Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

surely that's not quite the same as "refusing admission" ..... as you say, uk is also outside the schengen agreement and that all it means is that (as in uk) you need to produce your passport at the border .... thus theoretically at least, the criminal element and other undesirables can be turned away ..... this patently does not work very effectively!

Cynic,

"can the country afford - or does it even want to afford through massive tax increases - a rolls royce NHS system or even pensions in similar style? ..... the simple answer would be a resounding NO!!"

--------

I differ, I think the country probably does want both NHS and Pension and "Welfare Care", but don't want to finance it.

There is and always has been a tremendous amount of waste and abuse of "privilege" in the NHS system.

The malfunctioning, abuses and waste have been partially down to constant re-organisation and poor staff relationships between administrators, clinical and front line staff. Each working for or in defence of their own kingdom, or good.

There has also been and still is a tremendous wastage on unnecessary drug prescribing and appliances by those in and out of hospitals.

------------------------

There has to be a rationalisation of what a society provides ie. tax payer provider against receiver, but what appears to happening, or attempted at the moment will lead to more problems than what they are attempting to cure.

Also, the actions of Cameron and crew are decreasing government income as I suggested it would do, back in 2010.

I thought then that cash should have been put in infrastructure projects. Rail, road, airports etc.

The government could have more control over the flow than through the banks and it would have washed through into the broader industries and possibly diluted costs etc..

Money has gone to private "enterprises" rather than state enterprises and then onto private "groups" etc..

Cameron and Osborne remind me of this;

"Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer?
Losing my timing this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother - they're here."




-------

Hays,

Why should I ask Gazza or Rooney for their deep thoughts on life when I have your shallow ones to rely on.

Australian miners fired for 'Harlem Shake'

Up to 15 miners have been fired for performing the "Harlem Shake" dance craze underground in an Australian gold mine, according to reports.

The West Australian newspaper said the miners lost their six-figure salaries over the stunt in the Agnew Gold Mine last week.

Yet another set of song lyrics to support his silly point of view.

fred - you're so used to castigating me, that you felt obliged (or even obligated!) to write, "I differ" ...... of course the clipboard-carriers want to protect their empires etc etc, but that is no different from any other walk of life ...... and you even agree that the voters (you being the non-voting exception of course) would never tolerate the massive tax increases required

assuredly there will never be a gov't (except perhaps a double-dose-MT reincarnated) that will have the balls to take the NHS (and civil service and local gov't as other glaring examples) by the scruff of the neck and chuck out all the unwanted and unnecessary dead wood and dross ...... attempt to do so, and you really will have a general strike on your hands

uncle joe would merely have used his standard ploy of "exporting" a few 00,000 to remote gulags ..... in one fell swoop, that would have "cleansed" all the "unnecessaries, and also lightened the welfare system of £bns (ok roubles x 50) of expense

.

Cynic,

"and you even agree that the voters (you being the non-voting exception of course) would never tolerate the massive tax increases required"


I wrote :

“I differ, I think the country probably does want both NHS and Pension and "Welfare Care", but don't want to finance it.”


I believe, when confronted with the alternative that the majority won’t revolt, or reject the sense of funding the above and that money will be found from other areas of public spending.


One of the problems with the present government is that with its abrasive attitudes it has opened too many fronts with the public sector at the same time.
Many of the general public and small businesses have members of their family dependent in one way or another on the Public Sector , and more likely to sympathise with family rather than a tory led government.

---------------


Hays,

"Silly point of view"

You read more and more like a member of the "blue rinse" brigade.

Bring back Ted and Maggie.

"found from other areas of public spending" ...... like where? ..... of course, part of the problem is that the welfare system in its present format, is an indefinitely expanding black hole, but even as a sticking plaster solution for today only, short of the country borrowing/spending its way out - and we all know where that led last time - i cannot see any obvious sources

If we were not in coalition with the 'silly party' then the government would be a whole lot more abrasive hopefully. And personally, I would welcome the return of Maggie. I wonder if she will get a state funeral as she deserves.

I keep forgetting to tell you that my name is NOT hays. haystack was the name of our Unix server (you have to name Unix computers). It was made up of a combination of part of the business name and 'stack' which is another name for computer memory.

No I would not , she cut the higher rate of tax to hard.

High earners should pay zero-rate tax. You've only got to look at the mess Hollande is creating in France with his 75% upper level to understand that basic concept.

Flat rate taxes are becoming more popular as it has been found that compliance increases. Thapere more than 30 major countries who now have gone the flat tax route.

Russia has a flats rate of 13% personal and 24% corporate tax. Compliance and actual revenues have risen.

During Labour's hay day the rate of personal tax got so high that it was more beneficial for tax to sell a business than to run it. That can't be good for the economy.

Higher rate tax payers were payed these high sums mostly for that reason, then overnight they were given a huge rise. Wrong in my opinion. The average man on the street cannot keep paying more and more. She got that wrong.

The rich have got to pay more, the man on the street is eating beans on toast for tea and unable to heat his house now or run a car. As long as its not wasted I do not mind paying more.

There is nothing fair about who pays more or less tac. Tax itself is unfair. There is no reason for the better paid to have to pay a higher differential tax. They pay more anyway because the tax is on a higher amount.

It was reported in the weekend press that PSG are hoping to attract Cristiano Ronaldo with a bumper pay offer, but that he was more likely to snub the French and return to Man Utd for half the salary.

Now I don't know how much money Ronaldo would earn, but let's guess it would be £10m pa at PSG. He'd see approx £2.5m after tax.

If he went to Man Utd for £5m a year, he'd still earn £2.5m after tax. Despite earning half the basic salary, he'd be no worse off, and PSG are likely to be the ones who lose out. I know those figures are only approximate as they don't take into account that French Super Tax only applies on income over €1m, but the principle is still the same.

Similarly, David Beckham has just signed for PSG, and he is donating his entire salary to charity to avoid paying any income tax. He's also only signed a 5 month contract so he doesn't become a French resident and become subject to a wealth tax on his global assets.

In other words, the French tax authorities get no revenue from Beckham and are unlikely to get any from Ronaldo either. If they hadn't been so greedy, they would have at least got something. And this kind of thing is universal. Vis a vis Gerard Depardieu quitting France for Russia. The taxman doesn't get a fraction of the money they think they'll get and, in certain cases, they get less.... Employers risk losing their top staff (or have to pay them more to keep them) and risk becoming uncompetitive as a result.... There are no winners whatsoever when the 'Brain Drain' kicks in.

And even in the UK, you've got a group of high earners who decided they 'wanted their Wednesdays back' after the top rate was raised to 50% (K2 and Jimmy Carr). They could live with working Monday and Tuesday for the taxman, but being asked to work part of Wednesday as well is a step too far. Now everyone is filtering their earnings through Seychelles or BVI IBCs rather than pay tax, and HMRC end up losing out completely.

Ronaldo currently get $17.5. Ronaldo might get the same deal as Beckham at PSG. Beckham keeps his UK residency and has just to spend the minimum of days earning in France. That way he pays UK tax rates.

DC - tell us how much extra tax you would be prepared to payu .... would you accept a top rate of 60%? 70%? more? ..... remember that kicks in at quite a low level (how low someone please?) .... what do you think the effect on middle management incomes would be with your new super-dooper tax?

QED then, Haystack! :)