More Tory lies

[manaliveits105]

We have one in Scotland apart from the incorruptible part 

[Roxy Hearts]

15 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

We have one in Scotland apart from the incorruptible part 

Yep, the British Government on reserved matters!

[Cade]

Tories finally release documentation on who paid for the #10 flat refurb.

 

Tory party itself provided a "bridging loan" of £52,802 in June to pay for the refurb, before a party donor then miraculously paid that exact same amount to the party in October.

Convenient.

Boris then paid back the donor in person in March, after the story broke in the press.

 

Caught red feckin handed using private donations to fund the refurb.

 

 

 

 

[DETTY29]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

Tories finally release documentation on who paid for the #10 flat refurb.

 

Tory party itself provided a "bridging loan" of £52,802 in June to pay for the refurb, before a party donor then miraculously paid that exact same amount to the party in October.

Convenient.

Boris then paid back the donor in person in March, after the story broke in the press.

 

Caught red feckin handed using private donations to fund the refurb.

 

 

 

 

It really shouldn't be difficult.

 

Get a tax payer allowance to refurb, which they do, and that's it.  That is the budget you work to.  

 

Or just paint the whole effing lot magnolia.

Edited August 26, 2021 by DETTY29

[Cade]

The OFCOM saga continues.

Last year, the Government made it quite clear that they wanted ex-Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre to become the new chair of OFCOM. 

But, OFCOM being an independent body, they couldn't simply appoint him.

Due to the obvious bias, only 9 people applied for the job.

7 of them failed at the interview stage, Dacre being one of the failures.

The remaining two candidates were recommended by OFCOM's advisory panel.

The Culture Minister rejected both of them.

So nobody got the job.

Dacre was invited to re-apply for the job.

However, they're unable to find people willing to re-interview him.

The two previous final candidates are mulling over whether to also re-apply, or to take up various other job offers being thrown at them by the Government.

 

So OFCOM hasn't had a chairperson for over a year, the recruitment process is in a deadlock and the Government is trying to find new ways of undermining or over-ruling the independent media regulator.

What a time to be alive.

Goebbels would be proud.

 

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Cade

[Ked]

11 minutes ago, Cade said:

The OFCOM saga continues.

Last year, the Government made it quite clear that they wanted ex-Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre to become the new chair of OFCOM. 

But, OFCOM being an independent body, they couldn't simply appoint him.

Due to the obvious bias, only 9 people applied for the job.

7 of them failed at the interview stage, Dacre being one of the failures.

The remaining two candidates were recommended by OFCOM's advisory panel.

The Culture Minister rejected both of them.

So nobody got the job.

Dacre was invited to re-apply for the job.

However, they're unable to find people willing to re-interview him.

The two previous final candidates are mulling over whether to also re-apply, or to take up various other job offers being thrown at them by the Government.

 

So OFCOM hasn't had a chairperson for over a year, the recruitment process is in a deadlock and the Government is trying to find new ways of undermining or over-ruling the independent media regulator.

What a time to be alive.

Goebbels would be proud.

 

 

Nobody seems to care anymore.

Weekly events that would have been scandals at one time.And I doubt we know the half of it

[scott herbertson]

"Social care must be adequately funded, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland has said, amid reports ministers plan to raise national insurance.

Downing Street did not deny reports of an increase of at least 1% to improve social care and tackle the NHS backlog.

The justice secretary said he would not "speculate" but said there should be a "grown-up conversation" about how to pay for rising social care costs.

The move would break a Tory manifesto commitment at the last election.

"The British public are sensible enough to know that when it comes to the issue of social care we have to find some way in which it will be adequately funded," Mr Buckland told BBC Breakfast."

 

Surely this has already been sorted,or was this the biggest whopper ever by the campaign headed by our PM?

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by scott herbertson

[manaliveits105]

Good move by UK gov - raise NI to help out the poor surely none of our comrades will object to that ?

 

No doubt Jimmy Krankie and the fat hibby will still have a moan 

[The Real Maroonblood]

14 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

"Social care must be adequately funded, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland has said, amid reports ministers plan to raise national insurance.

Downing Street did not deny reports of an increase of at least 1% to improve social care and tackle the NHS backlog.

The justice secretary said he would not "speculate" but said there should be a "grown-up conversation" about how to pay for rising social care costs.

The move would break a Tory manifesto commitment at the last election.

"The British public are sensible enough to know that when it comes to the issue of social care we have to find some way in which it will be adequately funded," Mr Buckland told BBC Breakfast."

 

Surely this has already been sorted,or was this the biggest whopper ever by the campaign headed by our PM?

 

 

 

Shameful.

[HartleyLegend3]

 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, HartleyLegend3 said:

 

Orwellian. 

 

The target audience will lap it right up. 

 

Getting things done 👍

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, HartleyLegend3 said:

 

[HartleyLegend3]

 

[jack D and coke]

 

[Gizmo]

The very definition of squirming. 
 

 

[Cade]

Population increasing in age.

2 or 3 generations drawing pensions.

2 generations in work to pay for those pensions.

Pensions triple locked.

Only way to pay for it is to either increase taxation on the workers, or to grow the tax base via immigration.

England has decided to kick everybody out.

Hence, tax rises.

 

This is what you voted for, you morons.

[Boab]

On 03/09/2021 at 11:29, manaliveits105 said:

Good move by UK gov - raise NI to help out the poor surely none of our comrades will object to that ?

 

No doubt Jimmy Krankie and the fat hibby will still have a moan 

I agree.

I have no objections to paying more tax to fund our vital services.

If you earn enough, you should pay.

Everyone under £20K, nothing.

£25 to £50K, 1%
Over 50K, 2%.
Over 75K, 3%.

And so on.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Boab

[Cade]

.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Cade

[Victorian]

Andrea Leadsom

 

"I think insurance is a better way to pay than raising taxes and that's all I want to say just now".

 

Yeah.  Calling it "insurance" makes it a non-tax eh?  How much are you paying from your investment income Dame Andrea?

[EH11]

Just now, Victorian said:

Andrea Leadsom

 

"I think insurance is a better way to pay than raising taxes and that's all I want to say just now".

 

Yeah.  Calling it "insurance" makes it a non-tax eh?  How much are you paying from your investment income Dame Andrea?

Another in the long line of arseholes produced by the party in recent years. 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, EH11 said:

Another in the long line of arseholes produced by the party in recent years. 

 

One of the most rancid in living memory.  

[HartleyLegend3]

 

[Gizmo]

Triple lock - gone (for a "year" - my arse, they'll either never restate it or restate it as a pretendy GE pledge). Manifesto pledge broken.

NI - up. Manifesto pledge broken. 

Can these charlatans keep any promises?

[Victorian]

The fixation on manifesto promises is an irrelevance.  It's entirely legitimate for any goverment to break a manifesto promise in exceptional circumstances.  Apart from the kind of person who appears to believe that services can be funded by finding magic money trees,  most people accept that things like coronavirus and social care need to be paid for by a fair amount of additional taxation.  I think the vast majority of people,  perhaps some grudgingly,  accept they should pay a bit more.  People will understand why the government needs to break a manifesto promise and they wont base their next vote on it.  They'll accept the increase in their tax burden.  What people wont accept is another round of tax changes that unfairly evade wealthy people.  The very least people should expect in return for their contribution is the knowledge that the burden is being shared by everyone.  

 

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Victorian

[jack D and coke]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

The fixation on manifesto promises is an irrelevance.  It's entirely legitimate for any goverment to break a manifesto promise in exceptional circumstances.  Apart from the kind of person who appears to believe that services can be funded by finding magic money trees,  most people accept that things like coronavirus and social care need to be paid for by a fair amount of additional taxation.  I think the vast majority of people,  perhaps some grudgingly,  accept they should pay a bit more.  People will understand why the government needs to break a manifesto promise and they wont base their next vote on it.  They'll accept the increase in their tax burden.  What people wont accept is another round of tax changes that unfairly evade wealthy people.  The very least people should expect in return for their contribution is the knowledge that the burden is being shared by everyone.  

 

 

Absolutely. 
The one thing I’d never dig this govt out for is the furlough. I know some people fell through the gaps but an exceptional scheme and I accept it must be paid for. 
I have no issue with it at all. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

8 hours ago, BarneyBattles said:

Not an easy one to solve this, as on the face of it it's increasing the tax of every worker in the UK to fund social care for people in England only. 

 

There's also the question of lower paid workers paying more due to the fall in NI rates at ~£50k (12% to 2%) although Zahawi seems to be concentrating on those who are better off anyway "One-in-seven people pay £100,000 or more for their social care, so in my view that nettle has to be grasped,".

 

This proposal doesn't seem very well thought out, e.g. a last minute change to make working pensioners contribute as well after a backlash. 

 

There's surely better ways to fund social care rather than increasing the one tax where the lower paid pay the most.

The NHS in Scotland will receive an extra £1bn a year from the additional tax levied. Every penny, and more, paid by Scottish taxpayers will be sent to NHS Scotland. 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, jack D and coke said:

Absolutely. 
The one thing I’d never dig this govt out for is the furlough. I know some people fell through the gaps but an exceptional scheme and I accept it must be paid for. 
I have no issue with it at all. 

 

I agree.  Furlough was a huge success for the government.  It was a bit more generous at the rate it was paid at than anyone forecast it would be.  It could have been accompanied by a legal requirement of partial repayment,  but wasn't.  Albeit the government did appear to adhere to the state of national emergency playbook by avoiding the prospect of mass,  widespread destitution,  which could easily have led to some really nasty consequences in society.

 

It needs paid for and there's not much of a credible argument against everyone paying a contribution.  Social care is a bit different in that it has been neglected for decades.  But it needs dealt with now and people should pay an affordable share.  Everyone.  But the usual corner of society is being spared.  That and only that should be the point of attack for the opposition.  Crowing about broken promises doesn't hold the government to account.

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

I agree.  Furlough was a huge success for the government.  It was a bit more generous at the rate it was paid at than anyone forecast it would be.  It could have been accompanied by a legal requirement of partial repayment,  but wasn't.  Albeit the government did appear to adhere to the state of national emergency playbook by avoiding the prospect of mass,  widespread destitution,  which could easily have led to some really nasty consequences in society.

 

It needs paid for and there's not much of a credible argument against everyone paying a contribution.  Social care is a bit different in that it has been neglected for decades.  But it needs dealt with now and people should pay an affordable share.  Everyone.  But the usual corner of society is being spared.  That and only that should be the point of attack for the opposition.  Crowing about broken promises doesn't hold the government to account.

As I’ve got older I’ve taken more of a view that I need to pay for stuff. You’re supposed to go the other way but I feel life has been good to me in general. We all want a good society for the next lot. 
I wish people could grow the **** up when speaking about politics tbh. Drives me mad the childish shite. 

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

As I’ve got older I’ve taken more of a view that I need to pay for stuff. You’re supposed to go the other way but I feel life has been good to me in general. We all want a good society for the next lot. 
I wish people could grow the **** up when speaking about politics tbh. Drives me mad the childish shite. 

 

Agreed.  

[Cade]

Even I can't possibly attack the sitting Government for breaking the triple lock.

With it being linked to certain things that were in turn affected by the once-in-a-century pandemic, keeping it would destitute the nation.

It had to be broken.

 

What I will attack them for is deciding to rob the poor to give to the rich old dears that were always going to vote Blue anyway.

There were plenty of other ways of bringing in more tax revenue, but NI is a cheap and nasty way of doing it.

 

"We send the EU £350million a week. Let's give it to our friends, family and party donors and put up taxes to pay for the NHS instead."

 

 

[Ked]

Also dont forget the 20% of covid contracts awarded that ran into billions flagged up for possible corruption.

Tbh I do not like tax rises it goes against conservative values .

Despite the furlough many have made more money doing nothing more than having money.

And when an economy is geared towards taking from the state to benefit those who are wealthy you venture into fascism.

I didnt benefit from furlough but I accept it was needed.However I already pay too much tax and I resent paying more to an exchequer who runs a shabby show.

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

The fixation on manifesto promises is an irrelevance.  It's entirely legitimate for any goverment to break a manifesto promise in exceptional circumstances.  Apart from the kind of person who appears to believe that services can be funded by finding magic money trees,  most people accept that things like coronavirus and social care need to be paid for by a fair amount of additional taxation.  I think the vast majority of people,  perhaps some grudgingly,  accept they should pay a bit more.  People will understand why the government needs to break a manifesto promise and they wont base their next vote on it.  They'll accept the increase in their tax burden.  What people wont accept is another round of tax changes that unfairly evade wealthy people.  The very least people should expect in return for their contribution is the knowledge that the burden is being shared by everyone.  

 

 

👍

1 hour ago, jack D and coke said:

As I’ve got older I’ve taken more of a view that I need to pay for stuff. You’re supposed to go the other way but I feel life has been good to me in general. We all want a good society for the next lot. 
I wish people could grow the **** up when speaking about politics tbh. Drives me mad the childish shite. 

👍 

[Cade]

Gavin Willamson has managed to mix up Marcus Rashford and Maro Itoje.

 

The Education Secretary, when asked if he had met Marcus Rashford, explained that they had a very nice short zoom call together.

 

Turns out that Gav actually talked to Maro Itoje.

 

Both are black. Both are young. Both play for England.

 

Marcus plays Football.

Marcus has a London accent.

 

Maro plays Rugby.

Maro has a Manchester accent.

 

 

[jack D and coke]

50 minutes ago, Cade said:

Gavin Willamson has managed to mix up Marcus Rashford and Maro Itoje.

 

The Education Secretary, when asked if he had met Marcus Rashford, explained that they had a very nice short zoom call together.

 

Turns out that Gav actually talked to Maro Itoje.

 

Both are black. Both are young. Both play for England.

 

Marcus plays Football.

Marcus has a London accent.

 

Maro plays Rugby.

Maro has a Manchester accent.

 

 

Marcus is a manc btw. 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, jack D and coke said:

Marcus is a manc btw. 

And Maro's a Londoner...

[Gizmo]

On 07/09/2021 at 18:39, Victorian said:

The fixation on manifesto promises is an irrelevance.  It's entirely legitimate for any goverment to break a manifesto promise in exceptional circumstances.  Apart from the kind of person who appears to believe that services can be funded by finding magic money trees,  most people accept that things like coronavirus and social care need to be paid for by a fair amount of additional taxation.  I think the vast majority of people,  perhaps some grudgingly,  accept they should pay a bit more.  People will understand why the government needs to break a manifesto promise and they wont base their next vote on it.  They'll accept the increase in their tax burden.  What people wont accept is another round of tax changes that unfairly evade wealthy people.  The very least people should expect in return for their contribution is the knowledge that the burden is being shared by everyone.  

 

 

Sorry but you are letting them off far too easily. No-one has dealt with social care properly for decades and this lot were elected on a pledge to fix social care. Instead, they just burden it disproportionately on the poor by chucking money at the problem, with zero care or ideas for tackling the lack of staff and other serious issues that money alone will not tackle.

I have no problems paying more in a fair manner to ensure people aren't suffering, that's a given and I can afford it. But the talk of magic money trees is silly when so many other countries manage to provide far better social care, better services and better pensions. The deal you get in this country for handing over your hard-earned is pathetic.   

 

Naturally, the corporations, their rich mates and their aging voter base won't suffer so it's a win-win for these ideological cretins. Still, we can trust them to spend the money properly, fairly and where it's needed - right? I'd laugh except I'd cry because this will be squandered, assuming they can't divert the money to their mates, that is.  

[SectionDJambo]

3 hours ago, Cade said:

Gavin Willamson has managed to mix up Marcus Rashford and Maro Itoje.

 

The Education Secretary, when asked if he had met Marcus Rashford, explained that they had a very nice short zoom call together.

 

Turns out that Gav actually talked to Maro Itoje.

 

Both are black. Both are young. Both play for England.

 

Marcus plays Football.

Marcus has a London accent.

 

Maro plays Rugby.

Maro has a Manchester accent.

 

 

Williamson is a complete moron. 

I read that Johnson described him as "heroic" over his job performance as Education Secretary. This government certainly like to use inappropriate terms by which to congratulate, or cover up for, each other. Herioc is saving someone from a life threatening situation or acting with bravery in armed conflict, as examples. Not hiding from critisism for being hopeless at your job.

Could it be that Johnson only wants idiots in his cabinet to starve the Tories of an alternative choice of candidate to his inept performance. 

It really annoys me that many political commentators and the press regularly refer to him as "Boris". Like he's some kind of lovable rogue, when he's actually a lying prick with absolutely no conscience about the corruption that he stinks to high heaven of being embroiled in. I can't remember any other PM being constantly refered to by his or her first name.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Gizmo said:

Sorry but you are letting them off far too easily. No-one has dealt with social care properly for decades and this lot were elected on a pledge to fix social care. Instead, they just burden it disproportionately on the poor by chucking money at the problem, with zero care or ideas for tackling the lack of staff and other serious issues that money alone will not tackle.

I have no problems paying more in a fair manner to ensure people aren't suffering, that's a given and I can afford it. But the talk of magic money trees is silly when so many other countries manage to provide far better social care, better services and better pensions. The deal you get in this country for handing over your hard-earned is pathetic.   

 

Naturally, the corporations, their rich mates and their aging voter base won't suffer so it's a win-win for these ideological cretins. Still, we can trust them to spend the money properly, fairly and where it's needed - right? I'd laugh except I'd cry because this will be squandered, assuming they can't divert the money to their mates, that is.  

 

I agree with all that but I don't think I'm letting them off lightly at all because we're probably of a similar opinion.  

 

Having thought about it all today I'm actually less of the opinion that this is a blunt,  wealth protecting,  regressive levy.  It does have progressive distribution of the burden across the spectrum of earned incomes.  It does of course leave gaping holes for other forms of income.

 

My main gripe is not with the collection of this levy.  It's with the horrendous unfairness regarding the one size fits all lifetime care cost 'cap' and the effect it has on the spectrum of savings and estates.  We've all seen the examples regarding the residue of savings and estates that can be retained.  You'll find it very hard to see a more glaring example of why the wealth gap will keep on getting bigger and bigger.  There should have been a progressive element to the cap.

 

 

[Gizmo]

5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I agree with all that but I don't think I'm letting them off lightly at all because we're probably of a similar opinion.  

 

Having thought about it all today I'm actually less of the opinion that this is a blunt,  wealth protecting,  regressive levy.  It does have progressive distribution of the burden across the spectrum of earned incomes.  It does of course leave gaping holes for other forms of income.

 

My main gripe is not with the collection of this levy.  It's with the horrendous unfairness regarding the one size fits all lifetime care cost 'cap' and the effect it has on the spectrum of savings and estates.  We've all seen the examples regarding the residue of savings and estates that can be retained.  You'll find it very hard to see a more glaring example of why the wealth gap will keep on getting bigger and bigger.  There should have been a progressive element to the cap.

 

 

Agreed re the cap. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Well the Tories, in fact any political party will think it's been a good day at the office, when all the media and their detractors have to moan about is a minister getting a couple of people mixed up.  They'll take that everyday of the week.

 

Wouldn't surprise me that they have slipped through some nasty piece of legislation via the backdoor whilst everybody's attention has been on the sacrifical lamb, isn't that the way the games played, put out a relatively nothing story, whilst the real action is happening elsewhere.

 

Edit:  Right on cue, breaking news, leaked emails show that the UK have changed the wording of climate change stuff in the Australian trade deal, I don't know all the details but I'll guarantee it's a hell of a lot bigger than Williamson getting a couple of folks mixed up.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

30 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

I have no problems paying more in a fair manner to ensure people aren't suffering, that's a given and I can afford it. But the talk of magic money trees is silly when so many other countries manage to provide far better social care, better services and better pensions. The deal you get in this country for handing over your hard-earned is pathetic.   

 

 

 

Yes, but don't they also pay much more in tax.

I think it was last year, I seen a documentary, which was mention on here, but I don't know which thread, anyway it was about Denmark and they compared two couples, one in the UK and the other in Denmark, both same sort of income, housing, child etc etc, anyway the Danish couple paid something like 50% in tax and had to really budget to get through the month, but they had all these great services such as state child care, public transport and all that sort of thing.  The British couple in comparism paid something like 25%-30% tax & NI and had lots of disposable income, could go holiday's, new car, meals out, but had crap services.

 

IIRC the general concensus was that the British public wouldn't pay an extra 20% for example in tax for better services, they are too used to low tax rates, but still want great services, until something changes in the mindset of the British public then any thoughts of a Scandinavian type set up is a none starter and we'll just go round in circles moaning about poor services.

[Ked]

Higher tax means less revenue for society.

Cannot stand the tax I pay.

Let me decide how I spend my money and not certainly not the tories or the snp.

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Yes, but don't they also pay much more in tax.

I think it was last year, I seen a documentary, which was mention on here, but I don't know which thread, anyway it was about Denmark and they compared two couples, one in the UK and the other in Denmark, both same sort of income, housing, child etc etc, anyway the Danish couple paid something like 50% in tax and had to really budget to get through the month, but they had all these great services such as state child care, public transport and all that sort of thing.  The British couple in comparism paid something like 25%-30% tax & NI and had lots of disposable income, could go holiday's, new car, meals out, but had crap services.

 

IIRC the general concensus was that the British public wouldn't pay an extra 20% for example in tax for better services, they are too used to low tax rates, but still want great services, until something changes in the mindset of the British public then any thoughts of a Scandinavian type set up is a none starter and we'll just go round in circles moaning about poor services.

Good post. Too many in this country are happy to throw money at daily Deliveroos, the latest iPhones and leasing cars they can't really afford. Yet they baulk at paying for public services and other essentials. 

You're right; it requires a nationwide change of mindset rather than apple & pear comparisons with Scandinavia. 

[Ked]

2 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Good post. Too many in this country are happy to throw money at daily Deliveroos, the latest iPhones and leasing cars they can't really afford. Yet they baulk at paying for public services and other essentials. 

You're right; it requires a nationwide change of mindset rather than apple & pear comparisons with Scandinavia. 

Throwing money at deliveries puts money in the pockets of small business.

Throwing money at leasing cars keeps wage earners paying tax.

 

Throwing money at government sees nuclear missiles illegal war covid corrupt contracts etc etc.

 

I work hard for my money can I keep 80% of it please.

Can I see fit to look after my own

 

Or do I give it to a feckwit tory government to give ti their already rich friends?

 

[Enzo Chiefo]

17 minutes ago, Ked said:

Throwing money at deliveries puts money in the pockets of small business.

Throwing money at leasing cars keeps wage earners paying tax.

 

Throwing money at government sees nuclear missiles illegal war covid corrupt contracts etc etc.

 

I work hard for my money can I keep 80% of it please.

Can I see fit to look after my own

 

Or do I give it to a feckwit tory government to give ti their already rich friends?

 

I agree completely.  People know how to spend their money better than Govts do.

As long as they don't whinge about the public services,  care home fees etc and compare pensions etc to Scandinavia,  for example. 

[JackLadd]

Another 1.2bn in the Shortbread tin Barnet kitty. What will the newly formed SGNP do with it? Promote ref2 with lies is a given. 

[Cade]

Paying a bit of tax for the NHS is cheaper than private healthcare.

That's how economy of scale works.

The NHS does need more funding, so tax rises are inevitable.

However, WHICH taxes to rise is a purely political consideration.

Boris has chosen an unfair way of generating more revenue.

[The Real Maroonblood]

26 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Another 1.2bn in the Shortbread tin Barnet kitty. What will the newly formed SGNP do with it? Promote ref2 with lies is a given. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

22 minutes ago, Cade said:

Paying a bit of tax for the NHS is cheaper than private healthcare.

That's how economy of scale works.

The NHS does need more funding, so tax rises are inevitable.

However, WHICH taxes to rise is a purely political consideration.

Boris has chosen an unfair way of generating more revenue.

 

[Ked]

25 minutes ago, Cade said:

Paying a bit of tax for the NHS is cheaper than private healthcare.

That's how economy of scale works.

The NHS does need more funding, so tax rises are inevitable.

However, WHICH taxes to rise is a purely political consideration.

Boris has chosen an unfair way of generating more revenue.

Dont mind 20%.

What I do mind is working extra and paying 40%.

What I do mind is paying national insurance for a state pension to be deducted by a shite private pension

What I do mind is having that extra tax taken by a government that gives it to those who squirrel away off shore or cream it for shite products under the guise of covid protection.

Or build bombs to bomb other working people because they live in a fact up country.

 

 

And what I really hate is that I get taxed more when I work longer hours to help my family at 40 fekin per cent to pay for shit.

 

 

20% flat rate for all.

And let me spend the money I earn on whatever the feck I want.

I've claimed nothing

But I value a good society.

20% is fair .