Health trust in cuts warning (From Gazette & Herald)

It is a poor state of affairs when millions of pounds are given away in foreign aid when our hospitals are in need of support,our public services are being slashed due to budget cuts,the London fire brigade are now considering strike action due to budget cuts,this country is being destroyed by budget cuts and the spectre of poll tax style rioting is looming due to the imminent introduction of the Universal credit payment system which will be a disaster for claimants and a delight to the crafty plans of it's designers.God help the poor.

Rule Brittania wrote:
It is a poor state of affairs when millions of pounds are given away in foreign aid when our hospitals are in need of support,our public services are being slashed due to budget cuts,the London fire brigade are now considering strike action due to budget cuts,this country is being destroyed by budget cuts and the spectre of poll tax style rioting is looming due to the imminent introduction of the Universal credit payment system which will be a disaster for claimants and a delight to the crafty plans of it's designers.God help the poor.

Agreed. Quite why the government feels the need to give vast quantities of money to countries with space programmes and nuclear missile programmes is extremely questionable and very unclear.

Whenever there is a downturn, a tory government always turns on the public sector, the worse off and the poor.

A few cursory figures from 2009/2010;

Cost of jobseekers allowance: £4.5bn
Cost of income support: £7.78bn
Cost of Disability Living and Attendance Allowance: £17.1bn

Estimated cost of tax avoidance by corporations and rich individuals in 2010: £95bn

The government needs to tax the rich especially the dirty bankers, needs to stop corporations like Tesco offshoring all their cash for tax-avoidance purposes and should not be afraid to impose sanctions on those who do avoid tax illegally. Trouble is, all parties have MPs who sit in on supermarkets and banks as non-executive directors thereby giving much conjecture to the possibility of a new Indian Dish, 'Curry Favour'.

LOLcano for our rubbish rulers.

Tory governments are always friends of the wealthy, big business and banks. Most of the cabinet nowadays seem to be ex-fund managers - those who actually have had jobs, unlike Osborne and Cameron. When a cleaner at HMV allegedly pays more tax than the firm she works for (in real pounds and pence terms too!), you know things are wrong.

Not that I'm saying any of the major parties would be much better - just different rhetoric for largely the same policies; after all, Labour gave us ATOS. It is time voters woke up to this and stopped re-electing their 'jailers'. I'm not advocating we all go out and vote Raving Looney or Communist, but I am suggesting we question and put pressure on our political 'servants' rather than letting them get away with murder because they know people will always vote for the flag - whether it be red, blue, green or whatever. Question what the party YOU vote for are DOING, rather than being swayed by their attacks on the opposition. It is about time politicians were made accountable.

Yet again this non caring Government targets cuts in the Health Service to fund their pie in the sky NHS reforms which will see drugs companies GPs and private health care organisations get rich paid for by a cut in the services provided by the NHS. Target the bankers Cameron not the vulnerable - oh but I forgot the bankers fund your sleazly party!

Cost of jobseekers allowance: £4.5bn
Cost of income support: £7.78bn
Cost of Disability Living and Attendance Allowance: £17.1bn

Estimated cost of tax avoidance by corporations and rich individuals in 2010: £95bn

The government needs to tax the rich especially the dirty bankers...

Amount the 'dirty bankers' (i.e. the financial services industry) pays in tax to UK PLC at the moment = £150bn.

'Dirty banking' can be done from anywhere with a desk, a computer and an Internet connection nowadays. If we make a serious attempt to make them pay the tax that anti-banking pressure groups claim that they're evading, they can, and will, simply bog off to countries that offer them a better deal, taking that £150bn with them.

When your broadband goes down and you ring the helpline, why do you think the phone is answered in Mumbai rather than Manchester? Because the worker in Mumbai is willing to do the job for less. The same applies to almost all real wealth-generating economic activity in Britain: if the price of doing business here gets too expensive, they have the option of going somewhere else, and taking their jobs and taxes with them. The problem is that most of the wealth-consuming activity (e.g. transport infrastructure, healthcare etc.) cannot be outsourced, and we need a way to pay for it.

“If the risk of overspend is not managed, there is a significant threat that the organisation will not be able to make payments to trusts, GPs and other contractors for services and products such as drugs,” he warned

I thought it was supposed to be "managed" by North Yorkshire and York PCT.

If there is no money to pay for the above, then the deficit will just get bigger! Exactly who is to pay for these services and the NHS is free at the point of need and the elderly are getting older.

The government needs to dip its hand in its pocket.

But then again everybody will be working for 'free' under Cameron's "Big Society"!

Guy Fawkes wrote:

Cost of jobseekers allowance: £4.5bn
Cost of income support: £7.78bn
Cost of Disability Living and Attendance Allowance: £17.1bn

Estimated cost of tax avoidance by corporations and rich individuals in 2010: £95bn

The government needs to tax the rich especially the dirty bankers...

Amount the 'dirty bankers' (i.e. the financial services industry) pays in tax to UK PLC at the moment = £150bn.

'Dirty banking' can be done from anywhere with a desk, a computer and an Internet connection nowadays. If we make a serious attempt to make them pay the tax that anti-banking pressure groups claim that they're evading, they can, and will, simply bog off to countries that offer them a better deal, taking that £150bn with them.

When your broadband goes down and you ring the helpline, why do you think the phone is answered in Mumbai rather than Manchester? Because the worker in Mumbai is willing to do the job for less. The same applies to almost all real wealth-generating economic activity in Britain: if the price of doing business here gets too expensive, they have the option of going somewhere else, and taking their jobs and taxes with them. The problem is that most of the wealth-consuming activity (e.g. transport infrastructure, healthcare etc.) cannot be outsourced, and we need a way to pay for it.

Dont be silly, making sensible points will only make loads of posters say how you "dont care" or that you are "wicked".
They would rather loose this money than have some people leave the country, who are generating more money than they could earn in a lifetime because they cannot stand that anybody earns a lot of money for themselves. The shortfall can always be taxed from "The rich" even though they would also be driven away too.
They equate profit and success with greed.

NHS has currently cash reserves of 4 billion pounds despite tight health budgets. The figures are included in a separate Audit Commission report showing NHS bodies underspent by two billion pounds, 2% of the entire budget, in 2011-2012 alone, contributing to just under four billion pounds of "uncommitted finances".

Independent analysts have calculated that implementing the Coalitions Health Bill will cost the NHS an extra £2 billion to £3 billion on top of the £20 billion in efficiency savings the NHS has to find in the next four years.

Those who voted Tory at the last election should hang their heads in shame!

ReginaldBiscuit wrote:

Rule Brittania wrote:
It is a poor state of affairs when millions of pounds are given away in foreign aid when our hospitals are in need of support,our public services are being slashed due to budget cuts,the London fire brigade are now considering strike action due to budget cuts,this country is being destroyed by budget cuts and the spectre of poll tax style rioting is looming due to the imminent introduction of the Universal credit payment system which will be a disaster for claimants and a delight to the crafty plans of it's designers.God help the poor.

Agreed. Quite why the government feels the need to give vast quantities of money to countries with space programmes and nuclear missile programmes is extremely questionable and very unclear.

Whenever there is a downturn, a tory government always turns on the public sector, the worse off and the poor.

A few cursory figures from 2009/2010;

Cost of jobseekers allowance: £4.5bn
Cost of income support: £7.78bn
Cost of Disability Living and Attendance Allowance: £17.1bn

Estimated cost of tax avoidance by corporations and rich individuals in 2010: £95bn

The government needs to tax the rich especially the dirty bankers, needs to stop corporations like Tesco offshoring all their cash for tax-avoidance purposes and should not be afraid to impose sanctions on those who do avoid tax illegally. Trouble is, all parties have MPs who sit in on supermarkets and banks as non-executive directors thereby giving much conjecture to the possibility of a new Indian Dish, 'Curry Favour'.

LOLcano for our rubbish rulers.

Its great how people use this sort of statistic to say whatever they want.
Tax avoidance is not illegal and is a part of the system. Simply owning an ISA is avoidance. Perfectly legal and promoted by the government just for the reason of avoiding tax, as is the act of owning a pension.

In business if you own a vehicle, you declare it in order to avoid tax, you can also avoid tax by spending money on improving your premises, this is an actively promoted form of avoidance as it increases money spent with other businesses.

Evasion is a different matter. It is illegal and should be clamped down on. The best way to do this is to simplify taxes, limit the movement of profits made in the UK to other countries, or even lower our rates so that foreign companies may move their tax affairs to here.

As for the figures you gave there, well cherry picked. Lets not forget the Child support, the housing benefits, and the endless other top ups that people can get. If we reduced these, there would be less tax paid by the average worker in terms of VAT, fuel duty, tobacco and alcohol duties, meaning that they would no longer need the wages to be topped up in order to survive.

The ridiculous benefits system we have has been increased year on year since 1997 in order to have more people dependent on the state regardless to how much they earn.
The fact that a working family earning £40k, still feel that they need benefits to maintain their quality of life says it all.

I wonder too how much is being clawed back by the NHS from those that are supposed to be paying for it, probably not a lot and is written off - the immigrants with no recourse to public funds for whatever reason and are not paying for NHS treatment when they should. Then they have a baby and therefore can stay because the child is an UK national.

Rule Brittania wrote:
It is a poor state of affairs when millions of pounds are given away in foreign aid when our hospitals are in need of support,our public services are being slashed due to budget cuts,the London fire brigade are now considering strike action due to budget cuts,this country is being destroyed by budget cuts and the spectre of poll tax style rioting is looming due to the imminent introduction of the Universal credit payment system which will be a disaster for claimants and a delight to the crafty plans of it's designers.God help the poor.

"I have been saying that for years,we keep getting told we have no money and yet we throw away billions to other countries".

Rule Brittania wrote:
It is a poor state of affairs when millions of pounds are given away in foreign aid when our hospitals are in need of support,our public services are being slashed due to budget cuts,the London fire brigade are now considering strike action due to budget cuts,this country is being destroyed by budget cuts and the spectre of poll tax style rioting is looming due to the imminent introduction of the Universal credit payment system which will be a disaster for claimants and a delight to the crafty plans of it's designers.God help the poor.

"I have been saying that for years,we keep getting told we have no money and yet we throw away billions to other countries".

Maquis wrote:

ReginaldBiscuit wrote:

Rule Brittania wrote:
It is a poor state of affairs when millions of pounds are given away in foreign aid when our hospitals are in need of support,our public services are being slashed due to budget cuts,the London fire brigade are now considering strike action due to budget cuts,this country is being destroyed by budget cuts and the spectre of poll tax style rioting is looming due to the imminent introduction of the Universal credit payment system which will be a disaster for claimants and a delight to the crafty plans of it's designers.God help the poor.

Agreed. Quite why the government feels the need to give vast quantities of money to countries with space programmes and nuclear missile programmes is extremely questionable and very unclear.

Whenever there is a downturn, a tory government always turns on the public sector, the worse off and the poor.

A few cursory figures from 2009/2010;

Cost of jobseekers allowance: £4.5bn
Cost of income support: £7.78bn
Cost of Disability Living and Attendance Allowance: £17.1bn

Estimated cost of tax avoidance by corporations and rich individuals in 2010: £95bn

The government needs to tax the rich especially the dirty bankers, needs to stop corporations like Tesco offshoring all their cash for tax-avoidance purposes and should not be afraid to impose sanctions on those who do avoid tax illegally. Trouble is, all parties have MPs who sit in on supermarkets and banks as non-executive directors thereby giving much conjecture to the possibility of a new Indian Dish, 'Curry Favour'.

LOLcano for our rubbish rulers.

Its great how people use this sort of statistic to say whatever they want.
Tax avoidance is not illegal and is a part of the system. Simply owning an ISA is avoidance. Perfectly legal and promoted by the government just for the reason of avoiding tax, as is the act of owning a pension.

In business if you own a vehicle, you declare it in order to avoid tax, you can also avoid tax by spending money on improving your premises, this is an actively promoted form of avoidance as it increases money spent with other businesses.

Evasion is a different matter. It is illegal and should be clamped down on. The best way to do this is to simplify taxes, limit the movement of profits made in the UK to other countries, or even lower our rates so that foreign companies may move their tax affairs to here.

As for the figures you gave there, well cherry picked. Lets not forget the Child support, the housing benefits, and the endless other top ups that people can get. If we reduced these, there would be less tax paid by the average worker in terms of VAT, fuel duty, tobacco and alcohol duties, meaning that they would no longer need the wages to be topped up in order to survive.

The ridiculous benefits system we have has been increased year on year since 1997 in order to have more people dependent on the state regardless to how much they earn.
The fact that a working family earning £40k, still feel that they need benefits to maintain their quality of life says it all.

I don't think anyone is going to equate an ISA with unreasonable tax avoidance, but the fact remains that many wealthy individuals and companies are exploiting loopholes. For example, setting up a film company that makes no films to benefit from the tax breaks open to that particular industry. Big business also seems to be able to negotiate its tax bill, or operate in the UK, employ UK staff, but be registered abroad.
Breaking tax avoidance isn't easy - the best accountants are very adapt. But if Cameron put half the effort into tax avoidance as he has into stripping those in care homes of their DLA mobility (pre-U-turn), or terminal cancer sufferers of their benefits, then maybe we'd be better off. Instead, all we've had is a pop at Jimmy Carr and then silence.

Even AndyD wrote:

Maquis wrote:

ReginaldBiscuit wrote:

Rule Brittania wrote:
It is a poor state of affairs when millions of pounds are given away in foreign aid when our hospitals are in need of support,our public services are being slashed due to budget cuts,the London fire brigade are now considering strike action due to budget cuts,this country is being destroyed by budget cuts and the spectre of poll tax style rioting is looming due to the imminent introduction of the Universal credit payment system which will be a disaster for claimants and a delight to the crafty plans of it's designers.God help the poor.

Agreed. Quite why the government feels the need to give vast quantities of money to countries with space programmes and nuclear missile programmes is extremely questionable and very unclear.

Whenever there is a downturn, a tory government always turns on the public sector, the worse off and the poor.

A few cursory figures from 2009/2010;

Cost of jobseekers allowance: £4.5bn
Cost of income support: £7.78bn
Cost of Disability Living and Attendance Allowance: £17.1bn

Estimated cost of tax avoidance by corporations and rich individuals in 2010: £95bn

The government needs to tax the rich especially the dirty bankers, needs to stop corporations like Tesco offshoring all their cash for tax-avoidance purposes and should not be afraid to impose sanctions on those who do avoid tax illegally. Trouble is, all parties have MPs who sit in on supermarkets and banks as non-executive directors thereby giving much conjecture to the possibility of a new Indian Dish, 'Curry Favour'.

LOLcano for our rubbish rulers.

Its great how people use this sort of statistic to say whatever they want.
Tax avoidance is not illegal and is a part of the system. Simply owning an ISA is avoidance. Perfectly legal and promoted by the government just for the reason of avoiding tax, as is the act of owning a pension.

In business if you own a vehicle, you declare it in order to avoid tax, you can also avoid tax by spending money on improving your premises, this is an actively promoted form of avoidance as it increases money spent with other businesses.

Evasion is a different matter. It is illegal and should be clamped down on. The best way to do this is to simplify taxes, limit the movement of profits made in the UK to other countries, or even lower our rates so that foreign companies may move their tax affairs to here.

As for the figures you gave there, well cherry picked. Lets not forget the Child support, the housing benefits, and the endless other top ups that people can get. If we reduced these, there would be less tax paid by the average worker in terms of VAT, fuel duty, tobacco and alcohol duties, meaning that they would no longer need the wages to be topped up in order to survive.

The ridiculous benefits system we have has been increased year on year since 1997 in order to have more people dependent on the state regardless to how much they earn.
The fact that a working family earning £40k, still feel that they need benefits to maintain their quality of life says it all.

I don't think anyone is going to equate an ISA with unreasonable tax avoidance, but the fact remains that many wealthy individuals and companies are exploiting loopholes. For example, setting up a film company that makes no films to benefit from the tax breaks open to that particular industry. Big business also seems to be able to negotiate its tax bill, or operate in the UK, employ UK staff, but be registered abroad.
Breaking tax avoidance isn't easy - the best accountants are very adapt. But if Cameron put half the effort into tax avoidance as he has into stripping those in care homes of their DLA mobility (pre-U-turn), or terminal cancer sufferers of their benefits, then maybe we'd be better off. Instead, all we've had is a pop at Jimmy Carr and then silence.

The numbers for avoidance you give will include those with an ISA, there is no definition of what is moral and what is immoral when it comes to avoidance, hence the figure of £95 billion is meaningless.
Repainting your office when it does not really need it could be immoral if it is done just to avoid some tax, but I'm sure most people would not be that bothered, especially the painters who are paid to do it.

The film company goings on is clearly evasion, the problem is proving it. The loophole was created by Gordon Brown trying to micro manage peoples lives with more unintended consequences. Lying about what your company does is dishonest, not exploiting a loophole.

This is part of my point, it is too complicated. More complications mean more little loopholes for the accountants to exploit.
Simplify it and it will be easier to close these loopholes.

Having a pop at Cameron about this is a bit futile.

Firstly the striping cancer sufferers of their benefits was Labour spin and never true, however they are currently lacking the guts to carry out some of the more sensible policies that they have announced and then gone back on due to pressure from the left.

And secondly, tax avoidance has been a problem since tax was invented, and became far worse under the last government who added tens of thousands of lines to the tax code, again to micro manage the country, leading to loopholes galore, many of which are still to be put right.

I agree that all parties are to blame, see my earlier comment. Ideologically though, the right are always going to crack down on public sector and benefits, whilst giving tax breaks to the wealthy. That is what they do, if you believe the richest drag the rest of us upwards with their momentum, then vote for them. But lets not call them the party of social justice, because that is not what they are about.

Morals and taxation is a tough one. Personally, I'd like to think that if someone has made good through (largely) free education in their youth, squirreling their vast wealth in tax loopholes is morally dubious to say the least. Others would see it as common sense, can argue that one until Richard III comes home! :-)

Even AndyD wrote:
I agree that all parties are to blame, see my earlier comment. Ideologically though, the right are always going to crack down on public sector and benefits, whilst giving tax breaks to the wealthy. That is what they do, if you believe the richest drag the rest of us upwards with their momentum, then vote for them. But lets not call them the party of social justice, because that is not what they are about.

Morals and taxation is a tough one. Personally, I'd like to think that if someone has made good through (largely) free education in their youth, squirreling their vast wealth in tax loopholes is morally dubious to say the least. Others would see it as common sense, can argue that one until Richard III comes home! :-)

I would not call any party a party of social justice. My thinking is to the right of center, not because I think that rich deserve more money, but because I feel that people should earn what they get.

I run a business, employing over 15 people, I take home less than the minimum wage when it is all ironed out, yet I work about 80 hours per week minimum, I do whatever is necessary in my business from the accounts to cleaning toilets.

I pay through my business in tax about 40 times what I get to take home and I see people who are quite able to work, yet unwilling to take a job when offered because they think it is below them, knowing that they will not have to suffer any kind of hardship because of their life choices.
I however enjoy my job, it gives me a feeling of satisfaction and pride and would not change it.
When I mention profits, it seems to be met with the idea that it is somehow greedy to try to make a profit, when it is effectively my wage.

I feel that it is the left who have allowed the country to be put in the position where it is a life choice, and often the most comfortable choice, not to work, and I want it to change.
That is what I class as fair.
If the top 1% get a tax break, I don't cheer, nor do I get upset, chances are they have created thousands of jobs, or paid millions in tax.
What I do make sure of though is that I look at any tax changes and form my opinion when I know the facts, such as reducing the top rate by 5%. I feel that it was the right thing to do, but the wrong time to do it, purely for appearance sake.
It was put up from 40-50% by Labour right at the end of their time in office as a trap for the next conservative government, and they fell right into it.
Taxing the rich too highly means that they look for more ways to avoid it, possibly by leaving the uk and paying no tax at all.

Maquis wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:
I agree that all parties are to blame, see my earlier comment. Ideologically though, the right are always going to crack down on public sector and benefits, whilst giving tax breaks to the wealthy. That is what they do, if you believe the richest drag the rest of us upwards with their momentum, then vote for them. But lets not call them the party of social justice, because that is not what they are about.

Morals and taxation is a tough one. Personally, I'd like to think that if someone has made good through (largely) free education in their youth, squirreling their vast wealth in tax loopholes is morally dubious to say the least. Others would see it as common sense, can argue that one until Richard III comes home! :-)

I would not call any party a party of social justice. My thinking is to the right of center, not because I think that rich deserve more money, but because I feel that people should earn what they get.

I run a business, employing over 15 people, I take home less than the minimum wage when it is all ironed out, yet I work about 80 hours per week minimum, I do whatever is necessary in my business from the accounts to cleaning toilets.

I pay through my business in tax about 40 times what I get to take home and I see people who are quite able to work, yet unwilling to take a job when offered because they think it is below them, knowing that they will not have to suffer any kind of hardship because of their life choices.
I however enjoy my job, it gives me a feeling of satisfaction and pride and would not change it.
When I mention profits, it seems to be met with the idea that it is somehow greedy to try to make a profit, when it is effectively my wage.

I feel that it is the left who have allowed the country to be put in the position where it is a life choice, and often the most comfortable choice, not to work, and I want it to change.
That is what I class as fair.
If the top 1% get a tax break, I don't cheer, nor do I get upset, chances are they have created thousands of jobs, or paid millions in tax.
What I do make sure of though is that I look at any tax changes and form my opinion when I know the facts, such as reducing the top rate by 5%. I feel that it was the right thing to do, but the wrong time to do it, purely for appearance sake.
It was put up from 40-50% by Labour right at the end of their time in office as a trap for the next conservative government, and they fell right into it.
Taxing the rich too highly means that they look for more ways to avoid it, possibly by leaving the uk and paying no tax at all.

You're making a good argument for nationalisation of certain services, in that if corporations are going to get upset their profit margin is narrowed they'll pull out of the country, then maybe we should let them and find a new way to provide the services they supplied at a more affordable and moralistic rate.

Maquis wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:
I agree that all parties are to blame, see my earlier comment. Ideologically though, the right are always going to crack down on public sector and benefits, whilst giving tax breaks to the wealthy. That is what they do, if you believe the richest drag the rest of us upwards with their momentum, then vote for them. But lets not call them the party of social justice, because that is not what they are about.

Morals and taxation is a tough one. Personally, I'd like to think that if someone has made good through (largely) free education in their youth, squirreling their vast wealth in tax loopholes is morally dubious to say the least. Others would see it as common sense, can argue that one until Richard III comes home! :-)

I would not call any party a party of social justice. My thinking is to the right of center, not because I think that rich deserve more money, but because I feel that people should earn what they get.

I run a business, employing over 15 people, I take home less than the minimum wage when it is all ironed out, yet I work about 80 hours per week minimum, I do whatever is necessary in my business from the accounts to cleaning toilets.

I pay through my business in tax about 40 times what I get to take home and I see people who are quite able to work, yet unwilling to take a job when offered because they think it is below them, knowing that they will not have to suffer any kind of hardship because of their life choices.
I however enjoy my job, it gives me a feeling of satisfaction and pride and would not change it.
When I mention profits, it seems to be met with the idea that it is somehow greedy to try to make a profit, when it is effectively my wage.

I feel that it is the left who have allowed the country to be put in the position where it is a life choice, and often the most comfortable choice, not to work, and I want it to change.
That is what I class as fair.
If the top 1% get a tax break, I don't cheer, nor do I get upset, chances are they have created thousands of jobs, or paid millions in tax.
What I do make sure of though is that I look at any tax changes and form my opinion when I know the facts, such as reducing the top rate by 5%. I feel that it was the right thing to do, but the wrong time to do it, purely for appearance sake.
It was put up from 40-50% by Labour right at the end of their time in office as a trap for the next conservative government, and they fell right into it.
Taxing the rich too highly means that they look for more ways to avoid it, possibly by leaving the uk and paying no tax at all.

Whilst it isn't 'dirty' to mention profits, it also isn't a case that the majority of those on benefits are making, as you put it; lifestyle choices. Benefit fraud stands at 0.5% of claimants, as per the government's own figures, whilst most of the rest are using the system as it should be used; a safety net for when life kicks you in the stumps; illness, unemployment etc.
I worked full time for 20yrs, but have two severely disabled children, without their DLA, we'd not be able to care for them and the state would pick up the (and yes, this figure is correct) £250k per annum bill (each) residential care. I also work part time and do voluntary work. Not all of those who need to claim are 'lifestyle' choices - tbh, I miss the money I used to earn - but circumstances sometimes bite.

YSTClinguist wrote:

Maquis wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:
I agree that all parties are to blame, see my earlier comment. Ideologically though, the right are always going to crack down on public sector and benefits, whilst giving tax breaks to the wealthy. That is what they do, if you believe the richest drag the rest of us upwards with their momentum, then vote for them. But lets not call them the party of social justice, because that is not what they are about.

Morals and taxation is a tough one. Personally, I'd like to think that if someone has made good through (largely) free education in their youth, squirreling their vast wealth in tax loopholes is morally dubious to say the least. Others would see it as common sense, can argue that one until Richard III comes home! :-)

I would not call any party a party of social justice. My thinking is to the right of center, not because I think that rich deserve more money, but because I feel that people should earn what they get.

I run a business, employing over 15 people, I take home less than the minimum wage when it is all ironed out, yet I work about 80 hours per week minimum, I do whatever is necessary in my business from the accounts to cleaning toilets.

I pay through my business in tax about 40 times what I get to take home and I see people who are quite able to work, yet unwilling to take a job when offered because they think it is below them, knowing that they will not have to suffer any kind of hardship because of their life choices.
I however enjoy my job, it gives me a feeling of satisfaction and pride and would not change it.
When I mention profits, it seems to be met with the idea that it is somehow greedy to try to make a profit, when it is effectively my wage.

I feel that it is the left who have allowed the country to be put in the position where it is a life choice, and often the most comfortable choice, not to work, and I want it to change.
That is what I class as fair.
If the top 1% get a tax break, I don't cheer, nor do I get upset, chances are they have created thousands of jobs, or paid millions in tax.
What I do make sure of though is that I look at any tax changes and form my opinion when I know the facts, such as reducing the top rate by 5%. I feel that it was the right thing to do, but the wrong time to do it, purely for appearance sake.
It was put up from 40-50% by Labour right at the end of their time in office as a trap for the next conservative government, and they fell right into it.
Taxing the rich too highly means that they look for more ways to avoid it, possibly by leaving the uk and paying no tax at all.

You're making a good argument for nationalisation of certain services, in that if corporations are going to get upset their profit margin is narrowed they'll pull out of the country, then maybe we should let them and find a new way to provide the services they supplied at a more affordable and moralistic rate.

As I said, I lean to the right, however I don't agree with everything done by governments of the right.

Any industry where competition is not of benefit to the customers should be nationalized. I don't think it was right to privatize the railways, there is no real competition, its not like you can choose which train you want to get from York to London.
There should however be business people in charge of the industry. People who know how to run businesses and deliver profits.
They should be paid on their performance and scrutineered by the government of the day. Any profits should be either plowed back into the company, used to help the exchequer or used to reduce the costs to the public.
Lifelong bureaucrats should not be in charge as they do not seem to be able to deliver efficiency.

The same applies to the NHS, and the armed forces. Sensible business people do not spend billions on a fleet of helicopters without making sure that they will be fit for purpose.

Even AndyD wrote:

Maquis wrote:

Even AndyD wrote:
I agree that all parties are to blame, see my earlier comment. Ideologically though, the right are always going to crack down on public sector and benefits, whilst giving tax breaks to the wealthy. That is what they do, if you believe the richest drag the rest of us upwards with their momentum, then vote for them. But lets not call them the party of social justice, because that is not what they are about.

Morals and taxation is a tough one. Personally, I'd like to think that if someone has made good through (largely) free education in their youth, squirreling their vast wealth in tax loopholes is morally dubious to say the least. Others would see it as common sense, can argue that one until Richard III comes home! :-)

I would not call any party a party of social justice. My thinking is to the right of center, not because I think that rich deserve more money, but because I feel that people should earn what they get.

I run a business, employing over 15 people, I take home less than the minimum wage when it is all ironed out, yet I work about 80 hours per week minimum, I do whatever is necessary in my business from the accounts to cleaning toilets.

I pay through my business in tax about 40 times what I get to take home and I see people who are quite able to work, yet unwilling to take a job when offered because they think it is below them, knowing that they will not have to suffer any kind of hardship because of their life choices.
I however enjoy my job, it gives me a feeling of satisfaction and pride and would not change it.
When I mention profits, it seems to be met with the idea that it is somehow greedy to try to make a profit, when it is effectively my wage.

I feel that it is the left who have allowed the country to be put in the position where it is a life choice, and often the most comfortable choice, not to work, and I want it to change.
That is what I class as fair.
If the top 1% get a tax break, I don't cheer, nor do I get upset, chances are they have created thousands of jobs, or paid millions in tax.
What I do make sure of though is that I look at any tax changes and form my opinion when I know the facts, such as reducing the top rate by 5%. I feel that it was the right thing to do, but the wrong time to do it, purely for appearance sake.
It was put up from 40-50% by Labour right at the end of their time in office as a trap for the next conservative government, and they fell right into it.
Taxing the rich too highly means that they look for more ways to avoid it, possibly by leaving the uk and paying no tax at all.

Whilst it isn't 'dirty' to mention profits, it also isn't a case that the majority of those on benefits are making, as you put it; lifestyle choices. Benefit fraud stands at 0.5% of claimants, as per the government's own figures, whilst most of the rest are using the system as it should be used; a safety net for when life kicks you in the stumps; illness, unemployment etc.
I worked full time for 20yrs, but have two severely disabled children, without their DLA, we'd not be able to care for them and the state would pick up the (and yes, this figure is correct) £250k per annum bill (each) residential care. I also work part time and do voluntary work. Not all of those who need to claim are 'lifestyle' choices - tbh, I miss the money I used to earn - but circumstances sometimes bite.

The 0.5% of fraudulent claims refer to those who are are fraudulently claiming and do not count those who claim jobseekers without really looking for jobs, again it comes down to morality. You may be looking for a specific job for 10 years without taking others that you dont want to do. That is not fraudulent, but immoral and is very common. I know of three people in the last month who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and managed to find new ones within a couple of weeks.
If you are on jobseekers for an extended period, you should have to do some kind of work in order to collect the allowance.
I have been on JSA for a short period, and used it for what it was intended, to get back into work, but I know of so many people who have left their jobs because they "cant be bothered" or are "better off on benefits" and for many people on minimum wage, that is the case and shouldn't be.
At no point did I say that everyone on benefits have chosen to be there, but it is now too comfortable to do so. If a job comes up, and you are fit to do it, you should take it.
In the case of your children, that is what DLA is for, I agree with it, and am very sorry for you situation.
Without knowing the situation though I and struggling with the £250k price tag, my first thought is thats a lot of money to take care of anybody, regardless of their problems. I am not judging, so dont take this the wrong way. 24 hour care with well paid carers, on say £25k, x3 & all the kit in the world should not cost that much. Again, I dont know the situation, but even in the case of someone totally unable to do anything for themselves I would not expect it to come to anywhere near that figure.

It is £50k to keep a healthy prisoner in jail for a year and that is without treatment, education, psychologist, speech therapist, occupational therapist, etc.
But whatever, tbh - I'd do anything to avoid that situation, so it isn't going to happen. But the point I was making remains, irrespective of the figure, sometimes life plays its nasty little tricks and you go from full time career, doing nicely thanks, to hitting a brick wall. That is what the system is for and those who fall into its net certainly are not all scroungers. At the amounts paid, they would be potty to be!

You would have thought that the Press would have had something 'interesting' on today seeing as York was packed for the Dragon Boat races but instead it has this to boringly debate on!

Jobseekers allowance is about £70/w isn't it? Surely there can't be many who *choose* to spend ten years (as you say) on that whilst waiting for the 'right' job? But whatever - it is Saturday night, thanks for debate without insult - always a pleasure on here and I hope your business flourishes. :-)

Dr Brian wrote:
Yet again this non caring Government targets cuts in the Health Service to fund their pie in the sky NHS reforms which will see drugs companies GPs and private health care organisations get rich paid for by a cut in the services provided by the NHS. Target the bankers Cameron not the vulnerable - oh but I forgot the bankers fund your sleazly party!

I agree with much of this but given the threat is not paying GP contractors I'm not exactly sure how you think the cuts will help them.

The reality is that cuts will mean the loss of GP jobs ( and the appointments that go with them).

Maybe there's a few money-minded GPs who are actually making money by selling private services when the NHS cuts bite...but your average GP down at your local surgery isn't and their jobs are under threat.

In case you don't believe me, the GPs Royal College (the RCGP) has been a persistent critic of the NHS changes, along with the BMA. Health professionals know what's happening here (basically the economy being used as cover for privatisation) and have been very vocal in opposition - perhaps more even that non-health professionals

Even AndyD wrote:
It is £50k to keep a healthy prisoner in jail for a year and that is without treatment, education, psychologist, speech therapist, occupational therapist, etc.
But whatever, tbh - I'd do anything to avoid that situation, so it isn't going to happen. But the point I was making remains, irrespective of the figure, sometimes life plays its nasty little tricks and you go from full time career, doing nicely thanks, to hitting a brick wall. That is what the system is for and those who fall into its net certainly are not all scroungers. At the amounts paid, they would be potty to be!

Funnily enough prisoners are another bug bear. This is an example of where costs are necessarily high, and someone with a business brain should be in charge.
In the worst case with food, accomodation, use of a gym, teaching, and everything else, it should be far less than that, I have heard nearer £60k, but never mind, A basic hotel can give you a nights board and lodge for under £30, and make a profit, add into this a gym membership, you should not be looking at more than £12000 per year. Add a few classes per week, maybe another grand.

In reality, basic accommodation at cost price - £20/night
Gym equipment - negligable
Food - canteen style, £5 per day
1 guard per 10 inmates at £30k / per year = £3k each
Other misc costs £5k
No prisoner should realistically cost more than £15K per year to keep locked up.

Anyway

Again, it is there as a safety net only, and there are many people who choose to stay there. The amounts paid, still equate to more than I earn in a normal week when you take away my mortgage, dental costs, childrens schooling costs, the numerous other things that I have to pay for due to me choosing to work.
You may think them potty to stay that way, but many think I am potty for working for so little.

I have to go to work. Bye for now

Figures I've found are £2,471 per week in residential care - so that is over £250k per year for both children together, not separately - my error, but still a lot of money!

Morals and taxation is a tough one. Personally, I'd like to think that if someone has made good through (largely) free education in their youth, squirreling their vast wealth in tax loopholes is morally dubious to say the least. Others would see it as common sense, can argue that one until Richard III comes home! :-)

Absolutely. In reality, bashing bankers and bashing benefit fraudsters are two sides of the same coin. If the banking industry paid all the extra tax that its critics argue it ought to, and if all benefit fraud were totally eliminated, the basic underlying problem this story illustrates would still be there. The public sector is spending more delivering services than it is raising in tax. A lot more, and systemically more.

In my view the real game-changer has been the growth of very cheap global communications over the last two decades or so. In real terms, a plane ticket to go halfway round the world costs a quarter of what it did in the mid '90s, and telecommunications are free. I can call my relatives in San Bernadino, California for the same price as I can call my friend in Strensall, i.e. nothing (apart from the line rental with a £5 a month international package). So you can now outsource almost all manufacturing and most service delivery to places where wages are a quarter of what they are here. But you can't close down the casualty department at York Hospital and put patients on a plane to Shanghai.

So in the short term we're going to have to accept that we can no longer afford the public sector services that we enjoyed during the last half of the last century, and in the long term we're going to have to concentrate on producing 'value added' goods and services that the developing world can't. Slagging off heartless Tories or loony left spendthrifts is pointless - the problem has grown way beyond that.

Even AndyD says:

I worked full time for 20yrs, but have two severely disabled children, without their DLA, we'd not be able to care for them and the state would pick up the (and yes, this figure is correct) £250k per annum bill (each) residential care. I also work part time and do voluntary work. Not all of those who need to claim are 'lifestyle' choices - tbh, I miss the money I used to earn - but circumstances sometimes bite.

I would agree with those sentiments and was very much in the same boat but complex medical problems means that full-time or even part-time work is quite difficult. Many thousands of pounds comes to mind in lost earnings and pension contributions.

I would also agree that the figures for disabled children, who exactly would care for them 24/7, 365 days per year. At some stage, they will require full-time residential care as I probably will do. Far from growing out of their problems, they are worse and yet this Government expects them to work!

Digeorge wrote:
I wonder too how much is being clawed back by the NHS from those that are supposed to be paying for it, probably not a lot and is written off - the immigrants with no recourse to public funds for whatever reason and are not paying for NHS treatment when they should. Then they have a baby and therefore can stay because the child is an UK national.

OK as far as first part goes but nonsense on the last statement. being born here does not automatically make you a UK national

"Not automatically make you a UK national"

Went on an immigration course a few weeks back, I was astonished what I learnt! The rights of a child go far beyond those of a parent particularly if there are three of them and different nationalities!

Immigration and the NHS is a real problem as the previous governments failed to keep tabs on the numbers coming in and also from the EU. I rarely speak to anybody who is English in my voluntary work!

Digeorge wrote:
"Not automatically make you a UK national"

Went on an immigration course a few weeks back, I was astonished what I learnt! The rights of a child go far beyond those of a parent particularly if there are three of them and different nationalities!

Immigration and the NHS is a real problem as the previous governments failed to keep tabs on the numbers coming in and also from the EU. I rarely speak to anybody who is English in my voluntary work!

Vote UKIP and stop all this foreign waste(aid)

jorvik - used to work for our UKIP MEP so know the score on that - don't mention Europe to him!


Take a look at the latest on the Daily Mail today re A&E closures throughout the country.

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2207274/A-E-closures
-Secret-report-revea
ls-lives-risk-sweepi
ng-plans-close-25-ca
sualty-units.html

And here in relation to the growing numbers of elderly in the population.

http://www.yorkshire
post.co.uk/news/at-a
-glance/main-section
/strain-of-huge-boom
-in-elderly-populati
on-could-wreck-nhs-1
-4951608

That is the answer to the problems here in North Yorkshire and York.

I am sure we all agree the NHS is facing a funding crisis with increasing numbers of elderly in the population. Surely that means we need to have considered and planned response. The Health and Social Care Bill is clearly neither of these. Cameron lied about no top down reorganisation of the NHS at the last election.

Sacking PCT staff and paying redundancy only then to rehire them makes no financial sense whatsoever. How does handing over NHS services to the likes of Richard Branson, which according to the regulator will not be held to the same inspection standards as the NHS providers, improve care for the elderly?

Just because we are facing funding issues over out future health care needs does not excuse profiteering or incompetence on behalf of the authorities.

There is clearly a funding issue with regard to our PCT area.

Its the Tories fixation with privatisation means its great. This is privatisation through the back door, they want us all to have private insurance so there buddies/partners on the board of these companies make a tidy profit and donations to there party thats all its about GREED. Im sure when the goverment merges and closes the PCT they dilbratly add the deficits too gether so they can (a) close them down (b) get private consultants which there buddies happen to be in to, so called find out the problem, which they dont and get a good pay off. Remember Thatchers privitaion of PUBLIC utilities, well how many is there now to privatise? NHS hhmmm

Rule Brittania wrote:
It is a poor state of affairs when millions of pounds are given away in foreign aid when our hospitals are in need of support,our public services are being slashed due to budget cuts,the London fire brigade are now considering strike action due to budget cuts,this country is being destroyed by budget cuts and the spectre of poll tax style rioting is looming due to the imminent introduction of the Universal credit payment system which will be a disaster for claimants and a delight to the crafty plans of it's designers.God help the poor.

I totally agree with Rule Brittania.
The country is in a deep depression, financially speaking, and one of the first measures to stop the rot is stop foreign aid totally now.

This is only because patients in N. Yorkshire receive less funding from central Government than patients in say Hull.

Yes...it's certainly that. But also it is due to rapidly increasing demand on the NHS. Not only are people living longer with more long-term illnesses (nought wrong with that!) but crucially people's expectations are rising rapidly - fuelled and encouraged by the right-wing media .

Maybe we have to find funds from other areas, but I think probably if we want to save the NHS, we may have to moderate our expectations a little.

In reality though, the NHS & Social Care Bill has just opened the door to privatisation of the NHS. Does anyone remember that in the Tories' election manifesto?

When the reality bites of large multi-national foreign-owned coporations running bits of the NHS we will realise that the real-NHS we had was actually doing a pretty good job. By then of course, it wil be too late.

You get what you voted for....

Perplexed says

"Sacking PCT staff and paying redundancy only then to rehire them makes no financial sense whatsoever"

Agree

Neither does endless recruitment campaigns only to be given to those 'at risk' some of them having months of sick or underperforming. They drag me out to interview because I meet the 'desired' qualifications and specifications only I have the DDA tick. The countless times, I have come 2nd or not appointed to either Band 4 or Band 5 positions is quite a lot or that the position is readvertised what with a hundred applications there wasn't one suitable applicant for the position?

Now in turning to my own 20 year care pathway of complex care. I have finally got rid of the useless consultants, GPs and things have started to get better and that consultants who have taken and absorbed the complexity of the medical information are starting to diagnose others. It has only taken 20 years for this to happen and starts with congenital heart surgery. To say, I have been through an emotional rollercoaster or emotions from tears, laugh and anger would be correct.

The amount of times, I have been misdiagnosed quite staggering and once being put through a procedure I shouldn't have had based on my blood results alone. There have been results unreported, delayed, extra MRIs etc, the list is endless and at times resembles a "Carry On Doctor" or sitcom movie.

At least though the consultants that I have on board decent and honest and can work with them but my transfer of care from Leeds was not ideal. I do wonder if I am not the only one adding to the deficit.

Don't have anything rare in the NHS as most of the time they don't believe you including that in 2012 of a scanographer who questioned my diagnosis even though that request was from a consultant. I now have had to have an extra scan urgently and also an operation which should have been done ages ago.

As for flawed theories of shaken baby syndrome or SIDS and that Trust, surely by now they must have gotten the fact that it is a genetic problem and stop wasting public money on try to prove a flawed theory. The new child protection guidelines actually state 'genetic counselling' as part of a differential diagnosis. I hope the Trust now takes that on board as seeithing with anger over the latest North Yorkshire case.

These sorts of things just add to the deficit of North Yorkshire and York PCT.

.

Tax avoidance isn't the issue, it's morals surround avoidance.

Avoidance is fine for each one of us when it comes to subjects like inheritance and estate; but not for councillors and corporations. I agree, but the issue IS morals rather than actual avoidance.

So the council can cut funding to a vital NHS service while also seeking to extend their expense allowance as I read earlier on here... bunch of selfish w@nkers.