VAT

Murdochcat said:
Gosh.

VAT is paid dis proportionally by the richer in society - and that should remain the in place

As for more cuts - really?

Public spending is around £1200 billion so cutting £160 billion is about 7% - but I suspect it would be tricky to achieve cuts like that without having a detrimental effect on services AND of course politicians make cuts in political ways rather then by sense.
Click to expand...

I have responded to you already and given examples of government waste and where savings can be found.

You seem to just take at face value that what the government spends must be necessary. I cannot help you with this if you won't listen or try to think outside the box.

Also, sorry - your point about it being dispropportionately paid by the rich is semantics. The rich pay most of all taxes for obvious reasons - they have more and they spend more. VAT is a regressive tax - it hits the poorest hardest. 20% on the staples a poor person buys won't be noticed by a wealthy person buying the same items.

Look up the difference between progressive and regressive taxes.

I will ask you again: at what point do you think tax will be too high and will you question what the state does with all the money?
 
Murdochcat said:
Or Angela Raynor is that you?

Reducing to childish comments shows your lack of IQ
Click to expand...

John is a deeply unpleasant and low quality poster. He doesn't engage in good faith. So I will take the time to set out my views and arguments, and give the matter careful consideration. I might be wrong or misguided but others are at liberty to respond and explain why they think so and I am happy to be proven wrong.

John repeatedly takes a few words or a sentence completely out of context and then makes a snarky remark in response. I cannot tell if he is a troll or very stupid, either way, it wastes space on the forum and reduces the quality of debate. I make no apologies for expressing my frustration but have now made amends by putting him on my ignore list.

Your own posting is pretty poor to be honest and you might, if you had any sense and decency, have shown at least some gratitude for the fact that I took the time to respond to you. This was a well intentioned mark of basic respect to you that I have not received back in kind.
 
berty3000 said:
What do you know about public sector procurement?

I can tell you that tens of billions of pounds are wasted per annum. And it isn't in the low tens.

Have you ever worked in the public sector and seen how it works?

There is a significant proportion of staff in the civil service, particularly amongst the 100,000 recent new recruits, on generous salaries, getting sick and holiday pay, with final salary pension schemes accruing - who are doing NOTHING. Literally. And amongst those who do have work assigned to them, I can tell you now that neither you nor any other member of the public would notice if these roles and the work they involve were deleted.

There is now an army of people involved in implementing, monitoring and enforcing ridiculous and frankly damaging DEI and ESG metrics. There is far more though.

Ever worked in a public sector organisation and needed to order a HDMI cable? They will £20 for it to a special rip off provider who won the procurement process (a complex load of shyte that only rip off companies seem to win) when they could've ordered one for 99p online. When you get into the realms of complex infrastructure projects, defence procurement, nuclear power - the same effect is in action but greatly magnified.

Here are some other things that spring to mind...

- The foreign aid budget. Let's stop giving away a billion a month. No reason why charities can't deal with this through voluntary donations.

- HS2: should never have got off the ground. Basically means a longer journey between London and Birmingham, benefitting nobody. Even if it were faster - how many people live near enough to a station and can afford the tickets? How much has that cost? The railways in general are mostly a subsidy to the middle classes and those who live near stations.

- Putting lying scum, who pretend to be refugees, in hotels and other accommodation. We are all paying for them to live here. To have heating, electricity, food, clothing, entertainment, a roof over their head, legal representation through their never ending asylum appeals. Let's stop doing this.

- Smart motorways... not so smart, and not so cheap either. Probably have damaged the economy through the endless construction process. What can we learn?

- Sending billions to Ukraine where it will disappear into the pockets of crooks and only prolong the death and destruction, and delay the inevitable. Let's not.

- No more bail outs of companies. If they go bust, they go bust.

- Stop subsidising green energy, which is unreliable, inconsistent and very expensive. Our energy bills are now three times higher than they were a few years ago. Some global events will have had an effect but the main culprit has been the government's energy policy.

- No more stupid traffic schemes that create one way systems and waste loads of space on cyclists, then have to be reversed again because they don't work and nobody wants them.

- No more money for sex change operations or associated procedures.

There - those are just a few examples off the top of my head. You might not agree with some of them. That's fine. But the above saves, or would have saved, an absolutely vast sum of money. And it is only the low hanging fruit.

Public sector procurement is a seriously disastrous waste of money and it is going on every single day. Sorry, but pot holes would cost peanuts in comparison to what I'm talking about.

We have a massive tax bill because the state is enormous, riddled with incompetence and waste, and because governments seem to have forgotten how to spend less money. You know, that thing that us normal people do sometimes?

I find it incredible that so many people not only accept but defend this state of affairs. How high do taxes have to be and how insane must the largesse become before people will object!?
Click to expand...
So you enjoy dirty rivers. Interesting.
And false economies seem to be your thing. Eg. green energy: the cost of not investing in it, is far greater than doing so in the long run.

Similarly, investing in better cycling infrastructure is actually a negative cost when you consider all the externalities. Compared with car infrastructure, which is an economic blackhole, and makes an area less pleasant to live.
 
wobs said:
So you enjoy dirty rivers. Interesting.
And false economies seem to be your thing. Eg. green energy: the cost of not investing in it, is far greater than doing so in the long run.

Similarly, investing in better cycling infrastructure is actually a negative cost when you consider all the externalities. Compared with car infrastructure, which is an economic blackhole, and makes an area less pleasant to live.
Click to expand...

Silly post, too vague, doesn't deserve a response.

Except to point out one particularly ignorant comment which you've made about road infrastructure. Drivers are net contributors to the exchequer and effectively subsidise all the cycling infrastructure. Moreover, our economy would collapse without road infrastructure and motorised transport.

Why does this forum have such a high rate of people who hold the views of lefty teenagers? It is as though some people are mentally set in stone at the age of 16 and never grow out of it. No doubt watching far too much TV doesn't help...
 
berty3000 said:
Silly post, too vague, doesn't deserve a response.

Except to point out one particularly ignorant comment which you've made about road infrastructure. Drivers are net contributors to the exchequer and effectively subsidise all the cycling infrastructure. Moreover, our economy would collapse without road infrastructure and motorised transport.

Why does this forum have such a high rate of people who hold the views of lefty teenagers? It is as though some people are mentally set in stone at the age of 16 and never grow out of it. No doubt watching far too much TV doesn't help...
Click to expand...
My apologies, I was basing these views on studies, rather than what some people actually "know".
Abstract
Automobile dependency consists of high levels of per capita automobile travel, automobile oriented land use patterns and limited transport alternatives. Automobile dependency has many impacts on consumers, society and the economy. It increases mobility and convenience to motorists. It increases consumers' transportation costs and resource consumption, requires significant financial and land resources for roads and parking facilities, and it increases traffic congestion, roadway risk and environmental impacts. It reduces the viability of other travel modes and leads to more dispersed land use and mobility intensive economic patterns that require more vehicle travel for access. This paper examines macroeconomic impacts of automobile dependency (impacts on overall economic development, productivity, competitiveness and employment). Both economic theory and empirical evidence indicates that excessive automobile dependency reduces economic development. Several current market distortions result in automobile dependency beyond what is economically optimal. Policies that encourage more efficient transportation and land use patterns can provide economic benefits.
Click to expand...

And:
Cyclists visit local shops more regularly, spending more than users of most other modes of transport
• Per square metre, cycle parking delivers 5 times higher retail spend than the same area of car parking
• A compact town optimised for walking and cycling can have a “retail density” (spend per square metre) 2.5 times higher than a typical urban centre.
• Public realm improvements, including those that cater for cycling, have been shown to result in increased trade at local businesses; up to 49% in New York City
Click to expand...
Then there's the fact that in a car dependent society, density is reduced, meaning that services such as road/water/gas/electricity infrastructure is longer, costing more to maintain. Which is why many US cities are heavily in debt. Some have even gone bankrupt.
 
Massive bureaucracies are inherently hugely inefficient. There has been an ongoing "war" on inefficiency for as long as I have followed politics. I don't believe there are huge easy savings to be had in the day to day running of the country. That will not stop many from insisting there are and I am aware these people can simply not be convinced.
 
Last edited:
wobs said:
My apologies, I was basing these views on studies, rather than what some people actually "know".


And:

Then there's the fact that in a car dependent society, density is reduced, meaning that services such as road/water/gas/electricity infrastructure is longer, costing more to maintain. Which is why many US cities are heavily in debt. Some have even gone bankrupt.
Click to expand...
Good points but you do realise your wasting your time with him?
 
berty3000 said:
I will ask you again: at what point do you think tax will be too high and will you question what the state does with all the money?
Click to expand...

Tax could be 1 or 2 p higher and the majority of people wouldn't notice

As for the state - well its all smoke and mirrors

I'd like to see complete transparency about how much tax is being used to prop up ALL the public sector pensions - but that's never going to happen but its real AND really hurting local services AND has been for about 25 years
 
wobs said:
My apologies, I was basing these views on studies, rather than what some people actually "know".


And:

Then there's the fact that in a car dependent society, density is reduced, meaning that services such as road/water/gas/electricity infrastructure is longer, costing more to maintain. Which is why many US cities are heavily in debt. Some have even gone bankrupt.
Click to expand...

That sounds like an American study. Wrong country, hun. Also, very biased.

Roads, cars, buses, trucks, vans, motorcycles - motorised transport - all part of a civilized and wealthy society with a productive economy. Getting people and goods to where they need to be relatively quickly, conveniently and affordably. Other modes important too, but we clearly aren't going to find a general improvement in life by winding the clock back to 1900 and depending on horses, bicycles and trains.

I'm saying all of this as somebody who doesn't have a car and walks or cycles most places, or uses a motorcycle for longer distances. In other words, I'm actually doing what the sustainability, anti-car people advocate. A society based on cycling is going to be a very poor one I'm afraid.
 
JonathanM said:
Massive bureaucracies are inherently hugely inefficient. There has been an ongoing "war" on inefficiency for as long as I have followed politics. I don't believe there are huge easy savings to be had in the day to day running of the country. That will not stop many from insisting there are and I am aware these people can simply not be convinced.
Click to expand...

I'd just cut the civil service in half. I know people who are civil servants and they are either doing no work at all or doing fake jobs. They are honest about it. They are earning over £70K and have very generous pensions waiting for them when they retire - unlike large numbers of people in the private sector who are paying for the civil servants.

There are lots of unemployable nutters in the public sector who are just endlessly in spats with their managers, produce little if any work, perform poorly, and seem to be involved a lot with HR Dep processes. Very difficult to sack. One person I know of was fired by a government department - eventually, after more than 18 months of being a complete waste of oxygen and driving everybody mad - then claimed to be trans, threatened legal action against his former employers for discrimination, and was then hired back again into "his" old job. Now showing up at work pretending to be a woman and being the same old arsehole wasting everybody's time and money. This sort of thing is disturbingly common. I would make it much much easier to bin such people with no right of appeal. HR departments can be dramatically cut.

Anything to do with DEI or ESG can be scrapped. Most of the ecology stuff is now bonkers and making it impossible to get anything built. I'd scrap Natural England. The Wildlife and Countryside Act would be sufficient, with some amendments, without the mountain of EU derived nonsense we are now drowning in.

Very very easy to save money. I don't think people will understand my perspective until they've spent some years actually working in the public sector and seeing what goes on. Central government and its quangos are the worst culprits for waste and insanity. Local government better in most cases, performing more essential functions - although definitely room for savings in that tier as well.
 
berty3000 said:
I'd just cut the civil service in half. I know people who are civil servants and they are either doing no work at all or doing fake jobs. They are honest about it. They are earning over £70K and have very generous pensions waiting for them when they retire - unlike large numbers of people in the private sector who are paying for the civil servants.

There are lots of unemployable nutters in the public sector who are just endlessly in spats with their managers, produce little if any work, perform poorly, and seem to be involved a lot with HR Dep processes. Very difficult to sack. One person I know of was fired by a government department - eventually, after more than 18 months of being a complete waste of oxygen and driving everybody mad - then claimed to be trans, threatened legal action against his former employers for discrimination, and was then hired back again into "his" old job. Now showing up at work pretending to be a woman and being the same old arsehole wasting everybody's time and money. This sort of thing is disturbingly common. I would make it much much easier to bin such people with no right of appeal. HR departments can be dramatically cut.

Anything to do with DEI or ESG can be scrapped. Most of the ecology stuff is now bonkers and making it impossible to get anything built. I'd scrap Natural England. The Wildlife and Countryside Act would be sufficient, with some amendments, without the mountain of EU derived nonsense we are now drowning in.

Very very easy to save money. I don't think people will understand my perspective until they've spent some years actually working in the public sector and seeing what goes on. Central government and its quangos are the worst culprits for waste and insanity. Local government better in most cases, performing more essential functions - although definitely room for savings in that tier as well.
Click to expand...
Smells like, sounds like, must be........
 
Berty just spouts a stream of unsupported moans and gripes and long discredited economic illiteracy

Almost as if he follows the daily mail and far right conspiracists
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top