The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

Some folk have a warped view on taxes in my view. It's not a fecking savings account. What you put in should never affect what you take out. In that case we might as well scrap it all together and balls to the welfare state. You put in what you can, and you take out what you need. Problem at the moment is too many aren't putting in what they can, and too many are taking out more than they need. LK has it bang on for me, it's something to be damn well proud of. We are a society, not a collection of individuals, and we contribute so that whether or not we actually like it ourselves, when people need it, it is there.

Shock, horror, Pru in dictatorship scandel!!!!

[Worthy4England]

Some folk have a warped view on taxes in my view. It's not a fecking savings account. What you put in should never affect what you take out. In that case we might as well scrap it all together and balls to the welfare state. You put in what you can, and you take out what you need. Problem at the moment is too many aren't putting in what they can, and too many are taking out more than they need. LK has it bang on for me, it's something to be damn well proud of. We are a society, not a collection of individuals, and we contribute so that whether or not we actually use it ourselves, when people need it, it is there.

Indeed sir, so there should be no complaints when someone who's previously been highly paid requires jobseekers allowance.

[BWFC_Insane]

Too many people forget their responsibilities these days and think others have to pick up their tab because of some "right" they imagine to be real.

Caps is right if you pay in and fall on hard times you do have a "right" to draw out without any means test in the case of dole money.
But you should expect it only for a short period not as a life long entitlement that some see it as.
Hospitals should be clean tidyand you should get free treatment but they are not 5 star hotels nor should you expect them to be.
You can only educate people if they want to be educated thus wasting vast sums on every single school or pupil and training is wastefull of resources, there has to be a fundamental shift in a hell of a lot of peoples out look to life to make this happen.Family allowence is what really needs targeting or on some eststes "fag n booze allowance" this should be targeted by vouchers for kids things as intended not cash for unscrupulous parents.

But if you are a kid born into a family who are intelligent, articulate and wealthy and thus are given every chance in life to get a good education and succeed you are statistically far more likely to do so than one who is born through no fault of their own into a family who don't read, can't be arsed working and have no money.

What we get wrong in this country time and time and time again is that when we talk education we focus on the "academic" elite rather than looking at the middle and the bottom end and focusing resource and effort there. Those that are destined for university etc don't need the help as much as those who are not placed in as fortuneate position.

But you still need adults to influence their off spring into realising an education is important thus the change of thinking.
Or do we leave it all up to Harriet to decide for us? Urgh!!!

Do you know the more I read these boards I note there is hope for us humans and some pretty noble ideals and stances taken, views I welcome and are quite quite endearing but there are too many nasty beggers out there that need dealing with for the ideals to work!
Start with Brown and his henchmen in May and all will come right

Possibly, but does that have to be parents? Can we not have an educational system that inspires kids of all abilities that there is something in it for them?

There is too much emphasis placed on "traditional academic subjects" sometimes. I've employed folk with Maths degrees who can do very complex calculations but are not able to produce a one page summary suitable for management reporting, yet someone with an NVQ Level 2 (one GCSE effectively) has been able to streamline the report far better and actually take the information a step further than anyone else.

We still need to encourage academic learning and encourage the principles that lead to high quality research. But for those not pursuing that path there should be ways for them to achieve high quality learning and standards in a different setting that perhaps sets them up as equals of University Graduates in the job market rather than their poor relations.

The problem is we spend a lot of money making sure that there is roughly 50% of the populous getting decent GCSE's and A levels and the majority of those going on to Higher Education. But there resources spent on the other half are relatively small. And their options are relatively limited. And that I don't believe to be right. Children are not born "bone idle" or "lacking in aspiration" or "without desire to improve themselves" yet they are penalised often as though they are!

[BWFC_Insane]

Some folk have a warped view on taxes in my view. It's not a fecking savings account. What you put in should never affect what you take out. In that case we might as well scrap it all together and balls to the welfare state. You put in what you can, and you take out what you need. Problem at the moment is too many aren't putting in what they can, and too many are taking out more than they need. LK has it bang on for me, it's something to be damn well proud of. We are a society, not a collection of individuals, and we contribute so that whether or not we actually use it ourselves, when people need it, it is there.

Indeed sir, so there should be no complaints when someone who's previously been highly paid requires jobseekers allowance.

There should if those people are taking money OUT OF SOCIETY that they don't need and consequently meaning there is LESS for those who have a true need.

Thats how a society should function at its most basic IMO!

[William the White]

[quote="Worthy4EnglandSo appealing to the Hobohista popular vote, you are suggesting that a decent approach should be that we provide certificates to those who are fit people to breed and can raise kids appropriately, rather than continue to burden society with them? Gets my vote. Should save a shedload of money. [/quote]

Yep - we've got to find a way of giving the good people a bigger say... And this is starting to get interesting...

Perhaps there should be child vouchers - so everyone has - say - one - but decent people should be allowed up to - say - five. And, to follow up on the points above, since these are the children of decent people, they are likely to become decent people themselves and our whole society will soon be cherubic, all shall attend sunday school and machester united will cease to exist...

I think this should be extended to the number of votes people have. Obviously, in a democracy, everyone should have one vote. But surely there's an overwhelming case for the good, moral, and, probably, wealthy people to have more votes commensurate with their contribution to our society...

A dynamic society willobviously have a need for tansition between the two (or more groups) and there should be transparent ways of earning more votes and more child vouchers.

Excellent...

So how many votes should hoboh get?

[Hoboh]

Too many people forget their responsibilities these days and think others have to pick up their tab because of some "right" they imagine to be real.

Caps is right if you pay in and fall on hard times you do have a "right" to draw out without any means test in the case of dole money.
But you should expect it only for a short period not as a life long entitlement that some see it as.
Hospitals should be clean tidyand you should get free treatment but they are not 5 star hotels nor should you expect them to be.
You can only educate people if they want to be educated thus wasting vast sums on every single school or pupil and training is wastefull of resources, there has to be a fundamental shift in a hell of a lot of peoples out look to life to make this happen.Family allowence is what really needs targeting or on some eststes "fag n booze allowance" this should be targeted by vouchers for kids things as intended not cash for unscrupulous parents.

But if you are a kid born into a family who are intelligent, articulate and wealthy and thus are given every chance in life to get a good education and succeed you are statistically far more likely to do so than one who is born through no fault of their own into a family who don't read, can't be arsed working and have no money.

What we get wrong in this country time and time and time again is that when we talk education we focus on the "academic" elite rather than looking at the middle and the bottom end and focusing resource and effort there. Those that are destined for university etc don't need the help as much as those who are not placed in as fortuneate position.

But you still need adults to influence their off spring into realising an education is important thus the change of thinking.
Or do we leave it all up to Harriet to decide for us? Urgh!!!

Do you know the more I read these boards I note there is hope for us humans and some pretty noble ideals and stances taken, views I welcome and are quite quite endearing but there are too many nasty beggers out there that need dealing with for the ideals to work!
Start with Brown and his henchmen in May and all will come right

Possibly, but does that have to be parents? Can we not have an educational system that inspires kids of all abilities that there is something in it for them?

There is too much emphasis placed on "traditional academic subjects" sometimes. I've employed folk with Maths degrees who can do very complex calculations but are not able to produce a one page summary suitable for management reporting, yet someone with an NVQ Level 2 (one GCSE effectively) has been able to streamline the report far better and actually take the information a step further than anyone else.

We still need to encourage academic learning and encourage the principles that lead to high quality research. But for those not pursuing that path there should be ways for them to achieve high quality learning and standards in a different setting that perhaps sets them up as equals of University Graduates in the job market rather than their poor relations.

The problem is we spend a lot of money making sure that there is roughly 50% of the populous getting decent GCSE's and A levels and the majority of those going on to Higher Education. But there resources spent on the other half are relatively small. And their options are relatively limited. And that I don't believe to be right. Children are not born "bone idle" or "lacking in aspiration" or "without desire to improve themselves" yet they are penalised often as though they are!

True they learn that from their parents!!

[Puskas]

Apparently, Thatcher's dead.

So now you know.

[Puskas]

Apparently, Thatcher's dead.

So now you know.

Or perhaps she isn't.

Either way, makes no odds, does it?

[Hoboh]

Apparently, Thatcher's dead.

So now you know.

Link?

[Puskas]

Apparently, Thatcher's dead.

So now you know.

Link?

Link it yerself.

May not be true.

Who cares?

[BWFC_Insane]

Apparently, Thatcher's dead.

So now you know.

Link?

Link it yerself.

May not be true.

Who cares?

Well you got my hopes up!

[Prufrock]

Some folk have a warped view on taxes in my view. It's not a fecking savings account. What you put in should never affect what you take out. In that case we might as well scrap it all together and balls to the welfare state. You put in what you can, and you take out what you need. Problem at the moment is too many aren't putting in what they can, and too many are taking out more than they need. LK has it bang on for me, it's something to be damn well proud of. We are a society, not a collection of individuals, and we contribute so that whether or not we actually use it ourselves, when people need it, it is there.

Indeed sir, so there should be no complaints when someone who's previously been highly paid requires jobseekers allowance.

I, and I suspect BWFCi, would have no complaint should they 'need' it.

[BWFC_Insane]

Some folk have a warped view on taxes in my view. It's not a fecking savings account. What you put in should never affect what you take out. In that case we might as well scrap it all together and balls to the welfare state. You put in what you can, and you take out what you need. Problem at the moment is too many aren't putting in what they can, and too many are taking out more than they need. LK has it bang on for me, it's something to be damn well proud of. We are a society, not a collection of individuals, and we contribute so that whether or not we actually use it ourselves, when people need it, it is there.

Indeed sir, so there should be no complaints when someone who's previously been highly paid requires jobseekers allowance.

I, and I suspect BWFCi, would have no complaint should they 'need' it.

Yep, thats my viewpoint exactly.

[Worthy4England]

Some folk have a warped view on taxes in my view. It's not a fecking savings account. What you put in should never affect what you take out. In that case we might as well scrap it all together and balls to the welfare state. You put in what you can, and you take out what you need. Problem at the moment is too many aren't putting in what they can, and too many are taking out more than they need. LK has it bang on for me, it's something to be damn well proud of. We are a society, not a collection of individuals, and we contribute so that whether or not we actually use it ourselves, when people need it, it is there.

Indeed sir, so there should be no complaints when someone who's previously been highly paid requires jobseekers allowance.

I, and I suspect BWFCi, would have no complaint should they 'need' it.

Yep, thats my viewpoint exactly.

But your primary contention is that they should support themselves on money they've already earned and paid taxes on, until they're poor and therefore need it? Yeah - that works. Nowt like taxation on taxation and penalising success.

[Worthy4England]

So appealing to the Hobohista popular vote, you are suggesting that a decent approach should be that we provide certificates to those who are fit people to breed and can raise kids appropriately, rather than continue to burden society with them? Gets my vote. Should save a shedload of money.

Yep - we've got to find a way of giving the good people a bigger say... And this is starting to get interesting...

Perhaps there should be child vouchers - so everyone has - say - one - but decent people should be allowed up to - say - five. And, to follow up on the points above, since these are the children of decent people, they are likely to become decent people themselves and our whole society will soon be cherubic, all shall attend sunday school and machester united will cease to exist...

I think this should be extended to the number of votes people have. Obviously, in a democracy, everyone should have one vote. But surely there's an overwhelming case for the good, moral, and, probably, wealthy people to have more votes commensurate with their contribution to our society...

A dynamic society willobviously have a need for tansition between the two (or more groups) and there should be transparent ways of earning more votes and more child vouchers.

Excellent...

So how many votes should hoboh get?

As long as he's supportive of the proposal, and I'm a decent person who can give Hoboh the right to vote, he can have as many as he wishes. Wouldn't like the State to be seen as interfering in the voter market.

[CAPSLOCK]

Some folk have a warped view on taxes in my view. It's not a fecking savings account. What you put in should never affect what you take out. In that case we might as well scrap it all together and balls to the welfare state. You put in what you can, and you take out what you need. Problem at the moment is too many aren't putting in what they can, and too many are taking out more than they need. LK has it bang on for me, it's something to be damn well proud of. We are a society, not a collection of individuals, and we contribute so that whether or not we actually use it ourselves, when people need it, it is there.

Indeed sir, so there should be no complaints when someone who's previously been highly paid requires jobseekers allowance.

I, and I suspect BWFCi, would have no complaint should they 'need' it.

Yep, thats my viewpoint exactly.

But who decides if they need it

Should they sell all the family silver, first

And Master Prufrock...when you've paid any amount of tax, I'll ask you again about the system

[Prufrock]

Bloody free market democrats!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/even ... 944&ref=mf

An amusing concept, but "£20 well spent"... er, ok!

[Prufrock]

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/even ... 944&ref=mf

An amusing concept, but "£20 well spent"... er, ok!

Aye quite funny, but a bit daft.

[Prufrock]

Some folk have a warped view on taxes in my view. It's not a fecking savings account. What you put in should never affect what you take out. In that case we might as well scrap it all together and balls to the welfare state. You put in what you can, and you take out what you need. Problem at the moment is too many aren't putting in what they can, and too many are taking out more than they need. LK has it bang on for me, it's something to be damn well proud of. We are a society, not a collection of individuals, and we contribute so that whether or not we actually use it ourselves, when people need it, it is there.

Indeed sir, so there should be no complaints when someone who's previously been highly paid requires jobseekers allowance.

I, and I suspect BWFCi, would have no complaint should they 'need' it.

Yep, thats my viewpoint exactly.

But who decides if they need it

Should they sell all the family silver, first

And Master Prufrock...when you've paid any amount of tax, I'll ask you again about the system

I, like all students, do pay tax. Discounting the VAT I pay, and discounting the NI I have paid whilst working, we are still subject to the same rules on income tax as everyone else. We just don't earn over the threshold to start paying it. Again, you miss the point of taxation, it isn't a personal savings acconut, how much you put in has no effect on how much you are entitled to take out. It is very possible that in the coming years I will pay less tax than you, it is very possible I will pay more tax than you. If I reach the point where I have contributed more than you, do I get to dismiss your opinions then? If so, how much have you paid, I'd like to know so I know when I'm next allowed to make a point about it.

Should they sell the familly silver first? If they've got it, yes. If you have one kid, a six bedroom house, three 4x4 cars, you don't 'need' jobseekers allowance. Problem is finding out who does need it, and stop 'can't be arseds' dossing off the state.