AIBU to think this godforsaken country is a shambles?

[Toysintheattic29]

THIS IS WHAT’S ON MY MIND: this country is in shambles. I’ve never seen so many homeless people on the streets; social care services unable to cope with overflowing caseloads; our precious NHS struggling to care for anyone at all (forget it if you have non life-threatening surgical needs or are elderly); train fares continually getting jacked up; rising costs; roads cracking up; broadband speeds laughably slow and the biggest con of all, BREXIT. Even in the austerity of the 1950s things were not as grim as they are now - at least we had a reliable health service and publicly owned transport systems and many members of the public didn’t have to rely on food banks.

elisaveta
Presume you're referencing my post. Clearly missed the bit where I pointed out that I'm a leftie. Don't give me that bollocks.
I'm not telling op she can't complain I'm simply sick to death of people (the op included) acting like the 50's was the fucking golden age.

When you got nothing else: Ad hominem.

That is a bit rich coming from you Make, you regularly refuse to accept reports if they are even slightly right leaning.

I wasn't referring to your post as it happens Merry - I'm referring to Janet who said that the OP clearly hadn't been alive in the Victorian period.

elisaveta I agree with every word you have written. I am not too badly affected by the present state of the country (unless my health fails) but I would happily pay more tax to help make things fairer. What I don't want to see is people who I regard as criminals feeling entitled to swan about on yachts in the Med on money I think they've fiddled or otherwise stolen from the rest of us. The creeping privatisation of the NHS and education worries me. As for the very rich leaving the country if we tax them too highly all I can say is 'let them go'.

I have now read your post merry and will admit to not having read the full thread before. I completely agree with you about how awful things were in previous decades, but where I'm sympathetic to the OP is that we appear to be going backwards at the moment, and the inequality gap seems to be getting larger. It also makes my blood run cold when I see the likes of Liam Fox and J R-M looking forward gleefully to being able to get rid of workers' rights, because then I think we'll go right back.

What I don't want to see is people who I regard as criminals feeling entitled to swan about on yachts in the Med on money I think they've fiddled or otherwise stolen from the rest of us. The creeping privatisation of the NHS and education worries me. As for the very rich leaving the country if we tax them too highly all I can say is 'let them go'.
Yes - amen to this.

Re the NHS. Someone I know who is in their 70s (thus just at the birth of the NHS) started off thinking NHS was marvellous. But over time their expectations have increased. Now, if they are ill, they expect private-level healthcare services from the NHS, ambulances at the drop of a hat for things that are neither accidents or emergencies (when they live within 10 mins of a major flagship hospital and have ample access to cars, taxis, buses and so on. They feel miffed if they have to wait, or don't get a team of top-level consultants poring over the non-emergency or accident situation. They want home visits from the GP like it's a private doctor for things that others would go into the surgery for. Recently a friend of theirs felt ill and called an ambulance (they are aged in their 80's, live alone, don't drive and nervous of taxis etc plus they deemed it serious enough - no problem with that) The ambulance came and paramedics treated this friend satisfactorily and went away. Problem was solved. The person I am originally referring to (the one in their 70s) was moaning about the service as they thought friend should have been taken into hospital, given a bed for a few nights, monitored etc etc - "just because". There was no medical need for any of that and friend didn't think so either, friend was happy with the paramedic treatment themselves. This is an example of the "entitlement" sense that I think pervades some people.

I don't think this is unusual either.

That doesn't answer the question, make. It may well be a different person, albeit it's not a common name.

I just find it odd that (I) you would quote it as gospel when even the indie review of the report admits it's not conclusive and can't prove causation and (II) it seems on the face of it very interesting to author a report blaming austerity but also to set up a company that charges for care.

However it's just something I remembered reading in passing; happy to be told he puts all the profits into care in his community or similar.

elisaveta - if the super rich who pay super high taxes all swanned off there would be a FAR bigger problem than what we have now.

They may well be super rich. But if one rich person pays the equivalent of 10 lower income earners, AND probably doesn't use as much of government funds (e.g. they have private healthcare, don't get housing benefit, pay for private schooling etc) then overall they are putting more into the economy than some others. Even if they also earn a super income along with that. What we gain from their taxes (and often employment opportunities, if they are a successful business owner for example) cannot be sniffed at.

Apart from Brexit, it seems the same as the late 1980s to me. A decade of Conservative Govt appears to lead to this.

It's the ones who don't pay taxes who bother me far more. Close the tax-avoidance loops and we'd have billions more in the economy. Once that's done, there wouldn't be a need to tax the super-rich to the point of making them leave the country. I do get a bit tired, though, with all the allowances and concessions made for bankers et al on the grounds that they will leave, if they are made to pay their fair share. As from 2019 there will be fewer places for them to swan off too, once the EU has tightened up tax avoidance laws.

They want home visits from the GP In the early days of the NHS you could get home visits - I remember the doctor visiting our house many times. And in those days hospital stays were expected to be longer, so if you got used to the NHS in the 50s then it's hard to get used to today's norm of getting you up and walking on the day of the op, and home next day. So maybe it's not increasing expectations, it's expectations that are out of line with normal practice nowadays.

It's unbelievably naive to say "let the rich go". Where do people think the money is going to come from to replace their taxes, Jeremy Corbyn's magic bearded bumhole?!

There's a difference between a multi multi billionaire who has it all stitched up so he pays barely no tax (although he may well employ staff and spend a lot which helps retailers, restaurants as well as providing VAT) and the high earners who pay the bulk of the Treasury's tax receipts from their salaries. There aren't so very many of the latter, a couple of hundred thousand - it wouldn't take many of them to go before we really felt it.

Presumably Elizaveta and co would be delighted to see their tax bills go up to 90% to plug the gap!

Didn't finish - there is a tendency to threaten to leave on the part of those who have no intention of doing so.
Katie Hopkins promises she'll go if brexit doesn't happen, as does J R-M.
Andrew Lloyd-Webber used to threaten to go if Labour got in.
I very much expect both KH and JRM will stay here, whatever happens in the next couple of years, just as AL-W, and I don't think the nation should be held hostage to these sorts of threats.

and (II) it seems on the face of it very interesting to author a report blaming austerity but also to set up a company that charges for care.

Or perhaps through his investigations he saw what was going on (old people dying early) and felt the need to supply better care?

Are you suggesting something has slipped past the BMJ. or that their publishing lacks scholastic rigour?

They may well be super rich. But if one rich person pays the equivalent of 10 lower income earners, AND probably doesn't use as much of government funds

They often hoover up government funds. Bailouts, government contracts. Social housing money (it just passes through the poor person's hands - they are but the delivery person).

And felt the need to supply better care at a profit? (Fixed that for you!)

Make - I don't think the law abiding (e.g. tax paying, properly run businesses not tax dodgers) super rich "hoover up government funds".

A lot of the super rich take personal risks most of us would never dream of. They can put everything they own into a venture that may or may not take off. If it does, people say "it's ok for you, you're super rich". They live life with one eye on the phone, email or both at the same time. They don't take regular holidays, they miss key family events because they have to be elsewhere at a hugely important meeting. They never switch off on holiday. They are only as good as their last contract. They have responsibilities to employees, knowing if they make the wrong business decision or investment they are putting incomes and families at risk and they have to live with that. Yes they have rewards. But they (some of them) live with a huge level of responsibility that most of us just can't imagine.

Not many people (non criminal) get super rich through business without putting a huge amount of effort and risk in along the way.

If it was so simple to be super rich we'd all be doing it.

Or perhaps through his investigations he saw what was going on (old people dying early) and felt the need to supply better care?

Please prove that his care is any better.

Presumably Elizaveta and co would be delighted to see their tax bills go up to 90% to plug the gap!

As I said above: It's the ones who don't pay taxes who bother me far more. Close the tax-avoidance loops and we'd have billions more in the economy. Once that's done, there wouldn't be a need to tax the super-rich to the point of making them leave the country.

Sadly it's likely to be academic anyway. Unless the government can provide reassurance for the City and for business by the end of March, many of the super-rich will have to make their plans to go elsewhere, as they will need at least a year for any contingencies.

Crikey. Only have to watch call the mid wife to work out things were NOT better in the 50s.

My late FIL said anyone born British had already won the lottery of life and I am inclined to think he is right.

If we want better services we need to lay more especially NHS and social care

I'm sure something would be better if govt stopped interfering i.e. Education
But on the whole I feel lucky compared to other countries.

It's the ones who don't pay taxes who bother me far more. Close the tax-avoidance loops and we'd have billions more in the economy. Once that's done, there wouldn't be a need to tax the super-rich to the point of making them leave the country.

That is not as simple as everyone makes out, it is essentially a global arms race, you want to stop as much avoidance as possible obviously, which the current government has actually tightened up a lot more than people give them credit for.

If we want better services we need to lay more especially NHS and social care

IMO the NHS needs to stop being used as a political football, we need a cross party quango that takes long term options. At the minute we have one side that says that is just suggesting to keep throwing money at it without any reform.

The problem is that when people suggest it could need reform etc it is assumed we are heading down the US route.

Good point justano

It is a good point. If Jeremy Hunt were going to France rather than to the USA to take advice from them about how they run their healthcare system, I'd be far more reassured. It's one of the best systems in the world - and though you most people have to pay a little bit, it is not an unmanageable amount, and treatment for illnesses such as cancer is 100% cost free to the patient. And their hospitals are lovely.