| The Budget 14:22 - Oct 30 with 3799 views | Southamptonfan |
An excellent refreshing budget I thought, by a very commanding, professional and credible chancellor. Triple lock kept (rightly so), pensioners protected, billions raised for our crumbling services so badly needed, no increase in fuel duty (right decison), and at last,.an end to criminals going in to my local shop, supermarkets and stealing up to £100 without consequence. A start on restoring law and order in this country. Taxes raised for multi billion pound companies to pay their fair share. And 50 per cent increase on those using private jets. Too right. If you can afford to travel at that expense, then give some back to the country (Sorry Rishi). |  |
| |  |
| The Budget on 06:25 - Nov 1 with 693 views | Berber |
| The Budget on 20:29 - Oct 31 by Jellybaby |
The "party" with the biggest vote was no vote with over 40%.
80% of the electorate did not vote Labour.
No, they do not properly represent this country. |
Arguably, no vote means no say. I knew a bloke that had a knack for finding something wrong, then getting on his high horse about something needing to be done. Until his wife would ask him what was HE going to do about it. No answer, and she told him to stick his indignation back up where it came from. |  |
| |
| The Budget on 09:47 - Nov 1 with 607 views | Ifonly |
| The Budget on 19:04 - Oct 31 by saintmark1976 |
So Ifonly, by virtue of the fact you have not suggested anything to the contrary we can now assume that you have accepted ( I imagine somewhat reluctantly ) that even after yesterday’s budget tax increases, our tax take to G D P ratio is less than the majority of comparable European countries ? That’s a start at least.
You then state “ I don’t think that every other European government is wrong “. Another step forward.
Unfortunately and for reasons best known to yourself, prior to the above mentioned Damascene moments, you appear to suggest that a role model for us should be “ getting in step with the US”. A country 3000 odd miles away whose economy has produced some of the biggest life inequality for its citizens in the whole Western World and which appears to be on the verge of electing a grifter as its president for the second time. Forgive me if I’m not attracted to that proposal.
The bottom line for the next five years or so is that a democratically elected UK government with a majority of 170 seats has decided to increase taxation to fund public services, primarily the N H S.
Quite unsurprisingly those asked to contribute more aren’t happy, thus it ever was in every budget I can remember. By next week their complaints will be completely forgotten. |
What does the fact that the US is "3000 odd miles" away, or the fact that they elect idiots as leaders (just as we do) have to do with it? Sounds like you're desperately trying to divert away from the issue.
Focusing on the actual issue at hand, by "virtue of the fact you have not suggested anything to the contrary" as you say, I take it that you agree that the US is a much more successful economy and people there have much higher living standards. Just to underline that point, if we were an American state we would be the poorest state in the union. Our middle/working classes are much worse off than the US and the bottom 10% are the same. So, yes they have higher inequality (so what?) but the poor are not worse off. Here is an article that explains the key points simply:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/25/britain-is-poorer-than-any-u
So, why shouldn't the US be the economic model we aspire to, rather than poor and failing old Europe? We don't have to copy everything about them, but people who aren't closed minded, arrogant idiots will understand that the US has done a much better job of growing their economy and so are much better able to afford better lifestyles, alongside national goods.
To take another example of a national good, the US spends 3.5% of GDP on defence, while most European countries spend virtually nothing. What's the point of spending huge sums on welfare if you can't even defend your own country? Europe relies on the US to do its defence for it. Donald Trump has the good sense to point out that this is unacceptable and Europe needs to get its act together. If the US stops supporting Ukraine, Europe won't be able to afford to keep it going.
So, how have the US built this better economy that means the people are better off, while also funding national goods? The answer is that they have a low tax country that rewards private investment and hard work. That will keep America ahead until Europe wakes up and focuses on growing the private sector economy by lowering taxes, instead of slowly taxing it to a standstill. | | | |
| The Budget on 14:01 - Nov 1 with 497 views | saintsfanbrock |
| The Budget on 01:05 - Oct 31 by Ifonly |
Well firstly, the point was that throwing money at more ambulances doesn't solve the problem - and the current system is hugely inefficient by keeping people in hospital. So, sorting out the system means you need LESS money in total, even if the social care is provided by the government.
But secondly, it shouldn't be all about government funded social care anyway. People are supposed to look after their own care. In the old days it was handled within the family. I remember that within my family when I was a kid. Mum cared for her mother and we kids had to share a room. Why should the tax payer pick up the tab because people don't want to do that anymore? The government should only be there for very basic care when all else has failed, and that should be limited to care that could be delivered inexpensively (your basic care home might be in Scotland).
But as far as government care workers are concerned, it's wrong to say that numbers are reduced. They're actually at record levels:
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2024/02/16/adult-social-worker-numbers-hit-recor |
Ok firstly you want to send all the old people to Scotland because they have no family? What a nice way to deal with people towards the end of their life when things are starting to get difficult and confusing, ship them off somewhere else.
Secondly your plan for forcing people to look after their elderly relatives is illogical, of course governments would rather that this wasn’t paid for by the state but people don’t owe a duty of care to their parents/aunts/etc so how would this ever be enforced, the government just randomly assigns the responsibility of an elderly person to a nearest relative when they hit 65? What world do you live in, surely you know this is nonsense but just want to complain? | | | |
| The Budget on 14:33 - Nov 1 with 472 views | Southamptonfan |
| The Budget on 14:01 - Nov 1 by saintsfanbrock |
Ok firstly you want to send all the old people to Scotland because they have no family? What a nice way to deal with people towards the end of their life when things are starting to get difficult and confusing, ship them off somewhere else.
Secondly your plan for forcing people to look after their elderly relatives is illogical, of course governments would rather that this wasn’t paid for by the state but people don’t owe a duty of care to their parents/aunts/etc so how would this ever be enforced, the government just randomly assigns the responsibility of an elderly person to a nearest relative when they hit 65? What world do you live in, surely you know this is nonsense but just want to complain? |
Send all the over the 65's to Scotland, ha. This is the government bus to the mountains, fend for yourselves. Visions of 90 year olds in the snow with their walking aids and wooly hats, whilst the young and the rich live in mansions with their low taxes and cavier on tap.
You're absolutely right, that some old people don't have family members and /or don't have family members who are willing to help. You can't leave old people suffering, he is clearly on the wind up.
Many older people end up taking up beds in hospitals because they have nowhere else to go. This is because social care doesn't have the resources to cope with the demand. Same with mental health. A patient with mental health issues, who just needs some support, ends up in hospital. [Post edited 1 Nov 14:37]
| |
| |
| The Budget on 14:44 - Nov 1 with 460 views | Ifonly |
| The Budget on 14:01 - Nov 1 by saintsfanbrock |
Ok firstly you want to send all the old people to Scotland because they have no family? What a nice way to deal with people towards the end of their life when things are starting to get difficult and confusing, ship them off somewhere else.
Secondly your plan for forcing people to look after their elderly relatives is illogical, of course governments would rather that this wasn’t paid for by the state but people don’t owe a duty of care to their parents/aunts/etc so how would this ever be enforced, the government just randomly assigns the responsibility of an elderly person to a nearest relative when they hit 65? What world do you live in, surely you know this is nonsense but just want to complain? |
Of course not. The majority of care in later life is supposed to be handled privately. The NHS was never intended to handle this. It is supposed to be taken care of by a mixture of family support (which as I say used to be the norm) and self funding. This is part of what pensions are supposed to be for and that's why pensions have tax breaks, to encourage people to ensure they are not a burden on the state.
The system used to work pretty well, but now people like you just assume that the state should look after them and pick up the tab, when that was never intended to be the case. So we've ended up with a problem with elderly people blocking up expensive hospital beds when they don't need to be there.
As I said above, even if the government is now forced to pick up the tab for these people, it would be cheaper to do that and move them out of hospital into a care home than keep them in a hospital bed. But if the government is now being forced to pick up the tab (which has never been agreed on or voted for politically) then people shouldn't expect a comfy room down the road from their children who refuse to take them in. If the available space is in Scotland, then that's where they should go. If the children want their parents nearby, then they should either take them in or help cover the cost of private care.
The state will never have the capacity to do everything for everyone. It should be a basic safety net. If people expect the state to do everything for them then the system will break down. | | | |
| The Budget on 14:57 - Nov 1 with 446 views | Southamptonfan |
| The Budget on 14:44 - Nov 1 by Ifonly |
Of course not. The majority of care in later life is supposed to be handled privately. The NHS was never intended to handle this. It is supposed to be taken care of by a mixture of family support (which as I say used to be the norm) and self funding. This is part of what pensions are supposed to be for and that's why pensions have tax breaks, to encourage people to ensure they are not a burden on the state.
The system used to work pretty well, but now people like you just assume that the state should look after them and pick up the tab, when that was never intended to be the case. So we've ended up with a problem with elderly people blocking up expensive hospital beds when they don't need to be there.
As I said above, even if the government is now forced to pick up the tab for these people, it would be cheaper to do that and move them out of hospital into a care home than keep them in a hospital bed. But if the government is now being forced to pick up the tab (which has never been agreed on or voted for politically) then people shouldn't expect a comfy room down the road from their children who refuse to take them in. If the available space is in Scotland, then that's where they should go. If the children want their parents nearby, then they should either take them in or help cover the cost of private care.
The state will never have the capacity to do everything for everyone. It should be a basic safety net. If people expect the state to do everything for them then the system will break down. |
Yes, people should be more responsible, less selfish, less reliant on the state, more resilient. That's a different conversation about how to go about that. But older people often don't have friends and relatives to help. If they have children, they are probably working every day and might not have a spare room and time or can afford to have days off to look after their parents or can afford private care. People are living longer, and therefore require more care. You can't leave people to suffer, so the state intervenes. This costs money. If someone is suffering, and is ill, very old, a child or , mentally ill, the state should intervene. How we bring down these numbers of people needing help is another conversation.
More and more people are having children and don't know how to parent. Yes, tackle that but not a clue how, because again you can't leave a child being beaten up or suffering. More and more money is needed because it seems to be more common with record numbers of children needing care. Stop the bad parenting is the answer but how do you do that? [Post edited 1 Nov 15:02]
| |
| |
| The Budget on 15:15 - Nov 1 with 435 views | saintsfanbrock |
| The Budget on 14:44 - Nov 1 by Ifonly |
Of course not. The majority of care in later life is supposed to be handled privately. The NHS was never intended to handle this. It is supposed to be taken care of by a mixture of family support (which as I say used to be the norm) and self funding. This is part of what pensions are supposed to be for and that's why pensions have tax breaks, to encourage people to ensure they are not a burden on the state.
The system used to work pretty well, but now people like you just assume that the state should look after them and pick up the tab, when that was never intended to be the case. So we've ended up with a problem with elderly people blocking up expensive hospital beds when they don't need to be there.
As I said above, even if the government is now forced to pick up the tab for these people, it would be cheaper to do that and move them out of hospital into a care home than keep them in a hospital bed. But if the government is now being forced to pick up the tab (which has never been agreed on or voted for politically) then people shouldn't expect a comfy room down the road from their children who refuse to take them in. If the available space is in Scotland, then that's where they should go. If the children want their parents nearby, then they should either take them in or help cover the cost of private care.
The state will never have the capacity to do everything for everyone. It should be a basic safety net. If people expect the state to do everything for them then the system will break down. |
People like me? I’m 30 and frankly not in a financial position where I will be likely to rely on the state at any point in my life and have already paid far more back to the state than I have ever received from it. However, this does not concern me in the slightest, we live in a country where the vast majority see the benefit of a welfare state, as such since the NHS was created its functions have diversified and increased. As im sure you are aware if someone has a pension (private or state) then this accounts towards the cost of social care if they are not able to self-fund, so I’m not sure what your pension point is.
If you want to take a callous approach to care for the elderly then frankly the care home approach is a far fairer and better cost saving approach. By your logic the vast majority of people who still with elderly relatives alive would have to take on care of their relative, this would of course mean for a lot of people giving up jobs which I imagine you would love having more people on carer allowance and not paying into the economy! It would also prevent us from benefitting from economies of scale, rather than all of the food, medical care and nursing staff being available in one place it would have to be spread across multiple locations. I’m sure you will quip back with then at least the people using it would be paying it but frankly we all pay for it currently via taxes, at least this way we all share it rather than disproportionately putting it onto the people who are lucky/unlucky for their family members to live longer than they are self-sufficient. By the same logic that sometimes some people get very ill and have to have expensive procedures but we don’t charge them a tax surcharge.
So you have gone back to sending them away, in your Utopia someone’s lack of financial options equates to not enough love (i.e. not wanting them close), quite sickening really.
Let’s play your mindset to the end of life to the beginning of life, by the same logic parents should pay for their kids to go to private schools? And if they can’t afford for the private school fees then they should be taken away from the nasty poor people who dared not to love their children enough by not having the finances to prove their love and should be put in schools purpose built to house them in Scotland. I really hope you can see how horrible that concept is and then perhaps apply it to end of life also.
Of course the state is not being asked to do everything for everyone, it is being asked to supplement those who need care but can’t afford it, you are completely twisting it into something far more than it is. | | | |
| The Budget on 15:28 - Nov 1 with 421 views | Ifonly |
| The Budget on 15:15 - Nov 1 by saintsfanbrock |
People like me? I’m 30 and frankly not in a financial position where I will be likely to rely on the state at any point in my life and have already paid far more back to the state than I have ever received from it. However, this does not concern me in the slightest, we live in a country where the vast majority see the benefit of a welfare state, as such since the NHS was created its functions have diversified and increased. As im sure you are aware if someone has a pension (private or state) then this accounts towards the cost of social care if they are not able to self-fund, so I’m not sure what your pension point is.
If you want to take a callous approach to care for the elderly then frankly the care home approach is a far fairer and better cost saving approach. By your logic the vast majority of people who still with elderly relatives alive would have to take on care of their relative, this would of course mean for a lot of people giving up jobs which I imagine you would love having more people on carer allowance and not paying into the economy! It would also prevent us from benefitting from economies of scale, rather than all of the food, medical care and nursing staff being available in one place it would have to be spread across multiple locations. I’m sure you will quip back with then at least the people using it would be paying it but frankly we all pay for it currently via taxes, at least this way we all share it rather than disproportionately putting it onto the people who are lucky/unlucky for their family members to live longer than they are self-sufficient. By the same logic that sometimes some people get very ill and have to have expensive procedures but we don’t charge them a tax surcharge.
So you have gone back to sending them away, in your Utopia someone’s lack of financial options equates to not enough love (i.e. not wanting them close), quite sickening really.
Let’s play your mindset to the end of life to the beginning of life, by the same logic parents should pay for their kids to go to private schools? And if they can’t afford for the private school fees then they should be taken away from the nasty poor people who dared not to love their children enough by not having the finances to prove their love and should be put in schools purpose built to house them in Scotland. I really hope you can see how horrible that concept is and then perhaps apply it to end of life also.
Of course the state is not being asked to do everything for everyone, it is being asked to supplement those who need care but can’t afford it, you are completely twisting it into something far more than it is. |
You clearly didn't understand anything I said. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Budget on 15:33 - Nov 1 with 411 views | saintsfanbrock |
| The Budget on 15:28 - Nov 1 by Ifonly |
You clearly didn't understand anything I said. |
I did, you tried to pivot back to hospital beds but the point I stuck with was the one I originally picked up on which was solely in relation to care homes. “ But secondly, it shouldn't be all about government funded social care anyway. People are supposed to look after their own care” | | | |
| The Budget on 16:59 - Nov 1 with 348 views | Berber |
| The Budget on 14:44 - Nov 1 by Ifonly |
Of course not. The majority of care in later life is supposed to be handled privately. The NHS was never intended to handle this. It is supposed to be taken care of by a mixture of family support (which as I say used to be the norm) and self funding. This is part of what pensions are supposed to be for and that's why pensions have tax breaks, to encourage people to ensure they are not a burden on the state.
The system used to work pretty well, but now people like you just assume that the state should look after them and pick up the tab, when that was never intended to be the case. So we've ended up with a problem with elderly people blocking up expensive hospital beds when they don't need to be there.
As I said above, even if the government is now forced to pick up the tab for these people, it would be cheaper to do that and move them out of hospital into a care home than keep them in a hospital bed. But if the government is now being forced to pick up the tab (which has never been agreed on or voted for politically) then people shouldn't expect a comfy room down the road from their children who refuse to take them in. If the available space is in Scotland, then that's where they should go. If the children want their parents nearby, then they should either take them in or help cover the cost of private care.
The state will never have the capacity to do everything for everyone. It should be a basic safety net. If people expect the state to do everything for them then the system will break down. |
A good number need a Nursing Home, which is a different cost model to a Care Home. | |
| |
| The Budget on 18:20 - Nov 1 with 314 views | saintmark1976 |
| The Budget on 09:47 - Nov 1 by Ifonly |
What does the fact that the US is "3000 odd miles" away, or the fact that they elect idiots as leaders (just as we do) have to do with it? Sounds like you're desperately trying to divert away from the issue.
Focusing on the actual issue at hand, by "virtue of the fact you have not suggested anything to the contrary" as you say, I take it that you agree that the US is a much more successful economy and people there have much higher living standards. Just to underline that point, if we were an American state we would be the poorest state in the union. Our middle/working classes are much worse off than the US and the bottom 10% are the same. So, yes they have higher inequality (so what?) but the poor are not worse off. Here is an article that explains the key points simply:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/25/britain-is-poorer-than-any-u
So, why shouldn't the US be the economic model we aspire to, rather than poor and failing old Europe? We don't have to copy everything about them, but people who aren't closed minded, arrogant idiots will understand that the US has done a much better job of growing their economy and so are much better able to afford better lifestyles, alongside national goods.
To take another example of a national good, the US spends 3.5% of GDP on defence, while most European countries spend virtually nothing. What's the point of spending huge sums on welfare if you can't even defend your own country? Europe relies on the US to do its defence for it. Donald Trump has the good sense to point out that this is unacceptable and Europe needs to get its act together. If the US stops supporting Ukraine, Europe won't be able to afford to keep it going.
So, how have the US built this better economy that means the people are better off, while also funding national goods? The answer is that they have a low tax country that rewards private investment and hard work. That will keep America ahead until Europe wakes up and focuses on growing the private sector economy by lowering taxes, instead of slowly taxing it to a standstill. |
Oh well Ifonly, we’ve come to the end of the working week and the world hasn’t stopped spinning:-
As I suggested, Labour’s first budget in fourteen years promising amongst other things more financial support for the N H S, progresses its journey to being implemented, thanks to a commons majority of 170 seats. Further, complaints from those asked to pay more are now just yesterday’s chip wrappings.
We remain still taxing less than the majority of comparable European countries and are as far away as ever from adopting the U S economic model with its inherent higher inequality.
All in all, I suggest an excellent week for close minded arrogant idiots, don’t you know.
PS. Good luck with your suggestion of sending old people to Scotland compulsorily by the way. That’s an absolute corker. If nothing else it made me laugh on a rather dull November day weather wise. [Post edited 1 Nov 18:21]
| |
| |
| The Budget on 19:13 - Nov 1 with 289 views | Jellybaby |
| The Budget on 06:25 - Nov 1 by Berber |
Arguably, no vote means no say. I knew a bloke that had a knack for finding something wrong, then getting on his high horse about something needing to be done. Until his wife would ask him what was HE going to do about it. No answer, and she told him to stick his indignation back up where it came from. |
I did participate in the rigged poker game that passes for our democratic system (where you are offered the allusion that your vote counts), but not for either of the duopoly that we are given by our dark overlords.
The fact that getting on for half of the populace are too apathetic to vote may say something about them, but more likely shows a contempt for a system that produces the same result every time, regardless what shade of colour the uniparty is.
Nearly half the people have checked out of this particular charade and it's easy to see why. | |
| I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it. |
| |
| The Budget on 19:45 - Nov 1 with 265 views | Ifonly |
Ryanair is to cut thousands of UK flights as its chief executive blamed an “idiotic” tax grab by Rachel Reeves.
Michael O’Leary, the Ryanair chief executive, accused the Chancellor of a short-sighted tax grab he said demonstrated that she “has no clue how to deliver growth in the UK economy”.
Fewer jobs, less tax revenue....
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/ryanair-blames-reeves-s-idiotic-tax-grab-a | | | |
| The Budget on 08:04 - Nov 2 with 156 views | SalisburySaint |
| The Budget on 19:45 - Nov 1 by Ifonly |
Ryanair is to cut thousands of UK flights as its chief executive blamed an “idiotic” tax grab by Rachel Reeves.
Michael O’Leary, the Ryanair chief executive, accused the Chancellor of a short-sighted tax grab he said demonstrated that she “has no clue how to deliver growth in the UK economy”.
Fewer jobs, less tax revenue....
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/ryanair-blames-reeves-s-idiotic-tax-grab-a |
O’Leary (an ars*hole) was probably planning to cut flights anyway, using the NI rises as a good excuse to hide bad news
People like him care nothing about his employees, the bottom line for him is profits |  | | |
| The Budget on 10:25 - Nov 2 with 73 views | Ifonly |
| The Budget on 08:04 - Nov 2 by SalisburySaint |
O’Leary (an ars*hole) was probably planning to cut flights anyway, using the NI rises as a good excuse to hide bad news
People like him care nothing about his employees, the bottom line for him is profits |
This comment reflects why the UK is becoming an economic basket case. O'Leary is certainly not to everyone's taste but to dismiss him as an ars*hole sums up this country's problems.
O'Leary took a small, failing airline on the brink of closure and turned it into one of the world's largest and most successful airlines. 183 million passengers chose to fly Ryanair last year. Why? Because they are forced to? No, they chose to because he gives people what they want. In doing that he has created over 27,000 jobs (none of those people are forced to work for him either) and paid God only knows how much in taxes. This is what economic success is all about.
In a successful country like the US he would be celebrated and held up to younger people as a role model. In this country he is looked down on and dismissed as an ars*hole. Sums it up really. | | | |
| The Budget on 10:58 - Nov 2 with 41 views | Bridders2 |
| The Budget on 08:04 - Nov 2 by SalisburySaint |
O’Leary (an ars*hole) was probably planning to cut flights anyway, using the NI rises as a good excuse to hide bad news
People like him care nothing about his employees, the bottom line for him is profits |
This is typical 'Labour speak' profits are bad, someone who creates jobs and is successful is an ars*hole. The politics of envy. The vast majority of Labour voters think like this and then they wonder who provides the taxes to keep the welfare machine turning. Blinkered beyond belief. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
