On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:38:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

The main reason that an ever increasing number of bureaucrats seems to
be required is the fact that government make up more complex systems.
For example family tax credits. I'd scrap this and replace it with
additional tax allowances.

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.

I don't really care who runs these services as long as they provide a
decent service. Publically run organisations have a history of
ineffeiciency but private companies are good at lining their own
pockets and still providing a poor service.

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.

Sounds fine but I would expect the overall cost of these services to
rise at they have to spend more resources in marketing costs etc.. The
is also a big danger that this would create a multi-tier society where
healthcare and education for the poorer would get worse.

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?

That's alright for those fortunate enough to have the money to make
these choices, but touch luck on those who don't. If the rich can get
a better education and therefore better jobs then we are in danger of
creating a bigger divide in the country.

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.

It entirely depends on the reason why people are chronically
unemployed. If it is because they are too lazy to work then they
don't deserve much support. If it is because they are ill or have a
disability the sitation is entirely different.

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.

I agree with the first point. The "poverty trap" is a bad idea. I
think the minimum wage was introduced to remove this trap. I get the
impression it has not succeeded. We do need a level of immigration as
we are not having enough children in the UK to sustain our economy.
Freeloaders should not be made welcome though.

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.

If your referring to NuLabour I would not describe them a socialist.
They manage to pick the worst policies from both extremes of the
polical spretrum.

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.

If the money gained from taxation is badly spent then yes. I don't
believe it has to be this way.

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.

Very true.

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.

I am very much against governments (or anyone else) micromanaging our
lives. However while there is very little economic mobility someone
does need to protect the average person from the people who hold all
the aces.

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.

I'd rather my local school/hospital/dentist etc is brought up to the
desired standard then messing about with this.

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 -

I'd be happy with such an arrangement.

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?'

:-)

I will resist making Monty Python quotes ;-)
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]