Piss easy. Higher progressive taxes and the nationalisation of pharmaceuticals coupled with the abolition of medical patents.
Oh, and some structural stability for a decade, without pointless change after pointless change.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
Piss easy. Higher progressive taxes and the nationalisation of pharmaceuticals coupled with the abolition of medical patents.
Oh, and some structural stability for a decade, without pointless change after pointless change.
I think he meant something that was physically possible without basically destroying the economy.
in a dream world I'd agree, but that isn't the way the world works
Nothing there is impossible or economically counter productive. The pharmaceutical industry should not be in private ownership and medicine should not be patentable, and there is nothing short of spinelessness or evil that is stopping such a thing taking place. Of course that might seem anathema to someone sucking at the tits of capitalism for its own sake, a la that big fat lobby group.
Again, I'd love it if we could do that, but if we nationalised pharma then the flight of capital from the UK would be somewhere between staggering and apocalyptic. Investors would lose their confidence in basically any "public interest" industry and the UK would be at the IMF's door in about 5 minutes.
don't get me started on poor, black, homosexuals. The bastards.
StealthGoblin
Banned
If new pharmaceuticals were not patentable the entire system would fall apart. Given the increasingly extreme and long winded methods it now takes to bring a new drug to the market, the pharmaceutical industry actually needs a longer protective period for their achievements than what we currently have. As it stands, the market is so competitive that patents are often having to be granted about eight years before a drug is commercially available, giving the pharmaceutical company about twelve years to recoup their R&D costs. Those costs can range from a couple of hundred million into between one and two billion dollars. Additionally, these drugs need to make money to cover the cost of closed avenues of exploration for failed drugs.
This is the reason why certain treatments are so expensive. Herceptin being a prime example.
Unfortunately it is not just the desire to help people that drives the industry forward. Competition is stupidly fierce and that is often the birth of innovation.
In an ideal world I'd love the government to own its own Pharmaceutical Company and generate life changing/saving drugs. Unfortunately we'd be at odds with the rest of the world and our economy would nose-dive.
This is the reason why certain treatments are so expensive. Herceptin being a prime example.
Unfortunately it is not just the desire to help people that drives the industry forward. Competition is stupidly fierce and that is often the birth of innovation.
In an ideal world I'd love the government to own its own Pharmaceutical Company and generate life changing/saving drugs. Unfortunately we'd be at odds with the rest of the world and our economy would nose-dive.
Dark Machine
Member
Guardian front page today. I noted the top story with particular interest. The truth known to many all along is finally in black and white.
louis89
Member
I agree that safeguards need to be in place if this idea is going to go ahead, but the guy I was replying to seemed to be against it for no reason other than the fact that it puts the words "private" and "NHS" in the same sentence.
Well I'm pretty sure that most medical patents are filed outside of the UK, so there's nothing you can do about that. The NHS isn't buying its drugs from British companies.
And higher taxes aren't the solution to everything. Income tax in this country is already too high in my opinion.
Of course there is. This is supposed to be a sovereign state.
What you actually mean to say is that there is no political will to piss off a few pharma-corps in order to provide substantial benefit to real people.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
My issue isn't strictly the involvement of the private sector, it's that this will very clearly create a two-tier system. As well as placing burdens on NHS hospitals while part-private ones not only have less in the way of burdens, but will perhaps even generate a profit, thus be "more successful" in the eyes of the Government. The Conservative's health policies sound nice as a soundbite, but if you look at them in any detail, there's serious issues.
I mean seriously, do you want GPs running the bulk of the NHS? Have you met any?
And now you know why we Liverpudlians love her so much.
Honestly, the BBC are trying to deflect the blame to Howe, but it ain't working. I'll be among those dancing in the streets when she finally pops her curly-toed witch boots. Sorry if that offends anyone, but she apparently thought the same of our entire city, so fuck her and all her henchmen, except Micheal Heseltine, of course. Met him once, typical smarmy Tory but otherwise a lovely bloke.
frankie_baby: Thanks for Godwinning it, fudgetard. Even though you are technically right.
CHEEZMO: GET HYPE
Mecha_Infantry
Banned
Is Newsipe on today or tomorrow?
Also I think we need a UK thread...I'm not sure how mega-threads are viewed upon, but there are so many small things like adverts, or travel updates, etc that aren't too important for a single thread, but perfect for a mega thread
What you think
Also I think we need a UK thread...I'm not sure how mega-threads are viewed upon, but there are so many small things like adverts, or travel updates, etc that aren't too important for a single thread, but perfect for a mega thread
What you think
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
J Tourettes
Banned
Get on it, just don't ask people for their fave British woman as it lead to lots of risqué being posted and the last attempt at a thread being closed.
el retorno
Member
Is there a way to watch the Iplayer outside the UK? I get so jealous of you brit folk.
Andrew Neil
Probably don't like getting called out for their own fuckwittery.
travisbickle
Member
My life ambition is to have a blog that offers as much as his.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/
Why did Labour's shadow business secretary say that the government were cutting spending and raising taxes far too quickly?
I don't understand...would they increase spending and lower taxes?
This government has brought the tax threshold up to £10,000 and kept the 50p tax rate, which means they've kept taxing the rich but have taxed the poor less, and yes they're cutting spending, but to reduce the deficit. Disappointing to see Labour becoming more populist and useless, they're literally just pandering to polls now, knowing people want more spending but less taxes. THAT'S NOT HOW ECONOMICS WORK. YOU CAN'T SPEND MONEY WITHOUT MAKING ANY MONEY.
I don't understand...would they increase spending and lower taxes?
This government has brought the tax threshold up to £10,000 and kept the 50p tax rate, which means they've kept taxing the rich but have taxed the poor less, and yes they're cutting spending, but to reduce the deficit. Disappointing to see Labour becoming more populist and useless, they're literally just pandering to polls now, knowing people want more spending but less taxes. THAT'S NOT HOW ECONOMICS WORK. YOU CAN'T SPEND MONEY WITHOUT MAKING ANY MONEY.
Yes: theft.
But seriously, I think the BBC should have some sort of system for allowing non-UK residents a way to pay the license fee and get iPlayer/ITV-Player/4OD access. Would probably be a logistical nightmare though.
Well, yes you can and that's exactly how most of the world's economies have been functioning for the duration of the modern era.
The assumption is that the cost of money today will be offset by growth tomorrow. If you balance it right there's no reason why a country couldn't be in sustainable deficit indefinitely.
That said, I'd much rather we stopped cutting services and started getting biblical on those corporations and their bosses - Vodaphone - who owe us money. Plus the head of HMRC needs to be arrested for his part in their tax evasion scam.
Also, bit rich to be complaining about populism from Labour when that's basically been the entire policy set of the Tories since 1997.
I'm not a Tory, just thought I'd qualify that. I'm a centerist who would vote Liberal Democrat or Plaid Cymru. I think the Tories often protect the interests of the upper classes/faceless corporations too much, and I think Labour discourage aspiration and are woefully inept at doing their job in government.
That said, I don't think what the Tories are doing now is "populist". Cutting expenditure is clearly unpopular.
Also, you say we should borrow more money, well if we borrowed more, we'd have to pay a higher interest rate, and burden our children with even more unsustainable debt than our parents left us. Cutting the deficit and having a few years of austerity is the RIGHT and RESPONSIBLE thing to do for the country. Yes we should be going after the corporations, yes the HMRC should be re-shuffled (and be paid higher, we need the best accountants working for the government, not corporations), but that doesn't mean we should cut taxes and raise spending.
In a few years when we have a balanced budget then we can have a strategic spending review and re-assess where our money should go and spend more. Or more probably we'll vote in Labour who will, no doubt, end boom and bust.
killer_clank
Member
If the coalition manage to achieve a spurt of growth and falling unemployment any time before the next election (however unlikely and far away that seems at this stage) I can't see Labour winning. The Tories would probably get a majority. Labour did kick Major out in 1997 with the economy booming, but he was already completely damaged goods and was up against Tony Blair, not Ed Miliband.
I'd be vaguely interested in a theoretical sense to see what a boom times Cameron government would be like (almost certainly not voting for it though). His early leadership was just shadowing Blair spending plans, and that definitely won't be happening now.
I think I remember reading that paying outside the UK was proposed by someone as an idea at the BBC, or maybe I'm talking bollocks.
Would be a good way to get more revenue into the BBC though and it could safe-guard their coverage of certain stuff like Wimbledon, Six Nations etc.
but too late for Formula 1 
I want it back!
I want it back!
louis89
Member
I'm of the opinion that spending was too high even before the financial crisis. If the UK economy is growing well after a Conservative victory at the next election, I'd like nothing more than modest spending increases, which should be focused on infrastructure, regeneration, help for corporations, and such. No more simply throwing money at problems like the last government. I'd also like to see 50p tax gone, and further reductions in corporation tax and other business rates. I don't think that we should return to pre-2008 levels of spending (in real-terms), and I want austerity to be on the minds of all members of all government departments in this country forever, even if spending is increasing.
How much money is Vodafone alleged to owe the government in unpaid taxes?Sir Fragula said:
How large is the deficit?
Yeah.
Seriously, I'm in Japan and can't watch Question Time or any of my other favourite shows. BBC please take my moneyI think I remember reading that paying outside the UK was proposed by someone as an idea at the BBC, or maybe I'm talking bollocks.
Would be a good way to get more revenue into the BBC though and it could safe-guard their coverage of certain stuff like Wimbledon, Six Nations etc.but too late for Formula 1
Structural deficit in 11/12 at ~£60bn. (link, Sep '11)
Vodaphone's tax dodge? £6bn.
Just saying, one company alone owes us 10% of our structural deficit. Factor in TopShop and the other biggies, and start closing the loopholes and hey - suddenly that deficit in public finances doesn't seem so daunting.
Yeah.
People bitch on about benefit cheats and call them out as scum, but these corporate tax dodges are far more damaging.
JonathanEx
Member
I tweeted at 3am on Jan 1st something rather similar:
"I'd like to use my first C-bomb of 2012 to call the new and VERIFIED Twitter user @rupertmurdoch a cunt. And a happy new year."
Girlfriend then messaged me saying "You do know you just called Murdoch a cunt, right?". I replied "Yes, and I'll say the same sober too".
"I'd like to use my first C-bomb of 2012 to call the new and VERIFIED Twitter user @rupertmurdoch a cunt. And a happy new year."
Girlfriend then messaged me saying "You do know you just called Murdoch a cunt, right?". I replied "Yes, and I'll say the same sober too".
is that per year? or going forward?
Rupert Murdoch joined twitter.
Meadows14 ___ ____
@rupertmurdoch you're a cunt
It didn't specify, but I'd imagine per year?
so deficit cut by next election?
the deficit is £60bn per year, the amount cut by cutting out ALL corporate tax evasion would be £12bn
radioheadrule83
Banned
evasion !== avoidance
evasion is illegal, literally evading the payment of tax...
avoidance is the legit minimising of tax obligations, and this is the big one -- corporations and the rich are able to afford better lawyers than HMRC, our tax laws are so over complex and loophole laden that an estimated £69.9bln a year is lost. Even if we only clawed some of that back each year, we could contribute to defecit reduction with it much more quickly than we can by slashing middling-paid jobs and cutting projects or schemes that only cost in the mere millions.
The conundrum here is that if you close those loopholes, some companies will flock to countries where those loopholes continue to exist. This is why I don't 100% agree with corporate-tax-dodge-witch-hunt evangelists, there needs to be some degree of realism. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't neaten up our tax laws or close some loopholes and claw some of it back... and it doesn't stop this being a key hypocrisy that pisses people off. Benefit fraud scarcely costs £1bln a year, and look at the fervour with which the Tories are not only clamping down on that, but cutting the benefits to struggling, legitimate claimants! Meanwhile, they engender a system in which cash-rich organisations can pay less tax than some individuals! Its ridiculous.
Common sense is needed. Campaigns that make the avoidance of tax less socially acceptable, and that reward honest corporate tax payers are a good idea too. If it was detrimental to UK businesses (like Philip Greens) that they cleverly avoid tax, they might be less inclined to do it. If I knew of responsible corporate tax payers - shops, computer companies, clothing companies - I might be more inclined to use them -- but I don't have that information. HMRC should be allowed to publicise full tax payment information for the biggest companies, and highlight key cases where companies funnel money abroad, so we can use that information to help choose companies that pay back into the UK.
broadwayrock
Member
I know she has some fans in this thread..
Louise Mensch poses for GQ magazine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQJ2fwsC9OM
Louise Mensch poses for GQ magazine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQJ2fwsC9OM
She lost a lot of fans with her shitty HIGNFY performance.