How many Tories are there?

Bollotom2014 wrote:I see some posts with good friendly banter but also some posts that seems to be started with the sole intention of piling in with ad hominem arguments that target the poster rather than the argument. It's unfortunate on a website that can be excellent but more often than not descends into personal attacks with little regard for the subject content. I suppose that's just the internet, but it's a bit naughty.

I take your point but think all regular posters on the site know what Nat’s about and know that the site is stronger with her on it. She can be personal but i don’t think anyone takes it personally or as harassment.

Hope not anyway!

See? I never mentioned Nat. 

Angry Dad wrote:Sad  and Boring all this labour labour labour super labour, bunch of fuckin nutbags all of them. Run the country my arse they could.

AD just turned into Yoda 

Bollotom2014 wrote:See? I never mentioned Nat. 

Oh okay, I don’t see anyone being remotely abusive though. 

Maybe just be a little more direct and say which post or poster you are referring to?

Norpig wrote:

wanderlust wrote:At it's inception, NI contributions were ring fenced for the NHS and only later did they start dipping into the pot for pensions, benefits and more recently general Government borrowing. If they put 1% on to NI and ring fenced it for the NHS there wouldn't be a problem because rising wages would follow rising costs and generate rising NI contributions to match - but no party wants to be seen as raising taxes. In most other countries, the tax is relatively transparent e.g. in France where most people pay 30% but expect and get a superb healthcare system in return but the swing nature of our electoral system means nobody will address the elephant in the room. All that's needed is a sensible conversation about how we choose to run our country and disperse our expenditure.

If it was a choice of 1% extra NI or the NHS going private then I would pay the extra NI as long as it was for the NHS only and not to bail out some other flagging department.

I would agree with this-and as someone who now receives a state as well as a work and a privately funded pension ( even though I've elected still to keep on working) I would agree to paying an NI levy.
People like me (semi -retired) and,without being arrogant, comfortably well off should still contribute.  I've no mortgage, no  dependent kids, no debt and even though I've paid tax and NICs all my life (blah, blah, blah), in equity,I don't see why I should be let off paying NICs simply because I've reached a certain age.I get £200 a year for winter fuel and also a free bus pass as well as free prescriptions. The first two I don't really need- and neither do millions of other people of retirement age, whilst younger people are clearly struggling with all sorts of financial problems.
If the government levied a surtax of (say ) 2% on all earnings (after personal allowance) and it was genuinely hypothecated for the NHS I would shut up and stump up as its the likes of me who are an increasing cost to the NHS.
The trouble is that hypothecated taxes have been levied before (like the landfill tax) but they just ended up in the general expenditure pot and weren't diverted to a specific use- like improving the environment ,although successive governments of either colour ( a plague on both their houses), being politicians and therefore professional liars would claim that they were.