|
On December 09 2011 13:37 The KY wrote:
On the benefits thing; it is sometimes the case that some people on benefits, when offered work, turn it down because they earn more on benefits than they would at that job. To me this suggests not that benefits are too high but that the pay for the job is too low...this happens to people I know, people with children. Certain people lucky enough not to know the dull grind of long term unemployment say that as a matter of self respect, working is preferable to being on the dole, a sentiment with which I can agree. But for some people self respect is simply not an option; they turn down jobs because they genuinely need the money.
That said the system could certainly be simpler and screening for who can be on jobseekers etc could be more...stringent. I know other people on benefits who use it as a luxury as they make most of their money from drug dealing.
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but in my experience it is easy to stay on jobseekers for a long time without ever having to do...anything at all except turn up once a fortnight with a little list of things you've done to look for a job. You have to write 3 things a week, which can include 'looking in the newspaper'. Sigh.
I agree in aot of cases benefits pay more than work, but i dont think increasing pay is the answer it just lowers employment in the long run and creates inflation. My policy to get people into work is to lower benefits inline with VAT which should not be the only price reduction due to the price of petrol being in every product and im scrapping ~60% of the price of petrol, all of these tax decrease should give a significant boost to the private sector and im talking massive especially the fuel duty. The new jobs this creates should help bring these people out of benefits.
On the graduates fighting for jobs as the economy should be growing very well the same arguement applies as above that the economy should be significantly stimulated to provide enough jobs.
|
On December 09 2011 19:48 Tommylew wrote:
stopped reading when you cut all fuel tax and all tax under 20,000 sorry your country will go bust.
I agree fuel is ridiculous at the moment but cvutting all tax when our countries gains so much of its income from it is bad.
I just think its ridiculous that if you pop out a kid or two its much more cost effective for you to live on ebenefits then be a worker earning 10-20k a year....
Well my tax cuts should support your idea of working rather than benefits, as ive said before i dont think the country will go bust due to more people paying tax in the first place and the NHS is a huge government cost along with benefits.
But what tax level reduction would you think is acceptable.
|
On December 09 2011 19:51 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 19:48 Tommylew wrote:
stopped reading when you cut all fuel tax and all tax under 20,000 sorry your country will go bust.
I agree fuel is ridiculous at the moment but cvutting all tax when our countries gains so much of its income from it is bad.
I just think its ridiculous that if you pop out a kid or two its much more cost effective for you to live on ebenefits then be a worker earning 10-20k a year.... Well my tax cuts should support your idea of working rather than benefits, as ive said before i dont think the country will go bust due to more people paying tax in the first place and the NHS is a huge government cost along with benefits. But what tax level reduction would you think is acceptable.
id say at least 15k I earn 15k a year before tax and i lose at least £150-200 a month on tax and national isnurance. If I get bonus or commisison I lost a good percentage that soemtimes its not even worth it. Problem witht he current government is that they dotn really care about peoplelike me who trya nd earn their way and they let the rich get richer. Problem I find ridicoulous is that if you win BIG prize money in the UK u get taxed 50%??? Thats why people like Usain Bolt will never ever come to this country to compete outside of any championships..
|
On December 09 2011 20:16 Tommylew wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 19:51 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 19:48 Tommylew wrote:
stopped reading when you cut all fuel tax and all tax under 20,000 sorry your country will go bust.
I agree fuel is ridiculous at the moment but cvutting all tax when our countries gains so much of its income from it is bad.
I just think its ridiculous that if you pop out a kid or two its much more cost effective for you to live on ebenefits then be a worker earning 10-20k a year.... Well my tax cuts should support your idea of working rather than benefits, as ive said before i dont think the country will go bust due to more people paying tax in the first place and the NHS is a huge government cost along with benefits. But what tax level reduction would you think is acceptable. id say at least 15k I earn 15k a year before tax and i lose at least £150-200 a month on tax and national isnurance. If I get bonus or commisison I lost a good percentage that soemtimes its not even worth it. Problem witht he current government is that they dotn really care about peoplelike me who trya nd earn their way and they let the rich get richer. Problem I find ridicoulous is that if you win BIG prize money in the UK u get taxed 50%??? Thats why people like Usain Bolt will never ever come to this country to compete outside of any championships..
Well with my tax changes u pay no national insurance and dont pay income tax untill £20,000 so that covers your concern. Also my hope is only a 30% tax rate for £75,000 will make it attractive for rich people to pay taxes here and to not avoid.
Im going to edit my first post now with some changes and explanations.
Edit: Fully updated my first post feel free to comment about the changes.
|
On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote:
Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike,
Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in.
Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing!
I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked:
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument  ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda?
Marriage is a religious word, one of the 7 sacraments a priest can perform (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) - check wikipedia. Civil union is the right word for it. All the benefits the state gives a married couple. How does marriage work in the UK, 1 paper by a state official for state recognition of marriage + religious service or religious service that also gives out the legal paper?
Because here you first have to go to the mayor's hall and get a marriage certificate (you are then considered married by the state with all rights that come from it) then, only if you want to, only if you have your marriage license, you can go get a religious ceremony. In Romania's case it would be only a matter of changing man + woman rule in law to 2 people to legalize gay marriage. No priest would perform religious ceremony but it's not needed.
|
On December 09 2011 21:50 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote:
Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike,
Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in.
Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing!
I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked:
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda? Marriage is a religious word, one of the 7 sacraments a priest can perform (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) - check wikipedia. Civil union is the right word for it. All the benefits the state gives a married couple. How does marriage work in the UK, 1 paper by a state official for state recognition of marriage + religious service or religious service that also gives out the legal paper? Because here you first have to go to the mayor's hall and get a marriage certificate (you are then considered married by the state with all rights that come from it) then, only if you want to, only if you have your marriage license, you can go get a religious ceremony. In Romania's case it would be only a matter of changing man + woman rule in law to 2 people to legalize gay marriage. No priest would perform religious ceremony but it's not needed.
So i was right, well I would prefer if this didn't become a religious discussion for obvious reasons.
|
On December 09 2011 10:53 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:48 Iyerbeth wrote:On December 09 2011 10:15 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:00 Iyerbeth wrote:I'm not sure no would be a strong enough term to express my opinion on those changes, but I clicked it for lack of a stronger worded opposition. Here are some notes on why: + Show Spoiler +On December 09 2011 09:16 Zaros wrote:
Expenditure
Privatise National Health Service (NHS) - Provide a subsidy for anyone earning less than the new 2nd highest rate of income tax.
The NHS whilst already suffering major budget cuts in a bid to force quality down and sell it off piece by piece to the private sector is already having privatisation bids have a terrible impact on healthcare. PFI initiatives are already the biggest single cause of NHS related debt, and a for-profit system will only further reduce care whilst driving up costs. We can already see the result of private healthcare and insurance in the US and whilst it may only be a matter of years before we end up there here, rushing towards it would eradicate all hope of keeping a free at the point of use, universal healthcare system.
We should instead immediately remove the private sector from the NHS, cut debts to PFI scheme's and invest in jobs and training throughout hospitals in the UK.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction)
Provided that benefits were increased and reduced in line with VAT to result in the same spending power this may be acceptable, but current benefit levels are already too low with most cash issues arising from the poorly written legislation and failed economic policies of creating jobs, not from those on benefits being over paid. At a time with the highest youth unemplyment rate in the history of our country we should be very careful about penalising those with no options.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK))
All university education should be free. End fee's and ensure there are enough quality positions for everyone.
Evaluate all government advice/charitable agencies/organisations with regards to reducing funding up to and including a 100% reduction.
Such a vague statement it's impossible to oppose, but it would depend on the results of the evaluation.
Look into part privatisation of education.
NO. For-profit education is a truely terrible idea. Education should be independant, of a strict quality and free for all.
Increase science research and development spending by at least 100%.
I'm not expert enough to know the results of this for jobs and opportunites in the UK, and I wonder if you are?
Evaluate all religious,cultural and recreational funding.
Again, evaluation is fine if it is with a goal to improving services and value for money without cutting services or jobs.
Evaluate all employment,enterprise and environment spending.
Another vague "evaluate" that could not be judged until after propsals were made.
Cut all European Union Funding.
I'm not a fan of the EU, but this is actually insane. Cutting innapropriate funding is one thing but to decide to basically cut all ties with the EU is to leave the UK with little to no trading options and a potentially politically hostile environment in which to try to secure stronger growth.
Increase Defence budget by approximately 50%
There is no reason for such an increase, we don't need to be spending more money on imperialist conquest. Better care for returning soldiers and their families, but I'm not convined by your seemingly random number, nor am I intimately familiar with the UK defense budget allocations as it stands, or that simply throwing 50% more money at them will help.
Tax
Reduce Value added Tax (VAT) to 5% from 20%
Scrap all fuel duty
Various Income Tax Changes - No one pays tax below £20,000 a year.
£20,000-£35,000 10%
£35,000-£75,000 20%
£75,000+ 30%
Scrap National Insurance
Increase Taxes on alcohol, tobacco and betting.
New Tax on legalised drugs at 60% (see Laws and regulation)
Reduce corporation tax - Main rate to 15%
- Small profits rate to 5%
- Special rate to 10%.
Half all capital gains taxes.
Reduce inheritance tax to 35%.
Double all Stamp duty rates but provide 0% Stamp duty for first time buyers.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
These tax plans are so regressive as to be almost confused with an attempt to wipe out the poor by way of starvation and lack of services. 5% VAT, no National Insurance (on top of your earlier plan for priavte education and healthcare????) with tax on things most likely used by poorer members of society whilst providing massive tax breaks to the rich? The same rich who already owe more in tax than every form of benefit fraud put together several times over? The only thing that would be universally helpful is the fuel duty plan which in itself would be extremly short sighted.
Laws and regulation
Legalise many currently illegal drugs on the advice of doctors such as cannabis with strict regulation and a new 60% tax on all of the newly legalised drugs.
Price control of all products directly affected by fuel duty for one year to enforce a reduction in price.
This would be redundant as if the prices were to rise steeply they would do so at the end of that year anyway, but most likely competition would in this instance force prices lower either way. The only way to ensure constant fair prices is to nationalise the industry.
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
This would be redundant based on current inspection and safety guidelines.
Merge all U.K. Competition authorities into one organisation and relax monopoly regulation.
Preventing monopolys is a good thing, even in capitalist societys.
Ban smoking and Drug use in all non-private areas (including cars.)
New government Rule - Magic Formula - The British Government may only run a budget deficit in recessions or extreme economic circumstances.
Given the way that most government spending works that would be interesting to see attempted. Not that I'm against the idea in principal though.
Semi-Legalise Polygamy - Must marry all at the same time/place as to not deceive.
Hardly the most pressing issue but if people are desperate for it (is anyone?) then I imagine it oculd be looked in to, remembering to consider all the taxation, housing and family issues that would arise.
Other
Leave the European Union but promote free trade and immigration with all "friendly" countries. (Free trade should be the neutral/default position)
As someone who doesn't support the EU (which is run almost entirely against the best interests of the people of Europe) simply leaving is completely the wrong call.
Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat.
There is currently no reason to invade Iran.
Attempt to extend "Parliament Life" to eight years with a referendum after five years.
All politicians should be subject to recall if they're no longer representing their voters sufficiently. 4-5 years is already too long, 8 years should be out of the question. So no.
More actively Persue Tax evaders
With your plan to reduce taxes on them by so much and at the same time serve massive sections of public jobs up for free profit, you just might not have to chase them anymore.
So those are my current policies so would you elect me?
I would actively fight against your election on those policies. Thank you for your input, we clearly have different economic ideologies especially about the NHS, with the leaving the EU, I would try to keep the free trade and immigration with these countries which you seem to have missed me saying, and i would see no reason for them not to accept as it benefits those countries to have free trade. About my tax reductions i would say they are more progressive..., VAT is a regressive tax and so reducing it by 15% is progressive, then noone paying tax up to £20000 is incredible progressive for todays standards so i dont really see your point here. Yes im letting the rich pay less tax but the rich at the moment barely pay tax because of smar accountants, so I'm giving them less of an incentive to avoid paying tax. The defence budget will be used to provide all military personal the proper equipment which they lack at the moment and provide better after care, with the remainder of the budget increase going to whatever the ministry of defence feels it needs. For the parliament life, you must think that politicians dont have short term policies also i have stated a referendum after 5 years on whether not there would be an early election which is the same as now so polticians would be accountable and also the government would still need a majority anyway or there could be an election after 1 year. But i fear you are of a different ideaology than me and you do not like the free market so its hard to debate with you. Thank you for your reply. Without meaning to advertise my specific party alliegance here (would seem to be in bad taste, and nothing I said is representative of the group anyway) if you know your political history I joined the militant lot (though I was a bit young when they were still The Militant) so yeah it's probably fair to say we're ideologically different but hopefully that'll give you some insight as to how different. So yeah, you're probably right about a debate between us being difficult when covering such a wide range of topics, though if any specific discussion points come up that may be more constructive. Just a couple of brief points beyond that though, whilst I still also stand by everything I said in my original post. I agree with your position on VAT being itself a regressive tax, I was referring more generally to the tax plan when taken as a whole which as you yourself admit results in less taxation of the rich with fewer services and more privatisation for the poor, that is regressive and would result in loss of jobs, loss of health care and sick cover, reduction in overall benefits and an overall quality of life reduction for those who can't afford to be 100% self sufficient in every aspect of life. As to the life of the parliament as whole, if at any point the elected officials aren't representing the electorate then they should be subject to recall, regardless of how long their plans are. This would force a more transparent system where politicans would need to justify themselves constantly rather than just being secure in a job for 5 years and only worrying about 6 months either side of an election, whilst at the same time encouraging wider political involvement from communities. Yes there would be alot of job losses in the public sector, I would agree but I think with the tax cuts and especially the scrapping of National insurance then the private sector will be able to make up all of those jobs and more. I also stated I will cover anyones healthcare if they earn less than £35000 a year which i think is reasonable, if you do not then pleae let me know why.
As per my only post I'm going to try stick to one specific issue for the sake of good discussion, but just to point out hat privatisation almost always results in job losses, and scrapping NI will have massive consequences for pensions and those who're out of work for whatever reason so I disagree with that being a good idea.
On to the point I'll actually tackle for the sake of good conversation though, there are a few reasons I don't think your NHS plan is the right course of action (reasonable might be arguable). I just want to address the edit on your OP before continuing though.
Currently the only incentive for doctors etc to treat you well is because they "care", doctor get paid whether you live or die and whether they treat you badly or well, whether they treat you promptly or have hours waiting in A&E. I believe a private health care system will be more effecient and will allow me to save a lot of money to be given out in tax cuts to boost the economy and get people working and lead to greater prosperity for all.
Your view of the NHS is objectively wrong. A&E staff have required targets of time to treat you in which are almost universally shown to be improving over time. Dr's treat you because it's their job and if they do it badly people die and their job, if not their freedom, is at risk if they're negligent in that. Additionally the same arguement you make for Dr's under a public system would apply under a private system, unless you believe that any care what so ever is tolerated under a public system, which is clearly wrong. No one in the NHS goes in to work thinking 'well the government is paying me, guess I don't have to work too hard, my manager and none of my colleagues will be paying attention to what I do'.
Further, on the other side is the fact that your private health care system will still be being funded by the government for anyone under £35,000 which results in the exact same procedures being performed by a work force cut to the bone with 'efficiency' savings, but with a profit margin dumped on top. When combined with a massive tax reduction across the board and unwaranted spending increases amongst your other plans it would be almost impossible to reasonably fund the same quality of care and range of options we have today.
As it stands the governments current plans for privatisation are already showing the massive strains put on care which are purposely making it more difficult for the NHS to provide the necessary care in order to make the private option the only one left, which at the same time is meaning the brunt of job and service cuts are done under public ownership, and they won't be replaced under the private system. Aspects such as hip replacement guidelines and funding changing so that an estimated 75% of those needing them will have to wait years or otherwise be ineligable is one such example of these changes forcing private sector involvement at the moment. Arguing that the NHS has a declining level of quality in the same breath as arguing that privatisation is needed is simply misguided, NHS quality is declinnig because of attempts to force privatisation.
Every single point along the way that results in private companies doing for profit what is currently done for need will result in increased costs for the government, and when we look at how extensive even current privatisation is we can see how pervasive and expensive that will end up being. You're talking about a system where deciding where you are sent for treatment is decided by a for profit advisory company, where treatment and drug choice is decided by private hospitals being influenced by the market, where NHS direct (or it's equivalent) is giving advise based on the company that owns it rather than health care needs of the patient, and that's just what we're looking at in the short term and that's hoping we still have regulation. Less obvious health care services such as speech therapy are simply not going to be profitable at all and would likely see further cuts in services meaning patients would have to travel far further if the option still existed at all. Trying to fund all of these extra price increases, as well as paying a for profit bonus on top of that for the majorioty of service users is not going to result in savings, but rather just profit for private interests.
You asked earlier in the thread why people keep asssuming it'll end up as an American style healthcare system, but when you look at the fact that for anyone earning £35,000 it would be and when you see the same US companies lobbying for a private health care in the UK right now the comparison is impossible to not make. Additionally, once you privatise it, over time there is nothing to prevent it simply worsening to the point of being exactly like the US as the unaccountable private sector will be the one's controlling the options available.
I've been doing my best to simply stay on the economic side of things but I fear I'm at the point of repeating myself if I continue so I'll just leave it there as saying that private healthcare would mean higher costs (even with your £35,000 cut off), fewer jobs, fewer services and lower quality.
|
On December 09 2011 22:12 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:53 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:48 Iyerbeth wrote:On December 09 2011 10:15 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:00 Iyerbeth wrote:I'm not sure no would be a strong enough term to express my opinion on those changes, but I clicked it for lack of a stronger worded opposition. Here are some notes on why: + Show Spoiler +On December 09 2011 09:16 Zaros wrote:
Expenditure
Privatise National Health Service (NHS) - Provide a subsidy for anyone earning less than the new 2nd highest rate of income tax.
The NHS whilst already suffering major budget cuts in a bid to force quality down and sell it off piece by piece to the private sector is already having privatisation bids have a terrible impact on healthcare. PFI initiatives are already the biggest single cause of NHS related debt, and a for-profit system will only further reduce care whilst driving up costs. We can already see the result of private healthcare and insurance in the US and whilst it may only be a matter of years before we end up there here, rushing towards it would eradicate all hope of keeping a free at the point of use, universal healthcare system.
We should instead immediately remove the private sector from the NHS, cut debts to PFI scheme's and invest in jobs and training throughout hospitals in the UK.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction)
Provided that benefits were increased and reduced in line with VAT to result in the same spending power this may be acceptable, but current benefit levels are already too low with most cash issues arising from the poorly written legislation and failed economic policies of creating jobs, not from those on benefits being over paid. At a time with the highest youth unemplyment rate in the history of our country we should be very careful about penalising those with no options.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK))
All university education should be free. End fee's and ensure there are enough quality positions for everyone.
Evaluate all government advice/charitable agencies/organisations with regards to reducing funding up to and including a 100% reduction.
Such a vague statement it's impossible to oppose, but it would depend on the results of the evaluation.
Look into part privatisation of education.
NO. For-profit education is a truely terrible idea. Education should be independant, of a strict quality and free for all.
Increase science research and development spending by at least 100%.
I'm not expert enough to know the results of this for jobs and opportunites in the UK, and I wonder if you are?
Evaluate all religious,cultural and recreational funding.
Again, evaluation is fine if it is with a goal to improving services and value for money without cutting services or jobs.
Evaluate all employment,enterprise and environment spending.
Another vague "evaluate" that could not be judged until after propsals were made.
Cut all European Union Funding.
I'm not a fan of the EU, but this is actually insane. Cutting innapropriate funding is one thing but to decide to basically cut all ties with the EU is to leave the UK with little to no trading options and a potentially politically hostile environment in which to try to secure stronger growth.
Increase Defence budget by approximately 50%
There is no reason for such an increase, we don't need to be spending more money on imperialist conquest. Better care for returning soldiers and their families, but I'm not convined by your seemingly random number, nor am I intimately familiar with the UK defense budget allocations as it stands, or that simply throwing 50% more money at them will help.
Tax
Reduce Value added Tax (VAT) to 5% from 20%
Scrap all fuel duty
Various Income Tax Changes - No one pays tax below £20,000 a year.
£20,000-£35,000 10%
£35,000-£75,000 20%
£75,000+ 30%
Scrap National Insurance
Increase Taxes on alcohol, tobacco and betting.
New Tax on legalised drugs at 60% (see Laws and regulation)
Reduce corporation tax - Main rate to 15%
- Small profits rate to 5%
- Special rate to 10%.
Half all capital gains taxes.
Reduce inheritance tax to 35%.
Double all Stamp duty rates but provide 0% Stamp duty for first time buyers.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
These tax plans are so regressive as to be almost confused with an attempt to wipe out the poor by way of starvation and lack of services. 5% VAT, no National Insurance (on top of your earlier plan for priavte education and healthcare????) with tax on things most likely used by poorer members of society whilst providing massive tax breaks to the rich? The same rich who already owe more in tax than every form of benefit fraud put together several times over? The only thing that would be universally helpful is the fuel duty plan which in itself would be extremly short sighted.
Laws and regulation
Legalise many currently illegal drugs on the advice of doctors such as cannabis with strict regulation and a new 60% tax on all of the newly legalised drugs.
Price control of all products directly affected by fuel duty for one year to enforce a reduction in price.
This would be redundant as if the prices were to rise steeply they would do so at the end of that year anyway, but most likely competition would in this instance force prices lower either way. The only way to ensure constant fair prices is to nationalise the industry.
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
This would be redundant based on current inspection and safety guidelines.
Merge all U.K. Competition authorities into one organisation and relax monopoly regulation.
Preventing monopolys is a good thing, even in capitalist societys.
Ban smoking and Drug use in all non-private areas (including cars.)
New government Rule - Magic Formula - The British Government may only run a budget deficit in recessions or extreme economic circumstances.
Given the way that most government spending works that would be interesting to see attempted. Not that I'm against the idea in principal though.
Semi-Legalise Polygamy - Must marry all at the same time/place as to not deceive.
Hardly the most pressing issue but if people are desperate for it (is anyone?) then I imagine it oculd be looked in to, remembering to consider all the taxation, housing and family issues that would arise.
Other
Leave the European Union but promote free trade and immigration with all "friendly" countries. (Free trade should be the neutral/default position)
As someone who doesn't support the EU (which is run almost entirely against the best interests of the people of Europe) simply leaving is completely the wrong call.
Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat.
There is currently no reason to invade Iran.
Attempt to extend "Parliament Life" to eight years with a referendum after five years.
All politicians should be subject to recall if they're no longer representing their voters sufficiently. 4-5 years is already too long, 8 years should be out of the question. So no.
More actively Persue Tax evaders
With your plan to reduce taxes on them by so much and at the same time serve massive sections of public jobs up for free profit, you just might not have to chase them anymore.
So those are my current policies so would you elect me?
I would actively fight against your election on those policies. Thank you for your input, we clearly have different economic ideologies especially about the NHS, with the leaving the EU, I would try to keep the free trade and immigration with these countries which you seem to have missed me saying, and i would see no reason for them not to accept as it benefits those countries to have free trade. About my tax reductions i would say they are more progressive..., VAT is a regressive tax and so reducing it by 15% is progressive, then noone paying tax up to £20000 is incredible progressive for todays standards so i dont really see your point here. Yes im letting the rich pay less tax but the rich at the moment barely pay tax because of smar accountants, so I'm giving them less of an incentive to avoid paying tax. The defence budget will be used to provide all military personal the proper equipment which they lack at the moment and provide better after care, with the remainder of the budget increase going to whatever the ministry of defence feels it needs. For the parliament life, you must think that politicians dont have short term policies also i have stated a referendum after 5 years on whether not there would be an early election which is the same as now so polticians would be accountable and also the government would still need a majority anyway or there could be an election after 1 year. But i fear you are of a different ideaology than me and you do not like the free market so its hard to debate with you. Thank you for your reply. Without meaning to advertise my specific party alliegance here (would seem to be in bad taste, and nothing I said is representative of the group anyway) if you know your political history I joined the militant lot (though I was a bit young when they were still The Militant) so yeah it's probably fair to say we're ideologically different but hopefully that'll give you some insight as to how different. So yeah, you're probably right about a debate between us being difficult when covering such a wide range of topics, though if any specific discussion points come up that may be more constructive. Just a couple of brief points beyond that though, whilst I still also stand by everything I said in my original post. I agree with your position on VAT being itself a regressive tax, I was referring more generally to the tax plan when taken as a whole which as you yourself admit results in less taxation of the rich with fewer services and more privatisation for the poor, that is regressive and would result in loss of jobs, loss of health care and sick cover, reduction in overall benefits and an overall quality of life reduction for those who can't afford to be 100% self sufficient in every aspect of life. As to the life of the parliament as whole, if at any point the elected officials aren't representing the electorate then they should be subject to recall, regardless of how long their plans are. This would force a more transparent system where politicans would need to justify themselves constantly rather than just being secure in a job for 5 years and only worrying about 6 months either side of an election, whilst at the same time encouraging wider political involvement from communities. Yes there would be alot of job losses in the public sector, I would agree but I think with the tax cuts and especially the scrapping of National insurance then the private sector will be able to make up all of those jobs and more. I also stated I will cover anyones healthcare if they earn less than £35000 a year which i think is reasonable, if you do not then pleae let me know why. As per my only post I'm going to try stick to one specific issue for the sake of good discussion, but just to point out hat privatisation almost always results in job losses, and scrapping NI will have massive consequences for pensions and those who're out of work for whatever reason so I disagree with that being a good idea. On to the point I'll actually tackle for the sake of good conversation though, there are a few reasons I don't think your NHS plan is the right course of action (reasonable might be arguable). I just want to address the edit on your OP before continuing though. Show nested quote +Currently the only incentive for doctors etc to treat you well is because they "care", doctor get paid whether you live or die and whether they treat you badly or well, whether they treat you promptly or have hours waiting in A&E. I believe a private health care system will be more effecient and will allow me to save a lot of money to be given out in tax cuts to boost the economy and get people working and lead to greater prosperity for all. Your view of the NHS is objectively wrong. A&E staff have required targets of time to treat you in which are almost universally shown to be improving over time. Dr's treat you because it's their job and if they do it badly people die and their job, if not their freedom, is at risk if they're negligent in that. Additionally the same arguement you make for Dr's under a public system would apply under a private system, unless you believe that any care what so ever is tolerated under a public system, which is clearly wrong. No one in the NHS goes in to work thinking 'well the government is paying me, guess I don't have to work too hard, my manager and none of my colleagues will be paying attention to what I do'. Further, on the other side is the fact that your private health care system will still be being funded by the government for anyone under £35,000 which results in the exact same procedures being performed by a work force cut to the bone with 'efficiency' savings, but with a profit margin dumped on top. When combined with a massive tax reduction across the board and unwaranted spending increases amongst your other plans it would be almost impossible to reasonably fund the same quality of care and range of options we have today. As it stands the governments current plans for privatisation are already showing the massive strains put on care which are purposely making it more difficult for the NHS to provide the necessary care in order to make the private option the only one left, which at the same time is meaning the brunt of job and service cuts are done under public ownership, and they won't be replaced under the private system. Aspects such as hip replacement guidelines and funding changing so that an estimated 75% of those needing them will have to wait years or otherwise be ineligable is one such example of these changes forcing private sector involvement at the moment. Arguing that the NHS has a declining level of quality in the same breath as arguing that privatisation is needed is simply misguided, NHS quality is declinnig because of attempts to force privatisation. Every single point along the way that results in private companies doing for profit what is currently done for need will result in increased costs for the government, and when we look at how extensive even current privatisation is we can see how pervasive and expensive that will end up being. You're talking about a system where deciding where you are sent for treatment is decided by a for profit advisory company, where treatment and drug choice is decided by private hospitals being influenced by the market, where NHS direct (or it's equivalent) is giving advise based on the company that owns it rather than health care needs of the patient, and that's just what we're looking at in the short term and that's hoping we still have regulation. Less obvious health care services such as speech therapy are simply not going to be profitable at all and would likely see further cuts in services meaning patients would have to travel far further if the option still existed at all. Trying to fund all of these extra price increases, as well as paying a for profit bonus on top of that for the majorioty of service users is not going to result in savings, but rather just profit for private interests. You asked earlier in the thread why people keep asssuming it'll end up as an American style healthcare system, but when you look at the fact that for anyone earning £35,000 it would be and when you see the same US companies lobbying for a private health care in the UK right now the comparison is impossible to not make. Additionally, once you privatise it, over time there is nothing to prevent it simply worsening to the point of being exactly like the US as the unaccountable private sector will be the one's controlling the options available. I've been doing my best to simply stay on the economic side of things but I fear I'm at the point of repeating myself if I continue so I'll just leave it there as saying that private healthcare would mean higher costs (even with your £35,000 cut off), fewer jobs, fewer services and lower quality.
I understand your point of view but i simply disagree with your statement that privatisation is causing the NHS problems, its hard to debate this so i guess we have to agree to disagree.
|
Looks like my European Union policies might be coming true with todays events with UK walking out of talks for a new treaty, hopefully we dont lose free trade benefits.
|
- Dismantling the lower-end universities is about as anti free-trade as you can be. They are obviously filling a demand.
- Time and again private health systems have shown to be less efficient.
- A lot of your economic policies are hong-kong style systems which work in a small, entirely urbanised and entrepreneurial population. They would also necessitate a massive lag in which tax income is hugely reduced and growth is not yet there to cope with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
