OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

Extraordinary. How can you say they haven't hit farmers or pensioners? Next you'll be saying they haven't hit employers by increasing ERNI.

The question isn't one of "have they hit" so much as "is what they have done fair". For pensioners I find it hard to say it's unfair to effectively means test it. For genuine family farms I think it's short sighted and harsh. Short sighted in that it's a relatively minor quick cash grab that will likely get wasted on some vanity project or another, but one which could have adverse consequences on future food security.

---

Sorry. I interpreted ‘hit’ as meaning ‘unfairly targeted’. I don’t think those two groups have been unfairly targeted and I think you agreed with my differentiation between genuine farmers and the alternatives we’ve mentioned some weeks ago, but I do bow to your greater knowledge of all things agricultural and accept that the Government have failed to explain things well enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

Extraordinary. How can you say they haven't hit farmers or pensioners? Next you'll be saying they haven't hit employers by increasing ERNI.

The question isn't one of "have they hit" so much as "is what they have done fair". For pensioners I find it hard to say it's unfair to effectively means test it. For genuine family farms I think it's short sighted and harsh. Short sighted in that it's a relatively minor quick cash grab that will likely get wasted on some vanity project or another, but one which could have adverse consequences on future food security.

---

Well they haven't really. They reversed the cut to employers NI which the Tory government made without being able to fund it. IMO they should ahve reversed the employee cut as well on the same grounds, but hey ho. Those businesses moaning about increased costs are correct, in as much the costs have returned to where they were 12 months ago. But its handy excuse for business to increase prices, despite the fact virtually none of them reduced prices after the NI cut!!

Not sure how you think the IHT on farms is going to hit food security, are you suggesting that if a farm goes out of business due to IHT that the land wont then be bought by another party and used to grow food? I mean if a business can't manage their tax affairs by succession planning then frankly do they deserve to be in business? Plus just how do these family farms manage to survive on the meagre profits they claim to make? Makes me wonder how they afford basics like food, new range rovers etc. etc. if they make so little money, perhaps they would be better off selling up?

Another Brexit bonus, is that the Uk is now unable to acquire and develop enough treatments for cancer due to the appalling deal that the blonde twit negotiated. So now people are suffering and more than likely dying due to Brexit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

Another Brexit bonus, is that the Uk is now unable to acquire and develop enough treatments for cancer due to the appalling deal that the blonde twit negotiated. So now people are suffering and more than likely dying due to Brexit.

---

Can't be true as Farage stated that fears of drug shortages was 'utter tosh' and i believe everything he says.

It is generally accepted now that five or nine years on - whichever way you look at it - the disadvantages of Brexit far outweigh any perceived advantages but, at a time when Western Europe is said to be benefitting from a ‘golden age’ in terms of breakthroughs in cancer treatment it is shameful that the UK is being left behind in this way.

IMO this represents one of the greatest tragedies of Brexit and is something that those responsible should be being held accountable for.

Typical politician crap, isn't it? Totally incapable of joined up thinking. Johnson, Truss, Trump, Wilders, Meloni, Starmer. It's nothing new either. From their inception in 1911, the OAP part of NICs went into funds managed by approved societies and Unions. In 1948, MPs voted to have them paid directly into the Treasury so that the workers of the day paid the pensions of the day. Over the decades, the former ratio of workers:pensioners has shifted from workers being the larger group to pensioners being the larger group. that shift has seen successive governments see the oncoming problem and doing nowt about it as that would have entailed upping tax/NIC quite a lot and that would see the darlings lose their seats at the next election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

successive governments see the oncoming problem and doing nowt about it as that would have entailed upping tax/NIC quite a lot and that would see the darlings lose their seats at the next election.

---

And therein lies the weakness of short term mandate democracy over dictatorship, whoever's in power focusses on what keeps them in power first, what benefits the electorate second. Maybe dictatorship and the associated ability to be unpopular over a long period isn't such a bad idea after all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

And therein lies the weakness of short term mandate democracy over dictatorship, whoever's in power focusses on what keeps them in power first, what benefits the electorate second. Maybe dictatorship and the associated ability to be unpopular over a long period isn't such a bad idea after all

---

Enlightened despotism. Much to be said for it, but - Catch 22 - how can you guarantee the enlightened bit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

And therein lies the weakness of short term mandate democracy over dictatorship, whoever's in power focusses on what keeps them in power first, what benefits the electorate second. Maybe dictatorship and the associated ability to be unpopular over a long period isn't such a bad idea after all

---

I'd argue with that. Dictators throw their opponents in jail and/or ensure they die. Thinking the wrong things, saying them out loud... all put you in big trouble. In a dictatorship it's nigh on impossible to get policy changes, unless you're the despotic dictator in the first place. Democracy isn't perfect, not by a long chalk, but it's preferable to the alternative. Who'd want to live under the rule of a Trump, a Putin, a Xi, a Kim Jong Un or the straitjacket of an Islamic Jihad leadership? Not me for one. Having said that, if I did end up under the leadership of one of them, I probably wouldn't last very long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

I'd argue with that. Dictators throw their opponents in jail and/or ensure they die. Thinking the wrong things, saying them out loud... all put you in big trouble. In a dictatorship it's nigh on impossible to get policy changes, unless you're the despotic dictator in the first place. Democracy isn't perfect, not by a long chalk, but it's preferable to the alternative. Who'd want to live under the rule of a Trump, a Putin, a Xi, a Kim Jong Un or the straitjacket of an Islamic Jihad leadership? Not me for one. Having said that, if I did end up under the leadership of one of them, I probably wouldn't last very long.

---

You?ve got a bit mixed up MA, Trump isn?t head of a dictatorship, he?s the (unpopular with some) head of a democracy who can be voted out

I have no Russian or NK friends but my Chinese boss of a few years ago, who was a long term resident in UK and China, confirmed that there?s a lot of comfort in the (then) deal between ?the party? and ?the people? - ?make no waves and over time we?ll make you prosperous?. And he stated that it seemed to have worked for a majority (his cautious estimate) of Chinese residents, beyond The West, his concern being that prosperity was a three-decade scam based on infrastructure work to keep Chinese in employment, and eventually they?d run out of things to build?