Serious question. How is this not a major controversy? Is the Republican party and its supporters really that level of homophobic that this wouldn't damage the reputations of Cruz et al?
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
- Status
Are you really sure you want an answer to that
It's kinda terrifying that no Rep candidate has used this to attack him because it's outrageous. Surely will be used to smash him if he gets the nomination.
Really grim. Sounds like mail fraud almost. Though the article title is quite click-baity
Such as?
Cruz is just the worst. I think that he really beliefs most of the shit he says, and would try to implement those policies.
Trump on the other hand is a WUM. He knows that the majority of right wing population are complete nutters and is saying things to appeal to them.
Trump on the other hand is a WUM. He knows that the majority of right wing population are complete nutters and is saying things to appeal to them.
Taxing the rich more than mid-class.
Does Hillary not think that?
Yep. But it is still a very left-wing policy, which goes completely against Trump's image as a right wing nutter.
He doesn't have a platform of what he will do (like, I don't know how we'll censor internet but will talk with Bill Gates for that), and is just saying batshit crazy things to appeal batshit crazy people. While obviously I hope that he won't become president, I think that both Cruz and Robot (especially Cruz) will be more damaging to US (and the world) than Trump.
he wants to get rid of health insurance companies. he is not clear about the replacements though. He was for single payer. Also wants to tax fund managers.
I can't say I don't see how this feasible, because our cousins across the Atlantic have a functioning model. I am curious as to how premiums and costs get figured out, and by whom. Bernie also admits that taxes will rise across the board to fund this proposal.
What single payer? How does it work in Europe? Payroll taxes will come in. No more premiums and minimum out of pocket. The net effect will be much less cost to individuals/families And businesses.
Yes. I was referring to the NHS in particular. (Do you guys have actuaries in the UK?)
I agree with you... In theory at least. Implementation will need a bunch of iterations.
we do have actuaries - though the funding of the NHS is something that in truth is a bit of a cock up and its far too political to let actuaries get involved in any meaningful way- its essentially runs out of our normal taxation system as do our pensions to a large extent...
our NI (national insurance contributions) theoretically cover NHS, Pensions etc but in truth they dont...
NI is either around 13% or 10% tax collected in addition to your normal tax rates (approx 20% or 40% (above certain thresholds))
Where most people get confused abot pensions is they think the government takes that money - invests it, and then pays them back their pension out of that money at the end - it has of course never worked like that and the current contributions are used to pay for current collected pensions - initially the scheme assumed around 12 people working for each person retired (as people tended not to live too long after retirement and the pension wasnt very much) - now we find people live a lot longer after retirement, the amount we pay them is more and quite simply the system is broken (estimates are it will be two and a bit working to each retired as the baby boomer's get older which will add even more strain to the NHS at the same time)- so we use the general taxation pot to subsidise - as indeed we do with the nhs as well
So about 38% of total spending is health and pensions...
NI contributions account for circa 20% of government income
2014-15 were the last years I could see where NIC was £110,406 Million out of £515,348 Million
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e/493308/Dec15_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf
So effectively our tax rates are more like 33% and 50% but politically nobody wants to admit it so they keep the pretence that NI contributions are separate to general taxation even though its clear that is not the case.
All that said I'm a big believer in free health care and decent pensions - I just wish our successive governments of different persuasions had the decency to be honest with us about NI and the true cost of heath and pensions - I think its worth it but pretending its covered by NI is just a joke
Last edited:
I just found out that Gary Johnson is running for the libertarian party again. Obviously that won´t make any difference, but at least one sane candidate is in the running. Maybe he can get over 1% of the votes this election.
There is no way a Gary can ever be President.
I would never trust any libertarian candidate. They know feck all about economics.
Last edited:
we do have actuaries - though the funding of the NHS is something that in truth is a bit of a cock up and its far too political to let actuaries get involved in any meaningful way- its essentially runs out of our normal taxation system as do our pensions to a large extent...
our NI (national insurance contributions) theoretically cover NHS, Pensions etc but in truth they dont...
NI is either around 13% or 10% tax collected in addition to your normal tax rates (approx 20% or 40% (above certain thresholds))
Where most people get confused abot pensions is they think the government takes that money - invests it, and then pays them back their pension out of that money at the end - it has of course never worked like that and the current contributions are used to pay for current collected pensions - initially the scheme assumed around 12 people working for each person retired (as people tended not to live too long after retirement and the pension wasnt very much) - now we find people live a lot longer after retirement, the amount we pay them is more and quite simply the system is broken (estimates are it will be two and a bit working to each retired as the baby boomer's get older which will add even more strain to the NHS at the same time)- so we use the general taxation pot to subsidise - as indeed we do with the nhs as well
So about 38% of total spending is health and pensions...
NI contributions account for circa 20% of government income
2014-15 were the last years I could see where NIC was £110,406 Million out of £515,348 Million
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e/493308/Dec15_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf
So effectively our tax rates are more like 33% and 50% but politically nobody wants to admit it so they keep the pretence that NI contributions are separate to general taxation even though its clear that is not the case.
All that said I'm a big believer in free health care and decent pensions - I just wish our successive governments of different persuasions had the decency to be honest with us about NI and the true cost of heath and pensions - I think its worth it but pretending its covered by NI is just a joke
That makes sense, thank you.
we do have actuaries - though the funding of the NHS is something that in truth is a bit of a cock up and its far too political to let actuaries get involved in any meaningful way- its essentially runs out of our normal taxation system as do our pensions to a large extent...
our NI (national insurance contributions) theoretically cover NHS, Pensions etc but in truth they dont...
NI is either around 13% or 10% tax collected in addition to your normal tax rates (approx 20% or 40% (above certain thresholds))
Where most people get confused abot pensions is they think the government takes that money - invests it, and then pays them back their pension out of that money at the end - it has of course never worked like that and the current contributions are used to pay for current collected pensions - initially the scheme assumed around 12 people working for each person retired (as people tended not to live too long after retirement and the pension wasnt very much) - now we find people live a lot longer after retirement, the amount we pay them is more and quite simply the system is broken (estimates are it will be two and a bit working to each retired as the baby boomer's get older which will add even more strain to the NHS at the same time)- so we use the general taxation pot to subsidise - as indeed we do with the nhs as well
So about 38% of total spending is health and pensions...
NI contributions account for circa 20% of government income
2014-15 were the last years I could see where NIC was £110,406 Million out of £515,348 Million
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e/493308/Dec15_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf
So effectively our tax rates are more like 33% and 50% but politically nobody wants to admit it so they keep the pretence that NI contributions are separate to general taxation even though its clear that is not the case.
All that said I'm a big believer in free health care and decent pensions - I just wish our successive governments of different persuasions had the decency to be honest with us about NI and the true cost of heath and pensions - I think its worth it but pretending its covered by NI is just a joke
I never understood them mixing up pension and NHS funds. They should be completely funded seperately.
Or am I mixing things up here.
they basically pretend they are seperate - but what we pay in Ni contributions is nowhere close to covering what its supposed to so they have to just make one big pot and use general taxation money to subsidise
Would love to see that pie chart for the US.we do have actuaries - though the funding of the NHS is something that in truth is a bit of a cock up and its far too political to let actuaries get involved in any meaningful way- its essentially runs out of our normal taxation system as do our pensions to a large extent...
our NI (national insurance contributions) theoretically cover NHS, Pensions etc but in truth they dont...
NI is either around 13% or 10% tax collected in addition to your normal tax rates (approx 20% or 40% (above certain thresholds))
Where most people get confused abot pensions is they think the government takes that money - invests it, and then pays them back their pension out of that money at the end - it has of course never worked like that and the current contributions are used to pay for current collected pensions - initially the scheme assumed around 12 people working for each person retired (as people tended not to live too long after retirement and the pension wasnt very much) - now we find people live a lot longer after retirement, the amount we pay them is more and quite simply the system is broken (estimates are it will be two and a bit working to each retired as the baby boomer's get older which will add even more strain to the NHS at the same time)- so we use the general taxation pot to subsidise - as indeed we do with the nhs as well
So about 38% of total spending is health and pensions...
NI contributions account for circa 20% of government income
2014-15 were the last years I could see where NIC was £110,406 Million out of £515,348 Million
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e/493308/Dec15_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf
So effectively our tax rates are more like 33% and 50% but politically nobody wants to admit it so they keep the pretence that NI contributions are separate to general taxation even though its clear that is not the case.
All that said I'm a big believer in free health care and decent pensions - I just wish our successive governments of different persuasions had the decency to be honest with us about NI and the true cost of heath and pensions - I think its worth it but pretending its covered by NI is just a joke
Then how that translates to an individual in both countries. This would be very difficult (impossible?) to do.
This IS the problem. If they were all seperate funds, there would have to be accountability by the government if any fund was insufficient or if there were any surplus. Mixing of funds allows them to hide how they are used and when there is shortage, beat the drums of their agendas. Like NHS..lets Privatise.
not sure how you would break down per individual as there is different tax rates etc
also federal vs state spending - is education done at state level for example?
the problem is its been allowed to go on for too long - personally I think they should just admit NI is basically an extra income tax and have one rate of income tax that covers it all - seems the most honest way to me but politically I dont think its an easy sell as all people will think is my tax has gone up
Accountability is the key. Though I am a Socialist, I believe there is waste/corruption in any system of government. Hold departments accountable and make findings transparent. Like you say though, it has gone on too long.
At this point I must ask, and your credentials to make such an assertion?
not sure how you would break down per individual as there is different tax rates etc
also federal vs state spending - is education done at state level for example?
Social Security will be a stress point for every government in the developed world in the next 20 years. It's unbalanced by design, but politically near-impossible to draw down.
'Trickle Down Economics' is Not a Macro Economics Theory. Its propoganda. What are your credentials btw?
yup - one of my first jobs was working out just how much the cost would be to pension funds and Governments etc if they found a cure for cancer with the increased life expectancy thus longer payments - basically long story and lots of math cut short - society is going to crumble
Quite simply I haven't factored in my pension to my retirement plans. If I get something it will be a bonus. I's support means-testing to disqualify people who have enough money when they retire. It sucks that you've paid in all your life but feck it...it's for the good of society.
as long as your not expecting a private pension to make up the short fall - otherwise you will be stuffed anyway
B.A. in Economics. Doesn't make me shit though, but makes me aware of what I don't know, of what other groups think, and the worth of their work. I don't agree with some of the conclusions of Keynes and some of his followers, but I'm keenly aware of his breakthrough contributions to economics.
PS: Yes, trickle down economics is propaganda/political spin. Neoclassical economics is not. You don't have to agree, you just don't have to dismiss.
Property, stocks and 401k then the US and UK pensions, wife's pension.
We should be alright.
I never said you were shit. I'm an Accountant educated in England and in the US. In Finance all my life. I have read enough to know no such Macro Economic Theory exists. It is a political phrase used by righties. If I have missed this somehow, I'm willing to have my eyes opened.
I highly doubt that Gary Johnson promotes "trickle down economics". At least I hope, that he doesn´t do that.
If there is a worse term in politics especially when it comes to economic policy than "trickle down economics" I have yet to hear it. Basically it should be called "Crumbs off our tables you snivelling shits"
He is a nutter.
This is what he belives in:
- National debt, approaching $. (Jan 2016)
- Lay out a process for state bankruptcies. (Aug 2012)
- No bank bailout; no farm subsidies; no stimulus. (May 2012)
- Cut federal budget by 43% to bring it into balance. (Feb 2012)
- Trillion-dollar stimulus failed; so will another $450B? (Sep 2011)
- We could have avoided default without raising debt ceiling. (Aug 2011)
- Ending the fed OK, but that's only part of the solution. (Aug 2011)
- Stop incurring more debt; balanced budget by 2013. (Jul 2011)
- Our debt is greatest threat to our national security. (Jul 2011)
- Opposed TARP, stimulus & Fannie Mae bailout. (Jul 2011)
- End the Fed; they've devalued the dollar by printing money. (May 2011)
- On verge of financial collapse unless we balance budget. (May 2011)
- Balance budget by cutting entitlements AND Defense. (Apr 2011)
- Uphold commitments to states before other spending. (Sep 2001)
I don't blame many people buying into this nonsense. Its a trick that has been played on ordinary people. How many people really understand the issues? Many people vote against their own interests.
People who actively foster such 'theories' want a fuedal economy. The masses at the mercy of a few with money and power.
"If you are poor Its Your fault. "
Wasn't my point, just that claiming that "libertarians know feck all about economics" is rather heavy. I'm not even libertarian myself (anymore), but think along similar lines on many issues. I know enough to know its not uninformed thinking, it might be wrong or deluded on some points. But that's just the great economic debate of the 20th and 21st centuries, and it'll keep going on. What doesn't help is either side claiming the other doesn't have a clue.
Once again I never said you or people who foster this 'theory' do not have a clue. And please don't tell me this a an honest debate, because it is Not.To have a debate we need to have a Theory that is backed up by facts. Supply side economics has been debunked too btw.
I want to stress I'm not having a go at you. But we can disagree and leave it at that.
Most of that sounds quite good.
quite arrogant, but I wouldn´t expect something different from a "socialist". Just fwiw: I have a Masters degree in Economics and in Political science. Additionally minors in law and history. I´d say I have an okay understanding of the issue. I just come to different conclusions.
- Status