Wondered why you are increasingly feeling skint

#1
...at the same time as Gordon Brown spouts about how well you are all doing?

Well the OECD has found the answer. Took a lot of research of course but they came up with much the the same conclusion as every pub conversation in the country:

.....single-earner married couples with two children have had what the OECD calls the "tax wedge" taken from their earnings increase over the past five years from 25.1 per cent to 27.8 per cent. (By contrast, the figure in the United States is 11.7 per cent.) And this, of course, is only the increase in direct taxation: it does not take into account Mr Brown's stealth taxes, such as fuel duties and stamp duty on property, or the huge increases in council tax (which has nearly doubled on average in 10 years) that have been a direct result of his deliberate foisting of more and more expenditure on to local government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...OAVCBQYIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/03/02/dl0201.xml


Why?

Because huge public spending requires equally huge taxation.

Governments tend to run things badly.

Control freak "big" socialist Governments the world over always run things really badly especially if they try their hand at social engineering via taxation and welfare policy. Ultimately they always fail.

Politicians, special advisers and the new breed of civil servants are useless managers because they do not know how to run real things. They mostly have no practical experience of them. Their key skill is talk about such things and raise their own profile within "big" government by trying to create positive headlines for their ultimate political masters.

The extra taxes raised are largely wasted on politically inspired projects & quick fixes and increasingly misdirected into the running of an ever growing "big" Government.

Big, self interested and self serving bureacracies always gets in the way of the provision of the basic front line services the taxpayer thinks they are paying for.

Sound familiar?
 
#2
We all know the government WASTE public money on grand adventures and projects which are crap.

I have worked for local government and witnessed millions being spent on useless projects.

We all know this, but what can we do.

I want all those old cronies who are gonna croak soon out of the office, stick young 'normal' people (who do actually want to change our country) in. Get rid of the people we dont want in the country. If we withdraw benefit money from people who were not born in this country and who should not be here, drug dependants, bring back the rope - no longer pay for their food, new pants, books etc etc and ffreeing up jail space - won't need money for more). I have so many RIGHT ideas. I could change this country, but I can't be bothered to listening to people whining.

By using my RIGHT approach there will be more money in the pot for pay increases, ability to climb the property ladder, the less fortunate, better infrastructure.

You can't please everyone, but you have to please the majority!
 
#5
and here was me putting it down to the wife and two rugrats...
 
#6
Themanwho said:
and here was me putting it down to the wife and two rugrats...
Your mixing up stealth tax with sex tax!!!!!
 
#8
Nah, its a chav tax. Most of our money goes into the welfare state, i've got no problem with the country looking after people but it seems the workshy long term unemployed and people off sick for no reason are sucking us dry.

also as we have to jail more and more of the chavs and criminals we pay for it costs money to fund the criminal justice system which is about as efficient as a chocolate tea pot.

We have to pay for the NHS which wastes money on druggies and alchoholics. Not to mention the people who don't look after themselves.

But, they vote for liebour as it keeps them in fags and Orangeboom lager, hence the record spending to fight child, i mean chav poverty.
 
#9
The comparison between the UK and the USA is unfair - given we provide totally different public services compared to the US (healthcare, educaton differences etc)
The gap between rich and poor is far higher in the USA than the UK. Having said that the "assault" on the working (note working, not lower) classes and middle classes of this country is well documented and has to stop.
These "stealth" taxes are typical telegraph material; they were put in place by the Tory Goverment, and you'll find that in the 10 years Labour have been in power they have actually frozen the fuel escalator and despite recent rises in VED they are still below inflation.
My missus wasn't born here - she's currently temping - if the work dried up would you kick her out despite the contribution she's made to this country?
May i also remind you that some of the policies you discuss saw 3 million unemployed, privatisation (monopoly) of the water companies, privatisation of the energy industry, deregulation of the bus companies (costing councils and the public more than ever before) and the farce that was privatising the railways.

The public sector has many inadequacies and privatisation helped raise money to pay off the huge national debt; and why shouldn't the telephone service have been privatised?

Also, do you disagree that everyone in this country has the same basic right to a health service? I would not deny someone less fortunate than myself healthcare, because who knows, in 20 years it may be their taxes paying for my problem? There is no doubt in my mind, having experienced the NHS under both governments, that while the NHS is not effecient with the money it is given, that it has caused many problems with regards to staffing levels etc - that the NHS has lower waiting times and a better quality of service now under Labour, and that matters to me
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
If you actually add up all the taxes you pay; direct tax, national insurance, road tax, VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, tobacco duty, stamp duty, death duty, travel tax, corporation tax (passed on to the individual), council tax, parking meters, business rates, speeding fines, parking fines, TV licence, tax on interest and all the other taxes, you will find that your actual annual outgoings on taxes is between 70% and 90% over the spread of your life (and death).

What I would like to see is the OECD calculate the total figure figure for your average joe and break it down.
 
#11
Biped said:
If you actually add up all the taxes you pay; direct tax, national insurance, road tax, VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, tobacco duty, stamp duty, death duty, travel tax, corporation tax (passed on to the individual), council tax, parking meters, business rates, speeding fines, parking fines, TV licence, tax on interest and all the other taxes, you will find that your actual annual outgoings on taxes is between 70% and 90% over the spread of your life (and death).

What I would like to see is the OECD calculate the total figure figure for your average joe and break it down.
Are we classing fines as a tax?? I object to the classing of speeding fines and parking fines as a tax - as they are avoidable and only issued in the case of breaking the law! Parking meters... fair enough in a way, but many car parks are private owned.
You reckoned 70-90%, well, in France top rate income tax is 74%, and they have a "wealth tax". Other taxes are lower yes, but I think it shows that we're in the right kind of area for other governments that provide a service for their citizens; just they do it better in many ways
 
#12
crabby said:
My missus wasn't born here - she's currently temping - if the work dried up would you kick her out despite the contribution she's made to this country?
No, she can stay. If you weren't getting any you'd be really 'Crabby'.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
crabby said:
Biped said:
If you actually add up all the taxes you pay; direct tax, national insurance, road tax, VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, tobacco duty, stamp duty, death duty, travel tax, corporation tax (passed on to the individual), council tax, parking meters, business rates, speeding fines, parking fines, TV licence, tax on interest and all the other taxes, you will find that your actual annual outgoings on taxes is between 70% and 90% over the spread of your life (and death).

What I would like to see is the OECD calculate the total figure figure for your average joe and break it down.
Are we classing fines as a tax?? I object to the classing of speeding fines and parking fines as a tax - as they are avoidable and only issued in the case of breaking the law! Parking meters... fair enough in a way, but many car parks are private owned.
You reckoned 70-90%, well, in France top rate income tax is 74%, and they have a "wealth tax". Other taxes are lower yes, but I think it shows that we're in the right kind of area for other governments that provide a service for their citizens; just they do it better in many ways
You sound like you think it is reasonable for the people of a country to pay 74% of their hard earned income on god-knows-what. Junior doctors have got no jobs, hospitals are closing, roads are in a terrible state, crime is almost out of contol, the forces are completely under-funded, government computer systems years overdue, over budget and don't work, loads of VAT is given away to Brussels for precisely f-all, there are less parking spaces in towns than ever before so they can increase the 'take', more stupid laws, millions of immigrants, no border controls, devolution, millions spent on extra parliaments and 'assemblies' for f-all, completely over-paid and corrupt politicians . . .

Can someone please tell me if there is anything our taxes are paying for that is actually effective and efficient, because I'm at a loss to see it. Apart from the Parking Warden schemes of course, we all know that they run like a well oiled machine that, had it been a military force, would be the envy of the world.
 
#14
Biped said:
crabby said:
Biped said:
If you actually add up all the taxes you pay; direct tax, national insurance, road tax, VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, tobacco duty, stamp duty, death duty, travel tax, corporation tax (passed on to the individual), council tax, parking meters, business rates, speeding fines, parking fines, TV licence, tax on interest and all the other taxes, you will find that your actual annual outgoings on taxes is between 70% and 90% over the spread of your life (and death).

What I would like to see is the OECD calculate the total figure figure for your average joe and break it down.
Are we classing fines as a tax?? I object to the classing of speeding fines and parking fines as a tax - as they are avoidable and only issued in the case of breaking the law! Parking meters... fair enough in a way, but many car parks are private owned.
You reckoned 70-90%, well, in France top rate income tax is 74%, and they have a "wealth tax". Other taxes are lower yes, but I think it shows that we're in the right kind of area for other governments that provide a service for their citizens; just they do it better in many ways
You sound like you think it is reasonable for the people of a country to pay 74% of their hard earned income on god-knows-what. Junior doctors have got no jobs, hospitals are closing, roads are in a terrible state, crime is almost out of contol, the forces are completely under-funded, government computer systems years overdue, over budget and don't work, loads of VAT is given away to Brussels for precisely f-all, there are less parking spaces in towns than ever before so they can increase the 'take', more stupid laws, millions of immigrants, no border controls, devolution, millions spent on extra parliaments and 'assemblies' for f-all, completely over-paid and corrupt politicians . . .

Can someone please tell me if there is anything our taxes are paying for that is actually effective and efficient, because I'm at a loss to see it. Apart from the Parking Warden schemes of course, we all know that they run like a well oiled machine that, had it been a military force, would be the envy of the world.
Before I start, let me assure you that I am no fan of Blair or Browne; and am very very wary indeed of Brown.

However; yes I do think it's acceptable for 74% to go on such things. The money goes to providing a service. We could contribute say 44%, but then would have to contribute to private pension funds, private hospital insurance etc etc (which people do do - because they can afford to, it's a luxury item). If we were paying privately for all the services the government provides it'd be about the same amount wouldn't it?

Hospitals have more money than they ever did; but they are badly managed and for that reason there are many junior doctors, physios and nurses out there who expected jobs and are now unemployed. Bad management right through - but a private company may be no different.

Crime out of control? I disagree. Statistics can be misleading in showing crime falling - but quite honestly I feel as safe now as I ever have. The type and location of crime flucuates; but the Daily Hate would have us believing we're all drowning in a sea of crime.

Parking in town/city centres; purely to reduce traffic congestion and improve the environment. I fully support it - I want my town/city centre back, clean air, streets for people to walk on. If people want to drive they can park on the outside of the city (as in, edge of the business district) in a car park and walk in. Pedestrianisation has been a nightmare in some areas (Oxford anyone?) but in others it's really imrpoved quality of life. Think of the number of people getting into a town/city centre, if there was spaces available in the centre everyone would go for those (just like spaces on the ground floor/nearest the exit) as people don't want to walk far. This isn't some mass consipiracy you know!

Problem with devolution is?

Millions of illegal immigrants - do you actually get all your news from the Daily Hate?

VAT does not go to Brussels. However, we do give money to Brussels, and in a fit of ineffeciency they give most of it back. However, the EU is instrumental in improving living standards across the EU - helping poorer regions (like cornwall and the orkneys) and having the power to prosecute those that would cause massive environmental damage (by that you can include human health).

66% pay increase for politicians - overpaid. Corrupt, some probably. Arrses, some, definitely. There are good politicians other there. I wouldn't vote for you though

Our forces are poorly treated and underfunded and it should be to the eternal shame of our Government AND our public that this has come about.

Finally though "The people get the Government they deserve". Our Government is just a reflection of today's society, not the power that moulded it. If our society is a reflection of any government then it would be the government in power when today's youths' parents were being brought up - that saw a decline in value and respect that has come out so forcefully in their children. I work with children and I am truely shocked at their behaviour, it makes absolutely no sense. In part I think they are spoilt.
 
#15
Oddly enough, the official rate of inflation has stayed at roughly 3% all this time...

Could it be that Joe Public's cost of living wage increases are tied to the official rate of inflation? This would go a long way to explain why I'm feeling increasingly skint.

Perhaps a senior member of the CBI or Chief Executive (annual salary averaging £600k, http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/E...x41.aspx?ComponentId=12619&SourcePageId=18129) would like to explain how this works?

'Politics of Envy' or 'Visceral Hatred of Hypocrisy'? Cast your votes now...
 
#16
Crabby, you provide valid points to illustrate much of your argument-except for devolution, where you simply ask what's wrong with it. The fact that you can't, or can't be bothered, to illustrate the advantages of devolution speaks volumes.
You'll be arguing for regional assemblies next.
 
#17
Northern Monkey said:
Crabby, you provide valid points to illustrate much of your argument-except for devolution, where you simply ask what's wrong with it. The fact that you can't, or can't be bothered, to illustrate the advantages of devolution speaks volumes.
You'll be arguing for regional assemblies next.
I didn't find his argument against devolution, therefore I will not argue for it - if there is an argument for it - without his grounds for finding exception to it. If his argument is valid and I agree I will say so, if I disagree I have the freedom to do so :)
 
#18
Northern Monkey said:
You'll be arguing for regional assemblies next.
It's a good job the electorate shot that idea down in flames. I think the referendum showed 75% against the idea. The people spoke - and the government promptly ignored them: -

South West Regional Assembly

West Midlands Regional Assembly

East Midlands Regional Assembly

South East Regional Assembly

East of England Regional Assembly

North East Regional Assembly

North West Regional Assembly

crabby said:
May i also remind you that some of the policies you discuss saw 3 million unemployed
A good point crabby, but what do you think the real level of unemployment is now? One third of households are now mainly or wholly dependent on benefits. What's that? Twenty million people?

Fair enough - most of those will be kids, pensioners and those who are genuinely disabled. But even ministers are now admitting to 5 million 'economically inactive' who somehow can't find a job while hundreds of thousands of Eastern European immigrants seem to have no problem finding a job and working their arrses off.

crabby said:
The public sector has many inadequacies and privatisation helped raise money to pay off the huge national debt; and why shouldn't the telephone service have been privatised?
Another good point and one with which I agree. When my parents got their first phone installed, they had been on a waiting list for years and you could have any colour of phone you wanted so long as it was black. There was only one other phone in town and that was inside the Post Office so if you needed to make a call after 5pm you were stuffed.

Privatisation goes wrong when a state monopoly is simply changed into a private monopoly. This is what happened with the railways and the water companies.

crabby said:
Also, do you disagree that everyone in this country has the same basic right to a health service?
Depends what you mean by 'basic right'.

If you mean that anybody who turns up at hospital with a serious, acute problem should be treated then yes - I agree. If you're having a heart attack or your leg is broken in a car crash you should be treated irrespective of whether you are a Chelsea Pensioner or an asylum seeker straight off the plane from Somalia.

What many people object to is the increasing incidence of 'health tourism'. John Reid promised to address this problem when he was health secretary but nothing has been done.

I heard a psychiatrist from Kent on the radio stating that 40% of the beds in his mental hospital were occupied by asylum seekers claiming to be suicidally depressed (they are difficult to deport if they're in hospital).

He spoke about a South African bloke who has some sort of chronic mental illness. It flares up every couple of years and he just gets on a plane to London and walks into the nearest hospital. He is treated for several weeks on the NHS and the health authority then pays for his flight back to South Africa, accompanied by a nurse, because that's cheaper than keeping him in hospital to convalesce.

Same thing happens with well off pregnant women from North Africa. It's cheaper to pay for a flight to London than it is to pay to have their baby in a local hospital - especially if there are complications. Once they get to London, all costs are met by the NHS.

Where I live, asylum seekers get private health care while the rest of us take our chances with the NHS. I've even seen legal aid paying for asylum seekers to see consultants privately on the basis that it would help their asylum claim.

crabby said:
There is no doubt in my mind, having experienced the NHS under both governments, that while the NHS is not effecient with the money it is given, that it has caused many problems with regards to staffing levels etc - that the NHS has lower waiting times and a better quality of service now under Labour, and that matters to me
The local state of the NHS seems to depend on which way the locals vote.

I live in an area that is Tory and has been since the dawn of time. NHS funding per head is between 10 and 15 percent lower than the UK average despite the fact that a disproportionate number of old people live here.

The NHS is in full blown meltdown in this area. The local hospital only meets its A&E 4 hour waiting time target by keeping casualties in ambulances in the car park. The hospital refuses admission to people who are dying because there are no beds available - 25% of the hospital's beds have been closed in the past 10 years.

I don't think any of these things could be described as improvements.

My own experience of waiting lists has been less than favourable. My GP referred me to a consultant due to an acute medical problem nearly three years ago. The hospital doesn't give a toss because I'm not on the 'official' waiting list. I'm effectively on a waiting list to get on the official waiting list so I'm having no impact on the hospital's performance statistics.

A few weeks ago, I got fed up waiting and offered to pay to get a private appointment with the consultant. Miraculously, he was able to squeeze me in within 4 days. It's truly amazing what offering to pay 200 quid an hour does for your position in the waiting list.

He assessed that my condition is now life threatening and arranged for me to have urgent hospital treatment. If I hadn't had the money to pay privately, I could well have died. But hey, why worry, I'd never have made it on to the 'official' waiting list.

You should take Patricia Hewitt's claims about waiting lists with a large pinch of salt.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Cider_Glider Weapons, Equipment & Rations 9
R The NAAFI Bar 64
PartTimePongo Int Corps 8

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top