On 11/02/2017 23:46, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:34:18 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 11/02/2017 21:14, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 20:01:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

snip

But that's not how 'social' systems work is it? Don't you (happily)
pay towards say the local public library, swimming pool or park, even
though you may not use any of them? The point is there is an *offset*
where the ease of say installing electricity to a row of houses
offsets the difficulty of supplying the less straightforward ones. The
'norm' is the average cost of supplying said service, not the
cheapest.

I pay quite happily, however you appear to resent paying for some of the
services the government has decided should exist.

Correct. Specifically any that directly line the pockets of a minority
who have by a majority who have not.

So that would include the disabled and the unemployed and sick as well
as anyone getting any sort of benefit like vouchers for child care or
tax benefits?

I'm not sure their gains are index linked and guaranteed for 20 years
... or based on 'dubious' ethics though are they (but nice try).



Same with the cost of mail ... it costs the same to send a letter to
the extremes of (say) the UK as it does to send something next door
but the *actual* cost of doing both is obviously very different.

Something else you think shouldn't be so?

No, I'm saying that's exactly how it should be.

But that is lining the pockets of people that want to send mail to far
off places using cash from people that want to send to local places.

No, see, I'm not sure I am ever going to explain the difference of
*financial gain* (of an individual) versus 'uniform cost' to everyone
(as a society). The reason I won't be able to get you to see (or
except) those facts is you too have taken said theft up. ;-(

That's what you said you didn't want.

It is?



Doesn't your council offer 'aids' for the elderly or disabled, often
completely FOC? Don't you agree with that either? Might you think
different if you were in need of such?

Its you that appears to describe some of the things the government does
as theft, not I.

Yes, those things that *would* be deemed by anyone with a fully
functional moral compass as being 'theft'.


Do you see where your argument leads?

Yes, common sense. ;-)

I would say it leads to losses for the poor.

How?

People paying for what they get, some may not be able to afford it.

Quite, that's why the FIT theft is immoral.

Pay more for long services.

What?

More for using the roads.

Yes, anything that allows people to earn money at the expense of
others (and for dubious causes) is wrong.

Pay to use the library.
etc.

No, we should all pay for that, use it or not.


Maybe you are far right?

Maybe (whatever that means / is), if it means that stuff should be
considered fair and equal.

Fair is you pay what it costs for what you use,

Then you would prefer to pay the full cost of posting something a
distance ... or paying extra for electricity that has come from
Scotland because you should contribute towards all the infrastructure
between them and you and ... (the ridiculous list would go on of
course).

No one is suggesting one shouldn't pay for what one uses and at a fair
and reasonable rate (if social) and all bets are off if it's
commercial but why do you think many governments, agencies and
companies subsidise stuff to make stuff available to people cheaper or
more easily.

*Completely* different to *paying* a minority for indulging
themselves.

So you don't want to pay electricity producers to build plant and supply
electricity then?

Its that attitude that has got is in a mess.


it may not be what you
want but life is not fair.

You (in a desperate attempt to justify your own morally corrupt
position) are trying to mix everything up but it won't wash (and never
will).

I am just pointing out that your position is wrong and a simple
extension of what you say will destroy society as we know it.

Its the sort of extension that the extreme right wing appears to want so
I guess you are extreme right wing or just haven't actually thought it
through.


Personally I think the way it is is better and spending a bit on others
is a good idea.

Of course you do, as long as it's you (and your kind) the rest of us
are forced to spend more on.

But you spend money on stuff like that all the time, its where tax goes.

Maybe you would have been happier if the government paid FITs and stuff
out of general taxation and just put a carbon tax on fuel?
Then they could have spent it on defence or stuff like that without you
knowing or complaining.

Do something for society and few will have any issues you getting
something out of it yourself.

Do something for yourself and with a direct cost to others and those
others will have issues with you.

Well at the time the first solar panels were being installed with the
expensive FIT rates people were being told that they were for the good
of everyone else.


Cheers, T i m