CrazyDave Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 6 minutes ago, HeliX said: It could be that my calculations are off, but from my fagpacket maths most people on under 30k or so aren't going to be worse off under this budget due to the increases in other benefits etc. EDIT: Though obviously I object to the "socialism is when Govt gives people money" rhetoric Get out with your actual facts. People need something to rant about, even if they don’t understand what they are ranting about. I have seen people ranting about a ten percent tax increase ffs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genericUserName Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 22 hours ago, genericUserName said: I would liked to have seen the thresholds increased for those on the lowest wages. Better off people should pay more. 6 hours ago, woolley said: Better off people? Like somebody earning over £21,000 who will now be into the 22% tax bracket? My bad for not being adequately clear. In the post which you quoted I have proposed raising the thresholds for those on the lowest incomes. To be clear -I believe that more tax bands would make sense. With high incomes commanding a higher rate. Someone earning £21K for working full-time should not be paying any tax. Personally I would also abolish or significantly reduce VAT which disproportionately impacts those on the lowest incomes. Obviously that is currently a matter for the London government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genericUserName Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 (edited) Talking about VAT. If the government were to reduce spending, would that not ultimately impact the amount which we currently receive via the sharing agreement? Isn't it based on, effectively, GDP? Edited February 21 by genericUserName Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 13 minutes ago, genericUserName said: Talking about VAT. If the government were to reduce spending, would that not ultimately impact the amount which we currently receive via the sharing agreement? Isn't it based on, effectively, GDP? Yeah but they can make up some fantasy figures to make up for any perceived shortfall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 1 minute ago, Waldo Pepper said: No that was the head testing centre you fucking loon. Ladies and gentlemen….. Introducing. For ten minutes only (drum roll) Cuey Lewis and the News!!!!!!!! (Crowd put head in hands and roll eyes, while clicking the report button) 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 13 minutes ago, CrazyDave said: Introducing. For ten minutes only (drum roll) Cuey Lewis and the News!!!!!!!! 10 minutes? He actually got to 21. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurricanII Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 2 hours ago, CrazyDave said: Which admin functions are chronically overmanned? I was in the test centre recently and the staff in there said they are rushed off their feet. I'm trying to work out the answer to this question also. Can anyone playing devil's advocate (or advocate) give a reasonable explanation for the increase in these staff numbers that I am missing? In 2012: 7,733 staff for 84,519 population. £3.8Bn GDP In 2022: 8,380 staff for 84,338 population. £5Bn GDP £3.8bn in 2011 adjusted for inflation was worth £4.8Bn in 2022, so hardly a massive increase in GDP. 8.4% increase in staff numbers for 0.2% decrease in population, when the pension black hole has been widely reported and being discussed by the Chief Minister as a serious problem since 2004. It's not even as if we had a massive spike of population in the decade which would explain a rising staff numbers that will then difficult to reduce. Population numbers have been steady. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 2 minutes ago, TurricanII said: I'm trying to work out the answer to this question also. Can anyone playing devil's advocate (or advocate) give a reasonable explanation for the increase in these staff numbers that I am missing? In 2012: 7,733 staff for 84,519 population. £3.8Bn GDP In 2022: 8,380 staff for 84,338 population. £5Bn GDP £3.8bn in 2011 adjusted for inflation was worth £4.8Bn in 2022, so hardly a massive increase in GDP. 8.4% increase in staff numbers for 0.2% decrease in population, when the pension black hole has been widely reported and being discussed by the Chief Minister as a serious problem since 2004. It's not even as if we had a massive spike of population in the decade which would explain a rising staff numbers that will then difficult to reduce. Population numbers have been steady. Beware of GDP on the island. It's everything from the stakes going through gambling companies and banks. It might go through, but most of it never lands on the island. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 5 hours ago, TheTeapot said: This isn't even the point I was making, why do you have to be such a fucking wanker all the time? Don't reply to any more of my posts thanks, I do not welcome your views. I don’t know why I find this so hilarious that someone is posting this on and about a public forum. But I just do. It’s good to know that despite the sad demise of Steve Wright the spirit of Mr Angry lives on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 6 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: I don’t know why I find this so hilarious that someone is posting this on and about a public forum. But I just do. It’s good to know that despite the sad demise of Steve Wright the spirit of Mr Angry lives on! Have you worked out what point he was actually trying to make? I have absolutely no idea 😂 Maybe he was on the pub? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 6 minutes ago, CrazyDave said: Have you worked out what point he was actually trying to make? I have absolutely no idea 😂 Maybe he was on the pub? I don’t know but I think it’s bad form to suggest that an individual’s contribution on here is influenced by having taken drink, however much you suspect that may be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: I don’t know but I think it’s bad form to suggest that an individual’s contribution on here is influenced by having taken drink, however much you suspect that may be the case. Fair enough, you make a good point. He must have been stoned then 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 57 minutes ago, CrazyDave said: Maybe he was on the pub? That would imply he's a roofer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 1 hour ago, TurricanII said: It's not even as if we had a massive spike of population in the decade which would explain a rising staff numbers that will then difficult to reduce. Population numbers have been steady. Why do you think they are so desperate to get to 100k population even though they can't handle the infrastructure for 85k? They need the revenue to pay their wages and pensions before the reserves run out. We'll go the way of most western governments and end up borrowing to spend on essentials and start the national debt spiral. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 They can tinker with the tax rates all they like, until they get PS expenditure under control and reduced it's like sticking their finger in a hole in a dam while the water is slopping freely over the top. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.