I feel sorry for your family and friends
VAT
- Thread starter berty3000
- Start date
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2022
- Messages
- 2,764
- Reaction score
- 708
- Country
but, that's just not true
Eh?
It started out at 10% in 1973, which was lower than Purchase Tax
Went down to 8% under Callaghan
There was briefly a Higher Rate for some goods
Thatcher then pushed it up almost double to 15%
John Major pushed it up a bit more
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2022
- Messages
- 2,764
- Reaction score
- 708
- Country
Yea, I quoted the wrong part of berty's implication that VAT keeps rising, sorry
Thanks for linking to a document that shows that VAT has historically gone down as well as up, countering the "keep going up" assertion - I couldn't find one that laid it out nicely
Last edited:
Berty is just a RW ranting Karen, who doesn't like being pressed with inconveniences like facts, or reality.
Perhaps the echo chambers that are FaceAche and Mumsnet would be more to his taste
The tax burden was able to fall in the 1980s from what it had been in the 1970s. And rose / fell subsequently.
The things you mentioned applied then.
What does "hollowed out economy" mean? Like, taking in 750,000 mainly low wage immigrants a year, who are happy to live in crowded housing, to compete with the working classes, so they then need handouts to supplement their wages?
State pension and ageing population applied before when taxes were lower.
Why would health care be massively more expensive? Do you mean that far more people are using it now, a rising proportion of whom have never paid into the system, and in some cases are foreigners who are not actually entitled to use the service at all? Are you also thinking sex change operations, electrolysis for guys who want their beards removed and that sort of thing?
Much of this is down to choice. Choices that are made about what to allow and not allow, and what to spend money on, and when not to spend any money at all. Trying to claim it is just inevitable and to do with fait, and we have no choice, is not only totally ridiculous but also suggestive of a victim mentality.
We now have lots of very well paid jobs and a huge number of low paid jobs. There aren't enough middle paying jobs. This means millions of people need to claim in work benefits.
The age profile of the population is changing. We have lots more elderly people. The state pension has increased and now costs £125 billion.
Modern treatments just cost a lot more. Amazing things can be done, but they are extremely expensive. Also, people are living longer and that adds to the cost of health care.
The 1970s was a very difficult time for the economy. Then in the 1980s we had peak North Sea oil revenue and all the receipts from privatisation. We also let the public infrastructure fall into ruin. There are many reasons. It's complicated.
That is true. We could choose not to give people the best and most modern health care. We could choose to let pensioners and those on low incomes live in poverty.
Doesn't matter where it is, the issues are the same. Higher density urban environments are far more economically efficient than sprawling car infested areas, such as retail parks.
Another study here:
Bicycle Infrastructure
Infrastructure is essential for supporting safe and abundant bicycle use, which curbs emissions by reducing the need for fossil-fuel-dependent transportation.
Summary:
This is also mentioned here, where he also looks at some numbers:
I'm not saying that people should not use lorries and cars, but we need to greatly reduce the amount of car use. This has so many benefits its amazing it doesn't happen more.
Last edited:
All that may be so, but it doesn't mean taxes have to go on rising. Choices can be made.
That said, some of your points are questionable. Eg. I doubt very much that modern treatment is significantly more expensive than ten years ago. It hasn't changed that much during that time. I also see you've completely ignored the plausible examples I've provided - this form of avoidance is interesting.
The main thing you've missed, which is very odd, is the covid response. Shutting down the economy for two years and paying millions of people, quite generously in many cases, to do nothing. Plus all the billions poured into the pockets of fraudsters and botched contracts. Oh, and subsidising fast food takeaways. And paying for the trains to run throughout, carrying fresh air. The absolutely vast and crippling cost of that is partly being recouped through the stealth tax that is inflation, but clearly the government's hands are tied on tax when there are such huge debts to pay back. We are paying for the covid response.
Covid is perhaps the greatest example of all of how totally unsuitable government is at understanding and tackling problems. Idiotic modeling, insane diagnosis, crazed and absolutely devastating response on the social, psychological and economic levels. A hopeless Tory government, useless so called experts, massively egged on by a Labour opposition demanding longer and stricter lock downs. It was obvious to me what was going on from the start but a lot of stupid people still misunderstand even now - and are obediently walking into the exact same trap with the so called "climate emergency." But it is going on in different smaller ways. Nudge units and propaganda, in favour of this, not in favour of that, the followers always follow.
The bottom line is quite simple: you are either the sort of person who always believes what politicians tell them, is gullible and obedient, manages to believe that the state makes things better and should consume ever more power and money - or you are not. I'm not going to waste my time trying to persuade the credulous and cowardly amongst us otherwise. The fact that some people will defend, and regurgitate the propaganda of, those who are bumming them is beyond comprehension to me, and really too disgusting to contemplate.
So with an ageing population making greater demands on health and social services, and more pensioners, and fewer workers, we can cut something else.
Conservative voters tend to favour cutting things of no interest to old people, such as childcare, education, social housing, sports facilities, housebuilding.
Funnily enough they also disapprove of foreigners bring allowed to come and work in social and health care.
What do you want to cut? Road maintenance? That's been tried, and look at the results.
Doesn't matter where it is, the issues are the same. Higher density urban environments are far more economically efficient than sprawling car infested areas, such as retail parks.
Another study here:
Bicycle Infrastructure
Infrastructure is essential for supporting safe and abundant bicycle use, which curbs emissions by reducing the need for fossil-fuel-dependent transportation.drawdown.org
Summary:
This is also mentioned here, where he also looks at some numbers:
I'm not saying that people should not use lorries and cars, but we need to greatly reduce the amount of car use. This has so many benefits its amazing it doesn't happen more.
I don't need to see a sermon on urban planning and it isn't relevant to the thread. There are benefits of cities and downsides to them. Some of us live in cities, some of us don't. Economic efficiency is only one of many considerations in deciding how to organise settlements and life, to the extent it can be organised. Also, I dont know why you are preaching to me to about cycling. I am a cyclist. We don't "need" to reduce car use, it is something you have been persuaded is necessary, by a YouTuber. Sadly, you don't get to dominate and control all life and action in the world - people who are not two year olds or narcissists understand this.
My posts have been in direct response to yours. You claimed we don't need cycle paths, whereas I have shown multiple sources showing this isn't true. Many more studies are available supporting my claim that not only does it improve quality of life for many, but the economic and climate change related improvements can also be realised.