What are your unpopular opinions? (Vol. 2)

[Countdown]

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.

[DodgyGeezer]

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.

[otolith]

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 st.

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.

As I said, the definition of "fair" is up for grabs, and most people in the UK think it's "fair" that those who are better off contribute proportionately more. If you accept that definition of "fair" then charging two people of equal means vastly different amounts because of the number of adults in their household is "not fair". I'm not arguing against the principle of progressive taxation, I'm saying that council tax violates it.

[captain_cynic]

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.

[vetrof]

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.

Was it the Soviet Plan to spend billions on losing a war against one relatively small country, making NATO even more powerful (in terms of both number of members and gross expenditure on weaponry) and to turn the Russian economy into a basket case?

It's weird how so many want to rubbish their own Country.

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.

[djc206]

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.

[otolith]

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.

[Castrol for a knave]

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

[vetrof]

otolith said:

Seems that both extremes of ideology have lost. Which is a win for humanity.

You’ll need to do better than that.

[Nethybridge]

Countdown said:

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 st.

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.

Very well put.

So how did Russia fk up that brilliant idea of wealth distribution ?

[hidetheelephants]

Nethybridge said:

Very well put.

So how did Russia fk up that brilliant idea of wealth distribution ?

By replacing one set of privileged elite with another, mismanaging the economy and bankrupting the country assembling a military that could not be sustained.

[otolith]

vetrof said:

otolith said:

Seems that both extremes of ideology have lost. Which is a win for humanity.

You’ll need to do better than that.

You think either Soviet communism or McCarthyism were desirable?

[Desiderata]

Sway said:

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.

Council tax is less than half of council income. The larger part of council income comes direct from government which in turn comes from ...taxes.

[Sway]

Desiderata said:

Sway said:

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.

Council tax is less than half of council income. The larger part of council income comes direct from government which in turn comes from ...taxes.

And changing all the time...

Councils are having to be very creative in finding ways to ensure funding, as central government inputs are entirely at the whim of government at the time (for example, significantly reducing funding, yet permitting councils to increase CT by a higher percentage).

Councils place differing burdens on CT as part of the income mix. Westminster for example has so much funding from things like business rates, that they barely bother. Others, it makes up a much larger slice of the pie.

The idea of a 'council surcharge income tax' is a non starter for this reason - I can't remember the last time I worked in the administrative area of my council. So how would that work? Councils set the rates, and employers levy different amounts on employees based on where they live?

Or, flat rate, central government distribute equally? In which case Westminster is even richer, and loads of councils see huge reductions in their income?

[Countdown]

Sway said:

The idea of a 'council surcharge income tax' is a non starter for this reason - I can't remember the last time I worked in the administrative area of my council. So how would that work? Councils set the rates, and employers levy different amounts on employees based on where they live?

Or, flat rate, central government distribute equally? In which case Westminster is even richer, and loads of councils see huge reductions in their income?

Or a percentage rate, and Govt distributes in line with a Council's average deprivation index. Wealthier people pay more, poorer areas benefit more.

[Zarco]

Castrol for a knave said:

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

I like that.

[MadCaptainJack]

Castrol for a knave said:

I'd rather watch 10 back to back Jayemm videos...

[Blown2CV]

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.

caffeine too?

[The Wookie]

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.

I go weeks without drinking, doesn’t mean I’d want to go without the taste and sensation of a cold pint on a nice day

The problem with Alcohol, as it is with most things, is stupid people

[Roofless Toothless]

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.

‘Alcohol’ always seems such an inappropriate term when applied to the delights wine has to offer as part of a good meal, or a properly brewed pint of beer with a ploughman’s lunch. I don’t feel this way about the alcoho-pops marketed at the young and undiscerning, but perhaps I am being guilty of snobbery here.

Food, in general, is pleasurable and essential to life, but in the same way can be addictive (or at least compulsive) and also causes health problems when over-indulged in. Addictive behaviour, whether to drink, drugs, gambling, tobacco, sex, etc. is a behavioural trait that many struggle with. The object of the addiction is not the problem in itself.