Mark wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On 28 Oct, 11:04, Mark wrote:
********. The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.
It can't do, because parents whose sole income is benefits manage to
raise a child - some of them successfully.

That makes no difference. They could have been financially better off
had they not had the child.

Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.
Lower taxes would benefit hardworking everyones.

I guess that depends on what services were cut.

That's a very interesting point. And one which most of the Left
basically lie about.

If you roughly divide people into 4 income groups

1/. The chronically unemployed
2/. The mostly employed on low wages with occasional unemployment
3/. The almost always employed at reasonably decent wages (the vast
majority).
4/ the rich, with cash and savings to spare (a VERY small minority)

Now, what you find is that about 99% of the tax comes from groups 2 and
3 who are in fact the bulk of the population. Probably about 90%, with
about 4% basically chronically unemployed and 1% who are really
comfortably off.

If we disregard the super rich, who can take care of themselves without
help, and for the moment disregard the chronically unemployed and poor,
the basic equation is that most of the tax and most - but not quite as
much of the services, comes from a very large group of people. Who pay,
one way or another, about 55% of their income TO the government, and get
back so called 'free services' in exchange.

However, the basic argument is, whether to employ a vast and ever
increasing number of bureaucrats to administer this HUGE public purse,
allegedly 'fairly', is in fact more, or less efficient, than essentially
letting people keep the money to start with, and spending it where they
will.

Now there are good arguments for some sort of central FUNDING and
REGULATION of essential services, like health and education, but really
I see no reason whatsoever why they should be government OWNED and RUN.
The only argument for state ownership is to manage a de facto monopoly,
like roads, railways, national grid etc etc. Hospitals and schools
simply do not fit into that description.


So the argument becomes less taxation for supply of services, than
taxation as a way to ensure that e.g. everyone has some form of health
insurance, and some form of 'fund' for education. And let them spend it
where they think its best spent. True choice. The Tory position as I
understand it is somewhat along those lines, that the services could be
delivered better and cheaper by not being government RUN, although state
FUNDED in some way.


And those who have a bit of disposable income, can e.g. purchase extra
tuition, or off insurance special medical care. After all, what is the
point of money at all if it wont buy you those sorts of deeply important
life choices?

Going back to the chronically unemployed, at some point society has to
make a decision about what level of support they are going to
get.Personally I don't think its fair that people who lead productive
active economic lives should be dragged down by extra taxes to support
people who are not, in the style that is often as good as the lower end
of the working fraternity.

In particular means testing is totally iniquitous. To place people in a
position where to take on low paid work results in an immediate
worsening of their financial position, benefits no one. And encourages
immigration to fill these positions with people who have not got access
to social security in their own countries.

Even the chronically unemployed, or single mothers, are really actually
capable of SOME productive work. But the system as it is currently
constructed, makes this financially disadvantageous.

It's all this muddle headed socialist 'fairthink' that makes it all so
bloody expensive and inefficient.

The overheads of trying desperately to make sure that everybody gets
what they need and everybody is taxed according to their presumed
ability to pay, destroy the very wealth that is supposed to be being
redistributed.

And places the final burden of defining what is fair, and equitable on a
central government whose activities have clearly shown that as arbiters
of social justice, they are no better than the common man in the street,
and possibly, due to the nature of the process that selects them for
election, often a very great deal worse.

The Tory policy again is to accept that fact, and get them out of the
way of micro managing peoples lives: leave the cash by and large in the
hands of those who earn it, to spend where they will, and simply
underwrite the COSTS of public services of the minimum acceptable
standard whilst leaving the delivery of them to the organisations in
question.

This is bad news for NHS regional managers etc etc but good news for
everyone else. If we don't like THAT hospital,or school, go to the one
in the next county or borough. Just like you would a dentist.


Personally, I would kill two other birds with one stone, and increase
taxation slightly, and pay it back instantly to very single citizen in
the country, and a basic living pension, slightly less than subsistence
level, to be paid to them whether they work or not. And eliminate
minimum wages and means tested benefits as a corollary. If you can make
an extra 50 quid a week, its yours to keep and no impact on your basic
pension. Of course this pension would not be available to immigrants.
Instantly your local work force is subsidised vis a vis immigrants. If
they can still make a living, good luck. If not, Dover is that way -

The only means tests should be for people who have a medical condition.
And woe betide them if they get caught managing a couple of rounds of
gold whilst being officially bedridden.

Of course most of this means the EU membership has to go, but 'what good
has Brussels ever done us?'

:-)