So you want to continue the present system of stifling political pressure via placating the proles with unsustainable debt funded social programs? You know that this system will terminate when the 1% own everything and the proles have absolutely nothing....Montegriffo wrote:The underlying issue is underfunding for the NHS.
Brexit
-
- Posts: 5377
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:04 am
Re: Brexit
-
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Re: Brexit
Not really, polls have proved over and over again that the majority of British subjects would accept a small increase in tax if the revenue could be earmarked for NHS spending. Labour supports this as does the Liberal party however the ''never openly raise taxes'' policies of the ruling party make it impossible.Zlaxer wrote:So you want to continue the present system of stifling political pressure via placating the proles with unsustainable debt funded social programs? You know that this system will terminate when the 1% own everything and the proles have absolutely nothing....Montegriffo wrote:The underlying issue is underfunding for the NHS.
We are moving too far away from Brexit now though and this subject belongs in other threads.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
- Posts: 5377
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:04 am
Re: Brexit
I respectfully think you are completely missing my point.Montegriffo wrote:Not really, polls have proved over and over again that the majority of British subjects would accept a small increase in tax if the revenue could be earmarked for NHS spending. Labour supports this as does the Liberal party however the ''never openly raise taxes'' policies of the ruling party make it impossible.Zlaxer wrote:So you want to continue the present system of stifling political pressure via placating the proles with unsustainable debt funded social programs? You know that this system will terminate when the 1% own everything and the proles have absolutely nothing....Montegriffo wrote:The underlying issue is underfunding for the NHS.
We are moving too far away from Brexit now though and this subject belongs in other threads.
-
- Posts: 4116
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:37 pm
Re: Brexit
Doesn't look like a lie to meMontegriffo wrote:The underlying issue is underfunding for the NHS. As little as 1% on income tax could properly fund the NHS but like Conservative governments the world over our leaders are only interested in tax cuts for the rich.
That and outright lies like this,
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-memb ... 5-million/
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session
-
- Posts: 4116
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:37 pm
Re: Brexit
Goddamn you guys have no clue about liberty.Montegriffo wrote:Not really, polls have proved over and over again that the majority of British subjects would accept a small increase in tax if the revenue could be earmarked for NHS spending. Labour supports this as does the Liberal party however the ''never openly raise taxes'' policies of the ruling party make it impossible.Zlaxer wrote:So you want to continue the present system of stifling political pressure via placating the proles with unsustainable debt funded social programs? You know that this system will terminate when the 1% own everything and the proles have absolutely nothing....Montegriffo wrote:The underlying issue is underfunding for the NHS.
We are moving too far away from Brexit now though and this subject belongs in other threads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_ ... rn_Ireland
AND YOU WANT MORE TAXATION?!?!
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session
-
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
Re: Brexit
TAX IS FREEDOMCalifornia wrote:Goddamn you guys have no clue about liberty.Montegriffo wrote:Not really, polls have proved over and over again that the majority of British subjects would accept a small increase in tax if the revenue could be earmarked for NHS spending. Labour supports this as does the Liberal party however the ''never openly raise taxes'' policies of the ruling party make it impossible.Zlaxer wrote:
So you want to continue the present system of stifling political pressure via placating the proles with unsustainable debt funded social programs? You know that this system will terminate when the 1% own everything and the proles have absolutely nothing....
We are moving too far away from Brexit now though and this subject belongs in other threads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_ ... rn_Ireland
AND YOU WANT MORE TAXATION?!?!
Did you miss the memo on this, senor?
-
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Re: Brexit
To spend on the NHS, yes we would accept a rise of 1%. Of course it would not be necessary if the £18 billion of tax avoided by the rich was paid.California wrote: AND YOU WANT MORE TAXATION?!?!
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Re: Brexit
No, paying more for your private health care insurance than my total tax bill is freedom.Fife wrote:
TAX IS FREEDOM
Did you miss the memo on this, senor?
On an income of 20k I pay less than 2k in income tax. Tell me, how much do you pay for healthcare and how much lines the pockets of insurance companies?
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Re: Brexit
Do you even math?California wrote:Doesn't look like a lie to meMontegriffo wrote:The underlying issue is underfunding for the NHS. As little as 1% on income tax could properly fund the NHS but like Conservative governments the world over our leaders are only interested in tax cuts for the rich.
That and outright lies like this,
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-memb ... 5-million/
According to your own link
8.6 billion divided by 52 = 165 million per week. Less than half the figure on the side of the lie bus.In 2016 the UK government paid £13.1 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.6 billion.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -secretary
There are lies, damned lies and Boris Johnson’s weasel sums.
By no honest calculation can Britain’s net payment to the European Union be estimated as £350m a week. Nigel Farage admits it. So does the Daily Mail.
Even Johnson admits it. In his “glorious Brexit” essay in the Daily Telegraph last Friday the foreign secretary said that we would “take back control” of roughly £350m a week when we leave the EU.
A reasonable person might assume that Johnson meant that the country would have that amount of extra money to spend post-Brexit. What a “fine thing”, Johnson wrote, “if a lot of that money went to the NHS”.
In his spat with the UK Statistics Authority Johnson now says he is shocked, SHOCKED that his words should be understood in this crassly simplistic way. To suggest that he was claiming that £350m might be “available for extra public spending” is a “wilful distortion” etc. In other words, the foreign secretary’s defence amounts to an admission that the slogan on his famous Brexit campaign bus – “We send the EU £350m a week: let’s fund our NHS instead” – was bogus all along.
I will leave the politics to others. Let’s just look at the £350m figure – and the foggy reality of the EU budget.
Some Brexiteers now cheerfully admit that the figure was fake. To others, perhaps even Michael Gove, it has achieved a kind of mystical importance. The arch-Brexiteer Tim Martin, the founder of the Wetherspoons pub chain, announced on the BBC that the net payment figure was indeed £350m if you include the tariffs on goods imported to the UK from outside the EU.
Martin’s back-of-a beer-mat calculation is incorrect. Three-quarters of those trade tariffs do go to Brussels. They are, however, already included in Her Majesty’s government’s official calculation of Britain’s net and gross payments to the EU.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.