"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
news
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:34:59 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:47:09 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:14:53 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

You are stating the obvious. Corruption can occur in any system. The
point
about 100% Capitalism, it does not promote progress in the right areas
or
assist the honest intelligent people, and is an intensely unfair is
apportioning the product of a society.

The taxation systems more than achieve that.

Matt, they don't, hence the poverty in Capitalist countries. LVT goes
some
way to spreading the proceed fairly.

What is your definition of "fairly"? Everybody gets the same
regardless of their contribution?

Matt, are you answering your own question?

No, I'm asking you one....

Matt, but then yoiu anmswerdd with the answer you wanted. Obessed and
narrow minded peopel do this.

I'm not expecting a meaningful answer of course.

Matt, I didn't think your answer was meaningful either.

Matt wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:54:42 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:


OTOH, if people in NHS purchasing operations are unable to negotiate
good prices because they are useless at their jobs, then that is
another matter, and they should be fired.


At times you talk bloody claptrap!

On this occasion, he is correct. The purchasing function is wildly
inefficient. A repeat generic prescription for say six months is
frequently six pieces of paper. The cost of the drugs on the internet is
£10. for a 6 month supply. The NHS is paying in the region of at least
£180 to achieve this aim. That's inefficiency and somebody should be fired.

The drug companies certainly are charging what the market will bear,
but allowing drug companies to merge and suppress competition is a
political decision.
The NHS is wildly inefficient, bureaucratic and not doing a good job at
the administrative level. Unnecessary tests are prescribed, just to
allow the Dr to tick a box (APE exercise) and say that he/she has done
something. Real problems are ignored as this requires mental engagement,
which at the GP level is a very hit or miss affair. As my GP has said
"I'm only doing this to try to save the NHS money", ie to hell with the
patients interest.
Until the customers have the right to select their GP, with real
competition, as used to be the case under private medicine, and the NHS
has the capacity and ability to select between providers, the situation
will remain in it's present mess, where the hospitals are generally
doing a very good job when it's an emergency, but routine stuff is very
inefficiently controlled or organised.
When I go to a Dr in the US, if he wants a routine blood test, this is
taken within 20 minutes of the request. The results tend to be the next
day. In the UK, locally, 3 days seems to be the norm to arrange a local
test, with results available after 3-4 days.

There is now a 9-5 mentality in many areas, so the GP and local
practise has been allowed to opt out of the patient care position. I
just don't understand how I can achieve this lack of responsibility in
my working life.

I can go to a local US shopping centre and purchase a whole body scan
for about $450, which my insurer will pay most of the cost of. Here it's
n months wait for routine scans, hence they are rarely specified. Yes,
US hospitals routinely run unnecessary scans, just because the insurer
will pay, but at least the capacity is there.

Rant temporarily over.

Regards
Capitol

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

That was a problem of technology, it was solved once new technology
was installed, after the outside suppliers had invented it.... The
new digital exchanges would have happened regardless of who owned
British Telecom. The high prices kept control of the requests for
scarce lines, those who really needed them got them.

No. BT had digital exchanges in 1963. Some of the best design I've ever
seen using the components available. It wasn't substantially improved
upon until the mid 70's. It was a conscious decision not to invest in
the business to increase capacity. There was a very cosy relationship
between BT and the suppliers. BT was a monopoly and fixed the customer
prices and the suppliers continued to supply outdated product at very
high prices due to lack of competition.

BT did however, at that time, have some outstanding engineers who were
generally ignored by their management, in favour of the status quo.

Regards
Capitol

The message
from Capitol contains these words:

It was a conscious decision not to invest in
the business to increase capacity. There was a very cosy relationship
between BT and the suppliers. BT was a monopoly and fixed the customer
prices and the suppliers continued to supply outdated product at very
high prices due to lack of competition.

Remember - you used to /rent/ the handset at something like a fiver a
quarter - now if that isn't a license to print money I don't know what
was.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:57:57 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

The taxation systems more than achieve that.

Matt, they don't, hence the poverty in Capitalist countries. LVT goes
some
way to spreading the proceed fairly.

What is your definition of "fairly"? Everybody gets the same
regardless of their contribution?

Matt, are you answering your own question?

No, I'm asking you one....

Matt, but then yoiu anmswerdd with the answer you wanted. Obessed and
narrow minded peopel do this.


So tell me what you actually think.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:57:57 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

The taxation systems more than achieve that.

Matt, they don't, hence the poverty in Capitalist countries. LVT goes
some
way to spreading the proceed fairly.

What is your definition of "fairly"? Everybody gets the same
regardless of their contribution?

Matt, are you answering your own question?

No, I'm asking you one....

Matt, but then you answered with
the answer you wanted. Obessed and
narrow minded people do this.

So tell me what you actually think.

Matt, It doesn't matter what I think, as you will think the answer you want
to have.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 00:08:54 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:57:57 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

The taxation systems more than achieve that.

Matt, they don't, hence the poverty in Capitalist countries. LVT goes
some
way to spreading the proceed fairly.

What is your definition of "fairly"? Everybody gets the same
regardless of their contribution?

Matt, are you answering your own question?

No, I'm asking you one....

Matt, but then you answered with
the answer you wanted. Obessed and
narrow minded people do this.

So tell me what you actually think.

Matt, It doesn't matter what I think, as you will think the answer you want
to have.


OK, so you want to duck it. That's fine as well.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:11:37 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
However, consider this. Capitalism generates wealth

The trickle-down hypothesis. Guaranteed to ensure that the gap between the
rich and the poor increases.

NB I know that your theory suggests otherwise but - in practice - it's no
more
than a thin excuse for the greedy to 'justify' their greed.

What would be your solution for wealth creation? Also, can you
demonstrate that it would be more effective than capitalism?

Matt, Capitalism works with breaks on it. Letting it go wild means the
freedom amass far too much of the wealth of a society (that is the freedom
the American are always on about). Look at the percentage of the wealth
that is hands of the few in all major western capitalist countries. It is
clear wealth is not evenly distributed, and an obscene amount of wealth is
in the hands of the few, who then become powerful. So, they then have
wealth to back their power in mainly propaganda.

Land Value Tax promotes wealth creation as it does not tax a mans labour and
effort to get on, and distributes the proceeds of production more evenly.

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:01:16 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:11:37 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
However, consider this. Capitalism generates wealth

The trickle-down hypothesis. Guaranteed to ensure that the gap between the
rich and the poor increases.

NB I know that your theory suggests otherwise but - in practice - it's no
more
than a thin excuse for the greedy to 'justify' their greed.

What would be your solution for wealth creation? Also, can you
demonstrate that it would be more effective than capitalism?

Matt, Capitalism works with breaks on it. Letting it go wild means the
freedom amass far too much of the wealth of a society (that is the freedom
the American are always on about).

Income tax, CGT, IHT and corporation tax do more than enough to
distribute wealth fairly.

Look at the percentage of the wealth
that is hands of the few in all major western capitalist countries. It is
clear wealth is not evenly distributed, and an obscene amount of wealth is
in the hands of the few, who then become powerful.

This depends on what you mean by "evenly distributed". If you mean
that everybody should get the same regardless of their contribution,
then I disagree with you - that is the philosophy of workers'
cooperatives. If you mean that it should be distributed *more*
evenly than it is today, but within the bounds of the free market,
then my contention is that the tax system as it stands today does that
to the extent that it is necessary, and more.

So, they then have
wealth to back their power in mainly propaganda.

Power controlling propaganda does not depend on wealth. Stalin had
his way of achieving it and Berlusconi has his. (Just need to check,
has Tessa resigned yet? )


Land Value Tax promotes wealth creation as it does not tax a mans labour and
effort to get on, and distributes the proceeds of production more evenly.

I'm not wasting time on that discussion.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:01:16 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:11:37 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
However, consider this. Capitalism generates wealth

The trickle-down hypothesis. Guaranteed to ensure that the gap between
the
rich and the poor increases.

NB I know that your theory suggests otherwise but - in practice - it's
no
more
than a thin excuse for the greedy to 'justify' their greed.

What would be your solution for wealth creation? Also, can you
demonstrate that it would be more effective than capitalism?

Matt, Capitalism works with breaks on it. Letting it go wild means the
freedom amass far too much of the wealth of a society (that is the freedom
the American are always on about).

Income tax, CGT, IHT and corporation tax do more than enough to
distribute wealth fairly.

Matt, look at the figures. They don't check out.

Look at the percentage of the wealth
that is hands of the few in all major western
capitalist countries. It is
clear wealth is not evenly distributed,
and an obscene amount of wealth is
in the hands of the few, who then become
powerful.

This depends on what you mean by
"evenly distributed".

Matt, look at the figures.

If you mean that everybody should
get the same regardless of their contribution,
then I disagree with you

Matt I didn't say that. Once again Matt gives his own answers, the ones he
wants to hear.

- that is the philosophy of workers'
cooperatives. If you mean that it
should be distributed *more*
evenly than it is today, but within
the bounds of the free market,
then my contention is that the tax
system as it stands today does that
to the extent that it is necessary, and more.

Matt, it doesn't. Look at the figures.

So, they then have
wealth to back their power in
mainly propaganda.

Power controlling propaganda does not
depend on wealth.

Matt, it does. very wealthy people spend lost on keeping the status quo.
An e.g., Duke of Westminster and Duke of Argyll spend money on the
Countryside Alliance to keep teh stus quo, telling people we are short of
land and can't build on it.

Stalin had his way of achieving it and
Berlusconi has his. (Just need to check,
has Tessa resigned yet? )

Land Value Tax promotes wealth creation
as it does not tax a mans labour and
effort to get on, and distributes the proceeds
of production more evenly.

I'm not wasting time on that discussion.

Matt, because you don't understand it. It is simple too. Please try some
anti-sycophant pills.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Income tax, CGT, IHT and corporation tax do more than enough to
distribute wealth fairly.

I'm glad to see that you're happy with the concept of income tax. A touch more
progression (sliding scale) would improve it.

But then you also need a tax on monopolies: a sliding scale again up to 100%
tax on the income of 100% monopolies. ;-)

[yes you're right - I don't like Microsoft or Murdoch] ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:

Income tax, CGT, IHT and corporation tax do more than enough to
distribute wealth fairly.


I'm glad to see that you're happy with the concept of income tax.

I seem to recall that 100% slavery was once considered acceptable.

A touch more
progression (sliding scale) would improve it.

Humour me here, would you? Set up a spreadsheet comparing tax payment
with salary, based on the current tax rates. Now add another column with
a single tax rate and a single threshold/personal allowance. Now vary
these two values to establish limits between which the total income
tax revenue could be the same. It's not possible to specify values
without involving income distribution which makes it much messier,
but it's possible to draw some conclusions.

Now, which method taxes the lower-paid less, and the higher-paid more
for the same total revenue? A bit counter-intuitive, isn't it, until you
think about it?


But then you also need a tax on monopolies: a sliding scale again up to 100%
tax on the income of 100% monopolies. ;-)

You've been peeking. I couldn't decide whether Corporation Tax should
be market share times gross income or turnover. I'm inclining towards
turnover. Now, imagine what kind of government might implement such a
policy, and more to the point, how they would achieve power.

[yes you're right - I don't like Microsoft or Murdoch] ;-)

You probably needn't bother trying to enlist the Sun, then.

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:22:34 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Income tax, CGT, IHT and corporation tax do more than enough to
distribute wealth fairly.

I'm glad to see that you're happy with the concept of income tax. A touch more
progression (sliding scale) would improve it.

But then you also need a tax on monopolies: a sliding scale again up to 100%
tax on the income of 100% monopolies. ;-)

[yes you're right - I don't like Microsoft or Murdoch] ;-)


I did say *more* than enough John.

We have been at the place of having surtax and supertax before and it
didn't work.

Rather than having a sliding scale that disincents entrepreneurs
causing them to register their companies in Luxembourg and conduct
their personal tax affairs from Monaco, it is far better to have
"acceptable" levels (if there is such a thing) and attract inward
investment as well as maintaining existing.

I'm not a fan of Microsoft or Murdoch either - not because of what
they have achieved but because they don't pursue excellence.

However, the solution is not to penalise organisations like these. It
doesn't work. The correct solution is to make it attractive for
others to risk take and be creative.. High taxation takes one in the
opposite direction.



--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Rather than having a sliding scale that disincents entrepreneurs
causing them to register their companies in Luxembourg and conduct
their personal tax affairs from Monaco, it is far better to have
"acceptable" levels (if there is such a thing) and attract inward
investment as well as maintaining existing.

We missed the critical bit. The tax goes up to 100% on income (not profit) -
and that's world-wide income. ;-)

It's no use being punitive and only tickling...

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:15:20 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Rather than having a sliding scale that disincents entrepreneurs
causing them to register their companies in Luxembourg and conduct
their personal tax affairs from Monaco, it is far better to have
"acceptable" levels (if there is such a thing) and attract inward
investment as well as maintaining existing.

We missed the critical bit. The tax goes up to 100% on income (not profit) -
and that's world-wide income. ;-)

It's no use being punitive and only tickling...


Hmm.. I can see that being about as popular as a fart in a space
suit. :-)


--

..andy

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:14:34 +0000, Owain
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
We missed the critical bit. The tax goes up to 100% on income (not profit) -
and that's world-wide income. ;-)
It's no use being punitive and only tickling...
Hmm.. I can see that being about as popular as a fart in a space
suit. :-)

That'll be taxed as well.

.... send your farts to Gordon Brown.

--
Frank Erskine