- Apr 13, 2015
- 3,471
How does it work then?... my info on that was from my uncle, a former squaddie of the 70s, now an assimilated German.... possible I guess that I misinterpreted what he said on my last visit to Bielefeld.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Owen Jones
- Thread starter Mellor 3 Ward 4
- Start date
I will explain with detail later. I have actualy been through the system in the past year and can explain it from my own experience, faults and all.
As someone working with numbers and research leftist politics usually look sensible and right wing politics greedy if you actually DO the numbers not just talking about them. School meals are good examples. In Finland they have free school meals for students in primary and secondary schools at the cost of £2 per day providing children with 1/3 of all nutrients they need in a day. Normally we have 190 school days in a year meaning this would cost £380 for each student. Add extra spinnage and make it £400 to simplify a littlee
In the UK we have 10 320 811 kids going to school. 10 320 811 x 400 = 4 128 324 400
It would cost tax payers in the UK £4.1b per year to feed every kid in the UK 190 days per year.
We have a litte more than 37 million people in working ages 16-64 and around 2.5 million businesses. If you divide the £4.1b with 40 million tax payers we end up with a little more than £100 per tax payer. Meaning if every working age person and every taxed business in the UK pay £8.5 per month we could feed every kid in the UK a good meal 190 days a year. But no instead we have hundreds of thousands kids going hungry in school because some are too ashamed to seek the free meals others dont know how to feed their kid the right things. Seldom would food quality be lower I have seen the school meals in Helsingfors. So basically were denying hundreds of thousands of kids proper nutrition meaning we are denying them proper energy to study hard meaning they likely end up in a state where society need to take care of them for a long time. How fast do you think whatever youre saving on that £8.5 a month (which is very cheap compared to what many parents pay today) are lost to pay the consequences? Right wing politics has a reputation of being "financially sound" but every time you break it down to actual numbers and think about the benefits of left wing economics right wing politics look dumb and greedy. (sorry long post important and interesting subject)
In the UK we have 10 320 811 kids going to school. 10 320 811 x 400 = 4 128 324 400
It would cost tax payers in the UK £4.1b per year to feed every kid in the UK 190 days per year.
We have a litte more than 37 million people in working ages 16-64 and around 2.5 million businesses. If you divide the £4.1b with 40 million tax payers we end up with a little more than £100 per tax payer. Meaning if every working age person and every taxed business in the UK pay £8.5 per month we could feed every kid in the UK a good meal 190 days a year. But no instead we have hundreds of thousands kids going hungry in school because some are too ashamed to seek the free meals others dont know how to feed their kid the right things. Seldom would food quality be lower I have seen the school meals in Helsingfors. So basically were denying hundreds of thousands of kids proper nutrition meaning we are denying them proper energy to study hard meaning they likely end up in a state where society need to take care of them for a long time. How fast do you think whatever youre saving on that £8.5 a month (which is very cheap compared to what many parents pay today) are lost to pay the consequences? Right wing politics has a reputation of being "financially sound" but every time you break it down to actual numbers and think about the benefits of left wing economics right wing politics look dumb and greedy. (sorry long post important and interesting subject)
I definitely wouldn't spend the extra £20 on spinnage. Kids hate all that green stuff.
While I'm sure that HT will fill in the gaps with his own experience, it would be completely incorrect to describe Germany's health system as fully private. It's very similar to The Netherlands and is a Bismarkian system where most coverage is free at the point of receipt and premium payments are funded by compulsory wage hold back, income dependant additions and other taxes. Care providers are paid by insurance claims but the mandatory element of your care should not change in cost. You also have free choice of insurer.
You can only go fully private if you're a civil servant or earning over 66k in Euros. And then it's still a choice. Fully private insurance will always adjust exclusions and premiums at an individually underwritten level.
- Apr 13, 2015
- 3,471
That's why I said it was a hybrid system..... at least that was my understanding.... in cases I have seen, you pay up front, then claim back the cost, minus excess, from your insurance provider.
As you say HT will explain.
jackalbion
Well-known member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 4,044
I think this is a bit disingenuous, comedians, everyone was making light of the editing and the lack of public appearances, I try to take people for face value. I do think he was sincere, even I was making light of it, but now realising how serious it is probably shouldn't have but as is life, you can't know everything. I think this is a personal issue you have with Jones, I don't particularly like Reeves, but I wouldn't brand as snide, or doing things for PR, even though that what it indicates she is. It seems that being snide and sniping is only ever reserved for people on the far left when the centre left do it just as much, they're both as bad as each other.
Another problem is young people not bothering to turn out to vote.
Labour has moved to the centre because the Tories have lurched to the right. Had the country done the sensible thing and voted Remain then we may still have Cameron, possibly with LD support, in government and a Labour party that had to pitch to the left of that. Unfortunately, towns with a younger demographic, with the exception of Oxford and Cambridge didn't turn out. Leave managed to engage working class, red wall voters, remain did not engage young people, and you're left with the likes of Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Truss running the country.
Brexit: voter turnout by age
www.ft.com
No mainstream party is going to go to the polls with a manifesto that heavily taxes older people, reduces pensions or crashes the housing market. They all understand that to get in power they need the 40-80 age group vote, not the 20-40. And we're now an aging population.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,315
brilliant breakdown, just £100 for every taxpayer, so little who wouldn't want to pay that? now do the same for every other facet of possible public spending: say more teachers, teachers' pay rise, more support staff, more buildings, better building, more books, more IT, pay for school uniforms, thats just in education. i'm sure its all very small amounts too. this shows how easy it is to solve problems with enough money, and also how easy it is to spend money.
i particularly like the exclusion of all over-65yo tax payers, and the assumption that all 16-64 are net tax contributiors. suggest the numbers might be a little bit flawed.
Last edited:
chickens
Intending to survive this time of asset strippers
- Oct 12, 2022
- 1,863
Absolutely this, back of a fag packet diagram drawn by a guy with the agenda of agendas.
Like going to Nigel Farage for a balanced appraisal of the merits of the EU, or Nye Bevan for an unbiased opinion on the merits of socialised healthcare.
Lafferism has been widely discredited, it’s a neo-con wet dream, and it’s bullshit. If there’s money to be made, people will go out and make it, tax is just filed under the “cost of doing business.”
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,664
It would actually be cheaper as you wouldn't have Free School Meals officers at every local authority or school verifying entitlement and HMRC wouldn't need to have a system to check this
What are you going on about, I wasn't criticising Reeves?
My problem is with conspiracy theorists whoever they are and online gossips perpetuating the innuendo. This wasn't clever satire. Instead, from anyone, the musings of tittle tattle inuendo merchants.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,315
is there such a thing as "lafferism", or is it a bogeyman invented to criticise? Laffer just offered a simplifed model that showed how tax/revenue works and there is an optimal rate, after which revenue reduces. incentives and disincentives matter, in general people will do less if they are taxed more. just same as we apply taxes to behaviours or consumptions we dont like, to discourage them.
jackalbion
Well-known member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 4,044
No thats my point, that you haven't criticised Reeves, I have. I don't particularly like some of her views of political opinions, but I don't make it personal, by referring to her as snide. I think you've got a personal issue with Jones or his views rather than actually taking it as face value, and giving him any leeway whatsoever. I'm not entirely sure why some people have focussed on his leaving of the labour party as anything that matters beyond his personal opinion. If people on both sides of the labour party stopped referring to everyone who disagrees as stuff like 'snide' then they might actually get somewhere at winning an election, instead we have a party where one side is constantly referring to the other as the worst thing in the world, or unrealistic or idiots, etc, and then opposite side does exactly the same. Owen Jones does have an opinion a lot of young people agree with ultimately, and personally I agree with more than I disagree with what he says. I disagree with most of Reeves and Starmer recent policy decisions, but I wouldn't refer to them as snide, or thatcherites, because I ultimately want them to win an election. Just thinking all this unnecessary character assassination of Jones is not actually solving anything at all.
- Apr 13, 2015
- 3,471
A key metric that has always stuck with me ref the Brexit vote... if I remember my stats.... only about a quarter of 18-24 year olds bothered to vote at all...... the draw of a late night on cheap booze drove far too many lie ins it seemed.... so much for the so called politically aware youth..... imagine if they had their way and gave 16 year olds the vote too.Another problem is young people not bothering to turn out to vote.
Labour has moved to the centre because the Tories have lurched to the right. Had the country done the sensible thing and voted Remain then we may still have Cameron, possibly with LD support, in government and a Labour party that had to pitch to the left of that. Unfortunately, towns with a younger demographic, with the exception of Oxford and Cambridge didn't turn out. Leave managed to engage working class, red wall voters, remain did not engage young people, and you're left with the likes of Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Truss running the country.
View attachment 179477
Brexit: voter turnout by age
No mainstream party is going to go to the polls with a manifesto that heavily taxes older people, reduces pensions or crashes the housing market. They all understand that to get in power they need the 40-80 age group vote, not the 20-40. And we're now an aging population.
chickens
Intending to survive this time of asset strippers
- Oct 12, 2022
- 1,863
There’s a myth that people won’t bother making money if tax is high. While it is absolutely true that if you tax enterprises that are only marginally profitable too highly, you remove the incentive to perform those activities, no businessman has ever given up a profitable enterprise because the tax rate went up, the increased cost has just been factored into the cost of doing business.
“Simplified” is a much nicer phrase than “made up” but the Laffer curve has never reflected reality.
Yes they do. I’ve worked with many clients who turned away work to stay below tax thresholds. Both the self employed and owner-managed companies.
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 7,026
Then, are the thresholds the problem?
Surely it's possible to collect higher levels of taxes without providing disincentives to make more money
Exactly.
My preference would be no NI, just a flat rate of income tax at say 42.5% above a certain level and a high personal allowance. Perhaps in between a gently graduated increase, there’s a means of achieving that.
Anyone doing well in a job or business would keep the majority of the fruits of their graft or risk.
- Apr 13, 2015
- 3,471
Sadly, when the exchequer squeezed industry and high earners in the early to mid 70s, they just moved elsewhere, it was one of the defining moments for our post war economy and our economic standing alongside our traditional and newly emerging competitors..... apart from a brief upward trend from the early 80s.... squeezing us all again now will simply put a lid on it in my view, progress that is.