with a free stadium or building a bridge for Joanna Lumley.

 

[Parkins left foot]

Good job none of our domestic spending gets wasted on say, providing West Ham with a free stadium or building a bridge for Joanna Lumley.

Would agree with that all central funding has an element of waste in it - so many examples

 

[Tredman]

Possibly not, but there are certainly people who don't want to be there and also pensioners who don't want go cold during the winter.

I appreciate that we could probably stop both and give foreign aid, but whilst the Government want to to cut then foreign aid would come higher than the some of the other stuff that have been cut or not even looked at.

We could look at stop paying winter fuel allowance to millionaire pensioners too perhaps.

I'm a person first and British second, we should help people in general, not just British people.

 

[Parkins left foot]

We could look at stop paying winter fuel allowance to millionaire pensioners too perhaps.

I'm a person first and British second, we should help people in general, not just British people.

Not just millionaire pensioners - I get it, do I really need it, probably not (& I'm certainly not a millionaire)

Have tried to give it back - no mechanism for that, so have given it to Centrepoint who my niece works for.

 

[Tredman]

Not just millionaire pensioners - I get it, do I really need it, probably not (& I'm certainly not a millionaire)

Have tried to give it back - no mechanism for that, so have given it to Centrepoint who my niece works for.

My mum tried to do the same, but couldn't give it back. It's very odd, they have set up an extremely well oiled scheme for taking our child benefit back of us, but can't do the same for pensioners benefits...

 

[nimrod]

I think that is the point but the politicians have been so nervous, so poor about tax rises and justifying them that the expectations for the last 2 general elections of many voters, have been unrealistic. Couple that with under investment in the NHS, significant foreign aid, increased pay for MPs well above the rest and you can see why I and many others look at our politicians with cynicism.

you think nervous? a number of politicians wear "low taxes" as their badge of honour. i don't believe its nerves with them. they consider it a vote winner, as do the public in general.

we're the fifth largest economy, so you have to ask why the state is so poor. is it bad luck, is it by design?

you can be cynical, but i think politicians are also a product of what typically the 'majority' vote for and whom the press will support.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

you think nervous? a number of politicians wear "low taxes" as their badge of honour. i don't believe its nerves with them. they consider it a vote winner, as do the public in general.

we're the fifth largest economy, so you have to ask why the state is so poor. is it bad luck, is it by design?

you can be cynical, but i think politicians are also a product of what typically the 'majority' vote for and whom the press will support.

thats my point. Their reluctance to champion something that is not so palatable even though in many cases it can be balanced AND justified , coupled with some ridiculous spending to foreign countries ( like India and other former commonwealth counties who dont need or want the money now) means this low tax badge of honour of which you speak is exactly what a number do. The simple choice however is if you invest the increased taxes in the under funded services or the infrastructure the problem often improves. I do not know why so many of todays politicians miss that. The lowest earners pay the least tax. Under 10k pay no tax

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Fifth largest economy in the world by GDP, we should be doing everything we can to help vulnerable and disadvantaged people, home and abroad.

We don't of course. Tory economics. They can't contribute so $#@! them.

But did we under labour? The media is full of articles over the last 3 or 4 years that part of the 12 or 13 billion, thats right BILLION foreign aid budget has been given to countries who dont need or deserve it. Well thats just crass mismanagement of funds, regardless of government. I too struggle when there are homeless British born people who have fallen on hard times who dont get the leg up yet we still send the money overseas. Russia, yes the country with more oil billionaires than any other, is one of the countries that we sent aid to I believe. How can that possibly be right? Did we negotiate for lower energy prices in return then? Cause I dont remember anytime that my leccy bill got a rebate. The UK spent $19bn on foreign aid in 2013 , compared to $16bn from Germany and $10bn from France.In 2013, the UK joined a select group of countries that had reached the target of donating 0.7% of their national income on foreign aid. Of the 29 members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), only Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg spent more than 0.7% of their national income in foreign aid in 2013. That same year, the UK’s spending grew by 27.8% to hit the international target, spending £11.4bn – about £180 per person – on aid. The latest figures for 2014 show donor money has increased further, with the UK spending 0.71% of its gross domestic income (GDI) on foreign aid- source for these figures- the Guardian- articvle here for more depth https://www.theguardian.com/global-...ign-aid-which-countries-are-the-most-generous
So in answer to my question the tories are giving more of their GDP as foreign aid than Labour did when they were in power. Again this highlights my point that for the last 30 years or more , probably longer, politics has been purely about getting in and staying there rather than pursuing policies that are beneficial for humanity in general.

An 'inbetweener' is one definition of generation x. Seems about right in your case.

I'm a person first and British second, we should help people in general, not just British people.

Then that should be a choice for people.An additional tax code to raise £180 per year, the current level and see how many people actually sign up for it. You would, I fear be in a very very small minority. While on this game is there was a code for that amount and you could choose where it went- health, homeless UK,Foreign aid I reckon the former 2 would get about 95% of the voluntary donations but the amount donated would be a fraction of what goes in foreign aid at present. I would sign up for it if it went to help the genuinely homeless especially ex forces.

If we have issues with funding things in the UK then surely we must cut our cloth to suit. I know no person in their right mind who would do the following example. I have spent my money and I have just enough food to feed my family. My next door neighbour also has no money and the same amount of food but as I am required to help him I give him my food and go without. Ok that is extreme but we cannot have it both ways.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Food exports increased by 10% globally last year and 13% to the US.

 

[machin05]

Food exports increased by 10% globally last year and 13% to the US.

#craftbeer

 

[Johnny75]

thats my point. Their reluctance to champion something that is not so palatable even though in many cases it can be balanced AND justified , coupled with some ridiculous spending to foreign countries ( like India and other former commonwealth counties who dont need or want the money now) means this low tax badge of honour of which you speak is exactly what a number do. The simple choice however is if you invest the increased taxes in the under funded services or the infrastructure the problem often improves. I do not know why so many of todays politicians miss that. The lowest earners pay the least tax. Under 10k pay no tax

Under £12K don't pay tax now.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Under £12K don't pay tax now.

£11k, going up to £11.5k in April. In a lot of cases it will be higher as they'll get benefits of some kind, working tax credits, etc.

 

[nimrod]

thats my point. Their reluctance to champion something that is not so palatable even though in many cases it can be balanced AND justified , coupled with some ridiculous spending to foreign countries ( like India and other former commonwealth counties who dont need or want the money now) means this low tax badge of honour of which you speak is exactly what a number do. The simple choice however is if you invest the increased taxes in the under funded services or the infrastructure the problem often improves. I do not know why so many of todays politicians miss that. The lowest earners pay the least tax. Under 10k pay no tax

i think the suggestion that centre right governments over a long period of time would like to have increased taxes but are held back by their nervousness or their reluctance to champion is bizarre. i would say the opposite is true, that they champion tax decreases as policy and inevitably that has come at a cost to services. claims that nhs/services are wasteful or that we have to cut our cloth accordingly because of the finance crash (no problem bailing that sector out) simply mask/excuse or supplement the intent imo.

"infrastructure underinvestment" is more complex imo. I think you'd have to be more detailed in what's meant by this (ie sector specific), why it has happened and what the solutions are because I think government policies are and generally have been intended to support infrastructure so if it hasn't happened then that may be as much about policies not working than anything intentional.

 

[Penk Wolf]

i think the suggestion that centre right governments over a long period of time would like to have increased taxes but are held back by their nervousness or their reluctance to champion is bizarre. i would say the opposite is true, that they champion tax decreases as policy and inevitably that has come at a cost to services. claims that nhs/services are wasteful or that we have to cut our cloth accordingly because of the finance crash (no problem bailing that sector out) simply mask/excuse or supplement the intent imo.

"infrastructure underinvestment" is more complex imo. I think you'd have to be more detailed in what's meant by this (ie sector specific), why it has happened and what the solutions are because I think government policies are and generally have been intended to support infrastructure so if it hasn't happened then that may be as much about policies not working than anything intentional.

I think the danger is that a high percentage of people would think that taxes are being raised to pay for people on benefits, which would obviously be a vote loser. A lot of people don't realise that they get a good deal for the tax they pay.

Also, if taxes were raised it probably wouldn't go to the area where people want it to, i.e. NHS.

 

[Johnny75]

i think the suggestion that centre right governments over a long period of time would like to have increased taxes but are held back by their nervousness or their reluctance to champion is bizarre. i would say the opposite is true, that they champion tax decreases as policy and inevitably that has come at a cost to services. claims that nhs/services are wasteful or that we have to cut our cloth accordingly because of the finance crash (no problem bailing that sector out) simply mask/excuse or supplement the intent imo.

"infrastructure underinvestment" is more complex imo. I think you'd have to be more detailed in what's meant by this (ie sector specific), why it has happened and what the solutions are because I think government policies are and generally have been intended to support infrastructure so if it hasn't happened then that may be as much about policies not working than anything intentional.

But you are asking for a government that believes in a smaller state and less state interference and smaller public services to increase taxes? It is a traditionally left approach you've outlined and as the state shrinks services do get smaller and less public servants are employed. The government would expect the private sector to step in and those who can pay for services will have to pay for them. I'm not excusing it I am trying to reason it.

Of course this is ideology driven and doesn't reflect the financial crash, current state of the social construct or state of any market so it's a bloody daft approach which will in the end upset a lot of people.

If those of a more left leaning persuasion want to change this then they need to mobilise pretty quickly as this government is going to take credit for Brexit whatever happens and the opposition should be fighting for a seat at the top table not with themselves. Equally asking the Tory party not to act like Tories is bloody daft.

 

[visage]

Then that should be a choice for people.An additional tax code to raise £180 per year, the current level and see how many people actually sign up for it. You would, I fear be in a very very small minority. While on this game is there was a code for that amount and you could choose where it went- health, homeless UK,Foreign aid I reckon the former 2 would get about 95% of the voluntary donations but the amount donated would be a fraction of what goes in foreign aid at present. I would sign up for it if it went to help the genuinely homeless especially ex forces.

Terrible idea. The whole point of universal services is that they're universal. Typically people between 20 and 40 use the NHS less than others - so it would be good for them to opt out of funding it. But then there wouldnt be enough money for treating everyone else.

Can I opt out of paying for the fire service if I rent my home? After all if it burns down its not my problem, I'll just move elsewhere. But then I probably wouldnt be able to get contents insurance....

What would happen to the numbers of homeless ex forces when the army has to slash its numbers because everyone opts out of paying for them?

 

[nimrod]

But you are asking for a government that believes in a smaller state and less state interference and smaller public services to increase taxes? It is a traditionally left approach you've outlined and as the state shrinks services do get smaller and less public servants are employed. The government would expect the private sector to step in and those who can pay for services will have to pay for them. I'm not excusing it I am trying to reason it.

Of course this is ideology driven and doesn't reflect the financial crash, current state of the social construct or state of any market so it's a bloody daft approach which will in the end upset a lot of people.

If those of a more left leaning persuasion want to change this then they need to mobilise pretty quickly as this government is going to take credit for Brexit whatever happens and the opposition should be fighting for a seat at the top table not with themselves. Equally asking the Tory party not to act like Tories is bloody daft.

actually it was cyber's point in post #4957 about the "spineless lack of tax increases" that I was responding to, and in a similar vein to your comments. he seemed to be suggesting it was down to politicians being nervous about championing tax increases. like you, I see it as an absolute intent to reduce taxes and services accordingly. he seems to be taking his recent discovery as left leaning to heart, despite having outed himself as centre right only a couple of months back.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Terrible idea. The whole point of universal services is that they're universal. Typically people between 20 and 40 use the NHS less than others - so it would be good for them to opt out of funding it. But then there wouldnt be enough money for treating everyone else.

Can I opt out of paying for the fire service if I rent my home? After all if it burns down its not my problem, I'll just move elsewhere. But then I probably wouldnt be able to get contents insurance....

What would happen to the numbers of homeless ex forces when the army has to slash its numbers because everyone opts out of paying for them?

The rich would get richer, as they would opt out of everything and pay for it as they needed it.