What are your unpopular opinions? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Blown2CV said:
for services that are free at the point of use, it is essential to just spread the cost across everyone. The alternative is to charge at the point of use....
No one is saying don't spread the cost across everyone. As always the question is how the spread happens...Although tbf, more than half the population don't actually pay towards anything - they merely partially offset the costs of services provision.
Blown2CV said:
if you start spreading the cost unevenly, you may as well just start charging at the point of use because arguably this would be far less complex.
The issue then is that the rich pay less proportionally (compared to their income) than the poor and social mobility dies. Blown2CV said:
if you start spreading the cost unevenly, you may as well just start charging at the point of use because arguably this would be far less complex.
We already 'spread the cost unevenly'. Mum's household of four working adults pay less in total than I do with one (currently not working, but working on it!)... Blown2CV said:
We have an income based taxation model too it’s called income tax.
Different things. Income Tax goes to the Exchequer.Council tax/poll tax/whatever is directly to local government.
Frankly, can't see how income taxation could work for council provision. That'd be horrifically complex to administer for both employers and HMRC.
Dagnir said:
vetrof said:
The ‘West’ didn’t ‘win’ the Cold War. The Soviet plan, as detailed by Yuri Bezmenov, is working perfectly.
I think it's staggering how easily so many have turned on their own country.A sight to behold for sure.
It's weird how so many want to rubbish their own Country.
vetrof said:
The ‘West’ didn’t ‘win’ the Cold War. The Soviet plan, as detailed by Yuri Bezmenov, is working perfectly.
Was it part of the Soviet plan to have the Soviet Union collapse and disintegrate into 15 sovereign states in an uncontrolled manner provoking several ongoing conflicts which are still simmering decades later, including several successor states which went on to join NATO and the EU? That's some 4D chess.I know the guy you're talking about and the interview you're talking about, and sure, Putin is behaving in the manner he describes and has has been for 20 years or so and appear sot be a student of this approach, however to claim this is some continuation of the Soviet Plan to destabilize the West does ignore some pretty spectacular destabilization it inflicted upon itself.
otolith said:
If you can't agree a definition of fairness that people agree on, you will always have arguments - but you can certainly objectively examine fairness within a particular statement of principles. If your principle is that the amount paid should be related to the ability to pay - which is what we are apparently trying to use house banding as a (poor quality, easily administered) proxy for - allowing multi-adult households to split one bill is clearly unfair.
Is it unfair if people pay only for those services that they want/use? IMHO that's perfectly "fair".The problem is that for "Society" as a whole it's crap - you'd end up with a 3rd world country where the streets are full of garbage, where great swathes of the population are uneducated, where healthcare is provided only to the minority who can afford it, crime would be rampant and where Law & Order is administered by the local Mafia leader. In short it would be s
t.Thats why a system has evolved over time which tries to keep as many people as possible "happy" basically by redistributing wealth from those who have to those who don't. That's never going to be truly "fair" but it does mean a better "society" overall.
Countdown said:
otolith said:
If you can't agree a definition of fairness that people agree on, you will always have arguments - but you can certainly objectively examine fairness within a particular statement of principles. If your principle is that the amount paid should be related to the ability to pay - which is what we are apparently trying to use house banding as a (poor quality, easily administered) proxy for - allowing multi-adult households to split one bill is clearly unfair.
Is it unfair if people pay only for those services that they want/use? IMHO that's perfectly "fair".The problem is that for "Society" as a whole it's crap - you'd end up with a 3rd world country where the streets are full of garbage, where great swathes of the population are uneducated, where healthcare is provided only to the minority who can afford it, crime would be rampant and where Law & Order is administered by the local Mafia leader. In short it would be s
t.Thats why a system has evolved over time which tries to keep as many people as possible "happy" basically by redistributing wealth from those who have to those who don't. That's never going to be truly "fair" but it does mean a better "society" overall.
Countdown said:
Alcohol should be banned, but it never will, because people won't admit/accept that they're addicted to it. They'll argue that they only drink in moderation - if they weren't addicted it would be irrelevant how much they drank.
Because countries where alcohol is banned are such paradises.I'd rather go the other way with decriminalisation of other drugs and making it easier to get help.
The US tried banning alcohol and it only made the problems related to alcohol far worse. Not to mention problems that didn't exist before like the organised crime around it.
It's the same reason we don't ban smoking, it won't magically make it disappear and just make it harder to keep an eye on.
Countdown said:
Dagnir said:
vetrof said:
The ‘West’ didn’t ‘win’ the Cold War. The Soviet plan, as detailed by Yuri Bezmenov, is working perfectly.
I think it's staggering how easily so many have turned on their own country.A sight to behold for sure.
It's weird how so many want to rubbish their own Country.
I didn’t say the Soviets/ Russians won either. They are obviously capable of insane policy decisions.
The fact that the destabilising started in the 60s means that it has been pretty much self-sustaining and unstoppable for decades. As alluded to by Bezmenov.
Countdown said:
Alcohol should be banned, but it never will, because people won't admit/accept that they're addicted to it. They'll argue that they only drink in moderation - if they weren't addicted it would be irrelevant how much they drank.
Banning things has a long history of creating organised crime. Banning alcohol is a particularly difficult thing to do because it’s so so easy to make, stick some fresh fruit in a bucket and you’ll end up with alcohol. It’s not people’s refusal to accept that they are addicted to drinking that is the reason for there being no ban it’s that banning alcohol is simply impossible.Anyway, wine is a gift from the gods.
vetrof said:
What’s that got to do with it?
I didn’t say the Soviets/ Russians won either. They are obviously capable of insane policy decisions.
The fact that the destabilising started in the 60s means that it has been pretty much self-sustaining and unstoppable for decades. As alluded to by Bezmenov.
Seems that both extremes of ideology have lost. Which is a win for humanity.I didn’t say the Soviets/ Russians won either. They are obviously capable of insane policy decisions.
The fact that the destabilising started in the 60s means that it has been pretty much self-sustaining and unstoppable for decades. As alluded to by Bezmenov.
The last remotely interesting supercar was the 12C, since then, it's just gaudy bolleux for the Kings Road types.
911's are boring. I'd rather watch 10 back to back Jayemm videos about the Evora than another load of guff and waffle about a GT3 wotnot or Singer or whatever arse engined japery they're wittering on about.
YMMV
911's are boring. I'd rather watch 10 back to back Jayemm videos about the Evora than another load of guff and waffle about a GT3 wotnot or Singer or whatever arse engined japery they're wittering on about.
YMMV
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff