|
Hi anyone and everyone who is reading this blog. I've always had some ideas on what my government (United Kingdom) should do with regards to policy, expenditure and tax, so I thought I would write all my ideas down and then make a blog about it, so here goes.
Expenditure
Privatise National Health Service (NHS) - Provide a subsidy for anyone earning less than the new 2nd highest rate of income tax.
Currently the only incentive for doctors etc to treat you well is because they "care", doctor get paid whether you live or die and whether they treat you badly or well, whether they treat you promptly or have hours waiting in A&E. I believe a private health care system will be more effecient and will allow me to save a lot of money to be given out in tax cuts to boost the economy and get people working and lead to greater prosperity for all.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction)
Will give me greater scope for reducing taxes and in real terms is likely to be an increase in benefits due to all the tax cuts, but will have to be tested.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good)
Effectively to cut away the waste of university spending, people are usually better working or taking an apprenticeship than going to these universities and may allow for reduced tution fees depending on the funds avaliable.
Evaluate all government advice/charitable agencies/organisations with regards to reducing funding up to and including a 100% reduction.
To look for saving to fund tax decreases and eliminate any effectively pointless agencies like the "wine advice agency" etc.
Look into part privatisation of education. (scrapped)
Increase science research and development spending by at least 100%.
New Technology is one of the keys to economic growth and prosperity to all with new medicines, energy etc and so I believe funding should be dramaticly increased.
Evaluate all religious,cultural and recreational funding.
Much of this funding is missused and wasted, so I would evaluate all of it.
Evaluate all employment,enterprise and environment spending.
Again alot of it is missused and wasted on unsuccessful projects.
Cut all European Union Funding. (see Other)
Increase Defence budget by approximately 50% 25%
To better equip our troops and provide better aftercare and to increase the effectiveness of British defence from terrorism and cyber attacks.
*new* Evaluate all foreign aid to better target people in need.
*new* 10% Subsidy for all offshore nuclear power stations.
The UK will face an energy crises if something is not done soon and I believe nuclear power is the way to go as long as it is managed properly and reactors and safety procedures are kept up-to-date.
Tax
Reduce Value added Tax (VAT) to 5% from 20%
Regressive Tax and a reduction will help promote growth.
Scrap all fuel duty
The price of petrol is in every single product a ~60% reduction of the price of petrol should decrease the value of all goods, allowing creation for more jobs and attract lots of foreign direct investment from companies abroad.
Various Income Tax Changes - No one pays tax below £20,000 a year. £20,000-£35,000 10% £35,000-£75,000 20% £75,000+ 30%
To help attract the most skilled people to the UK and to keep the already skilled people we have from moving abroad. Also should help work pay for people on benefits as they will pay no income tax untill they earn more than £20,000.
Scrap National Insurance
A tax on jobs is completely unacceptable when 20% of young people cant find a job, again this should help businesses be able to hire more people and get the economy moving.
Increase Taxes on (*new*, Non Pub/restaurant) alcohol, tobacco and betting.
To fund other tax decreases and discourage binge drinking, smoking and debt.
New Tax on legalised drugs at 60% (see Laws and regulation)
Adds a good source of revenue for the government.
Reduce corporation tax - Main rate to 15% - Small profits rate to 5% - Special rate to 10%.
To encourage more foreign direct investment and to give our companies and edge in this globalised world.
Half all capital gains taxes. Scrapped
Reduce inheritance tax to 35%. Scrapped
Double all Stamp duty rates but provide 0% Stamp duty for first time buyers.
The housing bubble was one of the reasons for the financial crash, I've increased this tax to discourage people from using property to make money but also provided no tax for first time buyers to help them get onto the property ladder.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
To encourage the construction of more nuclear power stations to prevent an energy crises
Laws and regulation
Legalise many currently illegal drugs on the advice of doctors such as cannabis with strict regulation and a new 60% tax on all of the newly legalised drugs.
Many Health professionals believe that people will be better off with a heavily regulated legal drug system, it helps prevent crime and takes away revenue from dangerous criminals.
Price control of all products directly affected by fuel duty for one year to enforce a reduction in price.
To make sure that the petrol companies dont just take a 60% increase in profits.
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
I think alot of copyright laws are very overdone and I think one year is enough time for a person/company to make money on their product.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
To regulate the new power stations and to keep the public safe from any however unlikely nuclear disaster.
Merge all U.K. Competition authorities into one organisation and relax monopoly regulation.
To save money by merging the authorities, monopolies and oligopolies also provide dynamic efficiency which is key for an economy moving forward. If every market was perfectly competitive you would never get any new products such as your phones or your computer or new medicines.
Ban smoking and Drug use in all non-private areas (including cars.)
To reduce the effect of passive smoking to its absolute miminmum.
New government Rule - Magic Formula - The British Government may only run a budget deficit in recessions or extreme economic circumstances.
A market economy based on debt is worse than communism, we need a market economy without debt and governments should lead from the front with this ideal.
Semi-Legalise Polygamy - Must marry all at the same time/place as to not deceive.
If you can have an affair and thats not illegal why is it illegal if you love two people and they love you, to not be able to be married together.
*new* Fully legalise gay marriage
People should be able to marry no matter what sex they are.
Other
Leave the European Union but promote free trade and immigration with all "friendly" countries. (Free trade should be the neutral/default position)
I will change this to leave the European Union if an agreement can be kept with most countries to at least keep free trade and hopefully free immigration aswell.
Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat. Scrapped but keep a very close eye on them and do not rule out invasion in the future.
Attempt to extend "Parliament Life" to eight years with a referendum after five years.
Most current government policies are very short term, I would like to help politicians create more long term policies to help the country.
More actively Persue Tax evaders
Might not be needed but may increase tax revenue slightly
So those are my current policies so would you elect me?
Poll: Would You elect me?No (43) 96% Yes (2) 4% Would Need More information (0) 0% Dont care (0) 0% 45 total votes Your vote: Would You elect me? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Would Need More information (Vote): Dont care
|
Based on my (admittedly slim) understanding of UK politics, along with context, I'd vote for you. Winning the election is a different story.
Given that I'm an ignorant American, could you enlighten me on how important religion is to the UK? In the US, religion is incredibly important in many aspects of our lives. Is it the same way with you folks across the pond? I ask, because one of your campaign promises is to reevaluate religous funding. If a potential candidate said that in the US, his chances of winning would literally drop to zero.
|
In my experiance religion isn't really that important to the whole population, to some people its very important but as ive stated I would only evaluate funding. I can definately say religion is not as extreme as the US.
|
A few more questions, if you'll humor me: What exactly do you mean by "Parliament Life"? Are you referring to term limits? If so, what is your reasoning for extending them?
|
Parliament life is if i get elected today currently im there for 5 years providing i can hold a majority, so i want to extend that to 8 years to promote more long term policies from governments and less short sited rushed policies.
|
I see. Thanks for informing me! :D
|
no problem (now vote for me )
|
Australia8532 Posts
Lol i couldn't decide if this is serious or not but you are
Your policies seem so incredibly arbitrary - why not provide reasons for them?
Reasoning behind dropping the inheritence tax? Corporate tax? etc i mean if your answer is "i think they are too high" then i will probably never enter this thread again. What are the implications of doing these things? How do you not run a budget deficit after scrapping all these taxes? Seems like your counting on a lot of things without any reasoning?
|
On December 09 2011 09:25 Aeres wrote: Given that I'm an ignorant American, could you enlighten me on how important religion is to the UK? In the US, religion is incredibly important in many aspects of our lives. Is it the same way with you folks across the pond? I ask, because one of your campaign promises is to reevaluate religous funding. If a potential candidate said that in the US, his chances of winning would literally drop to zero.
I know he already answered but I would say that politically religion is of little concern. I understand that in the US, a non Christian candidate is basically a no go? Not so here, even slightly. In my experience, in fact, it's relatively rare to meet anyone who is a christian.
EDIT: No doubt he is much more in danger of losing votes with the whole 'privatise the NHS' thing. I can imagine that going down badly.
I mean, the current government is trying to do as much as they can to put NHS funding in private hands but they do it on the sly (saying that they are handing power to GPs, who are actually going to outsource it, at least that's my understanding) while outwardly their policy is that the NHS is a national institution that must not be torn down.
If I could ask the OP, why would you want to privatise it anyway?
|
On December 09 2011 09:40 bkrow wrote:Lol i couldn't decide if this is serious or not but you are Your policies seem so incredibly arbitrary - why not provide reasons for them? Reasoning behind dropping the inheritence tax? Corporate tax? etc i mean if your answer is "i think they are too high" then i will probably never enter this thread again. What are the implications of doing these things? How do you not run a budget deficit after scrapping all these taxes? Seems like your counting on a lot of things without any reasoning?
The reasoning for lowering taxes is to promote economic growth and greater prosperity for all especially the corporation tax and income tax decreases. Privatising the NHS will cut around 15% of government expenditure so i have a fair bit to work with that. Plus I also believe tax revenue will not fall proportionately, as i reduce taxes the economy will grow, more people will work so i get more tax revenue from that and I also believe less people will try to avoid it at the lower rates as what is the point? Of course tax revenue overall will fall but not by the same percentage decrease as the tax rate.
|
absolutely no way would i vote for you. though, i usually vote for green/labour so you wouldn't be appealing to me in the first place. anyway, your opinions seem to be a bit up in the air. do you have any economics knowledge to justify the %'s you decided on?
|
On December 09 2011 09:42 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 09:25 Aeres wrote: Given that I'm an ignorant American, could you enlighten me on how important religion is to the UK? In the US, religion is incredibly important in many aspects of our lives. Is it the same way with you folks across the pond? I ask, because one of your campaign promises is to reevaluate religous funding. If a potential candidate said that in the US, his chances of winning would literally drop to zero. I know he already answered but I would say that politically religion is of little concern. I understand that in the US, a non Christian candidate is basically a no go? Not so here, even slightly. In my experience, in fact, it's relatively rare to meet anyone who is a christian. EDIT: No doubt he is much more in danger of losing votes with the whole 'privatise the NHS' thing. I can imagine that going down badly. I mean, the current government is trying to do as much as they can to put NHS funding in private hands but they do it on the sly (saying that they are handing power to GPs, who are actually going to outsource it, at least that's my understanding) while outwardly their policy is that the NHS is a national institution that must not be torn down. If I could ask the OP, why would you want to privatise it anyway?
Two main reasons for wants to privatise the NHS, 1. I believe the overall level of health care is bad and i think the private sector could do a better job and its not really a Public Good/service. 2. it costs a ridiculous amount of money for the government and therefore people and businesses through taxes each year.
|
On December 09 2011 09:48 JonnyClark wrote: absolutely no way would i vote for you. though, i usually vote for green/labour so you wouldn't be appealing to me in the first place. anyway, your opinions seem to be a bit up in the air. do you have any economics knowledge to justify the %'s you decided on?
Im doing a degree in economics.
|
Or you can just move here Zaros. We can trade passports or something.
|
On December 09 2011 09:55 Primadog wrote: Or you can just move here Zaros. We can trade passports or something.
No thank you, i dont like the US.
|
I'm not sure no would be a strong enough term to express my opinion on those changes, but I clicked it for lack of a stronger worded opposition. Here are some notes on why:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 09 2011 09:16 Zaros wrote:
Expenditure
Privatise National Health Service (NHS) - Provide a subsidy for anyone earning less than the new 2nd highest rate of income tax.
The NHS whilst already suffering major budget cuts in a bid to force quality down and sell it off piece by piece to the private sector is already having privatisation bids have a terrible impact on healthcare. PFI initiatives are already the biggest single cause of NHS related debt, and a for-profit system will only further reduce care whilst driving up costs. We can already see the result of private healthcare and insurance in the US and whilst it may only be a matter of years before we end up there here, rushing towards it would eradicate all hope of keeping a free at the point of use, universal healthcare system.
We should instead immediately remove the private sector from the NHS, cut debts to PFI scheme's and invest in jobs and training throughout hospitals in the UK.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction)
Provided that benefits were increased and reduced in line with VAT to result in the same spending power this may be acceptable, but current benefit levels are already too low with most cash issues arising from the poorly written legislation and failed economic policies of creating jobs, not from those on benefits being over paid. At a time with the highest youth unemplyment rate in the history of our country we should be very careful about penalising those with no options.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK))
All university education should be free. End fee's and ensure there are enough quality positions for everyone.
Evaluate all government advice/charitable agencies/organisations with regards to reducing funding up to and including a 100% reduction.
Such a vague statement it's impossible to oppose, but it would depend on the results of the evaluation.
Look into part privatisation of education.
NO. For-profit education is a truely terrible idea. Education should be independant, of a strict quality and free for all.
Increase science research and development spending by at least 100%.
I'm not expert enough to know the results of this for jobs and opportunites in the UK, and I wonder if you are?
Evaluate all religious,cultural and recreational funding.
Again, evaluation is fine if it is with a goal to improving services and value for money without cutting services or jobs.
Evaluate all employment,enterprise and environment spending.
Another vague "evaluate" that could not be judged until after propsals were made.
Cut all European Union Funding.
I'm not a fan of the EU, but this is actually insane. Cutting innapropriate funding is one thing but to decide to basically cut all ties with the EU is to leave the UK with little to no trading options and a potentially politically hostile environment in which to try to secure stronger growth.
Increase Defence budget by approximately 50%
There is no reason for such an increase, we don't need to be spending more money on imperialist conquest. Better care for returning soldiers and their families, but I'm not convined by your seemingly random number, nor am I intimately familiar with the UK defense budget allocations as it stands, or that simply throwing 50% more money at them will help.
Tax
Reduce Value added Tax (VAT) to 5% from 20%
Scrap all fuel duty
Various Income Tax Changes - No one pays tax below £20,000 a year. £20,000-£35,000 10% £35,000-£75,000 20% £75,000+ 30%
Scrap National Insurance
Increase Taxes on alcohol, tobacco and betting.
New Tax on legalised drugs at 60% (see Laws and regulation)
Reduce corporation tax - Main rate to 15% - Small profits rate to 5% - Special rate to 10%.
Half all capital gains taxes.
Reduce inheritance tax to 35%.
Double all Stamp duty rates but provide 0% Stamp duty for first time buyers.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
These tax plans are so regressive as to be almost confused with an attempt to wipe out the poor by way of starvation and lack of services. 5% VAT, no National Insurance (on top of your earlier plan for priavte education and healthcare????) with tax on things most likely used by poorer members of society whilst providing massive tax breaks to the rich? The same rich who already owe more in tax than every form of benefit fraud put together several times over? The only thing that would be universally helpful is the fuel duty plan which in itself would be extremly short sighted.
Laws and regulation
Legalise many currently illegal drugs on the advice of doctors such as cannabis with strict regulation and a new 60% tax on all of the newly legalised drugs.
Price control of all products directly affected by fuel duty for one year to enforce a reduction in price.
This would be redundant as if the prices were to rise steeply they would do so at the end of that year anyway, but most likely competition would in this instance force prices lower either way. The only way to ensure constant fair prices is to nationalise the industry.
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
This would be redundant based on current inspection and safety guidelines.
Merge all U.K. Competition authorities into one organisation and relax monopoly regulation.
Preventing monopolys is a good thing, even in capitalist societys.
Ban smoking and Drug use in all non-private areas (including cars.)
New government Rule - Magic Formula - The British Government may only run a budget deficit in recessions or extreme economic circumstances.
Given the way that most government spending works that would be interesting to see attempted. Not that I'm against the idea in principal though.
Semi-Legalise Polygamy - Must marry all at the same time/place as to not deceive.
Hardly the most pressing issue but if people are desperate for it (is anyone?) then I imagine it oculd be looked in to, remembering to consider all the taxation, housing and family issues that would arise.
Other
Leave the European Union but promote free trade and immigration with all "friendly" countries. (Free trade should be the neutral/default position)
As someone who doesn't support the EU (which is run almost entirely against the best interests of the people of Europe) simply leaving is completely the wrong call.
Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat.
There is currently no reason to invade Iran.
Attempt to extend "Parliament Life" to eight years with a referendum after five years.
All politicians should be subject to recall if they're no longer representing their voters sufficiently. 4-5 years is already too long, 8 years should be out of the question. So no.
More actively Persue Tax evaders
With your plan to reduce taxes on them by so much and at the same time serve massive sections of public jobs up for free profit, you just might not have to chase them anymore.
So those are my current policies so would you elect me?
I would actively fight against your election on those policies.
|
On December 09 2011 09:49 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 09:42 The KY wrote:On December 09 2011 09:25 Aeres wrote: Given that I'm an ignorant American, could you enlighten me on how important religion is to the UK? In the US, religion is incredibly important in many aspects of our lives. Is it the same way with you folks across the pond? I ask, because one of your campaign promises is to reevaluate religous funding. If a potential candidate said that in the US, his chances of winning would literally drop to zero. I know he already answered but I would say that politically religion is of little concern. I understand that in the US, a non Christian candidate is basically a no go? Not so here, even slightly. In my experience, in fact, it's relatively rare to meet anyone who is a christian. EDIT: No doubt he is much more in danger of losing votes with the whole 'privatise the NHS' thing. I can imagine that going down badly. I mean, the current government is trying to do as much as they can to put NHS funding in private hands but they do it on the sly (saying that they are handing power to GPs, who are actually going to outsource it, at least that's my understanding) while outwardly their policy is that the NHS is a national institution that must not be torn down. If I could ask the OP, why would you want to privatise it anyway? Two main reasons for wants to privatise the NHS, 1. I believe the overall level of health care is bad and i think the private sector could do a better job and its not really a Public Good/service. 2. it costs a ridiculous amount of money for the government and therefore people and businesses through taxes each year. What do you base your views on the quality of healthcare on? I know someone who works for Bupa (and has worked in the NHS) and she informs me that while you might get a comfier bed with Bupa if you actually have something wrong with you then you should go to the NHS.
Privatising the NHS would save the government a lot of money. But whose footing the bill for health insurance? Businesses. Some of the biggest proponents of nationalising healthcare in the US are businesses, since the cost for healthcare is so high.
I would never vote for you.
|
On December 09 2011 10:00 OhDeezy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 09:49 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 09:42 The KY wrote:On December 09 2011 09:25 Aeres wrote: Given that I'm an ignorant American, could you enlighten me on how important religion is to the UK? In the US, religion is incredibly important in many aspects of our lives. Is it the same way with you folks across the pond? I ask, because one of your campaign promises is to reevaluate religous funding. If a potential candidate said that in the US, his chances of winning would literally drop to zero. I know he already answered but I would say that politically religion is of little concern. I understand that in the US, a non Christian candidate is basically a no go? Not so here, even slightly. In my experience, in fact, it's relatively rare to meet anyone who is a christian. EDIT: No doubt he is much more in danger of losing votes with the whole 'privatise the NHS' thing. I can imagine that going down badly. I mean, the current government is trying to do as much as they can to put NHS funding in private hands but they do it on the sly (saying that they are handing power to GPs, who are actually going to outsource it, at least that's my understanding) while outwardly their policy is that the NHS is a national institution that must not be torn down. If I could ask the OP, why would you want to privatise it anyway? Two main reasons for wants to privatise the NHS, 1. I believe the overall level of health care is bad and i think the private sector could do a better job and its not really a Public Good/service. 2. it costs a ridiculous amount of money for the government and therefore people and businesses through taxes each year. What do you base your views on the quality of healthcare on? I know someone who works for Bupa (and has worked in the NHS) and she informs me that while you might get a comfier bed with Bupa if you actually have something wrong with you then you should go to the NHS. Privatising the NHS would save the government a lot of money. But whose footing the bill for health insurance? Businesses. Some of the biggest proponents of nationalising healthcare in the US are businesses, since the cost for healthcare is so high. I would never vote for you.
Dont compare Bupa with the NHS though, compare the NHS with another countries private healthcare system. You will pay for the health insurance unless you earn less than £35,000 a year and then the government will provide it. I would say the US is a bad example as they dont subsidies people who cant afford insurance, may I clarrify that it wont be pure private health care left on its own, it will be regulated.
|
On December 09 2011 10:03 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:00 OhDeezy wrote:On December 09 2011 09:49 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 09:42 The KY wrote:On December 09 2011 09:25 Aeres wrote: Given that I'm an ignorant American, could you enlighten me on how important religion is to the UK? In the US, religion is incredibly important in many aspects of our lives. Is it the same way with you folks across the pond? I ask, because one of your campaign promises is to reevaluate religous funding. If a potential candidate said that in the US, his chances of winning would literally drop to zero. I know he already answered but I would say that politically religion is of little concern. I understand that in the US, a non Christian candidate is basically a no go? Not so here, even slightly. In my experience, in fact, it's relatively rare to meet anyone who is a christian. EDIT: No doubt he is much more in danger of losing votes with the whole 'privatise the NHS' thing. I can imagine that going down badly. I mean, the current government is trying to do as much as they can to put NHS funding in private hands but they do it on the sly (saying that they are handing power to GPs, who are actually going to outsource it, at least that's my understanding) while outwardly their policy is that the NHS is a national institution that must not be torn down. If I could ask the OP, why would you want to privatise it anyway? Two main reasons for wants to privatise the NHS, 1. I believe the overall level of health care is bad and i think the private sector could do a better job and its not really a Public Good/service. 2. it costs a ridiculous amount of money for the government and therefore people and businesses through taxes each year. What do you base your views on the quality of healthcare on? I know someone who works for Bupa (and has worked in the NHS) and she informs me that while you might get a comfier bed with Bupa if you actually have something wrong with you then you should go to the NHS. Privatising the NHS would save the government a lot of money. But whose footing the bill for health insurance? Businesses. Some of the biggest proponents of nationalising healthcare in the US are businesses, since the cost for healthcare is so high. I would never vote for you. Dont compare Bupa with the NHS though, compare the NHS with another countries private healthcare system. You will pay for the health insurance unless you earn less than £35,000 a year and then the government will provide it. I would say the US is a bad example as they dont subsidies people who cant afford insurance, may I clarrify that it wont be pure private health care left on its own, it will be regulated. So the government is still paying for the vast majority of peoples healthcare (except at a higher price because people are making money out of it). Taxes are lower as a result so people and businesses have more money that they'll just have to spend on health insurance anyway?
|
On December 09 2011 10:00 Iyerbeth wrote:I'm not sure no would be a strong enough term to express my opinion on those changes, but I clicked it for lack of a stronger worded opposition. Here are some notes on why: + Show Spoiler +On December 09 2011 09:16 Zaros wrote:
Expenditure
Privatise National Health Service (NHS) - Provide a subsidy for anyone earning less than the new 2nd highest rate of income tax.
The NHS whilst already suffering major budget cuts in a bid to force quality down and sell it off piece by piece to the private sector is already having privatisation bids have a terrible impact on healthcare. PFI initiatives are already the biggest single cause of NHS related debt, and a for-profit system will only further reduce care whilst driving up costs. We can already see the result of private healthcare and insurance in the US and whilst it may only be a matter of years before we end up there here, rushing towards it would eradicate all hope of keeping a free at the point of use, universal healthcare system.
We should instead immediately remove the private sector from the NHS, cut debts to PFI scheme's and invest in jobs and training throughout hospitals in the UK.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction)
Provided that benefits were increased and reduced in line with VAT to result in the same spending power this may be acceptable, but current benefit levels are already too low with most cash issues arising from the poorly written legislation and failed economic policies of creating jobs, not from those on benefits being over paid. At a time with the highest youth unemplyment rate in the history of our country we should be very careful about penalising those with no options.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK))
All university education should be free. End fee's and ensure there are enough quality positions for everyone.
Evaluate all government advice/charitable agencies/organisations with regards to reducing funding up to and including a 100% reduction.
Such a vague statement it's impossible to oppose, but it would depend on the results of the evaluation.
Look into part privatisation of education.
NO. For-profit education is a truely terrible idea. Education should be independant, of a strict quality and free for all.
Increase science research and development spending by at least 100%.
I'm not expert enough to know the results of this for jobs and opportunites in the UK, and I wonder if you are?
Evaluate all religious,cultural and recreational funding.
Again, evaluation is fine if it is with a goal to improving services and value for money without cutting services or jobs.
Evaluate all employment,enterprise and environment spending.
Another vague "evaluate" that could not be judged until after propsals were made.
Cut all European Union Funding.
I'm not a fan of the EU, but this is actually insane. Cutting innapropriate funding is one thing but to decide to basically cut all ties with the EU is to leave the UK with little to no trading options and a potentially politically hostile environment in which to try to secure stronger growth.
Increase Defence budget by approximately 50%
There is no reason for such an increase, we don't need to be spending more money on imperialist conquest. Better care for returning soldiers and their families, but I'm not convined by your seemingly random number, nor am I intimately familiar with the UK defense budget allocations as it stands, or that simply throwing 50% more money at them will help.
Tax
Reduce Value added Tax (VAT) to 5% from 20%
Scrap all fuel duty
Various Income Tax Changes - No one pays tax below £20,000 a year. £20,000-£35,000 10% £35,000-£75,000 20% £75,000+ 30%
Scrap National Insurance
Increase Taxes on alcohol, tobacco and betting.
New Tax on legalised drugs at 60% (see Laws and regulation)
Reduce corporation tax - Main rate to 15% - Small profits rate to 5% - Special rate to 10%.
Half all capital gains taxes.
Reduce inheritance tax to 35%.
Double all Stamp duty rates but provide 0% Stamp duty for first time buyers.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
These tax plans are so regressive as to be almost confused with an attempt to wipe out the poor by way of starvation and lack of services. 5% VAT, no National Insurance (on top of your earlier plan for priavte education and healthcare????) with tax on things most likely used by poorer members of society whilst providing massive tax breaks to the rich? The same rich who already owe more in tax than every form of benefit fraud put together several times over? The only thing that would be universally helpful is the fuel duty plan which in itself would be extremly short sighted.
Laws and regulation
Legalise many currently illegal drugs on the advice of doctors such as cannabis with strict regulation and a new 60% tax on all of the newly legalised drugs.
Price control of all products directly affected by fuel duty for one year to enforce a reduction in price.
This would be redundant as if the prices were to rise steeply they would do so at the end of that year anyway, but most likely competition would in this instance force prices lower either way. The only way to ensure constant fair prices is to nationalise the industry.
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
This would be redundant based on current inspection and safety guidelines.
Merge all U.K. Competition authorities into one organisation and relax monopoly regulation.
Preventing monopolys is a good thing, even in capitalist societys.
Ban smoking and Drug use in all non-private areas (including cars.)
New government Rule - Magic Formula - The British Government may only run a budget deficit in recessions or extreme economic circumstances.
Given the way that most government spending works that would be interesting to see attempted. Not that I'm against the idea in principal though.
Semi-Legalise Polygamy - Must marry all at the same time/place as to not deceive.
Hardly the most pressing issue but if people are desperate for it (is anyone?) then I imagine it oculd be looked in to, remembering to consider all the taxation, housing and family issues that would arise.
Other
Leave the European Union but promote free trade and immigration with all "friendly" countries. (Free trade should be the neutral/default position)
As someone who doesn't support the EU (which is run almost entirely against the best interests of the people of Europe) simply leaving is completely the wrong call.
Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat.
There is currently no reason to invade Iran.
Attempt to extend "Parliament Life" to eight years with a referendum after five years.
All politicians should be subject to recall if they're no longer representing their voters sufficiently. 4-5 years is already too long, 8 years should be out of the question. So no.
More actively Persue Tax evaders
With your plan to reduce taxes on them by so much and at the same time serve massive sections of public jobs up for free profit, you just might not have to chase them anymore.
So those are my current policies so would you elect me?
I would actively fight against your election on those policies.
this is so good bro
zaros, i disagree with almost all of it, but the one thing that got me was the privatization of education. can i get your thoughts on that? i just can't understand your motives.
|
On December 09 2011 10:00 Iyerbeth wrote:I'm not sure no would be a strong enough term to express my opinion on those changes, but I clicked it for lack of a stronger worded opposition. Here are some notes on why: + Show Spoiler +On December 09 2011 09:16 Zaros wrote:
Expenditure
Privatise National Health Service (NHS) - Provide a subsidy for anyone earning less than the new 2nd highest rate of income tax.
The NHS whilst already suffering major budget cuts in a bid to force quality down and sell it off piece by piece to the private sector is already having privatisation bids have a terrible impact on healthcare. PFI initiatives are already the biggest single cause of NHS related debt, and a for-profit system will only further reduce care whilst driving up costs. We can already see the result of private healthcare and insurance in the US and whilst it may only be a matter of years before we end up there here, rushing towards it would eradicate all hope of keeping a free at the point of use, universal healthcare system.
We should instead immediately remove the private sector from the NHS, cut debts to PFI scheme's and invest in jobs and training throughout hospitals in the UK.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction)
Provided that benefits were increased and reduced in line with VAT to result in the same spending power this may be acceptable, but current benefit levels are already too low with most cash issues arising from the poorly written legislation and failed economic policies of creating jobs, not from those on benefits being over paid. At a time with the highest youth unemplyment rate in the history of our country we should be very careful about penalising those with no options.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK))
All university education should be free. End fee's and ensure there are enough quality positions for everyone.
Evaluate all government advice/charitable agencies/organisations with regards to reducing funding up to and including a 100% reduction.
Such a vague statement it's impossible to oppose, but it would depend on the results of the evaluation.
Look into part privatisation of education.
NO. For-profit education is a truely terrible idea. Education should be independant, of a strict quality and free for all.
Increase science research and development spending by at least 100%.
I'm not expert enough to know the results of this for jobs and opportunites in the UK, and I wonder if you are?
Evaluate all religious,cultural and recreational funding.
Again, evaluation is fine if it is with a goal to improving services and value for money without cutting services or jobs.
Evaluate all employment,enterprise and environment spending.
Another vague "evaluate" that could not be judged until after propsals were made.
Cut all European Union Funding.
I'm not a fan of the EU, but this is actually insane. Cutting innapropriate funding is one thing but to decide to basically cut all ties with the EU is to leave the UK with little to no trading options and a potentially politically hostile environment in which to try to secure stronger growth.
Increase Defence budget by approximately 50%
There is no reason for such an increase, we don't need to be spending more money on imperialist conquest. Better care for returning soldiers and their families, but I'm not convined by your seemingly random number, nor am I intimately familiar with the UK defense budget allocations as it stands, or that simply throwing 50% more money at them will help.
Tax
Reduce Value added Tax (VAT) to 5% from 20%
Scrap all fuel duty
Various Income Tax Changes - No one pays tax below £20,000 a year. £20,000-£35,000 10% £35,000-£75,000 20% £75,000+ 30%
Scrap National Insurance
Increase Taxes on alcohol, tobacco and betting.
New Tax on legalised drugs at 60% (see Laws and regulation)
Reduce corporation tax - Main rate to 15% - Small profits rate to 5% - Special rate to 10%.
Half all capital gains taxes.
Reduce inheritance tax to 35%.
Double all Stamp duty rates but provide 0% Stamp duty for first time buyers.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
These tax plans are so regressive as to be almost confused with an attempt to wipe out the poor by way of starvation and lack of services. 5% VAT, no National Insurance (on top of your earlier plan for priavte education and healthcare????) with tax on things most likely used by poorer members of society whilst providing massive tax breaks to the rich? The same rich who already owe more in tax than every form of benefit fraud put together several times over? The only thing that would be universally helpful is the fuel duty plan which in itself would be extremly short sighted.
Laws and regulation
Legalise many currently illegal drugs on the advice of doctors such as cannabis with strict regulation and a new 60% tax on all of the newly legalised drugs.
Price control of all products directly affected by fuel duty for one year to enforce a reduction in price.
This would be redundant as if the prices were to rise steeply they would do so at the end of that year anyway, but most likely competition would in this instance force prices lower either way. The only way to ensure constant fair prices is to nationalise the industry.
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
This would be redundant based on current inspection and safety guidelines.
Merge all U.K. Competition authorities into one organisation and relax monopoly regulation.
Preventing monopolys is a good thing, even in capitalist societys.
Ban smoking and Drug use in all non-private areas (including cars.)
New government Rule - Magic Formula - The British Government may only run a budget deficit in recessions or extreme economic circumstances.
Given the way that most government spending works that would be interesting to see attempted. Not that I'm against the idea in principal though.
Semi-Legalise Polygamy - Must marry all at the same time/place as to not deceive.
Hardly the most pressing issue but if people are desperate for it (is anyone?) then I imagine it oculd be looked in to, remembering to consider all the taxation, housing and family issues that would arise.
Other
Leave the European Union but promote free trade and immigration with all "friendly" countries. (Free trade should be the neutral/default position)
As someone who doesn't support the EU (which is run almost entirely against the best interests of the people of Europe) simply leaving is completely the wrong call.
Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat.
There is currently no reason to invade Iran.
Attempt to extend "Parliament Life" to eight years with a referendum after five years.
All politicians should be subject to recall if they're no longer representing their voters sufficiently. 4-5 years is already too long, 8 years should be out of the question. So no.
More actively Persue Tax evaders
With your plan to reduce taxes on them by so much and at the same time serve massive sections of public jobs up for free profit, you just might not have to chase them anymore.
So those are my current policies so would you elect me?
I would actively fight against your election on those policies.
Thank you for your input, we clearly have different economic ideologies especially about the NHS, with the leaving the EU, I would try to keep the free trade and immigration with these countries which you seem to have missed me saying, and i would see no reason for them not to accept as it benefits those countries to have free trade.
About my tax reductions i would say they are more progressive..., VAT is a regressive tax and so reducing it by 15% is progressive, then noone paying tax up to £20000 is incredible progressive for todays standards so i dont really see your point here. Yes im letting the rich pay less tax but the rich at the moment barely pay tax because of smar accountants, so I'm giving them less of an incentive to avoid paying tax.
The defence budget will be used to provide all military personal the proper equipment which they lack at the moment and provide better after care, with the remainder of the budget increase going to whatever the ministry of defence feels it needs.
For the parliament life, you must think that politicians dont have short term policies also i have stated a referendum after 5 years on whether not there would be an early election which is the same as now so polticians would be accountable and also the government would still need a majority anyway or there could be an election after 1 year.
But i fear you are of a different ideaology than me and you do not like the free market so its hard to debate with you.
|
Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
|
On December 09 2011 10:09 JonnyClark wrote:
this is so good bro
zaros, i disagree with almost all of it, but the one thing that got me was the privatization of education. can i get your thoughts on that? i just can't understand your motives.
I said I would look into it, I would by no means 100% privatise education. I would just look for areas which the private sector could do a better job and save the tax payer some money but in the end if there is nothing then there would be 0% privatisation.
|
how about you just re-form the nhs completely so it isnt a mess ban smoking in cars , why isnt car considered personal space??
|
On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england/ or any other church to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps.
I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level.
|
On December 09 2011 10:18 FFGenerations wrote: how about you just re-form the nhs completely so it isnt a mess ban smoking in cars , why isnt car considered personal space??
Because its on a public road and smoking in cars causes high toxidity levels for children.
|
i think a lot of uni courses should be privatised and/or turned into apprentice schemes basically "aprenticeship" becomes the new degree for the common people (and i dont mean giving them a food safety certificate LOL). so people can more easily do "plumbing" than "media studies"
|
On December 09 2011 10:21 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:18 FFGenerations wrote: how about you just re-form the nhs completely so it isnt a mess ban smoking in cars , why isnt car considered personal space?? Because its on a public road and smoking in cars causes high toxidity levels for children.
you fuckin nuts? you think cars dont produce as much smoke as a cigarette? smoking with a child in the car is legit but hence your law should be against smoking with a child in the car and not smoking in a car which discriminates against practically 90% of smokers
|
On December 09 2011 10:23 FFGenerations wrote: i think a lot of uni courses should be privatised and/or turned into apprentice schemes basically "aprenticeship" becomes the new degree for the common people (and i dont mean giving them a food safety certificate LOL). so people can more easily do "plumbing" than "media studies"
My point on the university thing is that some degrees in bad universities are not worth doing, you would be better spent doing an apprenticeship and so it would be helping some people have better job prospects by not giving them the option of a bad university.
|
I read the post, and instantly knew it was the naive droolings of an economics student. Surely your A-level economics explained why privatising public goods is not helpful? Especially in large populations?
|
On December 09 2011 10:24 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:21 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:18 FFGenerations wrote: how about you just re-form the nhs completely so it isnt a mess ban smoking in cars , why isnt car considered personal space?? Because its on a public road and smoking in cars causes high toxidity levels for children. you fuckin nuts? you think cars dont produce as much smoke as a cigarette? smoking with a child in the car is legit but hence your law should be against smoking with a child in the car and not smoking in a car which discriminates against practically 90% of smokers
You drive your car on a public road and so it would be banned, if you want to smoke in your car in your own garage then go ahead. But smoking causes alot of damage to people who themselves do not smoke and so i do not think it should be legal in any public place.
|
On December 09 2011 10:26 Tomazi wrote: I read the post, and instantly knew it was the naive droolings of an economics student. Surely your A-level economics explained why privatising public goods is not helpful? Especially in large populations?
Give me some proper reasons and then ill respond to you with my thoughts on them, you never know i might suprise you, also health care and education are not Public goods.
|
how do you know what its like in a "bad" university? i think they pretty much try to cover a standard syllabus and have quite a dedicated body of hard-working staff? plus unis generally teach a lot of courses, maybe some of those dont live up to your standard (still confused how you work out that only X number of them are "good enough") but other courses in that same uni do? maybe you want to just evaluate and re-form the entire education syllabus tho
|
On December 09 2011 10:30 FFGenerations wrote: how do you know what its like in a "bad" university? i think they pretty much try to cover a standard syllabus and have quite a dedicated body of hard-working staff? plus unis generally teach a lot of courses, maybe some of those dont live up to your standard (still confused how you work out that only X number of them are "good enough") but other courses in that same uni do? maybe you want to just evaluate and re-form the entire education syllabus tho
I probably have come up with an arbitary number for universities but yes i want to reform the lower end of the university system and cutting there funding is a way to do that.
|
On December 09 2011 10:27 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:24 FFGenerations wrote:On December 09 2011 10:21 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:18 FFGenerations wrote: how about you just re-form the nhs completely so it isnt a mess ban smoking in cars , why isnt car considered personal space?? Because its on a public road and smoking in cars causes high toxidity levels for children. you fuckin nuts? you think cars dont produce as much smoke as a cigarette? smoking with a child in the car is legit but hence your law should be against smoking with a child in the car and not smoking in a car which discriminates against practically 90% of smokers You drive your car on a public road and so it would be banned, if you want to smoke in your car in your own garage then go ahead. But smoking causes alot of damage to people who themselves do not smoke and so i do not think it should be legal in any public place.
you not making sense. but i gotta go
|
No chance would I vote for that.
Banning smoking everywhere? No. And im not even a smoker.
Cutting benefits? What you mean by that? If you mean cutting off all the benefit abusers by 15% then fine, but if you mean reducing benefits by 15%, these are way too low to begin with. And as we stand, some decent young people actually depend on them since youth unemployement has reached record rates in this country.
|
On December 09 2011 10:33 Psychobabas wrote: No chance would I vote for that.
Banning smoking everywhere? No. And im not even a smoker.
Cutting benefits? What you mean by that? If you mean cutting off all the benefit abusers by 15% then fine, but if you mean reducing benefits by 15%, these are way too low to begin with. And as we stand, some decent young people actually depend on them since youth unemployement has reached record rates in this country.
Now its hard to put my point of view across to you because you say they are too low in the first place. Why are they too low? Also scrapping fuel duty should reduce the price of everything in the economy plus the VAT cut.
|
In the real world, there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rivaled and non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods approximate the concept closely enough for the analysis to be economically useful.
I think this definitely apples. If anything is a public good, these are.
|
On December 09 2011 10:37 Tomazi wrote: In the real world, there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rivaled and non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods approximate the concept closely enough for the analysis to be economically useful.
I think this definitely apples. If anything is a public good, these are.
I dont understand why you think they are even close.
If i consume a Public good it shouldnt stop anyone else consuming it and I should be able to use a public good without paying for it.
For health care noone can consume the same health care I consume at the same time and I cant be a "free rider" of health care I would have to pay for it or someone would have to pay for it for me like the government and so health care isn't remotely close to either of those definitions.
Education is less so but as i stated i would only look into privatisation to see the options and would never 100% privatise.
|
On December 09 2011 10:15 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:00 Iyerbeth wrote:I'm not sure no would be a strong enough term to express my opinion on those changes, but I clicked it for lack of a stronger worded opposition. Here are some notes on why: + Show Spoiler +On December 09 2011 09:16 Zaros wrote:
Expenditure
Privatise National Health Service (NHS) - Provide a subsidy for anyone earning less than the new 2nd highest rate of income tax.
The NHS whilst already suffering major budget cuts in a bid to force quality down and sell it off piece by piece to the private sector is already having privatisation bids have a terrible impact on healthcare. PFI initiatives are already the biggest single cause of NHS related debt, and a for-profit system will only further reduce care whilst driving up costs. We can already see the result of private healthcare and insurance in the US and whilst it may only be a matter of years before we end up there here, rushing towards it would eradicate all hope of keeping a free at the point of use, universal healthcare system.
We should instead immediately remove the private sector from the NHS, cut debts to PFI scheme's and invest in jobs and training throughout hospitals in the UK.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction)
Provided that benefits were increased and reduced in line with VAT to result in the same spending power this may be acceptable, but current benefit levels are already too low with most cash issues arising from the poorly written legislation and failed economic policies of creating jobs, not from those on benefits being over paid. At a time with the highest youth unemplyment rate in the history of our country we should be very careful about penalising those with no options.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK))
All university education should be free. End fee's and ensure there are enough quality positions for everyone.
Evaluate all government advice/charitable agencies/organisations with regards to reducing funding up to and including a 100% reduction.
Such a vague statement it's impossible to oppose, but it would depend on the results of the evaluation.
Look into part privatisation of education.
NO. For-profit education is a truely terrible idea. Education should be independant, of a strict quality and free for all.
Increase science research and development spending by at least 100%.
I'm not expert enough to know the results of this for jobs and opportunites in the UK, and I wonder if you are?
Evaluate all religious,cultural and recreational funding.
Again, evaluation is fine if it is with a goal to improving services and value for money without cutting services or jobs.
Evaluate all employment,enterprise and environment spending.
Another vague "evaluate" that could not be judged until after propsals were made.
Cut all European Union Funding.
I'm not a fan of the EU, but this is actually insane. Cutting innapropriate funding is one thing but to decide to basically cut all ties with the EU is to leave the UK with little to no trading options and a potentially politically hostile environment in which to try to secure stronger growth.
Increase Defence budget by approximately 50%
There is no reason for such an increase, we don't need to be spending more money on imperialist conquest. Better care for returning soldiers and their families, but I'm not convined by your seemingly random number, nor am I intimately familiar with the UK defense budget allocations as it stands, or that simply throwing 50% more money at them will help.
Tax
Reduce Value added Tax (VAT) to 5% from 20%
Scrap all fuel duty
Various Income Tax Changes - No one pays tax below £20,000 a year. £20,000-£35,000 10% £35,000-£75,000 20% £75,000+ 30%
Scrap National Insurance
Increase Taxes on alcohol, tobacco and betting.
New Tax on legalised drugs at 60% (see Laws and regulation)
Reduce corporation tax - Main rate to 15% - Small profits rate to 5% - Special rate to 10%.
Half all capital gains taxes.
Reduce inheritance tax to 35%.
Double all Stamp duty rates but provide 0% Stamp duty for first time buyers.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
These tax plans are so regressive as to be almost confused with an attempt to wipe out the poor by way of starvation and lack of services. 5% VAT, no National Insurance (on top of your earlier plan for priavte education and healthcare????) with tax on things most likely used by poorer members of society whilst providing massive tax breaks to the rich? The same rich who already owe more in tax than every form of benefit fraud put together several times over? The only thing that would be universally helpful is the fuel duty plan which in itself would be extremly short sighted.
Laws and regulation
Legalise many currently illegal drugs on the advice of doctors such as cannabis with strict regulation and a new 60% tax on all of the newly legalised drugs.
Price control of all products directly affected by fuel duty for one year to enforce a reduction in price.
This would be redundant as if the prices were to rise steeply they would do so at the end of that year anyway, but most likely competition would in this instance force prices lower either way. The only way to ensure constant fair prices is to nationalise the industry.
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
This would be redundant based on current inspection and safety guidelines.
Merge all U.K. Competition authorities into one organisation and relax monopoly regulation.
Preventing monopolys is a good thing, even in capitalist societys.
Ban smoking and Drug use in all non-private areas (including cars.)
New government Rule - Magic Formula - The British Government may only run a budget deficit in recessions or extreme economic circumstances.
Given the way that most government spending works that would be interesting to see attempted. Not that I'm against the idea in principal though.
Semi-Legalise Polygamy - Must marry all at the same time/place as to not deceive.
Hardly the most pressing issue but if people are desperate for it (is anyone?) then I imagine it oculd be looked in to, remembering to consider all the taxation, housing and family issues that would arise.
Other
Leave the European Union but promote free trade and immigration with all "friendly" countries. (Free trade should be the neutral/default position)
As someone who doesn't support the EU (which is run almost entirely against the best interests of the people of Europe) simply leaving is completely the wrong call.
Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat.
There is currently no reason to invade Iran.
Attempt to extend "Parliament Life" to eight years with a referendum after five years.
All politicians should be subject to recall if they're no longer representing their voters sufficiently. 4-5 years is already too long, 8 years should be out of the question. So no.
More actively Persue Tax evaders
With your plan to reduce taxes on them by so much and at the same time serve massive sections of public jobs up for free profit, you just might not have to chase them anymore.
So those are my current policies so would you elect me?
I would actively fight against your election on those policies. Thank you for your input, we clearly have different economic ideologies especially about the NHS, with the leaving the EU, I would try to keep the free trade and immigration with these countries which you seem to have missed me saying, and i would see no reason for them not to accept as it benefits those countries to have free trade. About my tax reductions i would say they are more progressive..., VAT is a regressive tax and so reducing it by 15% is progressive, then noone paying tax up to £20000 is incredible progressive for todays standards so i dont really see your point here. Yes im letting the rich pay less tax but the rich at the moment barely pay tax because of smar accountants, so I'm giving them less of an incentive to avoid paying tax. The defence budget will be used to provide all military personal the proper equipment which they lack at the moment and provide better after care, with the remainder of the budget increase going to whatever the ministry of defence feels it needs. For the parliament life, you must think that politicians dont have short term policies also i have stated a referendum after 5 years on whether not there would be an early election which is the same as now so polticians would be accountable and also the government would still need a majority anyway or there could be an election after 1 year. But i fear you are of a different ideaology than me and you do not like the free market so its hard to debate with you.
Thank you for your reply. Without meaning to advertise my specific party alliegance here (would seem to be in bad taste, and nothing I said is representative of the group anyway) if you know your political history I joined the militant lot (though I was a bit young when they were still connected to The Militant) so yeah it's probably fair to say we're ideologically different but hopefully that'll give you some insight as to how different. So yeah, you're probably right about a debate between us being difficult when covering such a wide range of topics, though if any specific discussion points come up that may be more constructive.
Just a couple of brief points beyond that though, whilst I still also stand by everything I said in my original post.
I agree with your position on VAT being itself a regressive tax, I was referring more generally to the tax plan when taken as a whole which as you yourself admit results in less taxation of the rich with fewer services and more privatisation for the poor, that is regressive and would result in loss of jobs, loss of health care and sick cover, reduction in overall benefits and an overall quality of life reduction for those who can't afford to be 100% self sufficient in every aspect of life.
As to the life of the parliament as whole, if at any point the elected officials aren't representing the electorate then they should be subject to recall, regardless of how long their plans are. This would force a more transparent system where politicans would need to justify themselves constantly rather than just being secure in a job for 5 years and only worrying about 6 months either side of an election, whilst at the same time encouraging wider political involvement from communities.
|
On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level.
So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head)
My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities?
To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this:
Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda?
|
On December 09 2011 10:48 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:15 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:00 Iyerbeth wrote:I'm not sure no would be a strong enough term to express my opinion on those changes, but I clicked it for lack of a stronger worded opposition. Here are some notes on why: + Show Spoiler +On December 09 2011 09:16 Zaros wrote:
Expenditure
Privatise National Health Service (NHS) - Provide a subsidy for anyone earning less than the new 2nd highest rate of income tax.
The NHS whilst already suffering major budget cuts in a bid to force quality down and sell it off piece by piece to the private sector is already having privatisation bids have a terrible impact on healthcare. PFI initiatives are already the biggest single cause of NHS related debt, and a for-profit system will only further reduce care whilst driving up costs. We can already see the result of private healthcare and insurance in the US and whilst it may only be a matter of years before we end up there here, rushing towards it would eradicate all hope of keeping a free at the point of use, universal healthcare system.
We should instead immediately remove the private sector from the NHS, cut debts to PFI scheme's and invest in jobs and training throughout hospitals in the UK.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction)
Provided that benefits were increased and reduced in line with VAT to result in the same spending power this may be acceptable, but current benefit levels are already too low with most cash issues arising from the poorly written legislation and failed economic policies of creating jobs, not from those on benefits being over paid. At a time with the highest youth unemplyment rate in the history of our country we should be very careful about penalising those with no options.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK))
All university education should be free. End fee's and ensure there are enough quality positions for everyone.
Evaluate all government advice/charitable agencies/organisations with regards to reducing funding up to and including a 100% reduction.
Such a vague statement it's impossible to oppose, but it would depend on the results of the evaluation.
Look into part privatisation of education.
NO. For-profit education is a truely terrible idea. Education should be independant, of a strict quality and free for all.
Increase science research and development spending by at least 100%.
I'm not expert enough to know the results of this for jobs and opportunites in the UK, and I wonder if you are?
Evaluate all religious,cultural and recreational funding.
Again, evaluation is fine if it is with a goal to improving services and value for money without cutting services or jobs.
Evaluate all employment,enterprise and environment spending.
Another vague "evaluate" that could not be judged until after propsals were made.
Cut all European Union Funding.
I'm not a fan of the EU, but this is actually insane. Cutting innapropriate funding is one thing but to decide to basically cut all ties with the EU is to leave the UK with little to no trading options and a potentially politically hostile environment in which to try to secure stronger growth.
Increase Defence budget by approximately 50%
There is no reason for such an increase, we don't need to be spending more money on imperialist conquest. Better care for returning soldiers and their families, but I'm not convined by your seemingly random number, nor am I intimately familiar with the UK defense budget allocations as it stands, or that simply throwing 50% more money at them will help.
Tax
Reduce Value added Tax (VAT) to 5% from 20%
Scrap all fuel duty
Various Income Tax Changes - No one pays tax below £20,000 a year. £20,000-£35,000 10% £35,000-£75,000 20% £75,000+ 30%
Scrap National Insurance
Increase Taxes on alcohol, tobacco and betting.
New Tax on legalised drugs at 60% (see Laws and regulation)
Reduce corporation tax - Main rate to 15% - Small profits rate to 5% - Special rate to 10%.
Half all capital gains taxes.
Reduce inheritance tax to 35%.
Double all Stamp duty rates but provide 0% Stamp duty for first time buyers.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
These tax plans are so regressive as to be almost confused with an attempt to wipe out the poor by way of starvation and lack of services. 5% VAT, no National Insurance (on top of your earlier plan for priavte education and healthcare????) with tax on things most likely used by poorer members of society whilst providing massive tax breaks to the rich? The same rich who already owe more in tax than every form of benefit fraud put together several times over? The only thing that would be universally helpful is the fuel duty plan which in itself would be extremly short sighted.
Laws and regulation
Legalise many currently illegal drugs on the advice of doctors such as cannabis with strict regulation and a new 60% tax on all of the newly legalised drugs.
Price control of all products directly affected by fuel duty for one year to enforce a reduction in price.
This would be redundant as if the prices were to rise steeply they would do so at the end of that year anyway, but most likely competition would in this instance force prices lower either way. The only way to ensure constant fair prices is to nationalise the industry.
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
This would be redundant based on current inspection and safety guidelines.
Merge all U.K. Competition authorities into one organisation and relax monopoly regulation.
Preventing monopolys is a good thing, even in capitalist societys.
Ban smoking and Drug use in all non-private areas (including cars.)
New government Rule - Magic Formula - The British Government may only run a budget deficit in recessions or extreme economic circumstances.
Given the way that most government spending works that would be interesting to see attempted. Not that I'm against the idea in principal though.
Semi-Legalise Polygamy - Must marry all at the same time/place as to not deceive.
Hardly the most pressing issue but if people are desperate for it (is anyone?) then I imagine it oculd be looked in to, remembering to consider all the taxation, housing and family issues that would arise.
Other
Leave the European Union but promote free trade and immigration with all "friendly" countries. (Free trade should be the neutral/default position)
As someone who doesn't support the EU (which is run almost entirely against the best interests of the people of Europe) simply leaving is completely the wrong call.
Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat.
There is currently no reason to invade Iran.
Attempt to extend "Parliament Life" to eight years with a referendum after five years.
All politicians should be subject to recall if they're no longer representing their voters sufficiently. 4-5 years is already too long, 8 years should be out of the question. So no.
More actively Persue Tax evaders
With your plan to reduce taxes on them by so much and at the same time serve massive sections of public jobs up for free profit, you just might not have to chase them anymore.
So those are my current policies so would you elect me?
I would actively fight against your election on those policies. Thank you for your input, we clearly have different economic ideologies especially about the NHS, with the leaving the EU, I would try to keep the free trade and immigration with these countries which you seem to have missed me saying, and i would see no reason for them not to accept as it benefits those countries to have free trade. About my tax reductions i would say they are more progressive..., VAT is a regressive tax and so reducing it by 15% is progressive, then noone paying tax up to £20000 is incredible progressive for todays standards so i dont really see your point here. Yes im letting the rich pay less tax but the rich at the moment barely pay tax because of smar accountants, so I'm giving them less of an incentive to avoid paying tax. The defence budget will be used to provide all military personal the proper equipment which they lack at the moment and provide better after care, with the remainder of the budget increase going to whatever the ministry of defence feels it needs. For the parliament life, you must think that politicians dont have short term policies also i have stated a referendum after 5 years on whether not there would be an early election which is the same as now so polticians would be accountable and also the government would still need a majority anyway or there could be an election after 1 year. But i fear you are of a different ideaology than me and you do not like the free market so its hard to debate with you. Thank you for your reply. Without meaning to advertise my specific party alliegance here (would seem to be in bad taste, and nothing I said is representative of the group anyway) if you know your political history I joined the militant lot (though I was a bit young when they were still The Militant) so yeah it's probably fair to say we're ideologically different but hopefully that'll give you some insight as to how different. So yeah, you're probably right about a debate between us being difficult when covering such a wide range of topics, though if any specific discussion points come up that may be more constructive. Just a couple of brief points beyond that though, whilst I still also stand by everything I said in my original post. I agree with your position on VAT being itself a regressive tax, I was referring more generally to the tax plan when taken as a whole which as you yourself admit results in less taxation of the rich with fewer services and more privatisation for the poor, that is regressive and would result in loss of jobs, loss of health care and sick cover, reduction in overall benefits and an overall quality of life reduction for those who can't afford to be 100% self sufficient in every aspect of life. As to the life of the parliament as whole, if at any point the elected officials aren't representing the electorate then they should be subject to recall, regardless of how long their plans are. This would force a more transparent system where politicans would need to justify themselves constantly rather than just being secure in a job for 5 years and only worrying about 6 months either side of an election, whilst at the same time encouraging wider political involvement from communities.
Yes there would be alot of job losses in the public sector, I would agree but I think with the tax cuts and especially the scrapping of National insurance then the private sector will be able to make up all of those jobs and more. I also stated I will cover anyones healthcare if they earn less than £35000 a year which i think is reasonable, if you do not then pleae let me know why.
With the total benefit reduction, with the scrapping of fuel duty and a VAT reduction everythings price in the economy should fall pretty dramatically, of course i do not want to leave people who cannot cope on their own financialy to themselves.
|
On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda?
I know people who get hired in the city for financial work with a philosophy degree from a good university, to my understanding it is not the type of degree that maters unless it is a proffesion like medicine etc. but it is where you get a degree that maters. Any of the universities will be fully funded for all the courses they provide currently and possibly more if new subjects arrive etc.
I would agree on your LGBT issues and then would legalise gay marriage as i said im not 100% on the issues and was under the impression from my GCSE RE teachings that marriage is a religious word and so the churches etc can bassically choose on that.
|
On December 09 2011 10:35 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:33 Psychobabas wrote: No chance would I vote for that.
Banning smoking everywhere? No. And im not even a smoker.
Cutting benefits? What you mean by that? If you mean cutting off all the benefit abusers by 15% then fine, but if you mean reducing benefits by 15%, these are way too low to begin with. And as we stand, some decent young people actually depend on them since youth unemployement has reached record rates in this country. Now its hard to put my point of view across to you because you say they are too low in the first place. Why are they too low? Also scrapping fuel duty should reduce the price of everything in the economy plus the VAT cut.
Oo
Do you know how many of your fellow students will end up on the dole once they graduate given how this country's economy is going down the toilet? And you want to reduce that ~£60 to ~£50? To achieve what exactly? It has been mentioned countless times in various debates that it's not the level of benefits thats too high, it is the number of people who abuse it. How about increasing regulation and control instead.
1,000,000 (official figures of course, who knows the real amount) of your generation is out of work and out of education. Remember that.
Are you going to mess with that? You also want to cut the funding of lower end universities, potentially shutting them down, creating more unemployment, discrediting graduates' degrees and messing with one of the country's biggest industries, education?
A bit of background about myself: I hold a BA and MA in Business Finance and have been working so far for 3 financial institutions + a university. I am 30 years old.
Figures are all good, but there is a gigantic social cost surrounding every decision. Plus, I'm not sure where exactly is the backing for those %s but I suppose for the purpose of this thread it's fine.
I do like the emphasis on scrapping NI and focusing on being more independent on energy.
"Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat." WHAT. At this point, I'm getting slightly agitated. As if the country hasnt paid enough. I suppose you're going to fight in Iran?
An interesting topic, but at 2 oclock on a Friday morning I'd rather watch a bit of Thorzain, but will keep an eye on this.
Also, I sense a bit of an antidrug policy and since I'm for the legalisation of cannabis I guess we cant agree on that
|
On December 09 2011 11:03 Psychobabas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:35 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:33 Psychobabas wrote: No chance would I vote for that.
Banning smoking everywhere? No. And im not even a smoker.
Cutting benefits? What you mean by that? If you mean cutting off all the benefit abusers by 15% then fine, but if you mean reducing benefits by 15%, these are way too low to begin with. And as we stand, some decent young people actually depend on them since youth unemployement has reached record rates in this country. Now its hard to put my point of view across to you because you say they are too low in the first place. Why are they too low? Also scrapping fuel duty should reduce the price of everything in the economy plus the VAT cut. Oo Do you know how many of your fellow students will end up on the dole once they graduate given how this country's economy is going down the toilet? And you want to reduce that ~£60 to ~£50? To achieve what exactly? It has been mentioned countless times in various debates that it's not the level of benefits thats too high, it is the number of people who abuse it. How about increasing regulation and control instead. 1,000,000 (official figures of course, who knows the real amount) of your generation is out of work and out of education. Remember that. Are you going to mess with that? You also want to cut the funding of lower end universities, potentially shutting them down, creating more unemployment, discrediting graduates' degrees and messing with one of the country's biggest industries, education? A bit of background about myself: I hold a BA and MA in Business Finance and have been working so far for 3 financial institutions + a university. I am 30 years old. Figures are all good, but there is a gigantic social cost surrounding every decision. Plus, I'm not sure where exactly is the backing for those %s but I suppose for the purpose of this thread it's fine. I do like the emphasis on scrapping NI and focusing on being more independent on energy. "Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat." WHAT. At this point, I'm getting slightly agitated. As if the country hasnt paid enough. I suppose you're going to fight in Iran? An interesting topic, but at 2 oclock on a Friday morning I'd rather watch a bit of Thorzain, but will keep an eye on this. Also, I sense a bit of an antidrug policy and since I'm for the legalisation of cannabis I guess we cant agree on that
Getting rid of the bad universities should enhance degrees, The iran one i just threw in because I dont think a country as irresponsible as iran should come close to nuclear weapons as the world tries to disarm.
As ive said the tax reductions should cover the benefit reductions at least and help the private sector to create more jobs than the public sector had in the first place.
|
On December 09 2011 10:56 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda? I know people who get hired in the city for financial work with a philosophy degree from a good university, to my understanding it is not the type of degree that maters unless it is a proffesion like medicine etc. but it is where you get a degree that maters. Any of the universities will be fully funded for all the courses they provide currently and possibly more if new subjects arrive etc. I would agree on your LGBT issues and then would legalise gay marriage as i said im not 100% on the issues and was under the impression from my GCSE RE teachings that marriage is a religious word and so the churches etc can bassically choose on that.
Take it from me, unless you come from a top 5 University in your field (Economics/Business), employers do not care which Uni you got your degree from. It's the final mark that counts. A lot.
|
On December 09 2011 11:08 Psychobabas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:56 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda? I know people who get hired in the city for financial work with a philosophy degree from a good university, to my understanding it is not the type of degree that maters unless it is a proffesion like medicine etc. but it is where you get a degree that maters. Any of the universities will be fully funded for all the courses they provide currently and possibly more if new subjects arrive etc. I would agree on your LGBT issues and then would legalise gay marriage as i said im not 100% on the issues and was under the impression from my GCSE RE teachings that marriage is a religious word and so the churches etc can bassically choose on that. Take it from me, unless you come from a top 5 University in your field (Economics/Business), employers do not care which Uni you got your degree from. It's the final mark that counts. A lot.
I would agree the final mark counts alot obviously but a first in Philosophy i believe is valued the same as a first in economics by many institutions.
|
OK im going to go to sleep now, ill continue to reply to people tommorow.
|
On December 09 2011 11:07 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 11:03 Psychobabas wrote:On December 09 2011 10:35 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:33 Psychobabas wrote: No chance would I vote for that.
Banning smoking everywhere? No. And im not even a smoker.
Cutting benefits? What you mean by that? If you mean cutting off all the benefit abusers by 15% then fine, but if you mean reducing benefits by 15%, these are way too low to begin with. And as we stand, some decent young people actually depend on them since youth unemployement has reached record rates in this country. Now its hard to put my point of view across to you because you say they are too low in the first place. Why are they too low? Also scrapping fuel duty should reduce the price of everything in the economy plus the VAT cut. Oo Do you know how many of your fellow students will end up on the dole once they graduate given how this country's economy is going down the toilet? And you want to reduce that ~£60 to ~£50? To achieve what exactly? It has been mentioned countless times in various debates that it's not the level of benefits thats too high, it is the number of people who abuse it. How about increasing regulation and control instead. 1,000,000 (official figures of course, who knows the real amount) of your generation is out of work and out of education. Remember that. Are you going to mess with that? You also want to cut the funding of lower end universities, potentially shutting them down, creating more unemployment, discrediting graduates' degrees and messing with one of the country's biggest industries, education? A bit of background about myself: I hold a BA and MA in Business Finance and have been working so far for 3 financial institutions + a university. I am 30 years old. Figures are all good, but there is a gigantic social cost surrounding every decision. Plus, I'm not sure where exactly is the backing for those %s but I suppose for the purpose of this thread it's fine. I do like the emphasis on scrapping NI and focusing on being more independent on energy. "Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat." WHAT. At this point, I'm getting slightly agitated. As if the country hasnt paid enough. I suppose you're going to fight in Iran? An interesting topic, but at 2 oclock on a Friday morning I'd rather watch a bit of Thorzain, but will keep an eye on this. Also, I sense a bit of an antidrug policy and since I'm for the legalisation of cannabis I guess we cant agree on that Getting rid of the bad universities should enhance degrees, The iran one i just threw in because I dont think a country as irresponsible as iran should come close to nuclear weapons as the world tries to disarm. As ive said the tax reductions should cover the benefit reductions at least and help the private sector to create more jobs than the public sector had in the first place.
Ah, the topic is too interesting to resist.
Yes degress will be enhanced in the very long run, after dealing with the consequences, which are far too great to list here in a paragraph. Just think of how many institutions depend on Universities, language schools are just 1 example. You must realise that the UK exports education.
But that's not the problem that students face. It's the crippling fees + living costs, massive competition not just from fellow graduates but more importantly, from professionals who lost their job during these times, have multiple experience in the field and potentially have degrees themselves, completely shutting down any hopes of graduates competing. Companies at the moment are focusing on survival, not expansion, which puts graduates at a huge disadvantage since graduate-level jobs tailored for the inexperienced young indiviudal have plummeted.
Make a policy for a job market reform, stimulating companies to hire inexperienced graduates and I will agree on that for sure.
|
On December 09 2011 11:09 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 11:08 Psychobabas wrote:On December 09 2011 10:56 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda? I know people who get hired in the city for financial work with a philosophy degree from a good university, to my understanding it is not the type of degree that maters unless it is a proffesion like medicine etc. but it is where you get a degree that maters. Any of the universities will be fully funded for all the courses they provide currently and possibly more if new subjects arrive etc. I would agree on your LGBT issues and then would legalise gay marriage as i said im not 100% on the issues and was under the impression from my GCSE RE teachings that marriage is a religious word and so the churches etc can bassically choose on that. Take it from me, unless you come from a top 5 University in your field (Economics/Business), employers do not care which Uni you got your degree from. It's the final mark that counts. A lot. I would agree the final mark counts alot obviously but a first in Philosophy i believe is valued the same as a first in economics by many institutions.
Yes that is true. I was referring about the University rank or "prestige".
|
Ha. No. You are a dreamer whose dreams are build on idealist machinations that college students all have (I had and somewhat still have). Your active and activist policies will be far too radical for most of the British voters (if they decide to turn up to vote anytime soon -_-)
NHS could be improved, but British healthcare will not be better on a whole with a privatised NHS unless you value efficiency more than healthy lives for all.
"Good" unis already get enough money from alumni donations, their own investments, oversea students. As for bad unis, you are basically eliminating them by cutting their funding or making their education even worse, neither of which is as desirable as actually increasing their funding to make them produce better education, assuming your overall target is one of a better educated workforce?
Taxes, meh, seems reasonable except some factors may be seen as regressive (capital gains, corporation, inheritance, highest tier income tax, fuel duty (which scales with income somewhat, but also is subject to non-distributional factors such as commute time and line of work and hobbies)), I think the revenues would be lower than current standards, which would probably mean you have to cut education and healthcare... -_-
Defence? Why? Iran? Why? UK isn't a superpower anymore, stop pretending that you are, and your "special relationship" with USA is pretty BS anyway, it's a one-way street and you are getting boned every time! Stop being lead around on their leash, and playing a bigger part with your European neighbours would do more good than sucking up American ass can ever do. Also, who are you to judge whether Iran is responsible or not? Ahmadinejad disliking Western culture and diplomacy and being Islamic is no reason for an invasion even if they are nuclear, and invasion is both costly (money and lives) and bring unnecessary hostility (ie terrorism) to British shores. Don't the Islamic world hate NATO enough? Stop provoking them needlessly.
Banning smoking everywhere is a bit 1984, legal recreational drugs is good IMHO (revenue + reduced crime) but older people may find it objectionable and not vote for it , good luck operating the Magic Formula (it's how it should be, I'm an econs grad as well so I agree, but the way the budget and economy are it's going to be heck of a job). Not sure what to think of polygamy, but probably won't end well.
|
On December 09 2011 10:26 Tomazi wrote: I read the post, and instantly knew it was the naive droolings of an economics student. Surely your A-level economics explained why privatising public goods is not helpful? Especially in large populations? Exactly, what I thought, since I took a course on that recently. I have to say I don;t agree with most of your points, as they will make the situation messy...
|
Seems everyone and their mother would make the next best Prime Minister.
At least you're spitting ideas out there. Better than doing nothing.
|
Honestly I voted No, not because they are bad ideas but more like (I think) its ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish all of these reforms without some form of backlash or inefficiency from the reforms themselves. I'm not exactly sure if there is a referendum of any kind in the UK but.... if there was we would hear about it quick after you were elected prime minister by your party.
|
On the benefits thing; it is sometimes the case that some people on benefits, when offered work, turn it down because they earn more on benefits than they would at that job. To me this suggests not that benefits are too high but that the pay for the job is too low...this happens to people I know, people with children. Certain people lucky enough not to know the dull grind of long term unemployment say that as a matter of self respect, working is preferable to being on the dole, a sentiment with which I can agree. But for some people self respect is simply not an option; they turn down jobs because they genuinely need the money.
That said the system could certainly be simpler and screening for who can be on jobseekers etc could be more...stringent. I know other people on benefits who use it as a luxury as they make most of their money from drug dealing.
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but in my experience it is easy to stay on jobseekers for a long time without ever having to do...anything at all except turn up once a fortnight with a little list of things you've done to look for a job. You have to write 3 things a week, which can include 'looking in the newspaper'. Sigh.
|
On the benefits thing; it is sometimes the case that some people on benefits, when offered work, turn it down because they earn more on benefits than they would at that job. To me this suggests not that benefits are too high but that the pay for the job is too low...this happens to people I know, people with children. Certain people lucky enough not to know the dull grind of long term unemployment say that as a matter of self respect, working is preferable to being on the dole, a sentiment with which I can agree. But for some people self respect is simply not an option; they turn down jobs because they genuinely need the money.
Basically I see no evidence that benefits are too high or warrant a 15% decrease.
That said the system could certainly be simpler and screening for who can be on jobseekers etc could be more...stringent. I know other people on benefits who use it as a luxury as they make most of their money from drug dealing.
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but in my experience it is easy to stay on jobseekers for a long time without ever having to do...anything at all except turn up once a fortnight with a little list of things you've done to look for a job. You have to write 3 things a week, which can include 'looking in the newspaper'. Sigh.
|
Zaros:
Your the first person I've met in the UK who saw what George Bush did to America and decided that you want to do that to the UK.
1) You've seen the world leading healthcare and life expectancies offered by the government run schemes of Western Europe, and decided you would prefer the lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality of the US while it costs them a greater a proportion of their GDP and people go bankrupt from their medical expenses.
2) Because your studying economics, you know that we currently have a deficit in the region of £100 billion a year. Your budget amounts to a colossal tax cut for the rich and would collapse tax revenues to the treasury. This would have the double effect of causing our debt to spiral out of control while investors/bond markets would lose faith in our ability to pay back our debt, meaning this massive pile of debt would have hugely higher interest rates.
3) Your pulling out of the single market which is our largest export market, making it more difficult for manufacturers and businesses to deal with the EU.
4) Your pulling a George Bush lunatic adventure in Iran, the result of which would be oil prices doubling at the least, causing a recession in the Western world.
The only debate is whether it would take six or eighteen months before your right-wing, simplistic, "lower taxes iz gud" thinking causes an economic disaster.
|
On December 09 2011 18:01 Ph4ZeD wrote: Zaros:
Your the first person I've met in the UK who saw what George Bush did to America and decided that you want to do that to the UK.
1) You've seen the world leading healthcare and life expectancies offered by the government run schemes of Western Europe, and decided you would prefer the lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality of the US while it costs them a greater a proportion of their GDP and people go bankrupt from their medical expenses.
2) Because your studying economics, you know that we currently have a deficit in the region of £100 billion a year. Your budget amounts to a colossal tax cut for the rich and would collapse tax revenues to the treasury. This would have the double effect of causing our debt to spiral out of control while investors/bond markets would lose faith in our ability to pay back our debt, meaning this massive pile of debt would have hugely higher interest rates.
3) Your pulling out of the single market which is our largest export market, making it more difficult for manufacturers and businesses to deal with the EU.
4) Your pulling a George Bush lunatic adventure in Iran, the result of which would be oil prices doubling at the least, causing a recession in the Western world.
The only debate is whether it would take six or eighteen months before your right-wing, simplistic, "lower taxes iz gud" thinking causes an economic disaster.
1) Why does everyone think every private healthcare system = US, there are plenty of other private healthcare systems that a many times better than the US. Im not going to leave people to die waiting in hospital corridors because they dont have insurance.
2) As ive stated privatising the NHS will be around a 15% reduction in expenditure, the reduction of taxes will not proportionally decrease revenue, due to less people avoiding and increased growth from all the tax reductions.
3) As ive stated I would like to keep free-trade and immigration with all these countries and extend it to other countries, so i think your over exaggerating.
4) Why is it George Bush like to fear a genuine nuclear threat from a nation that has effectively attacked our embasy and preeches death to israel.
|
On December 09 2011 12:22 iSometric wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:26 Tomazi wrote: I read the post, and instantly knew it was the naive droolings of an economics student. Surely your A-level economics explained why privatising public goods is not helpful? Especially in large populations? Exactly, what I thought, since I took a course on that recently. I have to say I don;t agree with most of your points, as they will make the situation messy...
As ive replied before, state your problems with my policies and I will try to defend them, dont just say im wrong and move on.
|
stopped reading when you cut all fuel tax and all tax under 20,000 sorry your country will go bust.
I agree fuel is ridiculous at the moment but cvutting all tax when our countries gains so much of its income from it is bad.
I just think its ridiculous that if you pop out a kid or two its much more cost effective for you to live on ebenefits then be a worker earning 10-20k a year....
|
On December 09 2011 13:37 The KY wrote: On the benefits thing; it is sometimes the case that some people on benefits, when offered work, turn it down because they earn more on benefits than they would at that job. To me this suggests not that benefits are too high but that the pay for the job is too low...this happens to people I know, people with children. Certain people lucky enough not to know the dull grind of long term unemployment say that as a matter of self respect, working is preferable to being on the dole, a sentiment with which I can agree. But for some people self respect is simply not an option; they turn down jobs because they genuinely need the money.
That said the system could certainly be simpler and screening for who can be on jobseekers etc could be more...stringent. I know other people on benefits who use it as a luxury as they make most of their money from drug dealing.
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but in my experience it is easy to stay on jobseekers for a long time without ever having to do...anything at all except turn up once a fortnight with a little list of things you've done to look for a job. You have to write 3 things a week, which can include 'looking in the newspaper'. Sigh.
I agree in aot of cases benefits pay more than work, but i dont think increasing pay is the answer it just lowers employment in the long run and creates inflation. My policy to get people into work is to lower benefits inline with VAT which should not be the only price reduction due to the price of petrol being in every product and im scrapping ~60% of the price of petrol, all of these tax decrease should give a significant boost to the private sector and im talking massive especially the fuel duty. The new jobs this creates should help bring these people out of benefits.
On the graduates fighting for jobs as the economy should be growing very well the same arguement applies as above that the economy should be significantly stimulated to provide enough jobs.
|
On December 09 2011 19:48 Tommylew wrote: stopped reading when you cut all fuel tax and all tax under 20,000 sorry your country will go bust.
I agree fuel is ridiculous at the moment but cvutting all tax when our countries gains so much of its income from it is bad.
I just think its ridiculous that if you pop out a kid or two its much more cost effective for you to live on ebenefits then be a worker earning 10-20k a year....
Well my tax cuts should support your idea of working rather than benefits, as ive said before i dont think the country will go bust due to more people paying tax in the first place and the NHS is a huge government cost along with benefits.
But what tax level reduction would you think is acceptable.
|
On December 09 2011 19:51 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 19:48 Tommylew wrote: stopped reading when you cut all fuel tax and all tax under 20,000 sorry your country will go bust.
I agree fuel is ridiculous at the moment but cvutting all tax when our countries gains so much of its income from it is bad.
I just think its ridiculous that if you pop out a kid or two its much more cost effective for you to live on ebenefits then be a worker earning 10-20k a year.... Well my tax cuts should support your idea of working rather than benefits, as ive said before i dont think the country will go bust due to more people paying tax in the first place and the NHS is a huge government cost along with benefits. But what tax level reduction would you think is acceptable. id say at least 15k I earn 15k a year before tax and i lose at least £150-200 a month on tax and national isnurance. If I get bonus or commisison I lost a good percentage that soemtimes its not even worth it. Problem witht he current government is that they dotn really care about peoplelike me who trya nd earn their way and they let the rich get richer. Problem I find ridicoulous is that if you win BIG prize money in the UK u get taxed 50%??? Thats why people like Usain Bolt will never ever come to this country to compete outside of any championships..
|
On December 09 2011 20:16 Tommylew wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 19:51 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 19:48 Tommylew wrote: stopped reading when you cut all fuel tax and all tax under 20,000 sorry your country will go bust.
I agree fuel is ridiculous at the moment but cvutting all tax when our countries gains so much of its income from it is bad.
I just think its ridiculous that if you pop out a kid or two its much more cost effective for you to live on ebenefits then be a worker earning 10-20k a year.... Well my tax cuts should support your idea of working rather than benefits, as ive said before i dont think the country will go bust due to more people paying tax in the first place and the NHS is a huge government cost along with benefits. But what tax level reduction would you think is acceptable. id say at least 15k I earn 15k a year before tax and i lose at least £150-200 a month on tax and national isnurance. If I get bonus or commisison I lost a good percentage that soemtimes its not even worth it. Problem witht he current government is that they dotn really care about peoplelike me who trya nd earn their way and they let the rich get richer. Problem I find ridicoulous is that if you win BIG prize money in the UK u get taxed 50%??? Thats why people like Usain Bolt will never ever come to this country to compete outside of any championships..
Well with my tax changes u pay no national insurance and dont pay income tax untill £20,000 so that covers your concern. Also my hope is only a 30% tax rate for £75,000 will make it attractive for rich people to pay taxes here and to not avoid.
Im going to edit my first post now with some changes and explanations.
Edit: Fully updated my first post feel free to comment about the changes.
|
On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda?
Marriage is a religious word, one of the 7 sacraments a priest can perform (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) - check wikipedia. Civil union is the right word for it. All the benefits the state gives a married couple. How does marriage work in the UK, 1 paper by a state official for state recognition of marriage + religious service or religious service that also gives out the legal paper? Because here you first have to go to the mayor's hall and get a marriage certificate (you are then considered married by the state with all rights that come from it) then, only if you want to, only if you have your marriage license, you can go get a religious ceremony. In Romania's case it would be only a matter of changing man + woman rule in law to 2 people to legalize gay marriage. No priest would perform religious ceremony but it's not needed.
|
On December 09 2011 21:50 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:48 Kerotan wrote:On December 09 2011 10:20 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:16 Kerotan wrote: Its obvious you weren't doing a degree in politics, nearly all of your polices are the antithesis of pragmatism, and some down right unpopular.
Ones I particularly dislike, Invasion of Iran: Because god knows we need another war for our troops to die in. Increase Military spending by 50%: Again, I would rather that our soldier's weren't fighting in wars, so we wouldn't have to spend so much money on them. But it makes sense I guess if your going to invade Iran. Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction): Fuck the disabled and the old! Now, this may have not been you initial intent, but "benefits" are more than just the dole. Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK): Hey fuck Philosophers!, what has a philosopher ever made, ever produced, that I could hold in my hand and sell for a profit? Thats right, nothing! I'm not sure it would be possible to ever privatise the NHS, the public backlash would be incredible, and I do not believe in market fundamentalism, especially when healthcare is involved.
A notable exception: You are seemingly very libertarian in your views on drugs etc, and even semi-legalise polygamy, but you do not include any provision to make gay marriage legal.
Ones I liked: Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more. Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation. 5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations. Im not 100% sure on the Gay marriage laws I believe you can have a civil partnership, but marriage is a religious word and so it is hard/impossible to tell the church of england to marry gay couples but if it were possible then yes I would legalise all forms of gay marriage, i hope that helps. I dont understand your fuck philosophers arguement, if you study philosophy at a good university the degree is worth something, studying philosophy at a top 30 university is better than studying poltics or economics at some university that will accept anyone with D's at A level. So firstly, one great reason why I wouldn't vote for you: civil partnership doesn't equal marriage, and no marriage is not a religious word, and contest that any religious body can claim ownership over it. Personally, I do not have issue with individual churches denying gay couples to the ability to get married in their church, I'm not a religious man, and a number of churches, (quakers, Lutherans(?)) have already committed to allowing marriage between same sex couples in their churches when it is legalised. Any politician who tells me that "hey you can get a civil partnership, is just like marriage", can piss right off, to quote the judge from brown versus the board of education, "separate is not equal", and while civil partnerships have all the same legal rights as marriages, if they are the same thing, why do we, and why should we refer to them differently? (as you might have guessed, LGBT rights is a major point of contention for me, and sorry if I come across as very aggressive, I'll admit, I'm quite the hot head) My fuck philosophers jab was at this wording in particular "Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK". So firstly who are these "firms", I took it to mean large corporate bodies that are interested in hiring qualified graduates. So why would anyone who runs a business, and also controls what sort of applications they get, choose anything other than business/economic/financial graduates from top Universities? To make it a little clearer, my question is, what is stopping these firms from applying pressure to close every single philosophy department in the country, be they from Cambridge or the local poly. Why settle from a Oxbridge philosophy graduate, when you can rig the field and get a Oxbridge economics graduate instead? And as much as you say that a Degree in philosophy from a top uni is worth more than business that middle of the road U, it only partly runs true. I'm a Archaeologist at a pretty good uni, but I'm all too aware that my friends have degrees that are several degrees more employable than mine, simply because I chose to do something I enjoyed. Even if this makes no sense to you, (which I'm worried it will.-I just can't seen to get it right, I'm not even sure I understand my own argument ) the one thing you should take home from this point is this: Where is the governmental oversight? What right does a corporate entity have to set the agenda? Marriage is a religious word, one of the 7 sacraments a priest can perform (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) - check wikipedia. Civil union is the right word for it. All the benefits the state gives a married couple. How does marriage work in the UK, 1 paper by a state official for state recognition of marriage + religious service or religious service that also gives out the legal paper? Because here you first have to go to the mayor's hall and get a marriage certificate (you are then considered married by the state with all rights that come from it) then, only if you want to, only if you have your marriage license, you can go get a religious ceremony. In Romania's case it would be only a matter of changing man + woman rule in law to 2 people to legalize gay marriage. No priest would perform religious ceremony but it's not needed.
So i was right, well I would prefer if this didn't become a religious discussion for obvious reasons.
|
On December 09 2011 10:53 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:48 Iyerbeth wrote:On December 09 2011 10:15 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:00 Iyerbeth wrote:I'm not sure no would be a strong enough term to express my opinion on those changes, but I clicked it for lack of a stronger worded opposition. Here are some notes on why: + Show Spoiler +On December 09 2011 09:16 Zaros wrote:
Expenditure
Privatise National Health Service (NHS) - Provide a subsidy for anyone earning less than the new 2nd highest rate of income tax.
The NHS whilst already suffering major budget cuts in a bid to force quality down and sell it off piece by piece to the private sector is already having privatisation bids have a terrible impact on healthcare. PFI initiatives are already the biggest single cause of NHS related debt, and a for-profit system will only further reduce care whilst driving up costs. We can already see the result of private healthcare and insurance in the US and whilst it may only be a matter of years before we end up there here, rushing towards it would eradicate all hope of keeping a free at the point of use, universal healthcare system.
We should instead immediately remove the private sector from the NHS, cut debts to PFI scheme's and invest in jobs and training throughout hospitals in the UK.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction)
Provided that benefits were increased and reduced in line with VAT to result in the same spending power this may be acceptable, but current benefit levels are already too low with most cash issues arising from the poorly written legislation and failed economic policies of creating jobs, not from those on benefits being over paid. At a time with the highest youth unemplyment rate in the history of our country we should be very careful about penalising those with no options.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK))
All university education should be free. End fee's and ensure there are enough quality positions for everyone.
Evaluate all government advice/charitable agencies/organisations with regards to reducing funding up to and including a 100% reduction.
Such a vague statement it's impossible to oppose, but it would depend on the results of the evaluation.
Look into part privatisation of education.
NO. For-profit education is a truely terrible idea. Education should be independant, of a strict quality and free for all.
Increase science research and development spending by at least 100%.
I'm not expert enough to know the results of this for jobs and opportunites in the UK, and I wonder if you are?
Evaluate all religious,cultural and recreational funding.
Again, evaluation is fine if it is with a goal to improving services and value for money without cutting services or jobs.
Evaluate all employment,enterprise and environment spending.
Another vague "evaluate" that could not be judged until after propsals were made.
Cut all European Union Funding.
I'm not a fan of the EU, but this is actually insane. Cutting innapropriate funding is one thing but to decide to basically cut all ties with the EU is to leave the UK with little to no trading options and a potentially politically hostile environment in which to try to secure stronger growth.
Increase Defence budget by approximately 50%
There is no reason for such an increase, we don't need to be spending more money on imperialist conquest. Better care for returning soldiers and their families, but I'm not convined by your seemingly random number, nor am I intimately familiar with the UK defense budget allocations as it stands, or that simply throwing 50% more money at them will help.
Tax
Reduce Value added Tax (VAT) to 5% from 20%
Scrap all fuel duty
Various Income Tax Changes - No one pays tax below £20,000 a year. £20,000-£35,000 10% £35,000-£75,000 20% £75,000+ 30%
Scrap National Insurance
Increase Taxes on alcohol, tobacco and betting.
New Tax on legalised drugs at 60% (see Laws and regulation)
Reduce corporation tax - Main rate to 15% - Small profits rate to 5% - Special rate to 10%.
Half all capital gains taxes.
Reduce inheritance tax to 35%.
Double all Stamp duty rates but provide 0% Stamp duty for first time buyers.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
These tax plans are so regressive as to be almost confused with an attempt to wipe out the poor by way of starvation and lack of services. 5% VAT, no National Insurance (on top of your earlier plan for priavte education and healthcare????) with tax on things most likely used by poorer members of society whilst providing massive tax breaks to the rich? The same rich who already owe more in tax than every form of benefit fraud put together several times over? The only thing that would be universally helpful is the fuel duty plan which in itself would be extremly short sighted.
Laws and regulation
Legalise many currently illegal drugs on the advice of doctors such as cannabis with strict regulation and a new 60% tax on all of the newly legalised drugs.
Price control of all products directly affected by fuel duty for one year to enforce a reduction in price.
This would be redundant as if the prices were to rise steeply they would do so at the end of that year anyway, but most likely competition would in this instance force prices lower either way. The only way to ensure constant fair prices is to nationalise the industry.
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
This would be redundant based on current inspection and safety guidelines.
Merge all U.K. Competition authorities into one organisation and relax monopoly regulation.
Preventing monopolys is a good thing, even in capitalist societys.
Ban smoking and Drug use in all non-private areas (including cars.)
New government Rule - Magic Formula - The British Government may only run a budget deficit in recessions or extreme economic circumstances.
Given the way that most government spending works that would be interesting to see attempted. Not that I'm against the idea in principal though.
Semi-Legalise Polygamy - Must marry all at the same time/place as to not deceive.
Hardly the most pressing issue but if people are desperate for it (is anyone?) then I imagine it oculd be looked in to, remembering to consider all the taxation, housing and family issues that would arise.
Other
Leave the European Union but promote free trade and immigration with all "friendly" countries. (Free trade should be the neutral/default position)
As someone who doesn't support the EU (which is run almost entirely against the best interests of the people of Europe) simply leaving is completely the wrong call.
Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat.
There is currently no reason to invade Iran.
Attempt to extend "Parliament Life" to eight years with a referendum after five years.
All politicians should be subject to recall if they're no longer representing their voters sufficiently. 4-5 years is already too long, 8 years should be out of the question. So no.
More actively Persue Tax evaders
With your plan to reduce taxes on them by so much and at the same time serve massive sections of public jobs up for free profit, you just might not have to chase them anymore.
So those are my current policies so would you elect me?
I would actively fight against your election on those policies. Thank you for your input, we clearly have different economic ideologies especially about the NHS, with the leaving the EU, I would try to keep the free trade and immigration with these countries which you seem to have missed me saying, and i would see no reason for them not to accept as it benefits those countries to have free trade. About my tax reductions i would say they are more progressive..., VAT is a regressive tax and so reducing it by 15% is progressive, then noone paying tax up to £20000 is incredible progressive for todays standards so i dont really see your point here. Yes im letting the rich pay less tax but the rich at the moment barely pay tax because of smar accountants, so I'm giving them less of an incentive to avoid paying tax. The defence budget will be used to provide all military personal the proper equipment which they lack at the moment and provide better after care, with the remainder of the budget increase going to whatever the ministry of defence feels it needs. For the parliament life, you must think that politicians dont have short term policies also i have stated a referendum after 5 years on whether not there would be an early election which is the same as now so polticians would be accountable and also the government would still need a majority anyway or there could be an election after 1 year. But i fear you are of a different ideaology than me and you do not like the free market so its hard to debate with you. Thank you for your reply. Without meaning to advertise my specific party alliegance here (would seem to be in bad taste, and nothing I said is representative of the group anyway) if you know your political history I joined the militant lot (though I was a bit young when they were still The Militant) so yeah it's probably fair to say we're ideologically different but hopefully that'll give you some insight as to how different. So yeah, you're probably right about a debate between us being difficult when covering such a wide range of topics, though if any specific discussion points come up that may be more constructive. Just a couple of brief points beyond that though, whilst I still also stand by everything I said in my original post. I agree with your position on VAT being itself a regressive tax, I was referring more generally to the tax plan when taken as a whole which as you yourself admit results in less taxation of the rich with fewer services and more privatisation for the poor, that is regressive and would result in loss of jobs, loss of health care and sick cover, reduction in overall benefits and an overall quality of life reduction for those who can't afford to be 100% self sufficient in every aspect of life. As to the life of the parliament as whole, if at any point the elected officials aren't representing the electorate then they should be subject to recall, regardless of how long their plans are. This would force a more transparent system where politicans would need to justify themselves constantly rather than just being secure in a job for 5 years and only worrying about 6 months either side of an election, whilst at the same time encouraging wider political involvement from communities. Yes there would be alot of job losses in the public sector, I would agree but I think with the tax cuts and especially the scrapping of National insurance then the private sector will be able to make up all of those jobs and more. I also stated I will cover anyones healthcare if they earn less than £35000 a year which i think is reasonable, if you do not then pleae let me know why.
As per my only post I'm going to try stick to one specific issue for the sake of good discussion, but just to point out hat privatisation almost always results in job losses, and scrapping NI will have massive consequences for pensions and those who're out of work for whatever reason so I disagree with that being a good idea.
On to the point I'll actually tackle for the sake of good conversation though, there are a few reasons I don't think your NHS plan is the right course of action (reasonable might be arguable). I just want to address the edit on your OP before continuing though.
Currently the only incentive for doctors etc to treat you well is because they "care", doctor get paid whether you live or die and whether they treat you badly or well, whether they treat you promptly or have hours waiting in A&E. I believe a private health care system will be more effecient and will allow me to save a lot of money to be given out in tax cuts to boost the economy and get people working and lead to greater prosperity for all.
Your view of the NHS is objectively wrong. A&E staff have required targets of time to treat you in which are almost universally shown to be improving over time. Dr's treat you because it's their job and if they do it badly people die and their job, if not their freedom, is at risk if they're negligent in that. Additionally the same arguement you make for Dr's under a public system would apply under a private system, unless you believe that any care what so ever is tolerated under a public system, which is clearly wrong. No one in the NHS goes in to work thinking 'well the government is paying me, guess I don't have to work too hard, my manager and none of my colleagues will be paying attention to what I do'.
Further, on the other side is the fact that your private health care system will still be being funded by the government for anyone under £35,000 which results in the exact same procedures being performed by a work force cut to the bone with 'efficiency' savings, but with a profit margin dumped on top. When combined with a massive tax reduction across the board and unwaranted spending increases amongst your other plans it would be almost impossible to reasonably fund the same quality of care and range of options we have today.
As it stands the governments current plans for privatisation are already showing the massive strains put on care which are purposely making it more difficult for the NHS to provide the necessary care in order to make the private option the only one left, which at the same time is meaning the brunt of job and service cuts are done under public ownership, and they won't be replaced under the private system. Aspects such as hip replacement guidelines and funding changing so that an estimated 75% of those needing them will have to wait years or otherwise be ineligable is one such example of these changes forcing private sector involvement at the moment. Arguing that the NHS has a declining level of quality in the same breath as arguing that privatisation is needed is simply misguided, NHS quality is declinnig because of attempts to force privatisation.
Every single point along the way that results in private companies doing for profit what is currently done for need will result in increased costs for the government, and when we look at how extensive even current privatisation is we can see how pervasive and expensive that will end up being. You're talking about a system where deciding where you are sent for treatment is decided by a for profit advisory company, where treatment and drug choice is decided by private hospitals being influenced by the market, where NHS direct (or it's equivalent) is giving advise based on the company that owns it rather than health care needs of the patient, and that's just what we're looking at in the short term and that's hoping we still have regulation. Less obvious health care services such as speech therapy are simply not going to be profitable at all and would likely see further cuts in services meaning patients would have to travel far further if the option still existed at all. Trying to fund all of these extra price increases, as well as paying a for profit bonus on top of that for the majorioty of service users is not going to result in savings, but rather just profit for private interests.
You asked earlier in the thread why people keep asssuming it'll end up as an American style healthcare system, but when you look at the fact that for anyone earning £35,000 it would be and when you see the same US companies lobbying for a private health care in the UK right now the comparison is impossible to not make. Additionally, once you privatise it, over time there is nothing to prevent it simply worsening to the point of being exactly like the US as the unaccountable private sector will be the one's controlling the options available.
I've been doing my best to simply stay on the economic side of things but I fear I'm at the point of repeating myself if I continue so I'll just leave it there as saying that private healthcare would mean higher costs (even with your £35,000 cut off), fewer jobs, fewer services and lower quality.
|
On December 09 2011 22:12 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:53 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:48 Iyerbeth wrote:On December 09 2011 10:15 Zaros wrote:On December 09 2011 10:00 Iyerbeth wrote:I'm not sure no would be a strong enough term to express my opinion on those changes, but I clicked it for lack of a stronger worded opposition. Here are some notes on why: + Show Spoiler +On December 09 2011 09:16 Zaros wrote:
Expenditure
Privatise National Health Service (NHS) - Provide a subsidy for anyone earning less than the new 2nd highest rate of income tax.
The NHS whilst already suffering major budget cuts in a bid to force quality down and sell it off piece by piece to the private sector is already having privatisation bids have a terrible impact on healthcare. PFI initiatives are already the biggest single cause of NHS related debt, and a for-profit system will only further reduce care whilst driving up costs. We can already see the result of private healthcare and insurance in the US and whilst it may only be a matter of years before we end up there here, rushing towards it would eradicate all hope of keeping a free at the point of use, universal healthcare system.
We should instead immediately remove the private sector from the NHS, cut debts to PFI scheme's and invest in jobs and training throughout hospitals in the UK.
Reduce all Benefits levels by 15% (see VAT tax reduction)
Provided that benefits were increased and reduced in line with VAT to result in the same spending power this may be acceptable, but current benefit levels are already too low with most cash issues arising from the poorly written legislation and failed economic policies of creating jobs, not from those on benefits being over paid. At a time with the highest youth unemplyment rate in the history of our country we should be very careful about penalising those with no options.
Cut university funding to all "bad" universities (Any universities that firms regard degrees as effectively pointless and a college course would be just as good(potentially leave only 120 universities across the UK))
All university education should be free. End fee's and ensure there are enough quality positions for everyone.
Evaluate all government advice/charitable agencies/organisations with regards to reducing funding up to and including a 100% reduction.
Such a vague statement it's impossible to oppose, but it would depend on the results of the evaluation.
Look into part privatisation of education.
NO. For-profit education is a truely terrible idea. Education should be independant, of a strict quality and free for all.
Increase science research and development spending by at least 100%.
I'm not expert enough to know the results of this for jobs and opportunites in the UK, and I wonder if you are?
Evaluate all religious,cultural and recreational funding.
Again, evaluation is fine if it is with a goal to improving services and value for money without cutting services or jobs.
Evaluate all employment,enterprise and environment spending.
Another vague "evaluate" that could not be judged until after propsals were made.
Cut all European Union Funding.
I'm not a fan of the EU, but this is actually insane. Cutting innapropriate funding is one thing but to decide to basically cut all ties with the EU is to leave the UK with little to no trading options and a potentially politically hostile environment in which to try to secure stronger growth.
Increase Defence budget by approximately 50%
There is no reason for such an increase, we don't need to be spending more money on imperialist conquest. Better care for returning soldiers and their families, but I'm not convined by your seemingly random number, nor am I intimately familiar with the UK defense budget allocations as it stands, or that simply throwing 50% more money at them will help.
Tax
Reduce Value added Tax (VAT) to 5% from 20%
Scrap all fuel duty
Various Income Tax Changes - No one pays tax below £20,000 a year. £20,000-£35,000 10% £35,000-£75,000 20% £75,000+ 30%
Scrap National Insurance
Increase Taxes on alcohol, tobacco and betting.
New Tax on legalised drugs at 60% (see Laws and regulation)
Reduce corporation tax - Main rate to 15% - Small profits rate to 5% - Special rate to 10%.
Half all capital gains taxes.
Reduce inheritance tax to 35%.
Double all Stamp duty rates but provide 0% Stamp duty for first time buyers.
5% Tax break for all new nuclear power stations.
These tax plans are so regressive as to be almost confused with an attempt to wipe out the poor by way of starvation and lack of services. 5% VAT, no National Insurance (on top of your earlier plan for priavte education and healthcare????) with tax on things most likely used by poorer members of society whilst providing massive tax breaks to the rich? The same rich who already owe more in tax than every form of benefit fraud put together several times over? The only thing that would be universally helpful is the fuel duty plan which in itself would be extremly short sighted.
Laws and regulation
Legalise many currently illegal drugs on the advice of doctors such as cannabis with strict regulation and a new 60% tax on all of the newly legalised drugs.
Price control of all products directly affected by fuel duty for one year to enforce a reduction in price.
This would be redundant as if the prices were to rise steeply they would do so at the end of that year anyway, but most likely competition would in this instance force prices lower either way. The only way to ensure constant fair prices is to nationalise the industry.
Legalise Personal piracy for a product that has been released for one year or more.
Set up the Nuclear Power Regulatory Comity (NPRC) to inspect all nuclear power stations every year for safety and to decide on any future regulation.
This would be redundant based on current inspection and safety guidelines.
Merge all U.K. Competition authorities into one organisation and relax monopoly regulation.
Preventing monopolys is a good thing, even in capitalist societys.
Ban smoking and Drug use in all non-private areas (including cars.)
New government Rule - Magic Formula - The British Government may only run a budget deficit in recessions or extreme economic circumstances.
Given the way that most government spending works that would be interesting to see attempted. Not that I'm against the idea in principal though.
Semi-Legalise Polygamy - Must marry all at the same time/place as to not deceive.
Hardly the most pressing issue but if people are desperate for it (is anyone?) then I imagine it oculd be looked in to, remembering to consider all the taxation, housing and family issues that would arise.
Other
Leave the European Union but promote free trade and immigration with all "friendly" countries. (Free trade should be the neutral/default position)
As someone who doesn't support the EU (which is run almost entirely against the best interests of the people of Europe) simply leaving is completely the wrong call.
Seek invasion of Iran through the UN Security Council with NATO to remove the nuclear threat.
There is currently no reason to invade Iran.
Attempt to extend "Parliament Life" to eight years with a referendum after five years.
All politicians should be subject to recall if they're no longer representing their voters sufficiently. 4-5 years is already too long, 8 years should be out of the question. So no.
More actively Persue Tax evaders
With your plan to reduce taxes on them by so much and at the same time serve massive sections of public jobs up for free profit, you just might not have to chase them anymore.
So those are my current policies so would you elect me?
I would actively fight against your election on those policies. Thank you for your input, we clearly have different economic ideologies especially about the NHS, with the leaving the EU, I would try to keep the free trade and immigration with these countries which you seem to have missed me saying, and i would see no reason for them not to accept as it benefits those countries to have free trade. About my tax reductions i would say they are more progressive..., VAT is a regressive tax and so reducing it by 15% is progressive, then noone paying tax up to £20000 is incredible progressive for todays standards so i dont really see your point here. Yes im letting the rich pay less tax but the rich at the moment barely pay tax because of smar accountants, so I'm giving them less of an incentive to avoid paying tax. The defence budget will be used to provide all military personal the proper equipment which they lack at the moment and provide better after care, with the remainder of the budget increase going to whatever the ministry of defence feels it needs. For the parliament life, you must think that politicians dont have short term policies also i have stated a referendum after 5 years on whether not there would be an early election which is the same as now so polticians would be accountable and also the government would still need a majority anyway or there could be an election after 1 year. But i fear you are of a different ideaology than me and you do not like the free market so its hard to debate with you. Thank you for your reply. Without meaning to advertise my specific party alliegance here (would seem to be in bad taste, and nothing I said is representative of the group anyway) if you know your political history I joined the militant lot (though I was a bit young when they were still The Militant) so yeah it's probably fair to say we're ideologically different but hopefully that'll give you some insight as to how different. So yeah, you're probably right about a debate between us being difficult when covering such a wide range of topics, though if any specific discussion points come up that may be more constructive. Just a couple of brief points beyond that though, whilst I still also stand by everything I said in my original post. I agree with your position on VAT being itself a regressive tax, I was referring more generally to the tax plan when taken as a whole which as you yourself admit results in less taxation of the rich with fewer services and more privatisation for the poor, that is regressive and would result in loss of jobs, loss of health care and sick cover, reduction in overall benefits and an overall quality of life reduction for those who can't afford to be 100% self sufficient in every aspect of life. As to the life of the parliament as whole, if at any point the elected officials aren't representing the electorate then they should be subject to recall, regardless of how long their plans are. This would force a more transparent system where politicans would need to justify themselves constantly rather than just being secure in a job for 5 years and only worrying about 6 months either side of an election, whilst at the same time encouraging wider political involvement from communities. Yes there would be alot of job losses in the public sector, I would agree but I think with the tax cuts and especially the scrapping of National insurance then the private sector will be able to make up all of those jobs and more. I also stated I will cover anyones healthcare if they earn less than £35000 a year which i think is reasonable, if you do not then pleae let me know why. As per my only post I'm going to try stick to one specific issue for the sake of good discussion, but just to point out hat privatisation almost always results in job losses, and scrapping NI will have massive consequences for pensions and those who're out of work for whatever reason so I disagree with that being a good idea. On to the point I'll actually tackle for the sake of good conversation though, there are a few reasons I don't think your NHS plan is the right course of action (reasonable might be arguable). I just want to address the edit on your OP before continuing though. Show nested quote +Currently the only incentive for doctors etc to treat you well is because they "care", doctor get paid whether you live or die and whether they treat you badly or well, whether they treat you promptly or have hours waiting in A&E. I believe a private health care system will be more effecient and will allow me to save a lot of money to be given out in tax cuts to boost the economy and get people working and lead to greater prosperity for all. Your view of the NHS is objectively wrong. A&E staff have required targets of time to treat you in which are almost universally shown to be improving over time. Dr's treat you because it's their job and if they do it badly people die and their job, if not their freedom, is at risk if they're negligent in that. Additionally the same arguement you make for Dr's under a public system would apply under a private system, unless you believe that any care what so ever is tolerated under a public system, which is clearly wrong. No one in the NHS goes in to work thinking 'well the government is paying me, guess I don't have to work too hard, my manager and none of my colleagues will be paying attention to what I do'. Further, on the other side is the fact that your private health care system will still be being funded by the government for anyone under £35,000 which results in the exact same procedures being performed by a work force cut to the bone with 'efficiency' savings, but with a profit margin dumped on top. When combined with a massive tax reduction across the board and unwaranted spending increases amongst your other plans it would be almost impossible to reasonably fund the same quality of care and range of options we have today. As it stands the governments current plans for privatisation are already showing the massive strains put on care which are purposely making it more difficult for the NHS to provide the necessary care in order to make the private option the only one left, which at the same time is meaning the brunt of job and service cuts are done under public ownership, and they won't be replaced under the private system. Aspects such as hip replacement guidelines and funding changing so that an estimated 75% of those needing them will have to wait years or otherwise be ineligable is one such example of these changes forcing private sector involvement at the moment. Arguing that the NHS has a declining level of quality in the same breath as arguing that privatisation is needed is simply misguided, NHS quality is declinnig because of attempts to force privatisation. Every single point along the way that results in private companies doing for profit what is currently done for need will result in increased costs for the government, and when we look at how extensive even current privatisation is we can see how pervasive and expensive that will end up being. You're talking about a system where deciding where you are sent for treatment is decided by a for profit advisory company, where treatment and drug choice is decided by private hospitals being influenced by the market, where NHS direct (or it's equivalent) is giving advise based on the company that owns it rather than health care needs of the patient, and that's just what we're looking at in the short term and that's hoping we still have regulation. Less obvious health care services such as speech therapy are simply not going to be profitable at all and would likely see further cuts in services meaning patients would have to travel far further if the option still existed at all. Trying to fund all of these extra price increases, as well as paying a for profit bonus on top of that for the majorioty of service users is not going to result in savings, but rather just profit for private interests. You asked earlier in the thread why people keep asssuming it'll end up as an American style healthcare system, but when you look at the fact that for anyone earning £35,000 it would be and when you see the same US companies lobbying for a private health care in the UK right now the comparison is impossible to not make. Additionally, once you privatise it, over time there is nothing to prevent it simply worsening to the point of being exactly like the US as the unaccountable private sector will be the one's controlling the options available. I've been doing my best to simply stay on the economic side of things but I fear I'm at the point of repeating myself if I continue so I'll just leave it there as saying that private healthcare would mean higher costs (even with your £35,000 cut off), fewer jobs, fewer services and lower quality.
I understand your point of view but i simply disagree with your statement that privatisation is causing the NHS problems, its hard to debate this so i guess we have to agree to disagree.
|
Looks like my European Union policies might be coming true with todays events with UK walking out of talks for a new treaty, hopefully we dont lose free trade benefits.
|
- Dismantling the lower-end universities is about as anti free-trade as you can be. They are obviously filling a demand.
- Time and again private health systems have shown to be less efficient.
- A lot of your economic policies are hong-kong style systems which work in a small, entirely urbanised and entrepreneurial population. They would also necessitate a massive lag in which tax income is hugely reduced and growth is not yet there to cope with it.
|
|
|
|