to think Government should say how it will save £12billion on welfare?

This is the problem with attempting to discuss party politics on here - anyone who doesn't find Conservative policies 'despicable' or expresses any doubts at all about the desirability of a Labour government seems to be attacked or sneered at for daring to do so.

Every opportunity is taken to ridicule Cameron, Farage & Co. but Ed 'Two Kitchens' Miliband seems to be beyond criticism simply because he's the Labour leader.

I'm not convinced by any of the parties or their policies, but all this Conservative-bashing is probably putting more moderate voters off posting on any politics threads on GN for fear of having their heads bitten off.

I do not "love" the Labour party POGS but I like it a good deal more than the Conservative Party whose policies I find quite despicable.

You do seem to toe the party line - the Conservative Party line.

I stand by my post re top rate of tax by the way and it is pure head over heart thinking , it is all about the numbers.

Eloethan

With respect that's just a question that gives the impression I should have the same love of Labour as you do.

I speak as I find, nothing more, nothing less. I cannot please posters by being sycophantic over left wing policies and I don't think you would want nor expect me to, it's pretty narcissistic to expect all GN's to follow the same thought as ourselves and I don't put you down as that sort of poster.

Beside it would bore you silly if you didn't have at least one or two posters who didn't toe the party line, well I hope you would, maybe not?

What is your problem with Labour POGS? It is the only party that was formed to represent the rights of ordinary people. Whilst it certainly went off piste with Blair and there are, in my opinion, too many Blairite, "New Labour" types in the party, it is still far more concerned with the needs of the general population than is the Conservative Party.

If anyone is waging class warfare, I would say it is the Conservatives who have gone out of their way to reward and protect the wealthy and powerful, at the expense of the powerless.

It seems that you accept the premise that the rich and powerful should be able, in effect, to dictate to governments how much tax they are prepared to pay - even though they benefit substantially from the infrastructure and subsidies that are financed by the very tax system that they appear to despise.

The argument that is made for the top rate of tax is political class warfare at it's best.

The facts are not disputable, during Labours time in government the top rate of tax was 40p, even after the banking crash they did not raise that rate, WHY? During the last dying days of Labour they introduced a top rate of tax of 50p, WHY?, because they knew it was toxic for the Conservatives to lower it back to the level Labour had found appropriate. It gave Labour exactly what they wanted, the only desperate hope to keep their core vote onside, class warfare and the ability to say they remain the party of the working class. Shabby!

I don't care if it is 40p, 45p or 50p. I want an honest appraisal of which rate brings in the most revenue and sod any other issue , it should be about the revenue raised, nothing more.

If 50p is proven to generate more money, fine, have a 50p rate, 60p if it can be proven it generates more. My understanding of it by listening and reading about it is this is notnot however the case. I know it hasn't helped France by putting taxes up because of the argument the rich must pay more, they all buggered off.

Is it not the case that the top 1% who pay the top tax rate pay something like 28% of the revenue to the treasury? They are not all millionaires either are they, yet to listen to the left they are and deserve what they get. Whilst they are at the top of their profession they include employees of the NHS, Education, Emergency Services, Councils, Charities, Civil Service, or am I wrong again?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/half-private-firms-behind-nhs-5347268#ICID=sharebar_twitter

Am I wrong in saying privatisation is now around 6%. It was approximately 4% before the coalition so it has gone up by 2% over the last 5 years?? Or am I missing something.

Also Labour have been giving it large over privatisation yet the latest from them is private companies will be only allowed to make a 5% profit, are they subliminally saying they will not stop privatisation but won't say so. Andy Burnham has had some rather uncomfortable interviews lately.

I agree, jane.

On the tax issue, Osborne has refused to rule out a cut for the top rate of tax this morning. He's obviously not listening to most of us.

In NHS admin staff free up clinical staff to do what they're good at and trained for. We need them. Its a ridiculously false economy to reduce their numbers. I'm not admin staff btw!

"Myth: We are not privatising the NHS 



Politicians claim they are not privatising the NHS, but one tenth of GP surgeries are now privately owned, and contracts worth billions of pounds have been given to the likes of Virgin and Serco. Recently huge contracts have gone to private companies including one for £780 million to catch up on the backlog of patients waiting for surgery and diagnostic tests. 3 of the companies involved have already been severely criticised for delivering poor care to NHS patients.

Politicians quote statistics showing a low percentage of the overall NHS in the hands of the private sector, but the private sector does not want to run much of the NHS because they can’t make a profit from it. In the areas in which they are interested – typically elective surgery, community health and mental health – they have a high proportion of the contracts (recent figures suggest up to 60% in community and mental health). The public does not want this - polls show that the majority of people want local and national government to run public services, and only consider contracting out if this fails. People also want accountable health care, while private contracts hide behind ‘commercial confidentiality’. The chair of the House of Commons public accounts committee, Margaret Hodge, says that even she can’t break through their wall of secrecy. Because contractors may go on using the trusted and familiar NHS logo, patients may not even know they’re receiving treatment from a private company. "

One myth from the Red Pepper link earlier.

But it's true, ana. The government wants to sell off the NHS. Socialists do not want to buy it.

I wasn't referring to the tax issue, or anyone's sincerely-held beliefs, durhamjen, I meant remarks such as 'the Tory government does not want that, as it wants to sell off the NHS to its mates.'

I meant middle as in those on the 20% rate. I cant remember how many pay the 40% rate, but not that many I would think. My fault though, for not making my post clear in the first place.

So people dont want the 20% rate changed for the majority of workers in this country.

I think that 40% is too high actually. But I do think it wouldnt perhaps hurt if the rate was 50% from say £90,000. That would raise a bit of money. But I dont think any party is saying about ring fencing anything for the NHS?

As for admin, I know plenty of people in the health service who are always bemoaning the top heavy admin in their hospitals. I know people in councils who did have too many admin staff, though I think that they have been cut now. I heavily suspect that it is or has been the same in public bodies in the UK.
A cut in admin/manager staff rarely seems to have an effect on the front line. The general public dont seem to get a worse service for it.

True though that mental health and children in crisis, I wouldnt want a problem there. But for all most of us know, there could be too many chiefs and admin there too, and not enough employed at the front line.

www.redpepper.org.uk/mythbuster-health-warning/

I do not understand your problem, ana. Perhaps you should read the topic again. I maintain that the government does not need to save £12 billion if it raises the tax of the top earners. Another way would be to stop the ceiling on NI contributions and have everybody paying a certain percentage. I think if you earn over £40,000 you only pay 2% on anything over that, which seems ridiculous to me.
I am sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, ana.

Anyway, the Tory government has said it will have to save £12 billion from those who cannot afford it if it gets in again. So obviously those who oppose the idea can say so. Unless, of course, you just want everyone to agree with you that the Tory ideas are wonderful.
They are not digs and jibes; they are sincerely held beliefs, and there is an election next month. I am quite entitled to give my political beliefs on this thread.

soontobe 40% is payable on income above the approximate sum of £42,000. The top rate is 45% which is payable on income over £150,000. Compared to what people on the middle income range have to pay, I think those earning over £150,000 - maybe earning several million pounds a year - get a pretty good deal. I think the 50% rate should be reinstated.

Administrative staff are necessary for efficient service delivery. It is not economical for skilled professional staff to have to spend their time performing routine admin duties. I remember that when my handbag was stolen several years ago in Hampstead and I attended the police station there, a uniformed policeman had to laboriously type up the crime report because he said there was a shortage of "civilian" admin staff. That may not happen now but it illustrates the false economy of cutting down on office staff.

Why is it only services for disabled people that you feel are worthy of protection? Surely there are lots of services - including mental health and children at risk - that are just as important and need proper administrative support.

Can't we have a discussion on any political subject without slagging off one party or another?

I think we all know your opinion of the Conservative party, durhamjen (we should do by now!) but the constant digs and gibes are getting tiresome.

Personally I think that if the top band was put back to 50p in the pound, the NHS would be safe. However, the Tory government does not want that, as it wants to sell off the NHS to its mates.

Does any government ring fence anything? I cant remember.

Personally I think that the taxes, all bands, are plenty high enough.
Prefer to have cuts in the number of admin staff across the board. [Not in anything to do with disability].

Ayse I agree. I'm in much the same financial position as you and feel the same as you and JessM. A significant point made in the referendum last year was that, when tax powers are fully devolved to the Scottish government there is a suggestion that taxes may be raised by a penny or two in the pound. There was no great outcry against it as it seems to be expected that benefits like decent personal care for the infirm elderly must be paid for.
Also, since I seem to be making more use of the NHS these days I accept I can chip in a few pounds more but admit I'd like to see it ring-fenced.
Anyone else willing to contribute or shall we perpetuate the myth of the grasping boomers?

I'm sure a large proportion of voters would agree that taxes should be raised to bail out the NHS, but we, the public, don't have any say in how our taxes are used.

Whichever party forms a government in May may well at some stage raise the tax rate, but there's no guarantee that income will be spent on the NHS.

ayse well said. The budget will result in me paying about £250 less tax next year - I would prefer that they kept my £250 and put it towards maintaining the NHS service that I have had all my life so that it does not fall apart by the time I next need it.

Anyone want the middle to get taxed more?