Reply With QuoteA van would cost more to tax , insure and run than a carOriginally Posted by Exiletyke
Hall Of Fame
Love it Exile, unfortunately my choices are limited and I don't make the rules.
Moderator
A van would cost more to tax , insure and run than a car
Last edited by EastStandRed; 09-03-2018 at 11:00 PM.
Hall Of Fame
What you mean the barstewards are forcing you to have a company car?
You could always provide your own & avoid the tax liability the company car entails
Hall Of Fame
To be perfectly honest I hate discussing the strike and I have done for many years , I'm not that fussed about all this Orgreave Justice campaign , if they want to go for it then go for it , I'll even chuck some money in fund raising buckets but that's as far as I go with it , I've better things to do than squeal foul play because we got a good kicking in a field in Rotherham nearly 34 years ago , ffs nobody died , I understand it isn't a popular view and will attract criticism , fair enough , I get it but I don't want a forced apology of no fecker , fuq em , I'm a proud man .
No I'd sooner concentrate on the issues of today thank you very much .
Now you say socialism as altered this country and not for the better , we haven't had a labour government running on a socialist platform since 1948 when they created the welfare state and the NHS .
If you are talking about trade unions then the question you have to ask yourself is why did they ever need to come in to existence ?
Yes we've had some hot heads I won't deny that but if you think this country will ever return to the days when people downed tools for 2 months because the bacon in the can**** was overcooked you couldn't be more wrong .
The workplace is far different to 40 odd years ago and more importantly people are different , people today couldn't manage with the internet turned off for 12 hours never mind going on strike for 12 months , never ever going to happen .
All I'm seeking today is to see young people have opportunities to obtain higher education without thousands of pounds worth of debt .
A social housing programme that enables people unable to purchase a home and obtain reasonable standard of housing at a price they can afford .
An end to ZHC so that people are guaranteed an income without insecurity , insecurity harms the economy because nobody dare make financial commitments when they can't rely on a regular income .
The NHS will never be perfect but we can do better , much better , people need to realise that it needs funding and yes your taxes will rise as a result , if people want a living wage as opposed to a minimum one then they can chuck a few pounds in as well , it never was free when it was created so don't expect it now , go price up private healthcare and then get back to me .
I'll throw in tax avoidance too , a subject that needs a thread in it's own right , big companies take the pyss and they get away with it , they may scare the shyte out of other governments but not Corbyn , bring em into line , free loaders some of em .
I'll leave you with this , Thatcher and Corbyn are from the same stock , both divisive characters , both fully committed to their beliefs , both committed to changing the country .
You either loved both of em or you hated em with a passion .
I was on the wrong side of Thatcher so I get it with Corbyn , water off a ducks back with Thatcher and Corbyn's the same , say what you want , write what you want but you ain't going to stop him .
He'll win the next election with a majority , you mark my words and half the country will hate him just like they hated Thatcher but you know what , it doesn't matter .
Someone needs to fight for the silent majority , he'll do for me .
Last edited by animallittle3; 10-03-2018 at 12:27 AM.
Hall Of Fame
Feck all to do with us redflagged , nhs on it's @ss , foodbanks , housing crisis and yet .........
https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...d-saudi-arabia
Hall Of Fame
Example?
Hall Of Fame
qed
Hall Of Fame
Why should we forget patient C? Because it's inconvenient for your argument?
If person B lived in Barnsley and wanted to go private, he or she would have a host of options. Staying locally, he or she could go to the Thornbury Hospital in Sheffield: https://www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/hosp...ry-hospital#na with it’s four operating theatres and 71 beds. Alternatively if patient B had a profits allergy like animal, he or she could use the Nuffield Hospital in Leeds: https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/hospitals/leeds/about-us
At least one of the surgeons who works at the Leeds Nuffield Hospital also works at the NHS Barnsley Hospital (I’d name him, but am concerned that a member of the lunatic fringe who is currently posting on this thread would see that as an invitation to start sending him abusive messages). He works at the Barnsley Hospital from Monday to Thursday and at the Leeds Nuffield on Fridays. What that means is that if patient B chooses to see him at the Nuffield and has treatment there, that cannot in any way push people back on the NHS list at Barnsley, And, as I have stated, his choice can only serve to shorten the list at Barnsley.
My coffee shop example doesn’t seem to have helped so let me give you another example; back in the mists of time when I started out in work, there was a period when I had two jobs – I had a day job and, in the evenings and weekends , I worked behind a bar (in an NHS Hospital Social Club, funnily enough). I can categorically state that no matter how busy I was during the day job, that had no bearing upon the time it took for people to be served drinks in the bar. That’s because even though I am only one person, I had two jobs, in two different places, with two sets of customers at two different times, just like the surgeon I have described above.
Yes, NHS hospitals do provide some limited private services. The notion that it utilises anything like 50% of NHS theatre time or that theatres are in use 100% of the time (upon which your argument is predicated) is just plain wrong. Operating theatres are expensive to staff and operate and have a lot of down time in consequence. The provision of private services use some of that down time because it is funded from outside the NHS. It’s also a source of funding for the NHS that assists them to balance the books and thus to provide services to NHS patients.
People choose private, because it is generally faster and more convenient (patients have a choice of when and where they receive treatment). Staff to patient ratios are generally higher than in the NHS In addition, people often regard private hospitals to be ‘nicer’ places to be with generally private rooms rather than multiple bed wards and better food.
Last edited by KerrAvon; 10-03-2018 at 09:41 AM.
Hall Of Fame
@animal
It’s suggested above that I like to bait Socialists. That’s not true. I first came to this board in response to somewhat non-Socialist posts by your own Gunterry on Millers Mad. I’m happy for people to believe whatever they want - that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, that Socialism has at some point achieved anything but misery for the people it is supposed to help or any other brand of nonsense. What is likely to prompt me to post is people posting ideological guff and presenting it as fact. The re-writing of history is particularly likely to draw a response.
We’ve done the miner’s strike to death, but I can’t let your comments about a national ballot go.
The membership of the NUM didn’t get national ballot even though the constitution of the union guaranteed them one.
When you refer to the NUM executive vetoing a national ballot, it isn’t clear to me whether you are trying to exonerate Scargill or seeking to justify the decision? If it’s the former then that doesn’t hold water as Scargill was opposed to a national ballot (according to Ken Livingstone in his memoirs, he was scared of losing). If it’s the latter it’s an equally leaky argument. The NUM membership were entitled to a vote and it wasn’t for a group of union officials to decide that they couldn’t have one. As for the meeting itself, it must have been so easy for the moderates to speak out when there was a mob outside being whipped up by Scargill:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2843003.stm
Of course, some areas held ballots that rejected strike action: Cumberland, Midlands, North Derbyshire, South Derbyshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and North Wales. The attitude of the NUM to ballots was clearly demonstrated by what followed with the workers in those areas facing mass intimidation by NUM organised pickets.
As for Orgreave, a multi thousand strong mob turned up to try to intimidate people and stop them going into work. Of course there was a response from the police. Why you think the mob should receive an apology is beyond me.
It’s a strange one. Working people denied their rights and intimidated at work – as a union man you should incensed by that, but no, you seek to excuse it because you approve of it and participated in it. Socialist hypocrisy at its best.
A few weeks ago ,in the context of the Catalan separatist crisis, you said that democracy should never be denied. In this thread at post 87 you were talking about democracy, but when it comes to a lack of it in the context of the miners strike, you seem to think that’s fine.
I think you are right, we are approaching a time when a new generation of voters will give Labour a chance. It’s a cyclical thing. They were given one from 1945 to 1951 and were then out of power until 1964 after the electorate saw the result. They then had 1964 to 1979 (save for four years of a weak Tory government) and so wrecked the economy that we had to take what was at the time the largest ever bail out from the IMF. If you discount the Blair/Brown governments, as you do, the effect of that period of Labour government was to have made the party unelectable for 43 years (by 2022). It’s only a pity that the whole country will have to suffer whilst the new generation of Labour voters learn the lesson.
On student loans, the Labour Policy is a bribe to middle class voters. The provision of university education in this country has exploded in the last couple of decades and this country has some of the best universities in the world. That costs money and the current policy is that people who benefit from it pay a contribution when they earn enough. Labour’s policy will cost £7 -11bn per year (money that could have gone to the NHS – assuming that Labour will find someone to provide it). In reality, Labour’s policy will either mean a return to the 70s where the universities are so underfunded that places are rationed and become the preserve of a privileged few, or it will mean that every taxpayer – including the low paid – will be required to subsidise higher education for people who go on to become Consultant Surgeons, lawyers, accountants, architects, merchant bankers etc.
On Zero Hours Contracts, what becomes of people who want to be on them, perhaps because it suits their life style’s? Will they get a choice or will their views not count, just like the views of the miners who didn’t want to strike?
Last edited by KerrAvon; 10-03-2018 at 09:51 AM.
Hall Of Fame
going round in circles here nip and missing the point, scroll up please Exile I did used to use my own car for work.
I think the point SB was making was that benefits like company cars and private medical insurance were some sort of way of avoiding paying tax, if I'm reading him right. The idea being that a firm would pay you 4k a year less (which you'd pay tax on) and instead give you a brand new beemer which would be a free car you paid nothing on.
It's never worked that way though, I'm taxed to the point that if it wasn't for the high mileage I do it would pay me to fund my own car from the tax I have going out of my monthly wage to pay for my company car.
My question is why should I have to pay so much tax on something I need for my job ? Particularly when you consider that the car is 3 years old but I'm taxed on it's current list price ?
There's no tax avoidance going on with company cars or other benefits. SB thought it was some sort of avoidance tactic for the benefit of the 'high earners' which is far from the truth, most company car users arent high earners, and are penalised through tax for doing a job that needs one. Thats the point I was making, perhaps not so well |?
Posting Permissions