Hear hear!Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
Er, isn't that the Wintertons who are doing that? Aren't they Tories? Or is somebody else doing it as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
Printable View
Hear hear!Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
Er, isn't that the Wintertons who are doing that? Aren't they Tories? Or is somebody else doing it as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
there is nothing wron with the benefits system its the way its controlled thats the problem
one big area where the problem is and the authorities will not for want of a better word police it properly is where a lass has a live in partner and he isnt classed as living there.
case in point , a guy works with me yeah
right she has 4 kids from four diff fathers, right my mate lives with her and he earns 20,000 per annum yes, she in effect has a tax free benefit payment twice a week + 20,000 per year
this is the problem
now and this will make you realise just how far new labour have lost the plot
because she has 4 kids she is entitled to a 4 bed house , right problem , council have sold all the houses off to a private company for 60million, spent that money on flower beds and whatever
they in effect now pay her benefit, she pays a higher rent to the private comany than she did before to the council when they owned the house.
so our tax has to increase yes
right my mate came to work and said DAZ guess what , what mate i said, he said daz she has recieved a letter saying because there are no 4 bed houses available currently they are going to build an extension for FREE onto the existing house she is in.
the system is out of control but still needs paying for, this is what happens when you have lands of giants, and the biggest giant of all ( the goverment) cannot stop it from spiralling out of control so
they inform all there giant friends
ie , shell, tesco, hsbc, bt, blah blah blah to increase there prices for the products that the tax payer needs to survive and so well collect more taxes FOC , ie vat, fuel tax whatever.
you need a lot of money to run our little island but you need even more money to f,../kin sink it
rant over
daz
just filling out yet another tax return
chris abolishing the welfare state is not the answer, controlling it properly is.Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
and what amazes me is how many under 45s are not commenting:D
Well I know of at least two that are Daz;) . Geoff you are right they were Tories. I'll tell Grouse to get his facts right. It's a bit difficult to tell them apart these days. I'm not sure I follow all the arguments. The giants are certainly in control, but I don't know about prices going up - lots of things are artificially cheap or even subsidised by income from other sources. I think this is to keep the consumerist wheels greased and maintain the flow of cash upwards. Petrol is far too cheap. We are not quite as bonkers as the Americans who have used all their oil and are now trying to suck dry the rest of the world's reserves. I do not believe that the true environmental and social costs of car use is met by petrol tax and road tax. Food is cheap because it is crap, and easily produced - even at low prices it has a massive mark up for the 'giants'. There are certainly abuses of the benefits system, and I object to many more of the things that my taxes are used for, but as far as I'm concerned it would be very easy to slip into the sloppy thinking Daily Mail bigot mentality that so many people seem to find so comfortable. If that happens, the giants win.
Freedom for Tooting!!!
good point at the end, one of my prime concerns is and always will be for our children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Margarine
i dont follow the same rule of thought that petrol and food is that cheap though. Yes for established people on the ladder they are affordable but for our youngsters coming through the system they are not , this will be a problem and will lead to them not buying that car, house, fridge, new fell shoes god forbid, thus in turn not putting down roots so to speak. How many of you on a regular basis think how the hell are our children going to buy a house???
perhaps im being a bit outspoken as usual for the forum, if so say.
Guicko the moral is the chosen and understood.There is no morality where force is involved!Taxes are taken from you by force, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guick Dotto
Laissez Faire(let us alone) and Capitalism is the only moral system in Mans history.The constitution of America was based on individual rights, not gang rule(Democracy).Americans couldn't vote for policies that contradicted the constitution.
Some of the founding fathers of the American system, believed that democracy without a bill of rights was tyranny.I agree with them.
To say the moral is whatever the majority chooses is an abdication of morality.
Daz whats at stake here is freedom or dictatorship.The moral code freedom is dependent on is rational self interest(selfishness).The moral code that dictatorship is dependant on is Altruism(Self-sacrifice).The culture has been brainwashing eveyone into thinking that selfishness is evil, and altruism is good.Often people confuse the two concepts which makes things worse.Lets look at the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
Both Communism and Nazism were based on altruism.In fact the Nazis were much more explicit about self-sacrifice than the Russians.Just watch any old film of Hitler's speeches and you'll see what I mean.Or Watch the film Downfall.
Now do you know what I find abhorent?Over one hundred million people killed, not in war but by their own governments pursuing Altruism.
If you don't think its going on here look at the facts: Young being sacrificed to old(pensions); Healthy to the unhealthy(NHS); Hard working to the idle(benefits); Educated to the uneducated(public education); abled to the disabled(disability rights);Even Men to Women(Womens lib etc).
Anyone virtous(i.e Hardworking, honest,just, intelligent,independent and possessing integrity)Can go into the sacrificial furnace!
If you want all the above Daz keep supporting the welfare state.
Margarine the only power the Giants have is economic power, not political power(Unless they are bribing bureaucrats).That would be the fault of the system(political) though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Margarine
Economic power is the power of trade not of force.Political power is the domain of compulsion(force).To equate the two is like saying there is no moral difference between Bill Gates and Ronnie Biggs.
[QUOTE=wheezing donkey;103114]If individuals have no moral responsibility to help anyone, then who would feel compelled to found and fund the private charities?
No one would be compelled, because charity is voluntary.If a certain cause is important to you, and you can afford to support it(finacially or in time), then do.That decision should be entirely yours.
No they don't! They produce things. Then via the MEDIA ( one of the real villains in all this ) they convince us that we WANT what they are producing.[/QUOTE]
Don't you know your own mind?
Couldn't agree more,the common trend of people putting pressure on you to donate is getting worse.Your given funny looks if you don't "dig deep".I agree that charity should be based on voluntary actions(money/time),and when some of the big charities employ MD's earning in excess of 200k it goes against what charity is all about.I tend to donate to charities that should be funded by the government,RNLI,mountain rescue etcQuote:
No one would be compelled, because charity is voluntary.If a certain cause is important to you, and you can afford to support it(finacially or in time), then do.That decision should be entirely yours.
Seems like alot of these larger charities have created an industry off the back of peoples good will.
christopher i once had a conversation with my gran who has been dead 12 years today and she told me of a time before post war wefare state.
A time when the likes of her had to rely on charity handouts and pay for this and that and a time of poverty the likes one hopes we never have to see again. She told me of her joy of voting winston churchill out of power to see a new labour goverment come in and implement a new welfare state if you like . Sure it wasnt perfect but it was a bloody damm site better than what she had experienced before.
we need to get back to a time when it was linked to national insurance and not fuel tax , etc etc to fund it and use it for what it was intended , to help the needy not to help the idle.
Unless you're going to invite a beggar round for Christmas dinner or do something else insanely saintly like foster. (Foster parents are saints!) what's going to happen if nobody takes responsibility? It's not very grown up to rely on "charities" to look after people who need looking after. No one on this forum is saying "are there no workhouses?" I'm sure. Christopher Leigh I'll bet you're a decent bloke, but it sounds like you don't give a b*gger about anybody but yourself and your money. It's nothing to do with socialism or toryism, just common decency. This society is too big to be unorganised, for people to educate themselves and bind up their own wounds. I take your point about mass movements grinding individuals down in the name of spurious common aims. But these aims were in reality the private sicknesses of a few domineering individuals made large.
Where the welfare state fails is largely in the lack of conscientiousness of individuals; I am a teacher and was a nurse. But for god's sake go to India where people will try to sell you a discarded banana skin in order to make a living for their families. That's the market economy red in tooth and claw. Try it as a beggar not a trekker.
We're in paradise in this country. All we need to do is click our heels and turn around to realise it.
It was a conservative government that made it possible for all women to vote on equal terms to men.....that soon came back to bite them by the sounds of it !!:rolleyes:Quote:
She told me of her joy of voting winston churchill out of power to see a new labour goverment come in
I agree with GD again. Concepts are confusing and always obfuscatory in that they hide Reality. I think CD is using them to hide behind to bolster his own egocentricity and fear (which is what most of us do, most of the time in myriad ways). He is right in that the media promote simplistic conceptual thinking for economic and political gain (they are not separate). The welfare system has failings for sure, but as Daz and GD point out, the alternative is shit - look at India or God forbid America. I am happy to pay taxes to see a country that at least aims for general well being and equality and does not put the pursuit of wealth above all else; I am less happy to see those taxes wasted and misdirected by the idiots that pass for our government, for example by bailing out incompetent and greedy banks and through crap like PFI projects and deregulation which steals to line the pockets of the "giants" and their shareholding minions.
I bought for the first time last year and found it very very hard going. I have a reasonably average job. I often think bloody hell I'm only just getting by. How do others cope with new born children etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
I have thought that for a while nowQuote:
Originally Posted by Rodders rambler
[QUOTE=NotOnUrHelly;103332]I bought for thew first time last year and found it very very hard going. I have a reasonably average job. I often think bloody, I'm only just getting by. How do others cope with new born children etc etc.
Got one son living and working in London, only renting at the momement and hoping eventually to move back up here and buy. Two more kids aged 7 and 4, worry about what the future holds for them.
Don't you know your own mind?[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
Yes, I know my own mind. But most of the people who end up in dire debt appear to allow their minds to be moulded by the media and the advertising industry; "Must have this....must have that.....can't live without commodity 'x'....etc"
[quote=christopher leigh;103289]Perhaps I used the wrong word when I wrote "compelled". I was not refering to direct external pressure from others. I was thinking more in terms of an inner compunction or conscience due to a recognised moral responsibility, which is what would drive a philanthropist to give his spare cash to a 'worthy cause' rather than buy another Ferrari.Quote:
Originally Posted by wheezing donkey
Yes, I know my own mind. But most of the people who end up in dire debt appear to allow their minds to be moulded by the media and the advertising industry; "Must have this....must have that.....can't live without commodity 'x'....etc"[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by wheezing donkey
Totally agree, and you don't need to save up for it anymore.
This is becoming a fascinating thread!Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
Daz the people of that time gave up their freedom for free dentures.Before the war this country was the freest and proudest nation in Europe.After a six year war we adopted the very same system,we'd just been fighting against(fascism).
Churchill said before his defeat in the 1945 general election: "My friends I must tell you, that a socialist policy, is abhorent to the british ideas of freedom."
Churchill was voted back into power about 6 years later.Probably when they(the voters) realised the mistake they'd made.
If people waited patiently, their standard of living would have gradually increased, at a rate much faster than welfare.But the people wanted it now, and they paid with their futures.
The welfare state is collapsing and when it does, you'll have virtually nothing left.Your life would have bled out in the ruins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodders rambler
Rodders charity is by definition voluntary.Giving to charity is not a virtue, and is not neccessarily moral.Just look at the tsunami(is that spelt right?) disaster a couple of years ago.
Your primary concern should be your own life(and family), and if you want to help others out as a secondary concern, thats ok.
The issue Guick is not whether you should or should not give a begger 10pence.It's do you have the right to not give him the 10pence and go on living your own life!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guick Dotto
The early Americans educated their own children.In fact if I had children, I wouldn't let them near public schools.Public education disposes them to dictatorship.
One last point: If I didn't 'give a bugger about' anyone but myself and money. I wouldn't be on here convincing people to free themselves from their chains.It's not in my selfish interests to live amongst a nation of slaves.
America has moved away from the constitution and what the founding fathers intended for it.It is still the freest country on earth, even with it's contradictions(welfare state).In 19th century America, people had a political right to make a mess of their lives.Unlike today though, they couldn't make innocent parties pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
The pursuit of wealth is a consequence of freedom, not the other way round.
I've only just come across this thread, fascinating and worrying in equal measure.
Christopher, you've made it clear that you're dead against helping those less fortunate than yourself unless it benefits you, but I'm genuinely intrigued as to what sort of system (if any) you advocate for organising a nation of 60 million people on a cramped island. As far as I can see, you think democracy is a bad idea and you advocate no taxation whatsoever. What exactly would you suggest to stop the whole country going to shit, quickly, under these conditions?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4185195.stm
a good article here
you wouldnt be allowed to run a buisness like the way this goverment throw away and waste our money.
a little comment at the end says it all
MUCH IS BEING DONE , ho ho ho
America is the freest country on Earth? Hmmm. Think we need to define freedom. Sorry to open another can of worms. I think that freedom is liking what you do, not doing what you like. Who pays the price for America's 'freedom'?
In many ways we need to overhaul our way of thinking and our way of interfacing with just about everything.
To my view, the erosion of respect underlies many of our problems. The rich don't respect the needs of the poor. The poor don't respect each other or what the state tries to do for them. Kids don't respect their elders and the elders don't respect the kids. And the f**king media just stokes the fires. Generalisations for sure, but if we all took a pledge to match every 'right' with a responsibilty, then we might just see some progress.
What to do? Well, I'm all for a stronger 'Citizens Charter', something that underscores the common bonds that makes us a nation. And stuff all the money wasted on crack-pot political correctness! Surely we can do better than that?!
I was thinking the same thing Marg; you often hear talk of the 'American dream' - every American is born 'free', with the same opportunities, and you only have to work hard to realise that dream. It is of course nonsense, and the sad thing is that many of those that have the least opportunity of all are the most prone to fall for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Margarine
A lot of truth in this I feel. I wasn't really politically aware at the time (too young I'm glad to say :)), but it seems to me that a lot of the problems that you mention have their root in Maggie T's doctrine of 'no such thing as society, the only property that matters is private property, get your snout in the trough and bugger everyone else'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
As to the media, I think you're bang on there too. It's an unfortunate fact that reporting on a slight decline in violent crime (say), or writing a piece on how migration can benefit the economy of a country with a falling birthrate, will never sell as many papers as the 'Asylum seeker commits gory crime - how will it affect house prices?' type crap that passes for journalism in many of the national rags.
wheeze i agree but our citizens charter is a croc of shit, the idea surely is to make accountable those who should be providing our services, ensuring a value for money system . As it is the charter is not a legal thing so those who provide our needs can write what they should be doing but it doesnt mean Jack because if they cannot deliver it they just carry on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
america, god i went there twice , if thats freedom good luck to them :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimm Trab
trimm trab just to be correct you can never legally own a property in the UK.
the word freehold springs to mind:)
Welcome to the thread Trimm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimm Trab
Politics is not a primary, it's dependent on ethics(moral code).Ethics is dependent on philosophy(i.e a view of Mans nature).If a Man believes that humans are intrinsically evil, he will naturally support a political system that controls and regulates human behaviour.
The truth is, that Man by his nature is neither good or evil.This is because his consciousness is volitional(i.e choice).
I believe that given freedom (Freedom in a political context means-freedom from the initiation of physical force) Humans will pursue the right course.They will make mistakes on the way, but in the long term they'll succeed.This is because the capitalist system, punishes irrationality and evil.
We need to introduce a bill of rights, to protect the individual from the most dangerous criminal-the Government.(Today we hear all sorts of groups claiming all sorts of rights:Disabled rights,gay rights,Women's rights,racial rights,the right to free medical care,education etc).(Actually no such group rights exist.Only the rights of the individual exist).
Before we introduce the bill of rights, we'd have to start deregulating the economy.Next, reduce all social security payments month by month, very gradually.At the same time taxes should be lowered at the same rate as social payments.This together with deregulation will stimulate business activity and capital investment.New jobs will be created, not just by the indigenous business community, but by foreign investors, anticipating the bill of rights.
Once the constitution is in place, all property will be private.If you want medical care or education for your children, go onto the open market and compete for them, just as the doctors and teachers will compete for your business.
As I consider the initiation of physical force immoral, all taxes would be voluntary and only paid for proper government services.These services are the Police(selfdefence from criminals), the military(selfdefence from foreign threats) and the law courts(so people who disagree can settle their disputes peacefully).
People would be willing to finance these institutions voluntarily, because they would affect their interests directly.
Margarine freedom in a political context means 'freedom from the initiation of force.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Margarine
Maggie T's doctrine of 'no such thing as society'
Trimm there is no such thing as society.Society is an abstraction.It means all the individuals, who live and deal with one another in a geographical area.
Hey Daz if it was that bad why did you go back?Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
America is no longer free, but it was almost free in the 19th century.If those people were warmed up in their graves, and observed America today,they just wouldn't believe the moral degradation.Saying that this country is in an even worse state than America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
okay i admit it i wanted to see the shuttle blast off
couldnt do that first tme around
Christopher,
Thanks for the comprehensive reply to my last post, I've got to take you to task on a couple of points though...
Firstly, I can't agree with your contention that 'the capitalist system punishes irrationality and evil' - there are plenty of companies (and not a few British) that are doing very well from flogging arms and torture equipment to the more odious regimes we see in power.
Secondly, thinking that people would voluntarily pay taxes to support the police etc is, I think, rather naive, and flying in the face of basic economic theory. To have only voluntary taxation would present a classic 'free rider' problem - if it was only voluntary, there's nothing to stop somebody not paying their share and getting a free ride off of those that do. Since the most basic tenet of economics is that people act in their own self interests (sound familiar?), there will be plenty of people who don't pay their dues in the hope of getting a free ride and the system wouldn't get off the ground. This type of free rider problem can be observed in many different settings (the inactivity of companies' minority shareholders springs to mind), and the outcome is always the same - if you think someone else will make an effort or fork out cash, then you don't have to, but if you think they won't, then why should you be the mug to do it? You just couldn't have taxation without compulsion.
I can't believe that you seriously think that people can be organised in the way you suggest without the situation turning very ugly indeed.