Coronavirus

[Russian Saint]

[oaksoft]

6 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

Well that's a long one and I certainly don't agree with all of it.

• This is a new, singular. and relatively virulent virus unlike the common cold or flu which are catch all terms to include hundreds of strains.
• "Selfish bastards not obeying the rules" like the Bolton pub crawler in particular have been shown cause the spread of the virus, it'd be naive to think that the cavalier attitude of the government, It's chief Spad in particular and the hordes who rushed to the beaches or congregated outside pubs haven't contributed to the current resurgence. 
• I certainly don't see the logic in allowing cafes to open but not restaurants licensed to serve alcohol, as for bars I'd probably not have let them reopen back in the summer but the genie is out of the bottle now and it has an effect on the night-time economy in general. 
• How do you tell a genuine scientist from a fake one?
• Do you have proof that the current upsurge in deaths is confined to those with underlying conditions - last week you said "Cases are obviously rising but UK deaths are at about 50-60 per day and flat-lining over the last week." but that proved to be a bit optimistic. if deaths are not following the same exponential trend as the spring it's probably down to us having better treatments and as for those claims that there was no bed shortage that's not what the NHS is reporting in areas like the NE of England this week.

I think you're right we have to get on with life but that doesn't mean we should abandon those policies like social distancing, mask wearing & hand washing that are known to cut down the spread of the virus. I don't think we should close the NHS down a second but we need a better strategy to cope with the pandemic. Sadly the current are unlikely to be generous with enhanced sick pay to keep ill people off work. If only they paid the same attention to party donors getting lucrative covid contracts as they do to those at the margins of society.

 

It's easier to spot a bogus scientist from a real scientist if you actually are a real scientist to start with so in fairness I have a bit of an edge there. You can include all those involved in psychobabble behavioural nonsense. That's not science at all. It's bollocks. Sadly it's what is driving current policy in both Holyrood and Westminster.

Deaths are not much more than 50 per day at the moment. I'm not going to squabble about numbers going up to 80 per day.

If people were now dying without underlying conditions we'd be hearing about it everywhere so it's a reasonable assumption that this isn't what is happening.

Those same selfish bastards were not out drinking during the last wave but we still saw huge numbers of cases months after lockdown so it can't be as simple as that. Countries are seeing wildly differeing rates of deaths, infections and hospitalisations and it seems this is independent of whether they embraced social distancing, hand washing and masks or nothing at all.

In my opinion, all efforts should be put into protecting those vulnerable people who WANT protecting and to let the rest of us get back to normal while others search for cures/vaccines. There simply isn't another reasonable, realistic or practical alternative. Trashing our economy for another 3 years as per Bazil's suggestion is just idiotic but I know you are not suggesting that we follow his advice.

I'm open to other reasonable, realistic and practical solutions on this so let's hear them.

Edited October 11, 2020 by oaksoft

[antrin]

15 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

In my opinion, all efforts should be put into protecting those vulnerable people who WANT protecting and to let the rest of us get back to normal while others search for cures/vaccines. There simply isn't another reasonable, realistic or practical alternative. Trashing our economy for another 3 years as per Bazil's suggestion is just idiotic but I know you are not suggesting that we follow his advice.

 

You have my fullest endorsement.

Oxter for FM!

...and PM.

[Slarti]

I like you , you make me laugh
 
Why is it fascist dictators are always wee guys , Mussolini , Hitler , little Nap' , Franco , Julius Caesar and of course ......................................................you now know who

Why would you regard Napoleon and Julius Caesar as fascist?

Why would you regard Hitler, Napoleon and Julius Caesar as being wee when they were all average height or taller for the time they lived? Hitler would be average height just now.

Even if you were right about those things, and seeing as "guys" is generally used as gender neutral these days, why do you not regard the fact that they were all male, all non-Scottish, all born before 1900 or all now dead to be comparative factors?

Was it all really just a way to have a dig at someone else and those things didn't fit your agenda?

[bazil85]

On 10/10/2020 at 2:30 PM, slapsalmon said:

OK ill bite. So far there have already been 3.5 million people left with no income or support due to covid and job losses. It may be a political decision, and maybe it shouldn't be that way but the reality is, that's what's happening. 

"some pain" in hospitality. I'm guessing you don't work in hospitality. There's currently more than some pain in the industry and it's getting worse by the day. 

Any gains the industry has made in working conditions over the past years will be absolutely gone when any normality comes back as people will be absolutely desperate for work and will work for peanuts just to pay a gas bill. 

 

People are being shafted already and the peak of unemployment and businesses closing hasn't hit yet. The set back will take years to fix in a best case scenario

Yep it is the way it is. But that doesn't mean I'm going to bow down to a solution that could kill up to 1 in 20 over 70s in this country. The solution (in my view) is to change the political approach. 

I feel for them, I really do. As I feel for everyone impacted on the job front but again back to point one. The change needs to be a political one, not an expendable human life to support an industry imo. People like Oaks and Sue have previously said my view would change if I was financially impacted. I would take a massive tax increase today if I knew the money was going to support these people impacted, not to be wasted on military budgets, trident, further ruining the environment and a pointless rail-link. 

Third point also needs to be mitigated against. If that is looking like the case (and I don't fully agree it is) legislation must be passed to protect workers rights and pay. 

Again, my view is life over economy and I will not be swayed (without some kind of evidence it can't be done). The financial capability and resources exist to support people through this. If the economy takes a bigger hit (which it will) let's work on that but ultimately human life is more important. 

 

No one on here has to come round to my view, you're welcome to keep your own like anyone else obviously. But I really don't get people thinking my view isn't a fair one. I'm yet to see one argument from anyone that points to it being impossible for people to be better protected through this crisis by making more people-centered political decisions. 

[bazil85]

On 10/9/2020 at 4:03 PM, oaksoft said:

For some context here antrin, the UK has racked up a £210 billion bill for just the first 6 months of the virus. So that's £420 billion for a year.

The UK taxman collects about £600 billion per year and it's all accounted for.

That spangle you are talking with has suggested that we simply raise taxes to cover the bill. So that would need tax increases of around 70% just to balance the books with regard to covid. He said he would accept any proof you could give him about why we can't just simply supply the money for covid. Those numbers are your proof but he won't accept them and he won't change his mind because he's not a reasonable person by any definition of the word.

He's not affected in any way by covid and that's why he holds the position he holds. Nothing will change until he loses his job.

Oh and of course we need a functioning economy to be able to raise taxes in the first place.

make better decisions on how we spend our taxation income. 

Tax people more.

I could lose my job tomorrow, my worldview wouldn't change. 

Don't hold other people to your complete lack of morals worldview. Human life is more important than a countries deficit. To think all people care only about their own pockets like you is ridiculous. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by bazil85

[Russian Saint]

make better decisions on how we spend our taxation income. 
Tax people more.
I could lose my job tomorrow, my worldview wouldn't change. 
Don't hold other people to your complete lack of morals worldview. Human life is more important than a countries deficit. To think all people care only about their own pockets like you is ridiculous. 

Not sure how that’ll work. If businesses are going to the wall then it means more people will be unemployed, which means less tax going back to the government but more being dished out in benefits. This could lead to more people defaulting on mortgage payments meaning more repossessions leading to more people potentially out in the street. The economy needs people spending to keep the system afloat, more unemployment means less spending which again leads to more businesses closing down.......... repeat. What cuts would you like to see from the government to prop up a crashing economy?

I believe that you mentioned scrapping Trident in one of your earlier posts. Between the military, civilians and local supply chain, that’s around 11000 people to take into account, plus the cost to decommission Coulport and Faslane, then there’s the question of the decommission of the submarines and the missiles ££££££££££££££££
I’m not having a pop at you but we need to find a happy medium. Why have the likes of Hydroxychloroquine been denounced when so many medical experts have said that it works for patients if caught at the early stages, potentially saving between 50 to 70% of patients. Is it because Trump name dropped it, is it because it’s very cheap, and readily available but means the pharmaceutical industry misses out on a bumper pay day?
Personally I have no idea, but surely these existing approved drugs should be given chance.

[oaksoft]

29 minutes ago, Russian Saint said:

 

Not sure how that’ll work. If businesses are going to the wall then it means more people will be unemployed, which means less tax going back to the government but more being dished out in benefits. This could lead to more people defaulting on mortgage payments meaning more repossessions leading to more people potentially out in the street. The economy needs people spending to keep the system afloat, more unemployment means less spending which again leads to more businesses closing down.......... repeat. What cuts would you like to see from the government to prop up a crashing economy?

I believe that you mentioned scrapping Trident in one of your earlier posts. Between the military, civilians and local supply chain, that’s around 11000 people to take into account, plus the cost to decommission Coulport and Faslane, then there’s the question of the decommission of the submarines and the missiles ££££££££££££££££
I’m not having a pop at you but we need to find a happy medium. Why have the likes of Hydroxychloroquine been denounced when so many medical experts have said that it works for patients if caught at the early stages, potentially saving between 50 to 70% of patients. Is it because Trump name dropped it, is it because it’s very cheap, and readily available but means the pharmaceutical industry misses out on a bumper pay day?
Personally I have no idea, but surely these existing approved drugs should be given chance.

 

What on earth are you going in about in that bit in bold?

Why would you possibly even think that the NHS would refuse to buy and use a drug which has been shown to defeat covid? If that drug worked and it can be proven to work, they'd use it. End of story.

If you genuinely think that big pharma control the NHS, you need to look at the price differences for things like insulin between the US and the UK.

As for the earlier part of your post, Bazil doesn't understand what shades of grey means. Everything is black and white, good and evil, human lives or economy, etc etc etc. It's really not worth your time trying to persuade him of anything. It took me months to get him to understand that whatever the government chooses to do, people will die. Lockdown? People will die. Remove all restrictions? People will die. Shield the old and vulnerable? People will die. Trash the economy? People will die. Make government cuts? People will die. Look at his posting record.  He doesn't understand how these things are intrinsically coupled. He is a simple fellow with a simple brain and something complex like this baffles him to the extent that he's actually advocating a 70% increase in all forms of taxation to save a single life. Bonkers.

But hey, if you want to bash your head against a brick wall with him, be my guest. You won't be the first nor the last. 

[Bud the Baker]

10 hours ago, theknickerwetter said:

I like you , you make me laugh

 

Why is it fascist dictators are always wee guys , Mussolini , Hitler , little Nap' , Franco , Julius Caesar and of course ......................................................you now know who

Neither NS nor BJ (who invariably follows NS a few days later) are fascist dictators. - it's a lazy & incorrect paradigm!

Just another deluded gammon fantasy - down (sic) to your usual standard! 🦇💩  

***************************

@Russian Saint the vast majority of studies into Hydroxychloroquine have come to the conclusion that it does not help in the treatment of Covid 19, the relevance & validity of the few which did have been called into question. It really is not the case that "so many medical experts" back its use and that's without taking it's side effects into account use it's just another cause celebre of the Alt-right media. As for Trump's endorsement, he's just clutching at straws in an election year. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Russian Saint said:

 

Not sure how that’ll work. If businesses are going to the wall then it means more people will be unemployed, which means less tax going back to the government but more being dished out in benefits. This could lead to more people defaulting on mortgage payments meaning more repossessions leading to more people potentially out in the street. The economy needs people spending to keep the system afloat, more unemployment means less spending which again leads to more businesses closing down.......... repeat. What cuts would you like to see from the government to prop up a crashing economy?

I believe that you mentioned scrapping Trident in one of your earlier posts. Between the military, civilians and local supply chain, that’s around 11000 people to take into account, plus the cost to decommission Coulport and Faslane, then there’s the question of the decommission of the submarines and the missiles ££££££££££££££££
I’m not having a pop at you but we need to find a happy medium. Why have the likes of Hydroxychloroquine been denounced when so many medical experts have said that it works for patients if caught at the early stages, potentially saving between 50 to 70% of patients. Is it because Trump name dropped it, is it because it’s very cheap, and readily available but means the pharmaceutical industry misses out on a bumper pay day?
Personally I have no idea, but surely these existing approved drugs should be given chance.

 

I'm sorry but there is still nothing in this that suggests to me we have no option but to open the country back up and write off large numbers of the elderly and vulnerable. Regarding some of your specific points:

- Support the housing market regarding banks, renting and mortgage payments, legislate to protect people's homes. 

- There is still plenty of money going around, many companies are thriving in this environment. Innovate and sensibly work on taxation of big business to increase tax revenue. The income of companies like Amazon, Ebay, Paypal during this pandemic should not continue to be protected from taxation the way they have been in the past. These companies not paying their fair share has always been an issue. We address that issue, how many thousands (or millions) of unemployed are compensated for through multi-billion pound companies? 

- Scrapping trident and cutting back on military budgets would have more of a financial benefit than it would a hit on jobs. The cost to upkeep and upgrade equipment which is ultimately scrap metal is vast

I know you're not. What I would also say is people like Oak are saying there isn't options apart from opening up the country and just letting people die in thousands. It's observably wrong because we aren't making those decisions which means there is another way. He's willing to give no time to develop a vaccine, he wants the world open and people dying yesterday, to protect his own income. He has made it crystal clear the only thing that matters to him is his own money. 

I personally think it's pathetic but for some reason I'm made out to be the bad guy because my values extend beyond myself. 

Also, I don't really have much to say on the last bit, I wouldn't be trusting anything Trump says and feel there will be very clear reasoning to why such drugs aren't being used. 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by bazil85

[Bud the Baker]

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Innovate and sensibly work on taxation of big business to increase tax revenue. The income of companies like Amazon, Ebay, Paypal during this pandemic should not continue to be protected from taxation the way they have been in the past. These companies not paying their fair share has always been an issue. We address that issue, how many thousands (or millions) of unemployed are compensated for through multi-billion pound companies? 

- Scrapping trident and cutting back on military budgets would have more of a financial benefit than it would a hit on jobs. The cost to upkeep and upgrade equipment which is ultimately scrap metal is vast

All sensible ideas, windfall taxes for these companies should be a "no-brainer" I'd add the big supermarkets too and throw in clawing back some of the billions of pounds that have been "gifted" to the (often incompetent) benefactors of the current government and we may indeed move towards the mantra of "we're all in it together". 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Bud the Baker

[bazil85]

38 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

What on earth are you going in about in that bit in bold?

Why would you possibly even think that the NHS would refuse to buy and use a drug which has been shown to defeat covid? If that drug worked and it can be proven to work, they'd use it. End of story.

If you genuinely think that big pharma control the NHS, you need to look at the price differences for things like insulin between the US and the UK.

As for the earlier part of your post, Bazil doesn't understand what shades of grey means. Everything is black and white, good and evil, human lives or economy, etc etc etc. It's really not worth your time trying to persuade him of anything. It took me months to get him to understand that whatever the government chooses to do, people will die. Lockdown? People will die. Remove all restrictions? People will die. Shield the old and vulnerable? People will die. Trash the economy? People will die. Make government cuts? People will die. Look at his posting record.  He doesn't understand how these things are intrinsically coupled. He is a simple fellow with a simple brain and something complex like this baffles him to the extent that he's actually advocating a 70% increase in all forms of taxation to save a single life. Bonkers.

But hey, if you want to bash your head against a brick wall with him, be my guest. You won't be the first nor the last. 

What complete and utter inflated self-worth garbage. You nor anyone else on here got me to understand people will die regardless. I have been fully aware of that just as long as you or anyone else. That doesn't mean we need to press nuclear buttons on the vulnerable to protect your income, something you have been open about as your only concern. We are in a horrible situation and people will die yes, that doesn't mean we have to prioritise your summer holidays and trips to the pub over the elderly and vulnerable. 

There are other options out there such as what we are seeing right now. Restrictions in place that allow give and take with the economy and protection of life. People all over the world are working on a vaccine, you have not got the patience to wait one more minute and think it's time we start thinning the herd, I disagree. 

It's telling that you get really upset when tax increases are mentioned. I know I have really got your back up in the past by showing how selfish, miserable and ridiculous many of your world views are but the second something might hit your own pocket, you go next level. Predictable. 

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

All sensible ideas, windfall taxes for these companies should be a "no-brainer" I'd add the big supermarkets too and throw in clawing back some of the billions of pounds that have been "gifted" to the (often incompetent) benefactors of the current government and we may indeed move towards the mantra of "we're all in it together". 

No apparently i'm wrong and the only option is to increase Joe Bloggs that works for £13 an hours tax by 70% 🤣

Edited October 12, 2020 by bazil85

[slapsalmon]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Yep it is the way it is. But that doesn't mean I'm going to bow down to a solution that could kill up to 1 in 20 over 70s in this country. The solution (in my view) is to change the political approach. 

 

Third point also needs to be mitigated against. If that is looking like the case (and I don't fully agree it is) legislation must be passed to protect workers rights and pay. 

As for the 2 bits above. Where has 1 in 20 come from? 

 

There is legislation, but it doesn't stop places asking for experienced people, paying them 17/8k a year and working them into the ground 65 hours a week with unpaid overtime. The more desperate people become the more these conditions will be accepted. 

The sad reality is the legislation and NMW mean next to f**k all in hospitality where this has been the norm for years. You might not agree that's the case but take my word for it as someone who actually knows. The gains and moves away from these practises will be all but gone when places are eventually allowed to open up. 

There's a big backlash at the moment from operators who have bent over backwards in changing practises and capacities to make restaurants and (most) bars safe and clean some of them at a considerable cost. I certainly would rather be in a restaurant than a supermarket if I wanted to avoid covid. 

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

As for the 2 bits above. Where has 1 in 20 come from? 

 

There is legislation, but it doesn't stop places asking for experienced people, paying them 17/8k a year and working them into the ground 65 hours a week with unpaid overtime. The more desperate people become the more these conditions will be accepted. 

The sad reality is the legislation and NMW mean next to f**k all in hospitality where this has been the norm for years. You might not agree that's the case but take my word for it as someone who actually knows. The gains and moves away from these practises will be all but gone when places are eventually allowed to open up. 

There's a big backlash at the moment from operators who have bent over backwards in changing practises and capacities to make restaurants and (most) bars safe and clean some of them at a considerable cost. I certainly would rather be in a restaurant than a supermarket if I wanted to avoid covid. 

The most up to date mortality rate people are sharing is over 5% for people over 70. Someone shared it on here recently, I think it was survival rate 94.6% or something. Let's hope that comes down a good bit but right now that tolerance for people over 70 is far, far too high for me. Maybe not for others but that's my personal view. 

There is never going to be a catch all solution (contrary to his Royal Highness Oakster, I was aware of that before conversations with him on the topic) and that problem has existed long before Covid19. I don't think there is nothing a government could do to legislate and protect employees more. I'm pretty sure no one can be forced to do unpaid overtime and 65 hour weeks are above standards. Monitor companies doing these practice, encourage whistleblowing and out them. If they are breaking laws on workers rights, heavily sanction them. 

You go onto cover this a bit yourself "norm for years" If it is going in the right direction which I believe it is, enforce it more. Your attitude seems a tiny bit defeatist. Again back to my point, that still doesn't justify writing off large numbers of the elderly and vulnerable. Also who's to say the economy would bounce back if we completely reopened? The NHS would certainly be hammered short to medium term and need even more investment, elderly & vulnerable people use hospitality facilities. They wouldn't be able to because they'd either be dead or unable to engage with the general population. There might be even more fear in the population to do stuff that generates income because you still want to see your granny but don't want her to get Covid19. 

I agree on the supermarket vs restaurant point but I also understand measures have to be taken somewhere. 

[Bud the Baker]

11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The most up to date mortality rate people are sharing is over 5% for people over 70. Someone shared it on here recently, I think it was survival rate 94.6% or something. Let's hope that comes down a good bit but right now that tolerance for people over 70 is far, far too high for me. Maybe not for others but that's my personal view. 

There is never going to be a catch all solution (contrary to his Royal Highness Oakster, I was aware of that before conversations with him on the topic) and that problem has existed long before Covid19. I don't think there is nothing a government could do to legislate and protect employees more. I'm pretty sure no one can be forced to do unpaid overtime and 65 hour weeks are above standards. Monitor companies doing these practice, encourage whistleblowing and out them. If they are breaking laws on workers rights, heavily sanction them. 

You go onto cover this a bit yourself "norm for years" If it is going in the right direction which I believe it is, enforce it more. Your attitude seems a tiny bit defeatist. Again back to my point, that still doesn't justify writing off large numbers of the elderly and vulnerable. Also who's to say the economy would bounce back if we completely reopened? The NHS would certainly be hammered short to medium term and need even more investment, elderly & vulnerable people use hospitality facilities. They wouldn't be able to because they'd either be dead or unable to engage with the general population. There might be even more fear in the population to do stuff that generates income because you still want to see your granny but don't want her to get Covid19. 

I agree on the supermarket vs restaurant point but I also understand measures have to be taken somewhere. 

Yer a cruel man Baz...

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, Bud the Baker said:

Yer a cruel man Baz...

To clarify, far far too high to remove all restrictions. 😅

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

All sensible ideas, windfall taxes for these companies should be a "no-brainer" I'd add the big supermarkets too and throw in clawing back some of the billions of pounds that have been "gifted" to the (often incompetent) benefactors of the current government and we may indeed move towards the mantra of "we're all in it together". 

It won't be enough.

In another post I've shown that there would need to be at least a 70% tax increases on all taxes on average just to keep up with this years spending on covid and as slarti says, this would only be if we had no further redundancies.

What you are talking about will bring in a few pence, if that.

Oh and imposing tax increases when millions are facing the dole would be problemmatic as well.

I'm afraid taxing the rich isn't going to be the solution.

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

What complete and utter inflated self-worth garbage. You nor anyone else on here got me to understand people will die regardless. I have been fully aware of that just as long as you or anyone else. That doesn't mean we need to press nuclear buttons on the vulnerable to protect your income, something you have been open about as your only concern. We are in a horrible situation and people will die yes, that doesn't mean we have to prioritise your summer holidays and trips to the pub over the elderly and vulnerable. 

There are other options out there such as what we are seeing right now. Restrictions in place that allow give and take with the economy and protection of life. People all over the world are working on a vaccine, you have not got the patience to wait one more minute and think it's time we start thinning the herd, I disagree. 

It's telling that you get really upset when tax increases are mentioned. I know I have really got your back up in the past by showing how selfish, miserable and ridiculous many of your world views are but the second something might hit your own pocket, you go next level. Predictable. 

Good luck persuading anyone to agree to an increase of 70% on all taxes. 

[pod]

3 hours ago, Russian Saint said:

Personally I have no idea, but surely these existing approved drugs should be given chance.

 

Let us know how you get on.  

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, slapsalmon said:

As for the 2 bits above. Where has 1 in 20 come from? 

 

There is legislation, but it doesn't stop places asking for experienced people, paying them 17/8k a year and working them into the ground 65 hours a week with unpaid overtime. The more desperate people become the more these conditions will be accepted. 

The sad reality is the legislation and NMW mean next to f**k all in hospitality where this has been the norm for years. You might not agree that's the case but take my word for it as someone who actually knows.

You are right about this. The law is there to protect people but people in this situation will not risk the little income they are receiving by complaining. So employers get away with treating the staff however they like.

The real world is a bitch.

[bazil85]

58 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Good luck persuading anyone to agree to an increase of 70% on all taxes. 

Your (ridiculous) conclusion not mine. I've already pointed out you've near completely failed to grasp my post.

It wouldn't be the first time one of our conversations was beyond you. 👍

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

It won't be enough.

In another post I've shown that there would need to be at least a 70% tax increases on all taxes on average just to keep up with this years spending on covid and as slarti says, this would only be if we had no further redundancies.

What you are talking about will bring in a few pence, if that.

Oh and imposing tax increases when millions are facing the dole would be problemmatic as well.

I'm afraid taxing the rich isn't going to be the solution.

It probably won't be enough but remember "we're all in it together".

What's the alternative - mega-austerity falling on the poorest, most vulnerable members of society? State benefits are increasingly hard to get, the threat of sanctions is ever present (even in Covid times) and don't allow for a life of luxury - I read a quote from an ex-BA pilot who was shocked to find out that Income Support was so Meagre.

This could have been a chance to take a step back and establish new priorities I fear that by 2024 most of us will be looking out for No. 1. I still hope that a radical Green/Red agenda can be established although that is unlikely with SKS as Labour leader.

**************

I posted this on the EoC thread but it relevant to what we're talking about here

Quote

Taxpayers' Alliance: Cut pensioner benefits 'immediately'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965

Interesting to see Conservative MP Liam Fox (a Cabinet Member barely a year ago) at the table so it's not just fringe politics, 

I particularly liked their argument that

Quote

The first of which will sound a little bit morbid - some of the people... won't be around to vote against you in the next election.

....and all this in a country whose government was boasting that it was the fifth richest country in the world not so long ago.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Bud the Baker

[FTOF]

https://www.ft.com/content/7a01b73b-d1ec-4b6e-a7b1-2d1a0060de91

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/22/wealth-tax-rise-could-raise-174bn-tackle-covid-19-expert-says

A couple of views from individuals who do know what they are talking about when it comes to tax etc.

An then, how the hedge fund managers and bankers are taking evasive action.

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/uks-richest-set-to-offload-billions-in-assets-to-avoid-covid-tax-hikes-20201011

 

[Bud the Baker]

On 10/9/2020 at 4:03 PM, oaksoft said:

For some context here antrin, the UK has racked up a £210 billion bill for just the first 6 months of the virus. So that's £420 billion for a year.

The UK taxman collects about £600 billion per year and it's all accounted for.

That spangle you are talking with has suggested that we simply raise taxes to cover the bill. So that would need tax increases of around 70% just to balance the books with regard to covid. He said he would accept any proof you could give him about why we can't just simply supply the money for covid. Those numbers are your proof but he won't accept them and he won't change his mind because he's not a reasonable person by any definition of the word.

He's not affected in any way by covid and that's why he holds the position he holds. Nothing will change until he loses his job.

Oh and of course we need a functioning economy to be able to raise taxes in the first place.

Why will the money need to be payed back in a year - austerity after the 2008 collapse ran until 2019 so 11 years or 6.33% per year and it needn't even be that great if we imposed windfall taxes on the companies who have done well from the virus (I read the Tesco Chairman is on a mega-bonus  ) introduced a fairer tax system on the hi-tech giants and generally tightened up on tax avoidance.

Or was "we're all in it together" just a meaningless slogan?