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.

Fred
Tax avoiding arrangements are perfectly legal and most people would do them if they were in a position to do so. It is just sensible tax planning. Don't you think plenty of Labour supporters do the same?

Maggie had lots of good strategies including the reduction of the power of the unions. Before she arrived, the UK had a terrible reputation for goods produced here. The real unrest was comingfrom the unions and all the strikes prior to Maggie's government due to a succession of weak Labour governments.

The only social unrest was the problems over the Community charge and that was largely whipped up by the Labour party and the unions. It is still ther fairest system and I would like it back. Rates being paid according to the number of working age people in the household. Is it fair for a lone widow to pay the same rates as a household of five working adults?

Remember the winter of discontent , when body's were piling up waiting to be buried and the Labour PM on holiday flying back saying crises what crises.

And who remembers the car workers and dockers who seemed to be on strike every week

Hays.

There are degrees to which I wouldn't go in tax avoidance, even if the action was legal. (I am amused by family and friends who suggest that I should avail myself of some loopholes.) As you suggest many who consider themselves socialists, but many are true blues who I enjoy teasing.)

I think a question of morality comes into the issue, or perhaps the degree of personal greed, into avoiding a tax debt to society. and I would think it reasonable to consider how much one receives or benefit from a healthy harmonious society.

(The constant drive to obsessionally accumulate more property or plastic goods does not have much appeal to me.) (But i do collect kitchen gadgets, much to my family's amusement.)


Both morality and greed are difficult to define. For e.g, look at what some of the Israelis are doing to the Arabs etc. in Gaza and West Bank etc.. The Israelis will argue, their actions are legal and legitimate, but many of their actions I feel are barbaric, inhumane and immoral.

--------

I will accept there was a period and lunacy within the unions prior to Maggie and the leadership abuse their power, partially due to unrealistic ideology and dubious expectancies.

But there was also lousy management and abuses of the "workforce" by some employers.

Many companies had good working relationships with their employees
and their businesses prospered.

Part of the industrial disharmony, misdirections and mutual "abuses" occurred under the Heath government and provoked many of the problems which to place later. (Check back and look at some of the abuses in the "building" and "financial" markets at that time. His problems were not only due to the ME oil crisis.)

Under Maggie's inspired regime, there was irrational smashing of the industrial manufacturing base of the country. Reforms were necessary the rate at which it occurred was not to the long term benefit of the country.

Slower less confrontational approach might have been difficult but would have achieved a better outcome for all.

She was also responsible for the over dependence on the city and financial services.

She made greed legitimate and raised it to iconic levels.

(Also, in the opinion of many, she was responsible an unnecessary war and subsequent murder, when she gave the "order" to unnecessarily sink the Belgrano.

Strong government is not harsh shrieking, posturing, military slogans and flying outdated flags.

Compared with the achievements of other post war governments, if judged against the periods they were in, I think history will judge her
partially responsible for many of the social problems we now have.


The only social unrest was the problems over the Community charge and that was largely whipped up by the Labour party and the unions.



To "whip up a crowd" you need a feeling in the "crowd" of being abused. (This feeling and response may be be disproportionate to the insult.) Also, postwar the "masses" were no longer prepared to dock their caps to their "betters", or those who thought they were "their betters". The "masses" were prepared to object to being abused, or used by those who thoughtlessly, thought that because of their privileged positions they had a right to do so. (Often the "rights" were "birth rights" and not based on ability)


To be honest. I thought the reaction to council rates was crazy and I am not sure how it got whipped up into such an issue, but guess it seemed as a standard bearer for other unfairness at the time and being harangue by a demented woman.

Have a stronger weakend.

Haystack

A single person has a 25% discount off their council tax. The poll tax was unmanageable and the rich living in large houses paid the same tax .

What about the poor living in large houses. The advantage of the community tax was that you paid more according to your consumption. More people in the household would pay for more services (it wasn't a poll tax, it was a tax on the number of working age people).

It is interesting to see that China is achieving its growth due to supply side policies. These policies were first used widely by Maggie Thatcher. The coalition is beginnnning to use these policies once again.

I gather from reading the thread that squelched Fred is still posting. I would have thought that he had by now sold all his investments and redistributed all the wealth to the baby factory chavs and foreigners in our midst and so would have no need to visit a website for the hard working who spend their time trying to make money and pay taxes. I paid my CGT bill last week and that was enough to keep several lazy wasters in the style that they have become accustomed but certainly do not deserve.

TIM.

Be careful with your betting, or you and you family might become one of the "lazy wasters" dependent on the social services.

Every bet you have may have increasing losses.

Sorry, you are obviously too bright for that to happen to you.

Ummm

This-is-me,

Well said. Spot on.

Much more brighter then you with your silly childish remark's

Why don't you for once just answer the question .

" I would have thought that he had by now sold all his investments and redistributed all the wealth "

Aid,

when body's were piling up waiting to be buried

Names and their meanings......Fred, "elf or magical counsel; peaceful ruler".

Nothing personal, but I do wish he would just magically elf away (was going to put a different word than away, but don't want to upset MoneyAm).

But seriously. Why is anyone even bothering to reply to him.
I have always enjoyed well thought out, well worded discussions/augments but all Fred's posts are designed to wind people up.

PS. If you have a car smash, be careful on which side of the Post code you have it, or you might end up in the wrong hospital.

ie, the one without a bed for you.

What a crazy governing elite.

What is Fred talking about , his reply to my post is nothing remotely connected to what i wrote . His a complete waste of space .

Can't believe you are still trying to debate with him. Complete waste of time. Best just ignored.

Was the Greek a short while ago espousing or condoning the use of torture to extradite information.

Don't think I can take him seriously.

Aid,

I would have expected with a little work you may be able to comprehend the implications of the Cameron proposals.

I think this is a government programmed for disaster.

But fortunately, "I am all right Jack".

What is Fred talking about , his reply to my post is nothing remotely connected to what i wrote . His a complete waste of space .

THIS IS A AUTOMATIC REPLY

AIds.

You rarely seem to engage your brain and your responses are generally predictable.

An automaton with a mantra seems applicable.

Good luck, you may need it.

Fred
The hospital postcode lottery has been inexistence for years. It has nothing to do with the present government. I found an article in the Guardian from 2000 complaining about it when Labour were in power. It is suggested that it has been the same since 1948. The Labour government, said in 1997, that they would stop the postcode lottery. Was the reason that they failed because they needed more time?

The current Labour bunch like complaining about various things they they say the Conservatives should have done already. These are mainly things that Labour did not manage to do in 13 years.

Hays,

I agree there has always been a variation in "quality" of "care" throughout the life of the NHS, but the management reorganisation is going to exaggerate the differences even more, just when the quality overall has been improving for 10 to 15 years.

Of course there always has to be examination of cost and reduction in true wastage.However it could be done by evolutionary changes of the present management system.

GPs in general do not have the overall training, knowledge or skills to overview the strategies necessary for a care system which takes into consideration of the country as a whole.

The problem I see with this inept government is going for change for change sake, in order to be seem doing something. It does not matter how potentially damaging the changes are. as they are devolving responsibility from themselves and then think that they will be able to blame others.

Over the years I have known many teachers, lecturers, medical practitioners, nurses and other forms of "social" workers (and police force). The problem which irritated them the most, was the constant "reorganisation" of areas of work.Due to the irritations and demoralisation the qualities of what they were doing lessened and they gradually became self interested.

I think the attempts. by this coalition government to shift responsibility to the GPs and local bodies (having already filled the Gps. and Consultants' mouths with gold over the last 5 years) will lead to a more expensive, or poorer system run by little business men with their eyes on their own pockets.

I will watch.

Hi Fred

So Maggie was flying outdated flags. Would you now prefer to see the EU flag on our battleships or are you just thoroughly pi$$ed off that Wales was never represented in the Union Jack. If we include it would you no longer consider it outdated?

Quality in the NHS has been improving over the last 10-15 years because of improvements in medicine, equiptment, knowledge and buildings all paid for with borrowed money i.e. unsustainable. Maybe this was the last great golden parachute this last generation of government gave themselves - a state of the art NHS which will look after them in old age - all paid for by the younger generation. If you did a poll about the NHS management and staff you would probably find the quality is not so good compared to what it used to be.

Evolutionary management change does not work with anything that is publicly funded, especially when it is not elected. From my frequent dealings with local bodies the management is hired from a pool of best mates and yes people - 'god forbid they rock the cosy boat'. Best mates being taken on on a salary grade which does not befit their longstanding friendship - no matter lets make up a new job title, the public are too stupid to notice - voila another 25k in your pocket, oh and we farm out your work to other consultants anyway so put your feet up. In the truly private sector this is not a problem because we are not forced to hand over vast amounts of cash for them to play with. I expect you'll say farming out work to private companies is good for the country but why not leave the money with the companies in the first instance. Easily done - lower tax.

I think GP's would be more than adequate to run the NHS, after all, they will only end up employing the redundant PCT staff it but at much more commercial terms.

This government is making changes for because of the need to make changes. Simple concept to understand. You are retired aren't you? that explains a lot, you get to benefit while not necessarily contributing much to it (unless you are a trading guru and even then you would do it in a tax efficient manner. I expect you manage to make full use of ISA's annual limits etc.

I note your list of professionals who hate change but maybe when labour learn to stop bankrupting the country by forcing everything on theese professionals, needed or not, they may find that utopian plateau and begin to enjoy work again.

I must be missing something with your last point. Are you really saying the coalition have been running a money laundering racket for 5 years (5 years?) whereby they were forcing GP's and consultants to accept dodgy gold. Where was this gold coming from, can't have been the taxpayer because labour had already spent that.

Its a conspiracy, you are maestro's dad! There is only one big political party after all but they all take it in turns to be out in the wilderness (poppy fields) - liberals more so than others which explains a few things)) harvesting the 'money to launder'.