Brexit again...

[Davebrad]

46 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

There money is already abroad hiding from the UK taxman. 

I wonder if our jeremys elite will include his sponsors...

Sep 09 2019

Embargoed: 00:01 Monday 9th September

With TUC Congress in full swing, the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) has today revealed that the average remuneration of the 30 union bosses on more than £100,000 was £144,168 in 2018. This is an increase of £12,970 from the previous year.

Union top bosses weren't the only ones enjoying generous pay packets. Public sector trade union officials were paid at least £85.9 million for trade union facility time duties. Facility time is paid time off during working hours for trade union representatives to carry out union duties. Taxpayer-funded support is also given in other ways, with direct grants given by government departments, police forces, NHS trusts and councils to trade unions.

Unions which cause misery for commuters, such as the frequently on strike RMT, receive substantially more each year in direct taxpayer subsidy. In 2017/18 net government support to the rail industry was £6.4 billion.

Click here to read the research paper.

Key findings

• The average remuneration of the 30 union bosses on more than £100,000 was £144,168. This is an increase of £12,970 from the previous year.

• Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, received £167,604 in total remuneration. Her gross salary puts her firmly in the top 3 per cent of earners.

• The trade union with the most senior officers earning more than £100,000 in 2018 was once again the Fire Brigades Union, with 4 staff members still earning above the threshold. This is in spite of membership of the Fire Brigades Union falling by almost 21 per cent between 2011 and 2016 (the most recent figures available).

• The highest-paid public sector trade union bosses were the joint general secretaries of the National Education Union, Kevin Courtney and Dr. Mary Bousted, who received £217,501 and £187,557. This higher figure included a salary of £170,269, employers’ national insurance contribution of £21,968, and a pension contribution of £25,264.

• Dr Chaand Nagpaul, chair and general secretary of the British Medical Association, received £193,445 in total remuneration, over 7 times what a foundation (FY1) doctor working in the NHS receives: £27,146.

• 4 senior staff at the railway unions (ASLEF, RMT and TSSA) share £514,900 between them.

• 8 senior staff at the education unions share £1,349,492 between them.

• that would help our low paid workers, hang on though that would mean they would be getting some of their own money back, a sort of money merry go round.

 

[philpvfc]

41 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

Are you seriously going to defend the likes of Facebook, Apple, google, amazon, Starbucks etc for paying tiny amounts of tax in the U.K. because joe bloggs down the road did a days work for £100 cash in hand? 

Not defending anyone but it’s hypocritical for someone earning cash in hand to avoid paying tax then have a go at large corporations for paying minimal tax.

[Andyregs]

Just now, philpvfc said:

Not defending anyone but it’s hypocritical for someone earning cash in hand to avoid paying tax then have a go at large corporations for paying minimal tax.

Who’s being hypocritical? I pay tax. And no politician is saying people shouldn’t. I’m not sure what your point is apart from seemingly being desperate to defend multi billion pound corporations who pay minimal taxes? 

[philpvfc]

I wasn’t pointing the finger at you. I’m all for large corporations paying their fair share of tax but at the same time we do need to make this country attractive for off shore companies to invest and use as a base. All I am saying is there are plenty who avoid tax, rich or poor and it’s hypocritical for them to complain about others.

[Regal Beagle]

2 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

Hahahaha  lies and more lies.

 

Which part is a lie?

 

[Regal Beagle]

1 hour ago, Nofinikea said:

You seem to be presuming I am some sort of supporter of Corbyn and Labour...

You also seem to be offended by the idea that very wealthy people pay there dues rather than pay am accountant to find ways not to, making both them and the accountant wealthier whilst old peoples care homes are closed through lack of finance.

I suggest you have a really hard look at your priorities, because if you think protecting the wealth of the more fortunate is more important than providing adequate care for an aging population then you really need to rethink your whole ethos.

No one is saying that we shouldn't provide adequate care for an aging population. You don't have a monopoly on virtues (in fact you are quite abusive and so i doubt many are buying your virtue signalling).

 

People who aren't leftists are simply making the (legitimate) point that if you steam in  like a bull in a china shop, forcing the wealthy to pay "their fair share" then we could end up with even less money in the social welfare pot than we currently have.

That isn't the same as defending the wealthy. It isn't the same as not caring for the vulnerable.

 

How can you or any other leftist guarantee that being harsher on these people/corporations will not lead to them leaving and/or laying people off? That is the question. If you can answer it in a convincing way then I'll happily agree with you.

[Jacko51]

14 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

I see Bozza has the endorsement of Trump!  

If that doesnt set alarm bells ringing, nothing will.

I posted this on t'other side.  Johnson is a clone of Trump.  They are both completely shameless and lie as a matter of course without feeling any guilt about doing so.  They both say what they think people want to hear and when it's fact checked and proven to be rubbish, they simply don't give a sh*t and carry on with their dishonesty.  They are interested in self agrandissement rather than doing anything which benefits the country.  History will treat them both with utter contempt.

[geosname]

6 hours ago, Davebrad said:

that's upto the individual surely...

Most definitely mate, as it should be..... just seems crazy to me.

[Andyregs]

12 hours ago, philpvfc said:

I wasn’t pointing the finger at you. I’m all for large corporations paying their fair share of tax but at the same time we do need to make this country attractive for off shore companies to invest and use as a base. All I am saying is there are plenty who avoid tax, rich or poor and it’s hypocritical for them to complain about others.

And you’re argument for not going after the billions that corporations should be paying is to talk about cash in hand payments which HMRC do go after. 
forget these corporations, look at these poor people over here. 
The whole hypocrite argument is just a straw man. 

[For Us All]

10 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

I posted this on t'other side.  Johnson is a clone of Trump.  They are both completely shameless and lie as a matter of course without feeling any guilt about doing so.  They both say what they think people want to hear and when it's fact checked and proven to be rubbish, they simply don't give a sh*t and carry on with their dishonesty.  They are interested in self agrandissement rather than doing anything which benefits the country.  History will treat them both with utter contempt.

Don't you think Jezza also says things that people want to hear?

 

[For Us All]

15 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

Yes but heaven forbid a foreigner gets any treatment on the NHS

Yes,its much easier to write off 0.3% of taxpayers money. 

[Andyregs]

18 minutes ago, For Us All said:

Yes,its much easier to write off 0.3% of taxpayers money. 

Ok lets imagine you get you wish, 0% spent on health tourism . You still havent said how you would revamp/rebuild the NHS, which is what the discussion was about. You got your thing in, but I suppose its asking a bit too much to ask you too offer anything more than one line about foreigners, and actually engage in discussion with any susbstance.

[Bycarsbill]

What's all this "stop the USA privatising our NHS"?  1) Lots of the NHS is already 'privatised' 2) does anybody really worry about who provides the care as long as we, as patients, get the best treatment? I've personally had good experiences with services that rea out-sourced by the NHS.  My hearing needs and hearing aids are provide by Specsavers which has the contract from the NHS for these services and I've had much better treatment than when I had to report to the local hospital for these things!  A while ago I also had a hip replacement and I was offered (through my GP and the NHS "choose & book" system) a number of hospitals.  I chose the one closest to my home which happened to be a Spire Group private hospita lpaid for by the NHS. My experience for this procedure was excellent whereas my wife who had a hip replaced at an NHS hospital had a terrible time with limited care and a discharge process that was like something out of the VIctorian era! Take your pick! I'm certainly not getting hung up on who provides my treatment as long as it's good and despise Labour's silly politicking games!!

[Bycarsbill]

16 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

No one is saying that we shouldn't provide adequate care for an aging population. You don't have a monopoly on virtues (in fact you are quite abusive and so i doubt many are buying your virtue signalling).

 

People who aren't leftists are simply making the (legitimate) point that if you steam in  like a bull in a china shop, forcing the wealthy to pay "their fair share" then we could end up with even less money in the social welfare pot than we currently have.

That isn't the same as defending the wealthy. It isn't the same as not caring for the vulnerable.

 

How can you or any other leftist guarantee that being harsher on these people/corporations will not lead to them leaving and/or laying people off? That is the question. If you can answer it in a convincing way then I'll happily agree with you.

Study after study has shown unequivocally that raising tax rates too high ends up in less tax take for the treasury! The top 1% of taxpayers currently provide 27% of the total tax revenue in this country and if you look at figures for the top 10% of taxpayers they contribute something like 52% of the TOTAL tax revenues we receive.  The very top earners are also much more mobile and are likely to move to more lenient ta locations thus depriving the exchequor of even more revenue!

[geosname]

41 minutes ago, Bycarsbill said:

What's all this "stop the USA privatising our NHS"?  1) Lots of the NHS is already 'privatised' 2) does anybody really worry about who provides the care as long as we, as patients, get the best treatment? I've personally had good experiences with services that rea out-sourced by the NHS.  My hearing needs and hearing aids are provide by Specsavers which has the contract from the NHS for these services and I've had much better treatment than when I had to report to the local hospital for these things!  A while ago I also had a hip replacement and I was offered (through my GP and the NHS "choose & book" system) a number of hospitals.  I chose the one closest to my home which happened to be a Spire Group private hospita lpaid for by the NHS. My experience for this procedure was excellent whereas my wife who had a hip replaced at an NHS hospital had a terrible time with limited care and a discharge process that was like something out of the VIctorian era! Take your pick! I'm certainly not getting hung up on who provides my treatment as long as it's good and despise Labour's silly politicking games!!

You mean the sort of service the NHS should be providing under it's own steam ?