Margaret Thatcher has died

M

Muffinya

New member
But you seem to miss that they were paying unemployment benefits to them for actually working.

The miners by getting out of bed and heading down the mines cost more money to the country than them not.
 
M

metor378

New member
Err I didn't refer to people as dogs. You don't think I work for a living? it was just a metaphor for the situation, not a literal description of actual people. It's absurd of you to even think I was directly labelling those people as animals. If you can't even see that then maybe you are too emotionally invested to see straight right now and to have a grown up discussion with.

As for investment I don't disagree about that, but the point I made was about the decision to close something that isn't working. It might be hard but it's the right decision.

Regards investment, maybe we just couldn't afford it at the time and other things had priority. The situation may well have been very different to the one you are comparing to (in fact it was). New Labour were lucky enough to oversee the biggest boom we've ever seen, so investment was easier at that time - we had the money available. Coming out of the Seventies the country was in the doldrums economically.
 
M

MEMYMOM

New member
I do see things differently. I decide how much tax to pay, and where it should go.

I pay more in taxes than most folk, and I target my tax money at areas that I want to see improved.

I also employ people, and pay their taxes too.
 
T

TheresaR

Member
Actually councils do have a duty of care to provide housing for the homeless.

Or would you rather see families homeless after the bank forclosed on their house?

The private sector is actually a drain on the taxpayer.
 
F

frau_osti

New member
A private landlord can also lose money on a few homes.

Its a rent vs buy argument. Renting (in this case using the property owned by a private landlord to house someone else) offers short term benefits from an equity, speed to deliver and flexibility perspective. Also it is easier to manage than owning.

Owning is better long term, but the country is still shakey so a large investment in owned properties now might tip you into another recession.
 
R

ryanprague1

New member
Like these ones -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/worse-than-fred-goodwin-the-verdict-on-the-bank-bosses-who-presided-over-the-40bn-collapse-of-hbos-8560952.html
 
M

msee

New member
You only see a tiny part of the story here. How much profit did they generate during tenure before blowing it all?

I am sure they are in profit massively overall. The problem was that the government didn't tax that properly, so individuals walked away with all that cash.
 
P

PeaceeLoveeJonase

Member
You speak as if buying property like its actually an option for everyone.
I bought my first house about 26 years ago. It cost me 1 1/2 times my annual salary. Same house today is about 130000.
Feel sorry for kids today
 
L

letstouchmason

New member
The way the tax code is structured allows you to decide how much to pay and to whom.

For example, I could earn X and hit 30% tax, but I could then offset that by deciding to pay to gay rights.

If I donate Y to gay rights my effective rate of tax reduces to 25% as I have consciously decided to pay tax here.

I can also structure my income to pay myself as an employee, or as a dividend distribution.

For example.

Say I earn 100K (bad year and all that)

I can pay tax at 30% and keep 70K.

Or I can pay myself 50K into a retirement account leaving 50K balance.

I can then pay myself a dividend distribution of 25K which avoids National Insurance (Medicare/Medicaid) but still pays income tax.

I then can pay myself the remaining 25K as regular salary. I can then pay 5K to the 2nd Amendment supporting gun toting charity of choice, and am being taxed on 45K

So now I'm at 13.5% effective tax (lower actually as tax is tiered, so its more like 11-12%)

However, once I have pulled the rate down, I can consciously decide to pull it back up again by supporting certain things that I believe are important. Such as schemes to keep free milk out of the hands of bairns.

I could pay 50K into a retirement account and 40K to charity and get a tax refund.

That's accessible to you lads in blighty too, and poor people can do it too.
 
A

AbsolutDream

New member
Are you aware of the 'city of london' tax haven? None of the banks in the UK are taxed properly, again going back to thatcher.

The british Taxpayer had to bail out the bank, and now we are down 40 billion and you dont think thats something to be upset about?
 
W

Willystroker

Member
House? Tidy. I can't afford a house in the city either. But I can move a little further away and buy a small flat, get on the ladder and work from there.

There are people I know that bought for 60K and sold for 600K and are loving life. I'm sitting here thinking how hard it would be for me to ever live where they are. But it is always possible, that 600K place now becomes step 3-4 on the ladder.
 
S

SimoneT

New member
I said birth right; not many people are born homeless are they.



yea, sure.. that's what I said... I said it's not a birthright, not that we shouldn't take care of people in their time of need. Big difference there mate. Don't put words in my mouth. How we go about things is the main issue, and how much is too much and how much is not enough. Currently I think we can do with some welfare state downsizing.

We've got to the point where people come here purposely because of our over generous welfare system. Something did need to be done. I think the current changes are good news for everyone. About time!



I don't see that it is.
 
J

JimmyCanuck

New member
By tax you mean charity, ahh got ya.

However the PAYE system in the UK does make that difficult if your not a business owner.

And even if you are (close family are) the system has a lot of complexity within it.
 
C

CarlS

Member
Tax too much and you'll harm growth, tax too little and they'll take the bank.

Its a balance.

The 40 Billion is a loan, you'll get it back from the banking industry.

I do agree that some of the stuff they do is way out of line and should be regulated, but its a fine line to allow money to be made and to allow maniacs to crash the system.

The government allowed them to fly too close to the sun last time around.
 
J

JessD

Member
She did it by default.As I said in my post,she had an old icebreaker covering the waters around the Falklands,hardly enough to put off a desperate junta that is fighting to stay in power.

She didn't really have much choice in trying to take the islands back.She was highly unpopular at the time and it is debatable if she would have won the 1983 election so taking a calculated risk was the only thing she could do.If she had done nothing its likely she would have been replaced by her own party as her position would have been untenable.The only people who should take credit to retaking the Falkands are the British military who performed superbly.
 
Top