The Commons Bar Mk IX - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3561
Report 4 years ago
#3561
(Original post by Aph)
The government has a huge bill paying for drugs, and I'd hope saving would mean that drugs research wouldn't be cut.
Ok, so are there are some nessecary but there should be as few as possible and you don't need directors, just managers who ideally would also work as a doctor.

but we pay for the production and business executives now...
Why should there be as few as possible? There should be as many as necessary. Why should Doctors have to learn an entirely new trade? Why is causing distraction for people who should be saving lives a good thing? I do not understand the demonisation of non clinical nhs staff.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3562
Report 4 years ago
#3562
(Original post by JoeL1994)
It's more about equality than anything else.
How is it about equality?
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3563
Report 4 years ago
#3563
(Original post by JoeL1994)
Then I'll just be happy to have you in MHoC - welcome to the jungle!



It's more about equality than anything else.
Men have to use more deodorant though. We also have to consume more food. We shouldn't reduce VAT on this because once you open the door all buck-stopping becomes inconsistent.
0
JoeL1994
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3564
Report 4 years ago
#3564
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
How is it about equality?
(Original post by KingStannis)
Men have to use more deodorant though. We also have to consume more food. We shouldn't reduce VAT on this because once you open the door all buck-stopping becomes inconsistent.
Deodorant is used by everyone and what about when women are pregnant and need to eat more?

I think these points are getting convoluted. To put it simply - women shouldn't pay tax on products they use because they menstruate. We all need food, we all need clothes, so we all pay the same no matter how much we use.
1
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3565
Report 4 years ago
#3565
(Original post by JoeL1994)
Deodorant is used by everyone and what about when women are pregnant and need to eat more?

I think these points are getting convoluted. To put it simply - women shouldn't pay tax on products they use because they menstruate. We all need food, we all need clothes, so we all pay the same no matter how much we use.
In that case why should they pay at all? Should the state not subsidise sanitary products?
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3566
Report 4 years ago
#3566
(Original post by KingStannis)
Why should there be as few as possible? There should be as many as necessary. Why should Doctors have to learn an entirely new trade? Why is causing distraction for people who should be saving lives a good thing? I do not understand the demonisation of non clinical nhs staff.
100% this
0
JoeL1994
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3567
Report 4 years ago
#3567
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
In that case why should they pay at all? Should the state not subsidise sanitary products?
Because the market we're in requires us to pay, where would this money come from?
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3568
Report 4 years ago
#3568
(Original post by bun)
25% each, plus 15% other - split between UKIP, Green, and other parties) and 10% floating voter.

Lib dem audience member quite clearly admitted he leans to the left, I suspect most of the other Lib Dems were the same. So that's probably 40% if not more, plus 5% green. Then the floating voters. Whereas maximum 30-35% right wing with floating voters.
I would normally agree, but since Labour have moved right I can't see why the left wing Lib Dem voters still consider them such after the Tory coalition, I think the British public has also moved more right wing (costing policies, immigration) so, I wouldn't assume that the majority of current Lib Dems are left-wing, unlike in 10.

I suspect there were more UKIPPERS than Greens.

Regardless, I think the questioning was far tougher for Milliband, more aggressive, hence I can see why he would have struggled, I was impressed though, and worryingly Ed Balls clearly being used as a weapon to beat him with.

Nick got it rough with the unemployment comment though
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3569
Report 4 years ago
#3569
(Original post by JoeL1994)
Because the market we're in requires us to pay, where would this money come from?
I'm not suggesting we do subsidise them, but if we're accepting that they should be paid for then I don't see a problem with levying a sales tax.
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3570
Report 4 years ago
#3570
(Original post by Aph)
What I mean is that someone who isn't directly involved in the process shouldn't be paid, I'd also like to see drug researchers nationalised due to the excessive amounts they charge.
Frustratingly private pharmaceuticals remain the best option (with tight regulation) over pure state sponsored. One of the reasons for this, besides the larger research fund, is the accuracy of their research. Currently private research values one year of survival adjusted at £25-30k, while the state researchers raise it to 40k or more, meaning the state fund is drained researching and investing inefficiently in drugs.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3571
Report 4 years ago
#3571
(Original post by JoeL1994)
Then I'll just be happy to have you in MHoC - welcome to the jungle!



It's more about equality than anything else.
Thank you!
0
bun
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3572
Report 4 years ago
#3572
(Original post by That Bearded Man)
I would normally agree, but since Labour have moved right I can't see why the left wing Lib Dem voters still consider them such after the Tory coalition, I think the British public has also moved more right wing (costing policies, immigration) so, I wouldn't assume that the majority of current Lib Dems are left-wing, unlike in 10.

I suspect there were more UKIPPERS than Greens.

Regardless, I think the questioning was far tougher for Milliband, more aggressive, hence I can see why he would have struggled, I was impressed though, and worryingly Ed Balls clearly being used as a weapon to beat him with.

Nick got it rough with the unemployment comment though
That's a fair comment actually. I suppose it depends what you see as left and right. To me the lib Dems are left, to you, they're potentially right!

And who wouldn't use Ed Balls as a stick to beat him with. He is the most disgraceful man in parliament. I don't mind EdM too much actually (though much preferred his brother) but I would do anything, anything, to stop that uneducated, nasty oaf from getting any sort of power.
I live near his constituency area (his wife's, another vile woman) and whilst I'll vote Tory, it won't make much difference. However, I have several staunch Labourite friends, and know an ex-labour councillor who are all planning to vote UKIP in an attempt to get Ed Balls out. They don't want the Tories in nationally, they want labour, but they don't want Ed Balls 'representing' them, or their party!
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3573
Report 4 years ago
#3573
(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Frustratingly private pharmaceuticals remain the best option (with tight regulation) over pure state sponsored. One of the reasons for this, besides the larger research fund, is the accuracy of their research. Currently private research values one year of survival adjusted at £25-30k, while the state researchers raise it to 40k or more, meaning the state fund is drained researching and investing inefficiently in drugs.
How can state research cost more especially as we'd be employing less people too...
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3574
Report 4 years ago
#3574
(Original post by JoeL1994)
Deodorant is used by everyone and what about when women are pregnant and need to eat more?

I think these points are getting convoluted. To put it simply - women shouldn't pay tax on products they use because they menstruate. We all need food, we all need clothes, so we all pay the same no matter how much we use.
Well that's another example of how you can't be consistent with it.

Over a man's life time, he'll eat more food and use more deodorant, because of his body. Therefore costing more money. That's the same reasoning for why women shouldn't have VAT on sanitary towels. I can't see the distinction.
0
Jean-Luc Picard
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3575
Report 4 years ago
#3575
personally I would scrap VAT altogether eventually if possible, I'd rather have specific taxes on food/drink/etc that's bad for you than just tax all consumables given how many of them people rely on in day to day life, it costs the poorest considerably more as well as a proportion of income which I don't like.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3576
Report 4 years ago
#3576
(Original post by Jean-Luc Picard)
personally I would scrap VAT altogether eventually if possible, I'd rather have specific taxes on food/drink/etc that's bad for you than just tax all consumables given how many of them people rely on in day to day life, it costs the poorest considerably more as well as a proportion of income which I don't like.
You should vote for Labour. We're radically reducing VAT and will be putting forward more bills like RotatingPhasor's to tax specific products with negative externalities.
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3577
Report 4 years ago
#3577
I'm here! Wahooo! In celebration of being the drunkest here, (thanks for that everyone!) and with Parliament closed, and with the Manifesto's released, it's 50% off all drinks!!! Free drinks if you're voting Tory!
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3578
Report 4 years ago
#3578
(Original post by mobbsy91)
I'm here! Wahooo! In celebration of being the drunkest here, (thanks for that everyone!) and with Parliament closed, and with the Manifesto's released, it's 50% off all drinks!!! Free drinks if you're voting Tory!
Its a secret ballot, you'll never know - now gimme my free drink(s)!
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3579
Report 4 years ago
#3579
(Original post by RayApparently)
Its a secret ballot, you'll never know - now gimme my free drink(s)!
Haha, well, I know you won't be voting for Tory's, so that'll be £4.50 please!
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3580
Report 4 years ago
#3580
(Original post by mobbsy91)
Haha, well, I know you won't be voting for Tory's, so that'll be £4.50 please!
Damn.

Does this basically mean you're just giving Tories free drinks I hope their coming out of your pocket and not the tax payers, 'cos I'm sure there's a rule about that!


Then again maybe the Tories might get to drunk to vote...
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (33)
25%
No (99)
75%

Watched Threads

View All