The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

I'm with bruce on this one, further more why the hell should I pay for the hoodie types of kids to be reabilitated because their parents don't care or keep them in line? It used to be the single man with a lower tax relief rateing who got clobbered for others kids, now its all folk.

[Worthy4England]

As it works both ways, then there will invariably be some things you pick up the tab for that you don't see the benefit of.

Other things you get the benefit for. I'm not sure a welfare state based taxation system is or should be around where every individual gets benefit. Many don't get any benefits...

So in the big scheme of things then yes, if within our overall system you end up picking up the tab for some kids getting milk, that's tough. Personally, I'd have no major issues with it being means tested along with other "benefits", but if you have to make a beef about some under 5 year olds getting a drink of milk at school, then so be it. I have no major problems with kids getting free milk (nor did I in my 20's/early 30's when I had no kids of my own, nor intended to have any).

I'm happy to pay by the mile for what I use was pretty much what you said. There may not be any me's in there, but there's certainly a lot of I's...perhaps I should have called it IIIIIII politics?

The problem with arguments around where taxes get spent is where lines get drawn, if you move to a purely consumption based model. I might not want my taxes going on trident, or the Olympics, or libraries, or the Fire Service (none of which I could argue I benefit directly from). Also, when these things have been looked at, the cost of administration for them usually rules out them bringing such schemes, at a price to taxpayers which is affordable.

[Lord Kangana]

Kids should earn their keep, then we wouldn't have to worry about their milk. They can start with my chimney, its a f*ckin mess cos theres no-one small enough to get up it.

[TANGODANCER]

Whichever way you argue the toss, it all comes down to the non-contributors in the end and not the workers. If a person's earning whatever standard of living they have by working their way there, regardless of whether they're single or family people, then there's no cause for complaint. As a country with a welfare state there are far to many just content to not work, draw benefits, be freely housed by local councils, bleed the system for all it's worth then complain about what they don't have. There are genuine cases where, from no fault of their own they can't work. This is not where the problem lies, but in the out and out dodgers of which there are legion. The fact that they are allowed to do it is the problem, not the system itself. Human rights were always based on making what rights you had, not by demanding them as a gimme.

[hisroyalgingerness]

Have or have not argument aside you can see where the junior minister in question went with this.

Treasury:Make savings, anything you don't think we need
Minister: Oh well, here's £50m a year straight away on milk
Education Secretary: Aren't there massive health benefits on them having it?
Minister: Errr well actually there's a report here that says none
Education Secretary: Well then there's £50m gone. Next

[Bruce Rioja]

As it works both ways, then there will invariably be some things you pick up the tab for that you don't see the benefit of.

Other things you get the benefit for. I'm not sure a welfare state based taxation system is or should be around where every individual gets benefit. Many don't get any benefits...

So in the big scheme of things then yes, if within our overall system you end up picking up the tab for some kids getting milk, that's tough. Personally, I'd have no major issues with it being means tested along with other "benefits", but if you have to make a beef about some under 5 year olds getting a drink of milk at school, then so be it. I have no major problems with kids getting free milk (nor did I in my 20's/early 30's when I had no kids of my own, nor intended to have any).

I'm happy to pay by the mile for what I use was pretty much what you said. There may not be any me's in there, but there's certainly a lot of I's...perhaps I should have called it IIIIIII politics?

The problem with arguments around where taxes get spent is where lines get drawn, if you move to a purely consumption based model. I might not want my taxes going on trident, or the Olympics, or libraries, or the Fire Service (none of which I could argue I benefit directly from). Also, when these things have been looked at, the cost of administration for them usually rules out them bringing such schemes, at a price to taxpayers which is affordable.

You appear to be taking things to the nth degree, Worthy. Why? The point is simple - there are things that it is not the state's purpose to provide, and milk for children is for parents to provide. You seem to be heading off somewhere where you'll have to cough-up before the Fire Brigade will put your house out. There is an area in right-leaning politics short of Ghengis Khan, you know?!

[Worthy4England]

Have or have not argument aside you can see where the junior minister in question went with this.

Treasury:Make savings, anything you don't think we need
Minister: Oh well, here's £50m a year straight away on milk
Education Secretary: Aren't there massive health benefits on them having it?
Minister: Errr well actually there's a report here that says none
Education Secretary: Well then there's £50m gone. Next

See, I don't particularly disagree with that argument. We have to make a shedload of cuts, this may/may not have benefits to kids, on the principle it doesn't, let's cut it and save £50m. I could live with that probably.

I do have an problem with cutting it because "I don't have kids"...Even if I didn't have kids, as a kid myself, I got free milk and I'm sure a few people arguing that they don't get the benefit, may well have got free milk as kids themselves. So they've already had the benefit...

[Gravedigger]

I don't know if there are any health benefits in today's milk. And at about a quarter pint a kid it won't drive away starvation either. If it costs £40Mill, and I beleve transportation counts for a goodly portion of that, and we have to give them something, give 'em an apple. School milk used to be an important thing for a kid, nowadays those kids who are classed as in poverty get free school meals so the requirement to supply them with milk is a redundant one. The education bods are about to save the milk quota, but severely cut teaching assistants' positions.

[Prufrock]

Whichever way you argue the toss, it all comes down to the non-contributors in the end and not the workers. If a person's earning whatever standard of living they have by working their way there, regardless of whether they're single or family people, then there's no cause for complaint. As a country with a welfare state there are far to many just content to not work, draw benefits, be freely housed by local councils, bleed the system for all it's worth then complain about what they don't have. There are genuine cases where, from no fault of their own they can't work. This is not where the problem lies, but in the out and out dodgers of which there are legion. The fact that they are allowed to do it is the problem, not the system itself. Human rights were always based on making what rights you had, not by demanding them as a gimme.

Eh? Who has mentioned human rights? Under-5s getting free milk is not a human right, nor has it even been suggested to be, by anyone. And human rights, the proper ones, are a gimme, that's why they're called human rights, they apply to absolutely everyone, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a fair trial. I'm not sure the next in that list is, 'free milk on Brucie's tab'.

As for the general argument I'm with Worthy (who I knew was a bleeding heart really ). It's the same as folk complaining their license fee goes towards programming they don't like. You don't get to pick and choose which bits of your tax spend you like and which you don't. Worthy's last post sums it up for me, if you want it scrapped because you think it's benefits are nil and it is a waste of money fine, if you want it scrapped because it doesn't benefit your kids then that's summat else. Brucie, why should you pay for other folks' kids textbooks then?

[Bruce Rioja]

Brucie, why should you pay for other folks' kids textbooks then?

Err, because it IS the state's place to provide education, it is NOT the state's place to provide kids with things that their parents should be providing. That is my point. I'm not happy to pick up the tab for the latter regardless of whether I have children or not. Is it possible for me to make it any clearer? You appear to be following Worthy down some totatalitarian route.

[Prufrock]

Brucie, why should you pay for other folks' kids textbooks then?

Err, because it IS the state's place to provide education, it is NOT the state's place to provide kids with things that their parents should be providing. That is my point. I'm not happy to pick up the tab for the latter regardless of whether I have children or not. Is it possible for me to make it any clearer? You appear to be following Worthy down some totatalitarian route.

OK but it's interesting to see where people draw that line. I don't think it's that clear cut. In parts of France at least for instance, parents are expected to provide text books. What about school dinners, should they be subsidised? And if it were proven milk did have health benefits for kids do you think it would be the state's place to provide it then? I'm not trying to catch you out I'm genuinley interested where you would draw the line?

[William the White]

I'm with bruce on this one, further more why the hell should I pay for the hoodie types of kids to be reabilitated because their parents don't care or keep them in line? It used to be the single man with a lower tax relief rateing who got clobbered for others kids, now its all folk.

I thought they were all in prison, hanging from gallows trees, or the weren't even born since their mothers had all been sterilised?

Planet hoboh - the thinking person's solution...

[William the White]

Brucie, why should you pay for other folks' kids textbooks then?

Err, because it IS the state's place to provide education, it is NOT the state's place to provide kids with things that their parents should be providing. That is my point. I'm not happy to pick up the tab for the latter regardless of whether I have children or not. Is it possible for me to make it any clearer? You appear to be following Worthy down some totatalitarian route.

There's only one argument, i reckon - does it make a significant enough contribution to the health of our children that it's worth making Bruce cough up about 5p a week? If so, i'm in favour of making him do it, each and every week of his miserly life. If not, i'm still in favour of making him do it for being a miserable git...

[TANGODANCER]

Whichever way you argue the toss, it all comes down to the non-contributors in the end and not the workers. If a person's earning whatever standard of living they have by working their way there, regardless of whether they're single or family people, then there's no cause for complaint. As a country with a welfare state there are far to many just content to not work, draw benefits, be freely housed by local councils, bleed the system for all it's worth then complain about what they don't have. There are genuine cases where, from no fault of their own they can't work. This is not where the problem lies, but in the out and out dodgers of which there are legion. The fact that they are allowed to do it is the problem, not the system itself. Human rights were always based on making what rights you had, not by demanding them as a gimme.

Eh? Who has mentioned human rights? Under-5s getting free milk is not a human right, nor has it even been suggested to be, by anyone. And human rights, the proper ones, are a gimme, that's why they're called human rights, they apply to absolutely everyone, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a fair trial. I'm not sure the next in that list is, 'free milk on Brucie's tab'. ?

Gee, I thought I did. So the welfare state isn't based on what the law thinks you need in the way of income to live on, or what you need, as in Kid's free milk. They aren't classed as human rights? Benefits aren't what some people class as their human rights? If that's the case, the government have no problems. It isn't me who needs lessons on human rights, just those who keep singing the songs about them..

[superjohnmcginlay]

F*cking hell. I was only taking the piss to upset Worthy.

[Prufrock]

Whichever way you argue the toss, it all comes down to the non-contributors in the end and not the workers. If a person's earning whatever standard of living they have by working their way there, regardless of whether they're single or family people, then there's no cause for complaint. As a country with a welfare state there are far to many just content to not work, draw benefits, be freely housed by local councils, bleed the system for all it's worth then complain about what they don't have. There are genuine cases where, from no fault of their own they can't work. This is not where the problem lies, but in the out and out dodgers of which there are legion. The fact that they are allowed to do it is the problem, not the system itself. Human rights were always based on making what rights you had, not by demanding them as a gimme.

Eh? Who has mentioned human rights? Under-5s getting free milk is not a human right, nor has it even been suggested to be, by anyone. And human rights, the proper ones, are a gimme, that's why they're called human rights, they apply to absolutely everyone, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a fair trial. I'm not sure the next in that list is, 'free milk on Brucie's tab'. ?

Gee, I thought I did. So the welfare state isn't based on what the law thinks you need in the way of income to live on, or what you need, as in Kid's free milk. They aren't classed as human rights? Benefits aren't what some people class as their human rights? If that's the case, the government have no problems. It isn't me who needs lessons on human rights, just those who keep singing the songs about them..

No, god no, they aren't! The 'right' for kids to have free milk is not at all a human right. Human rights are universal, unconditional rights to each and every human being, the right to a fair trial for example, the right to religious freedom, free speech, these are rights for which wars are waged, and foreign policy dictated, kids free milk does not fit in the same list. Who are the people singing the songs? By your own admission you were the one who introduced the concept of 'human rights' to a debate on milk! This is why we see raging articles in the Mail and the Express about human rights!

[Prufrock]

F*cking hell. I was only taking the piss to upset Worthy.

Bloody stirrers.

[Worthy4England]

As it works both ways, then there will invariably be some things you pick up the tab for that you don't see the benefit of.

Other things you get the benefit for. I'm not sure a welfare state based taxation system is or should be around where every individual gets benefit. Many don't get any benefits...

So in the big scheme of things then yes, if within our overall system you end up picking up the tab for some kids getting milk, that's tough. Personally, I'd have no major issues with it being means tested along with other "benefits", but if you have to make a beef about some under 5 year olds getting a drink of milk at school, then so be it. I have no major problems with kids getting free milk (nor did I in my 20's/early 30's when I had no kids of my own, nor intended to have any).

I'm happy to pay by the mile for what I use was pretty much what you said. There may not be any me's in there, but there's certainly a lot of I's...perhaps I should have called it IIIIIII politics?

The problem with arguments around where taxes get spent is where lines get drawn, if you move to a purely consumption based model. I might not want my taxes going on trident, or the Olympics, or libraries, or the Fire Service (none of which I could argue I benefit directly from). Also, when these things have been looked at, the cost of administration for them usually rules out them bringing such schemes, at a price to taxpayers which is affordable.

You appear to be taking things to the nth degree, Worthy. Why? The point is simple - there are things that it is not the state's purpose to provide, and milk for children is for parents to provide. You seem to be heading off somewhere where you'll have to cough-up before the Fire Brigade will put your house out. There is an area in right-leaning politics short of Ghengis Khan, you know?!

You asked me answer your question...So I did.

What about meals on wheels? Surely that's for the persons family to provide - they should look after their own parents/relations? Sheltered Housing - let's put that down to families too...shouldn't be state funded, when there's really nothing medically wrong with them...

The point is, where you stop with things you don't directly benefit from as an individual.

[Worthy4England]

F*cking hell. I was only taking the piss to upset Worthy.

[TANGODANCER]

No, god no, they aren't! The 'right' for kids to have free milk is not at all a human right. Human rights are universal, unconditional rights to each and every human being, the right to a fair trial for example, the right to religious freedom, free speech, these are rights for which wars are waged, and foreign policy dictated, kids free milk does not fit in the same list. Who are the people singing the songs? By your own admission you were the one who introduced the concept of 'human rights' to a debate on milk! This is why we see raging articles in the Mail and the Express about human rights!

I wonder why I bother some times, I really do. Do we live in the same world at all Pru?

The people (the non-producers who sing the loudest about everthing), the ones who don't have the benefits of university educations to help them define the differences, or see why they should bother, are the ones who want free everything. This is the point I was making. They see everything as a right without having to contribute fax-all to anything. There are a lot of them-far to many for the country to support without making cuts somewhere. I know what the concept of human rights is as well as you do, but the term has become abused beyond description. Lifers sue prisons for invading their human rights. It's a joke. The law defines how much money we need to live on and make it the same for the workers as the shysters. They've made it a human right. It shouldn't be, but then again, I've spent my life contributing towards a welfare society. Those who don't are the ones who make it all necessary by making issues like kids free milk seem like a national disaster. These are the ones who cause all the hue and cry about eveything that they see as their right.

Bruce is right in as much as why should he be responsible for all the wastrels in this area of society. Worthy sees it as contributing not hurting him because of his circumstances (again, earned by contributing). I see it as primarily the fault of all those who keep banging on about their rights. That's what I stated. It isn't just a simple debate about milk, it's about the causes that make the issue necessary in the first place. The dodgers. How simple is that?