On 30/04/2020 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 30/04/2020 09:26, Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 09:25, Spike wrote:
On 29/04/2020 19:06, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 17:43, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 08:01, Stephen Cole wrote:

Is 0.3% a trivial amount compared to the remaining 99.7%?

Thanks, Jim.

pass

Jim, it's a trivial amount, Jim. HTH, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

oh right...so it is...

A new hospital or two, trivial,,,,,

Based on the numbers allocated to build a batch of 6 hospitals, about
2/3 of one. Not exactly trivial if your area is one which needs a new
hospital.

If the same amount, £300m, was reported as being avoided in tax
(remember tax avoidance means complying with the rules) by a major
company, I wonder if Steve would consider it 'trivial'? After all, the
total income from tax on companies is far, far, greater than the NHS
budget and £300m would be much smaller percentage.

What if is was tax evasion?, which would be a closer analogy? Would he
be happy to see that ignored?

Strange isn't it. Steve claims he supports the NHS yet he is happy to
see it ripped off to the tune of £300m per year and he accuses me of not
believing in the NHS and I'm the one who thinks it shouldn't be allowed.

I suppose it comes down to the freeloading mentality some people have.

£300m is also, about, 10x the fantastic amount raised by the excellent
old gentleman who puts people like Steve to shame. I'm was delighted to
see his efforts have been recognised by the MOD. As I understand it, the
money raised by his efforts can't be used directly by the NHS, which is
unfortunate but doesn't remotely detract from his achievement.

I think the 0.3% of the NHS budget represents something like £450m.
which would build a socialist-dream hospital with private rooms for
everyone. One wonders why Stephen Thomas Cole is so against such
services being available to the public.

And top marks to Captain Tom Moore, who at the age of 100 seems to live
life to an extent that the said Cole could only dream of.

That's begging the question of how you could collect that money without
it costing as much as or more to collect than the 0.3%. What is there
about this particular saving that makes it worth pursuing more than any
other possible 0.3% saving in the NHS?

Would you use the same argument to justify not collecting £300m from
some company which either avoided or evaded paying £300m in tax?

After all, £300m would represent a far smaller percentage of the total
tax collected from companies?

Could it be a pathological
hatred of foreigners?

Remind us, who sat on a selection board which had 'special rules' for
those with Asian names to ensure they didn't get selected?






--

https://www.unitedway.org/our-impact...an-trafficking