General Politics Thread

[Bairnardo]

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

Delightful to think of American corporations being heavily involved in mental health here, considering how they approach the issue in the States.

Disagnosis: Make your own sunshine

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Disagnosis: Make your own sunshine

Make your own moonshine, judging by how many folk with mental health problems end up on the streets  

[SweeperDee]

Delightful to think of American corporations being heavily involved in mental health here, considering how they approach the issue in the States.

My missus was told by the only locum psychiatrist in Tayside, over the phone, after speaking nonstop without letting her speak, to watch YouTube videos about a particular condition and do her own reading/research. It’s not that much better over here at the moment I’m ashamed to say.

[BFTD]

1 hour ago, SweeperDee said:

My missus was told by the only locum psychiatrist in Tayside, over the phone, after speaking nonstop without letting her speak, to watch YouTube videos about a particular condition and do her own reading/research. It’s not that much better over here at the moment I’m ashamed to say.

Aye, over here there was a six month waiting period to see a psychiatrist, last I checked, and that was about a decade ago. Having said that, last I checked, the physiotherapy department were taking symptoms over the phone and posting out printouts for exercises they thought might help, so maybe that's the new acceptable standard of care.

The NHS is definitely not being wound down to make privatisation more acceptable, though.

[Crùbag]

ALBA's, or is ABLA?,  campaign summed up.  Jokers.

 

[101]

10 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

ALBA's, or is ABLA?,  campaign summed up.  Jokers.

 

Abba tribute act get off to sticky start

[Dawson Park Boy]

22 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Aye, over here there was a six month waiting period to see a psychiatrist, last I checked, and that was about a decade ago. Having said that, last I checked, the physiotherapy department were taking symptoms over the phone and posting out printouts for exercises they thought might help, so maybe that's the new acceptable standard of care.

The NHS is definitely not being wound down to make privatisation more acceptable, though.

Actually, in some areas of the NHS, such as cataract surgery, which mainly concerns older folks, the NHS waiting lists are so long that the only way to get treated is by going private or using private insurance cover if you have it.. No point in waiting for NHS treatment if your life expectancy is only a few years. Because of lack of availability, privatisation is coming fast and furious. The customer knows best!

[NotThePars]

2 hours ago, SweeperDee said:

My missus was told by the only locum psychiatrist in Tayside, over the phone, after speaking nonstop without letting her speak, to watch YouTube videos about a particular condition and do her own reading/research. It’s not that much better over here at the moment I’m ashamed to say.

Yep. They're so chronically underfunded that unless you're a serious, serious risk to yourself or others* your only option is to seek private support which is obviously expensive and usually involves trial and error to find what you need. 

*Even then it's touch and go for support.

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Actually, in some areas of the NHS, such as cataract surgery, which mainly concerns older folks, the NHS waiting lists are so long that the only way to get treated is by going private or using private insurance cover if you have it.. No point in waiting for NHS treatment if your life expectancy is only a few years. Because of lack of availability, privatisation is coming fast and furious. The customer knows best!

If the customer knew best, they'd be demanding that their representatives taxed the wealthy properly in order to fund public services, rather than spunking away more cash than they need to on private healthcare.

Also, my mother had cataract surgery on the NHS last year. Seems to have worked out alright.

[BFTD]

38 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

ALBA's, or is ABLA?,  campaign summed up.  Jokers.

Can't be arsed reading it, but I do appreciate the fact that there's a Twitter account called Alex Gammond  

[Dawson Park Boy]

2 minutes ago, BFTD said:

If the customer knew best, they'd be demanding that their representatives taxed the wealthy properly in order to fund public services, rather than spunking away more cash than they need to on private healthcare.

Also, my mother had cataract surgery on the NHS last year. Seems to have worked out alright.

Good for your mum, but right now, depending on the state of your sight, it can be up to two years.

How high do you want taxes to go?

For people on mid range salaries, it’s already higher in Scotland than elsewhere.

Presumably, you’d like o go back to the 70’s when you could pay around 90plus % on the top tranche of your earnings.

It doesn’t work, my friend. All the wealthy emigrate. Look at the Laffer theory. If you tax too high, revenue drops.

[BFTD]

Just now, Dawson Park Boy said:

Good for your mum, but right now, depending on the state of your sight, it can be up to two years.

How high do you want taxes to go?

For people on mid range salaries, it’s already higher in Scotland than elsewhere.

Presumably, you’d like o go back to the 70’s when you could pay around 90plus % on the top tranche of your earnings.

It doesn’t work, my friend. All the wealthy emigrate. Look at the Laffer theory. If you tax too high, revenue drops.

What is it with you and straw men anyway?

[yoda]

8 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

 It doesn’t work, my friend. All the wealthy emigrate. Look at the Laffer theory. If you tax too high, revenue drops.

Dunce found.

To clarify: Anyone using the Laffer Curve to justify tax policy is of course a dunce. Obviously at 0% tax there's no revenue because you aren't taxing anything. Obviously at 100% tax (under that specific model of labour supply) there's no revenue because nobody works. How the "curve" (under that specific model of labour supply) manifests itself is debatable.

 

Edited April 14, 2021 by yoda

[Dawson Park Boy]

33 minutes ago, yoda said:

Dunce found.

To clarify: Anyone using the Laffer Curve to justify tax policy is of course a dunce. Obviously at 0% tax there's no revenue because you aren't taxing anything. Obviously at 100% tax (under that specific model of labour supply) there's no revenue because nobody works. How the "curve" (under that specific model of labour supply) manifests itself is debatable.

 

When Thatcher came in, she gradually reduced taxes and revenue and prosperity increased.

Even in recent times, the Tories have been reducing CT and increasing revenue. This is being reversed temporarily because of Covid but with higher investment allowances to promote capital spending.

I think Ireland has very low CT rates and this has brought in loads of investment.

Regarding personal tax levels, I’m obviously talking about marginal rates and, to be successful, I think lower is always better to incentivise the population.

Seem to remember Salmond’s SNP  used to be a great advocate of low taxes, corporate and personal.

[NotThePars]

46 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

 

It doesn’t work, my friend. All the wealthy emigrate. Look at the Laffer theory. If you tax too high, revenue drops.

The only laffer theory I'm interested in is why all your posts are so damn laughable!

Boom!

Sniped his arse.

Edited April 14, 2021 by NotThePars

[Dawson Park Boy]

4 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

The only laffer theory I'm interested in is why all your posts are so damn laughable!

Boom!

Sniped his arse.

Okay, what’s your policy on tax?

Easy to snipe at people but you need to come up with some plausible ideas.

Of that, there appear to be none!

[Thistle_do_nicely]

1 hour ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Good for your mum, but right now, depending on the state of your sight, it can be up to two years.

How high do you want taxes to go?

For people on mid range salaries, it’s already higher in Scotland than elsewhere.

Presumably, you’d like o go back to the 70’s when you could pay around 90plus % on the top tranche of your earnings.

It doesn’t work, my friend. All the wealthy emigrate. Look at the Laffer theory. If you tax too high, revenue drops.

mmmrmrmrmrmh wait wasn't inflation (wage inflation especially) heavily weighted in favour of people taking out mortgages rather than the banks in the 70's? so getting a house was, comparatively, a piece of piss for most people even in low paid full time employment?

that'd be pretty sweet tbf

[yoda]

50 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

When Thatcher came in, she gradually reduced taxes and revenue and prosperity increased.

Even in recent times, the Tories have been reducing CT and increasing revenue. This is being reversed temporarily because of Covid but with higher investment allowances to promote capital spending.

I think Ireland has very low CT rates and this has brought in loads of investment.

Regarding personal tax levels, I’m obviously talking about marginal rates and, to be successful, I think lower is always better to incentivise the population.

Seem to remember Salmond’s SNP  used to be a great advocate of low taxes, corporate and personal.

There's a lot wrong here.

There's no strong evidence to suggest that tax cuts increase "prosperity". There's no link between lower taxes and lower unemployment, or higher growth. There has been measurable increases in inequality in countries like the UK and US since the 1980s though. The only folk who have prospered have been those who received tax cuts. And most of them are in the top income earners; the people who don't really need tax cuts. If you actually want to implement tax cuts that are good for the economy and good for society then you reduce the tax burden on those at the bottom. 

Lots of countries have had higher tax rates in the past, and they coincided with higher periods of "prosperity".  Incidentally lots of countries have higher corporation tax than Ireland - these countries seem to get on fine.

Supply side economics and trickle down wealth has been largely debunked by actual real life experience. 

 

[Dawson Park Boy]

43 minutes ago, yoda said:

There's a lot wrong here.

There's no strong evidence to suggest that tax cuts increase "prosperity". There's no link between lower taxes and lower unemployment, or higher growth. There has been measurable increases in inequality in countries like the UK and US since the 1980s though. The only folk who have prospered have been those who received tax cuts. And most of them are in the top income earners; the people who don't really need tax cuts. If you actually want to implement tax cuts that are good for the economy and good for society then you reduce the tax burden on those at the bottom. 

Lots of countries have had higher tax rates in the past, and they coincided with higher periods of "prosperity".  Incidentally lots of countries have higher corporation tax than Ireland - these countries seem to get on fine.

Supply side economics and trickle down wealth has been largely debunked by actual real life experience. 

 

I don’t particularly agree with you but at least you’ve responded with a cogent argument.

Thanks for that.

[Dawson Park Boy]

48 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

mmmrmrmrmrmh wait wasn't inflation (wage inflation especially) heavily weighted in favour of people taking out mortgages rather than the banks in the 70's? so getting a house was, comparatively, a piece of piss for most people even in low paid full time employment?

that'd be pretty sweet tbf

Back then, yes, wage inflation was quite high and it did seem quite easy to obtain a mortgage. However, interest rates were astronomical. At one time, I seem to recall paying around 15%, if not higher.