Comments by "Aden Wellsmith" (@adenwellsmith6908) on "Labour could make business publish what it pays" video.

Publish all spending to the penny. Offer rewards for fraud. We need to know for example, what migrants are getting. What percentage are paying in more than they take. ie. We need to know just how bad the mess is.
3
@brendanlea3605 So PPE. Publishing the numbers in full. Or do you want a cover up? Or NHS spending. Imagine look at the spending to discover that the chair of the authourities wife is closely involved in a IT company that lost all your medical records. Or that one trust is paying 4 times the price as another trust for the same item. Why would you want that covered up?
3
@brendanlea3605 So Baroness Mone. That's a good example. Why would you want that hidden?
3
No. Balance sheet is assets and liabilities. Tax appears in the income and expense accounts.
2
@brendanlea3605 Look there's rampant fraud. That really harms the poor because that means they don't get the support they need. The money's going to the fraudsters. Why would you want to protect fraudsters and harm the poor?
2
@brendanlea3605 So pensions. Richard doesn't want the pension liabiltiies on the books. It's an accounting fraud. He knows that. But imagine you get the bill as a personal annual statement with your share of those debts? £600,000 rising at 10% a year. What's your reaction to the debt? What's your reaction to those that hide the debt? What's your reaction to those that spent your wealth?
2
@akastewart I think you will find that most of that is because they are bust.
1
So lets do a bit of transparency shall we. 20,000 a year killed by "avoidable mistakes" Preventable deaths due to problems in care in English acute hospitals: a retrospective case record review study - BMJ That's just acute hospitals. Lots more research confirms that. But I take it you think the victims should pay.
1
@charliemoore2551 So your blaming the staff. I'm only saying that in the case of manslaughter, the victim and the family should be generously compensated.
1
@SkyEcho7 When it comes to government accounts there's one number missing. The big number
1
@brendanlea3605 The common theme. Keep the peasants in the dark whilst ripping them off.
1
@charliemoore2551 Central planning. The NHS is a monopolist trainer in the UK. Why did it fail to train enough staff? Why does the NHS from Windrush, to now import staff instead of training?
1
@charliemoore2551 Can I suggest some research? Discussion Paper Series CDP No 22/13 The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK Christian Dustmann and Tommaso Frattini That's a reference you can use to go and get the numbers. First you need to read the footnotes to table 4b Table 4b has the same structure, but now we assume that the marginal cost of providing “pure” public goods to natives is zero, and we have thus allocated the cost of their provision entirely to natives. That's 20% of the cost of the state dumped on natives, migrants get for free. The big fiddle. Then for the numbers go to table 5. Add up the net fiscal contributions of the two groups of migrants, EEA and non EEA to get the net fiscal contributions for migrants.
1
@charliemoore2551 Central planning Lets take the NHS. How has central planning and training of staff worked since it was formed? Windrush. We didn't train staff and we can get the cheap. Phillipines. We didn't train staff and we can get the cheap. EU. We didn't train staff and we can get the cheap. The NHS is centrally planned and has repeatedly failed.
1
@charliemoore2551 No. I've posted peer reviewed evidence on the cost of migration. That evidence was paid for by the EU to try and counter brexit. The problem is that in the process it exposed the costs of migration to the UK. That's with the fiddles they had to apply to try and swing it in favour of EU migraton. 1. Common goods for free to migrants paid for by natives. 2. Selecting on Recent EEA migrants, putting non recent EEA migrants off the analysis 3. Not publishing the distribution of contributions. So I don't swallow what people tell me, I ask, what's the evidence? Now one person here asked for evidence to try and prove me wrong. Expecting me not to have done my basic research. I take it you don't like the evidence.
1
@markwelch3564 Correct. That's why I've always said tax generated. That includes that. Now in the UK Mr Average doesn't generate enough tax to fund the state. There's a deficit. 38.500 a year. On the second part, as if the corporates are paying their fair share. How naive. Then we have the plantation owner thinking. Who will pick my crops so I make money? The civil war in the US? Who will pick my cotton. You have the same ideas.
1
@helenheenan3447 I want transparency, which is the issue. There are big failures in the UK 1. State pensions. Richard is an accountant. He doesn't want transparency on the level of government pension debts 2. Migration. They are not economic. The big picture is they harm the UK. No transparency on who is good economically. We should still have economic migration. I'm not against it. It's just three simple rules a) No criminals - barred and deported b) No discrimination c) Net contributors only. 3. The NHS. In particular the death toll from errors. Do you know anything about the numbers? Transparency again 4. Lack of accountability in state spending For example, where are the accounts for all these 'investments' showing the ROI with the debt costs included Transparency again It's failures of accounting at the core.
1
@charliemoore2551 The NHS could have trained more and charged the private sector for them. Bond the doctors and nurses to work for the NHS for 10 years. They of course might object. But again why has the NHS imported staff and not trained them. You've avoided answering by trying the squirrel tactic.
1
@charliemoore2551 So importing Baristas. Is that a skills gap? Crop pickers? Skill gap there? account the money they then put back into the economy with their spending So what happens when they take the money from someone else [via the state], making other people poorer so they can't put their money into the economy and benefit from their work. You've left off that bit of damage. 1. No criminals 2. No discrimination 3. Net Contributors only [the ones with the skills]. Who said anything about preventing immigration? It's just making sure that migration doesn't harm other people.
1
@charliemoore2551 How are you going on the Cream migration report?
1
@charliemoore2551 Cream Report. Page 41. I have it open in front of me. It's the evidence you're looking for, but it doesn't give the answer you want.
1
@markwelch3564 No its a migration issue. 1. No criminals. Barred and deported 2. No discrimination. 3. Net contributors only The last is easy,. A minimum tax code at the 40K is fair. That's break even. What's wrong with those principles? They are based on consent Nothing should stop you from sponsoring a migrant and covering the costs. Same for companies. On the corporation tax. They need to make profits first. Take one historical example. The original wave of Bangladeshi migrants were cheap labour for the mills. They arrived, work for little money. The state then forces others to top up their wages. Then when that model doesn't work, the corps go bust. Now the UK is left with a massive bill. Same with lots of other waves of migration. Now look back at those 3 rules. That would have solved the problem. It stamps out a lot of racism, since if you know a migrant is paying their way, I welcome it. When they aren't I don't.
1
@markwelch3564 Why didn't you say its a problem of the state making too much profit? 30% profit margin - check the accounts.
1
@markwelch3564 No. What happens when you stop the supply of imported cheap labour is good for the UK. Those three ponts 1. Welfare bill goes down. 2. NHS spending on their welfare goes down 3. Spending on schooling goes down. 4. Wages for the poor rise. 5. Which means more taxes 6. Which also means less welfare is needed 7. The housing crisis is solved. 8. Future debts, pensions for those people stop accruing [yes they want their pensions too] In the case of criminality. We can't deport brits. Australia is no longer an option. We can deport EU nationals who commit offences. We can say, you can't come. I know of one individual who has been kicked out 4 times. He's back in the UK, running the organised crime gang in front of New Scotland Yard. So why should we accept criminals and not deport? So I've just proposed something that makes the people of the UK better off than now. But for some reason the left demand cheap labour.
1
@markwelch3564 Again let me ask the question. Should migrants and brits, have the right to say I'm not subsidising migrants who cost more than they generate in tax. That's a subsidy to their employers. Why not stop that?
1
Interesting I've post quite a few posts today. The left are dead set against transparency.
1
For the simple reason they are sucking on the public teat.
1
@Redf322 Depends doesn't it. So why don't you think we should have control over government? ie. Make it consensual. If you want a service, you pay for it. Just common goods paid out of taxation with direct control. Parents pay for schools. Road users pay for roads. Bus users pay for buses. Rail users pay for rail. Then those using the service control it with direct democracy. ie. Road users control what the money is used for. Rail users ditto...
1