What tax would you cut and why (32)

Because that's their job. That's their ONLY job - to protect the citizens of the country.

Who decides what is and isn't an 'essential service'? Are the government really the best people to make that decision?

Really??

p.s. - Sorry to disturb the peace.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

The government are elected representatives of the population. If not them, then who else? And if not them, then is that not an indication that the system is broken?

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

See I have no problem with the private sector in competitive industries either. Take for instance the car industry, public and private sector competed in that, private sector won.

The prison industry I would argue is more dicey, because then you are literally turning inmates into a cash crop. There was a case in the US fairly recently where a judge was revealed to be taking kickbacks from a privately owned young offenders jail to send kids there, and he was, for pretty much any offence he could. It's a similar problem with healthcare, when you make medicine a private business, suddenly sick people are a market, you actually want more people to be sick not less.

If the last hundred years have taught us anything it's got to be that going too far in any direction politically is probably going to knacker everything.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

Yes. Absolutely, yes.

Now, to be fair, i am a bit jaded by the US political system (sick bag, anyone?). But show me a politician that someone can trust and i might change my mind. Or show me a government-run institution that isn't completely mucked up with unnecessary bureaucracy, red tape and small print. Until that day...

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

Equally if we need to raise more money, either put taxes up, or actually get higher income folk to pay tax, as opposed to letting fancy accountants hide it in off shore accounts.

Richard

Government run institution that isn't completely mucked up? I can think of three.

1. The military. 2. The NHS. 3. The education system.

Are they perfect? No. Course they could be better. Everything could be run better in a perfect world. And yet the British Army is reasonably effective, with it's greatest flaws being the manner in which it's procurement is dictated by private interests. The NHS gets a lot of stick, but it works. Something bad happens to you they will try to fix you and you'll get good care. That's not easily organised, and yet it is working. Again, the education system. Is it perfect? No. But we have a largely literate population, generally safe schools, class sizes that are not insane teaching a moderately useful curriculum. Not great could be better. But is it the red tape causing the problems? Hardly, more like a lack of funds and successive governments messing with the curriculum.

Comparisons to the US political system fall down rapidly because our system is wonderful compared to theirs. I mean the US system is fucking garbage and everybody knows it from the ground up.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

1. i'll give you that, but again - that's their job.

2. i COMPLETELY disagree with you there, but that's another thread altogether.

3. i can't say that i know loads about it, but if it were that great, why do so many people spend so much money to send their kids to private schools? Why are so many teachers i know in the state school system looking for other jobs? Why do i constantly hear about teachers being threatened and not being able to do anything about it because the school doesn't want any bad press? And i'd contest how literate the students really are overall, but anyway; you've still got the US public school system beat hands down, but that's not saying much.

Be careful with your accusations about the US being 'fucking garbage' from the ground up. The problem is from the top down, and at least there are people trying to do something about it. We haven't given in to apathy just yet.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

Edited 2 Apr 11, 5:00 AM by Neophites_jewel

The UK was pretty much bankrupted by WWII, but was sustained by a loan from the US that took over half a century to pay off.

In the 1970's Labour again ran the UK into bankruptcy, but was saved by a loan from the International Monetary Fund (at that time the largest loan ever made by the IMF and subsequently repaid from North Sea Oil revenues). The main result of this was the election of Margaret Thatcher.

Most of the current UK debt was run up by Gordon Brown prior to the banking crisis.

International man of mystery
Men are from Mars, women are from Hell

Of course, this is a hugely insular view.

Let me point out - to the average citizen of Africa, you and all of us on IC are HUGELY wealthy. Something like 20% of the world's population does not have ready access to clear drinking water.

So. Given that, in African terms, you are a millionaire, it is only right (my Sudanese friend says) that you should surrender all your income apart from that part which keeps you clothed, fed, and watered, so that he can at least be able to drink and live.

How are you to justify even the thought of buying "something nice once in a while" when he can die of thirst? A newish car - or even bicycle - when he is not certain whether he will have enough to drink tomorrow?

You wish to punish the rich for their wealth (even if they worked hard for it, and employed many others in acquiring it). As you are rich by the standards of my pal from Khartoum, you clearly will have no objections to my taking from you all your surplus income and forwarding it to him.

Or.

Could it just be that, by building up your own wealth, you might be able to be even more altruistic? That like, say, Tate of Tate and Lyle, you could endow an art gallery for future generations? Or, like Bill Gates, create a foundation to help others in need? Or, like Shaftesbury, leave money to house the poor and indigent?

The thing is, it is always easy to shout about taxing "the rich". What we tend to mean is "those who have more than I". And forget that the rich already provide huge amounts in tax, give jobs to people who in turn pay taxes, and often donate millions on top of that.

It is purely envy which demands the "punishment" by taxation of others for being successful. A surefire way of cutting off your financial nose to spite your face. If people are free to prosper, they will contribute more to the needs of society. That is why the total tax "take" went UP when Thatcher reduced tax bands. The trouble is, there are plenty of people who ignore such facts, because idealogically they hate those who do well. So, they are willing to let the needy suffer, because the total tax revenue drops, purely so they can enjoy the feeling of "getting back" at those who succeed.

It was Denis Healey, I think, who promised to "tax the rich until the pips squeak". Such an aim was financially illiterate, and politically incoherent. No wonder that that Labour government had to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bail-out. Like so many other politicians, he couldn't bear the fact that the facts didn't support his prejudices - and he was willing to run the risk of bankrupting the country rather than admit he had got things wrong.

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

The idea that the rich benefit society has been exploded over the last decade where we've clearly been able to see the hyper-rich devastate the developed world for their own benefit. The global financial crisis was caused by the rich, and you know what? They got even richer out of it. Millions worldwide out of work. Millions dumped into poverty. Entire industries in ruins. And they got richer. Played for and got. The idea that nobody saw the banking collapse coming is laughable, the banking collapse wasn't only obviously going to happen, it was supposed to happen. And that's not some sort of conspiracy theory, it's just how the banks set it up. And of course they could do it all again tomorrow if they wanted, not like anybody thought to attach any conditions to that bail out money.

For you to think that the rich are some sort of meritocracy, some sort of really smart guys who will show us the way and who have made the world a better place, that's just showing staggering ignorance of what has happened in the last decade.

Schilling for the banks just makes you look like a mug. I mean sure I'd expect to find people on this site who would thank a bunch of strangers for pissing all over them, but in this context it's just weird.

What you don't seem to understand is the amount of money that tax payers pay, which is just routed into the pockets of the rich. Barely even passes GO, just goes straight there. Like the trains for instance, government sold the trains off, now it pays companies more than it actually cost to run the trains, to run the trains for us. Just handing money over. Not to mention all the tax avoidance that goes on. Barclays Bank for example, clears four billion in profit, pays a hundred million in tax. Where does that profit go? Nowhere, it's untouchable. That's not coming back into the British economy. That's probably going to be invested in China or some other economy that isn't dying on its arse.

And our economy is dying on its arse, because the Tories and corporations would rather squeeze the ordinary people of this country really fucking hard to find a few extra quid than actually pay their own way. Don't get me wrong I think Labour failed on the economy too, they pandered to big business, they didn't stop the banks either, but at least they shared the wealth.

I find it kind of ironic to be having this disagreement with a Christian anyway, I mean as an atheist I have no moral beef with bankers, but isn't usury a sin? Didn't Jebus say rich men don't get into heaven?

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.