It's BAD, it's VERY VERY BAD - The be very afraid thread!
Discussion
Fittster said:
snip
That's true but identifying pointless regulation isn't that simple. All politicial parties talk about cutting waste but actually doing it is a lot harder.
Not really - but it IS unpopular.That's true but identifying pointless regulation isn't that simple. All politicial parties talk about cutting waste but actually doing it is a lot harder.
Introducing flat taxation would reduce tax collection overheads and lead to a greater tax take - but it will never happen because it is unpopular because the thick masses will think that flat tax of, say , 20% would not tax the rich enough.
THe NHS is over bloated and no longer does what it set out to do. It was intended to provide HEALTHCARE to sick people - not nosejobs, stomach stapling etc etc.
Slim down the NHS, flat taxation, no child benefit after your first child, no unemployment benefit after 12 months.
Spend the savings on infrastructure - decent transport, energy and communications provision, rejenerated housing. Piece of piss, really.
Fittster said:
So what reglations are to be removed?
It's easy to say cut taxes and red tape but rather harder to identify where the cuts should be made.
It's really easy.It's easy to say cut taxes and red tape but rather harder to identify where the cuts should be made.
Simplify laws pretty much back to the ten commandments and up the punishments to include the death penalty.
The effect of law proliferation is not only to "make work" but to diminish the consequences for offenders. Drink driving is a perfect example. Talk to a victim's family and they'll label the driver that killed their relative a murderer. Quite right too - and that's precisely what the driver should be prosecuted for. "Drink driving" is a bulls
t offense. I really don't mind if people think they can get home safely when pissed, let them. But, if they hit something or somebody, crucify them. So: that's your personal choice: are you prepared to face a murder charge if you drive with excess alcohol in your blood? Same with speeding... Fine, drive on a motorway at 200mph if you want. But if you hit anything/anybody, the fact that you were outside the 70mph limit means you'll face a murder charge, not a speeding/reckless/dangerous driving charge.
You could go through the statute book like a dose of salts eliminating laws introduced to prosecute people doing something that "might" lead to harm/damage. Forget it, just deal with those who cause harm/damage very, very severely - hand the responsibility for stupidity back to the people.
bosscerbera said:
Fittster said:
So what reglations are to be removed?
It's easy to say cut taxes and red tape but rather harder to identify where the cuts should be made.
It's really easy.It's easy to say cut taxes and red tape but rather harder to identify where the cuts should be made.
Simplify laws pretty much back to the ten commandments and up the punishments to include the death penalty.
The effect of law proliferation is not only to "make work" but to diminish the consequences for offenders. Drink driving is a perfect example. Talk to a victim's family and they'll label the driver that killed their relative a murderer. Quite right too - and that's precisely what the driver should be prosecuted for. "Drink driving" is a bulls
t offense. I really don't mind if people think they can get home safely when pissed, let them. But, if they hit something or somebody, crucify them. So: that's your personal choice: are you prepared to face a murder charge if you drive with excess alcohol in your blood? Same with speeding... Fine, drive on a motorway at 200mph if you want. But if you hit anything/anybody, the fact that you were outside the 70mph limit means you'll face a murder charge, not a speeding/reckless/dangerous driving charge.
You could go through the statute book like a dose of salts eliminating laws introduced to prosecute people doing something that "might" lead to harm/damage. Forget it, just deal with those who cause harm/damage very, very severely - hand the responsibility for stupidity back to the people.
bosscerbera said:
Fittster said:
So what reglations are to be removed?
It's easy to say cut taxes and red tape but rather harder to identify where the cuts should be made.
It's really easy.It's easy to say cut taxes and red tape but rather harder to identify where the cuts should be made.
Simplify laws pretty much back to the ten commandments and up the punishments to include the death penalty.
The effect of law proliferation is not only to "make work" but to diminish the consequences for offenders. Drink driving is a perfect example. Talk to a victim's family and they'll label the driver that killed their relative a murderer. Quite right too - and that's precisely what the driver should be prosecuted for. "Drink driving" is a bulls
t offense. I really don't mind if people think they can get home safely when pissed, let them. But, if they hit something or somebody, crucify them. So: that's your personal choice: are you prepared to face a murder charge if you drive with excess alcohol in your blood? Same with speeding... Fine, drive on a motorway at 200mph if you want. But if you hit anything/anybody, the fact that you were outside the 70mph limit means you'll face a murder charge, not a speeding/reckless/dangerous driving charge.
You could go through the statute book like a dose of salts eliminating laws introduced to prosecute people doing something that "might" lead to harm/damage. Forget it, just deal with those who cause harm/damage very, very severely - hand the responsibility for stupidity back to the people.
It can only be built from the ground up.
Because of the huge amount of vested interest in the current system to get negotiated change to a sensible level would take generations if it were ever achievable. And that is time we haven't got.
So, burn it all down. Hang the ruling cadres, smash the instruments of state and the institutions that support them.
You know it makes sense.
Fittster said:
derestrictor said:
Might I humbly suggest that we've been overtaxed and over regulated to buggery?
And where shall we cut public services if taxes are to be cut or are you in favour of greater state borrowing?So it is perfectly possible to reduce the tax rate and increase the tax take at the same time.
As for public services, lets see.
Child benefit only for mothers who have paid a few years national insurance contributions.
Public sector workers to have similar pensions to private sector.
Stop printing leaflets telling us to eat 5 veg a day etc.
That's a start.
Fittster said:
derestrictor said:
Might I humbly suggest that we've been overtaxed and over regulated to buggery?
And where shall we cut public services if taxes are to be cut or are you in favour of greater state borrowing?As this thread has now started on a tax and benefit reform direction I suggest:
The really effective bit is the benefit reform. Just consider what the universal payment does:
- One rate of tax on every kind of income
- One personal allowance, transferable between husband and wife
- One flat rate universal benefit
- A small range of benefits based on need and how much you have paid in via tax
The really effective bit is the benefit reform. Just consider what the universal payment does:
- no one gets nothing
- if you pay in you will always qualify for more
- you don't get more by making your situation worse
- you don't get more by having kids you can't support yourself
- you won't lose benefits because you dared to make things a bit better (no more 16 hours a week rule)
- university grants are restored
- saving for a rainy day won't leave you wondering "why did I bother" (no more means testing)
- saving for your old age won't leave you thinking "why did I bother" (no more means testing)
- maternity pay is no longer a problem for employers (the current system is a tax on equality)
- carers and disability is covered and you won't get a forty page form when you are sick or caring for your old mum
- the state pension is covered
- no one gets nothing
- the system is simple
- no more complex forms to means test those least able to fill the forms in (senile elderly, mental health, the very ill)
Edited by cymtriks on Friday 13th February 08:59
bosscerbera said:
It's really easy.
Simplify laws pretty much back to the ten commandments and up the punishments to include the death penalty.
The effect of law proliferation is not only to "make work" but to diminish the consequences for offenders. Drink driving is a perfect example. Talk to a victim's family and they'll label the driver that killed their relative a murderer. Quite right too - and that's precisely what the driver should be prosecuted for. "Drink driving" is a bullst offense. I really don't mind if people think they can get home safely when pissed, let them. But, if they hit something or somebody, crucify them. So: that's your personal choice: are you prepared to face a murder charge if you drive with excess alcohol in your blood?
Same with speeding... Fine, drive on a motorway at 200mph if you want. But if you hit anything/anybody, the fact that you were outside the 70mph limit means you'll face a murder charge, not a speeding/reckless/dangerous driving charge.
You could go through the statute book like a dose of salts eliminating laws introduced to prosecute people doing something that "might" lead to harm/damage. Forget it, just deal with those who cause harm/damage very, very severely - hand the responsibility for stupidity back to the people.
Simplify laws pretty much back to the ten commandments and up the punishments to include the death penalty.
The effect of law proliferation is not only to "make work" but to diminish the consequences for offenders. Drink driving is a perfect example. Talk to a victim's family and they'll label the driver that killed their relative a murderer. Quite right too - and that's precisely what the driver should be prosecuted for. "Drink driving" is a bulls
t offense. I really don't mind if people think they can get home safely when pissed, let them. But, if they hit something or somebody, crucify them. So: that's your personal choice: are you prepared to face a murder charge if you drive with excess alcohol in your blood? Same with speeding... Fine, drive on a motorway at 200mph if you want. But if you hit anything/anybody, the fact that you were outside the 70mph limit means you'll face a murder charge, not a speeding/reckless/dangerous driving charge.
You could go through the statute book like a dose of salts eliminating laws introduced to prosecute people doing something that "might" lead to harm/damage. Forget it, just deal with those who cause harm/damage very, very severely - hand the responsibility for stupidity back to the people.
johnfm said:
Not really - but it IS unpopular.
Introducing flat taxation would reduce tax collection overheads and lead to a greater tax take - but it will never happen because it is unpopular because the thick masses will think that flat tax of, say , 20% would not tax the rich enough.
THe NHS is over bloated and no longer does what it set out to do. It was intended to provide HEALTHCARE to sick people - not nosejobs, stomach stapling etc etc.
Slim down the NHS, flat taxation, no child benefit after your first child, no unemployment benefit after 12 months.
Spend the savings on infrastructure - decent transport, energy and communications provision, rejenerated housing. Piece of piss, really.
Massively agree with both of these points. Anything government funded struggles because it is abused. People and MP would care a lot more about leaks in the system and money being pissed away if it was just their cash, but people see it as free money to be taken as they need it.Introducing flat taxation would reduce tax collection overheads and lead to a greater tax take - but it will never happen because it is unpopular because the thick masses will think that flat tax of, say , 20% would not tax the rich enough.
THe NHS is over bloated and no longer does what it set out to do. It was intended to provide HEALTHCARE to sick people - not nosejobs, stomach stapling etc etc.
Slim down the NHS, flat taxation, no child benefit after your first child, no unemployment benefit after 12 months.
Spend the savings on infrastructure - decent transport, energy and communications provision, rejenerated housing. Piece of piss, really.
bosscerbera said:
The effect of law proliferation is not only to "make work" but to diminish the consequences for offenders. Drink driving is a perfect example. Talk to a victim's family and they'll label the driver that killed their relative a murderer. Quite right too - and that's precisely what the driver should be prosecuted for. "Drink driving" is a bulls
t offense. I really don't mind if people think they can get home safely when pissed, let them. But, if they hit something or somebody, crucify them. So: that's your personal choice: are you prepared to face a murder charge if you drive with excess alcohol in your blood? 'Drink related motoring incidents' includes drunk pedestrians walking in front of perfectly sober motorists; in fact they make up the bulk of the statistics.
But what if a sober pedestrian walks in front of a motorist who has drunk heavily but is driving perfectly safely? Today, that driver will be prosecuted and socially labelled accordingly. And the victim's family will not hear a bad word said against their wandering drunk relative because the level of social non-acceptability on the driver who has been drinking has reached such a stage that it just soaks up blame.
Whoever, in anothr post, said that you'd need a massive social 'reset button' is absolutely right. The Daily Mail et al have been very successful in creating social pariahs and 'blame centres' in all the wrong places.
Dr Jekyll said:
Fittster said:
derestrictor said:
Might I humbly suggest that we've been overtaxed and over regulated to buggery?
And where shall we cut public services if taxes are to be cut or are you in favour of greater state borrowing?So it is perfectly possible to reduce the tax rate and increase the tax take at the same time.
As for public services, lets see.
Child benefit only for mothers who have paid a few years national insurance contributions.
Public sector workers to have similar pensions to private sector.
Stop printing leaflets telling us to eat 5 veg a day etc.
That's a start.
Hmm, so your going to get all public sector workers to give up there pensions. Do you think a nurse who has worked for the NHS for 40 years is going to be happy to see her pension disappear?
V8mate said:
bosscerbera said:
The effect of law proliferation is not only to "make work" but to diminish the consequences for offenders. Drink driving is a perfect example. Talk to a victim's family and they'll label the driver that killed their relative a murderer. Quite right too - and that's precisely what the driver should be prosecuted for. "Drink driving" is a bullst offense. I really don't mind if people think they can get home safely when pissed, let them. But, if they hit something or somebody, crucify them. So: that's your personal choice: are you prepared to face a murder charge if you drive with excess alcohol in your blood?
You're right that 'drink driving' is a ridiculous offence. But you need to be careful where you go from there. Drinking + driving + killing someone, doesn't necessarily make you a murderer.t offense. I really don't mind if people think they can get home safely when pissed, let them. But, if they hit something or somebody, crucify them. So: that's your personal choice: are you prepared to face a murder charge if you drive with excess alcohol in your blood? V8mate said:
'Drink related motoring incidents' includes drunk pedestrians walking in front of perfectly sober motorists; in fact they make up the bulk of the statistics. But what if a sober pedestrian walks in front of a motorist who has drunk heavily but is driving perfectly safely? Today, that driver will be prosecuted and socially labelled accordingly. And the victim's family will not hear a bad word said against their wandering drunk relative because the level of social non-acceptability on the driver who has been drinking has reached such a stage that it just soaks up blame.
Same rules apply for drunk pedestrians: cause damage/harm with excess alcohol, face charges for damage/harm.V8mate said:
Whoever, in anothr post, said that you'd need a massive social 'reset button' is absolutely right.
Indeed. I've got a leather jacket and a big old V8 cruiser.... Just need a dwarf in a gyrocopter as an accomplice and I'm ready. 
Fittster said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Fittster said:
derestrictor said:
Might I humbly suggest that we've been overtaxed and over regulated to buggery?
And where shall we cut public services if taxes are to be cut or are you in favour of greater state borrowing?So it is perfectly possible to reduce the tax rate and increase the tax take at the same time.
As for public services, lets see.
Child benefit only for mothers who have paid a few years national insurance contributions.
Public sector workers to have similar pensions to private sector.
Stop printing leaflets telling us to eat 5 veg a day etc.
That's a start.
Hmm, so your going to get all public sector workers to give up there pensions. Do you think a nurse who has worked for the NHS for 40 years is going to be happy to see her pension disappear?
EG Leave final salary pensions alone for existing staff (or maybe they should make a bigger contribution) but defined contribution scheme for new starters.
cymtriks said:
As this thread has now started on a tax and benefit reform direction I suggest:
The really effective bit is the benefit reform. Just consider what the universal payment does:
Hmm, no complexity when applying means the system will be easy to abuse.
If no one gets nothing how is the system cheaper than the current system?
The state pension leaves most people in poverty, many need other benefits today. If you remove those you are going to make the elderly worse off.
If you get out what you've paid in the disabled will be badly impacted, as they don't tend to earn much but have expensive costs.
Cutting taxes means less public spending, so less nurses, teachers, armed forces or just cut their salaries?
Restore University grants - You want to cut taxes but increase spending. If you do a decent degree you will earn more so can repay your student loan. It discourages people from doing pointless subjects.
So if a poor woman has another child you are happy for that child to be brought up in poverty?
Saying cut taxes and spending is easy, doing it is another matter. I'd scrap the welfare state (education, NHS, pensions, benefits, the lot), slash peoples tax bills and let them make their own arrangements. You are simply tweaking the existing failed system.
- One rate of tax on every kind of income
- One personal allowance, transferable between husband and wife
- One flat rate universal benefit
- A small range of benefits based on need and how much you have paid in via tax
The really effective bit is the benefit reform. Just consider what the universal payment does:
cymtriks said:
- no one gets nothing
- if you pay in you will always qualify for more
- you don't get more by making your situation worse
- you don't get more by having kids you can't support yourself
- you won't lose benefits because you dared to make things a bit better (no more 16 hours a week rule)
- university grants are restored
- saving for a rainy day won't leave you wondering "why did I bother" (no more means testing)
- saving for your old age won't leave you thinking "why did I bother" (no more means testing)
- maternity pay is no longer a problem for employers (the current system is a tax on equality)
- carers and disability is covered and you won't get a forty page form when you are sick or caring for your old mum
- the state pension is covered
- no one gets nothing
- the system is simple
- no more complex forms to means test those least able to fill the forms in (senile elderly, mental health, the very ill)
Edited by cymtriks on Friday 13th February 08:59
If no one gets nothing how is the system cheaper than the current system?
The state pension leaves most people in poverty, many need other benefits today. If you remove those you are going to make the elderly worse off.
If you get out what you've paid in the disabled will be badly impacted, as they don't tend to earn much but have expensive costs.
Cutting taxes means less public spending, so less nurses, teachers, armed forces or just cut their salaries?
Restore University grants - You want to cut taxes but increase spending. If you do a decent degree you will earn more so can repay your student loan. It discourages people from doing pointless subjects.
So if a poor woman has another child you are happy for that child to be brought up in poverty?
Saying cut taxes and spending is easy, doing it is another matter. I'd scrap the welfare state (education, NHS, pensions, benefits, the lot), slash peoples tax bills and let them make their own arrangements. You are simply tweaking the existing failed system.
ZR1cliff said:
Picked up a fare off one of the London trains earlier, who mentioned he'd been sat in some important bankers meetings that have been held ? He was very down beat about the whole situation. I can't remember all the conversation but things were being mentioned like... Soon the money in our pockets will be worth half of what it is now....civil unrest is possible in certain areas....we only have six days fuel in reserve....food stocked in supermarkets will only serve three meals per head....advice - start putting away tin food now.
Again I repeat, this is not me talking but just what I heard from the back of my cab from a very down beat self aclaimed business person. Is it really this bad or have I just picked up a very fatigued businessman/banker, Any comment ?
If businessmen had any idea about what the future held we wouldn't be in this mess. The fact someone has a large salary doesn't mean his views and predictions are particlarly worth listening to.Again I repeat, this is not me talking but just what I heard from the back of my cab from a very down beat self aclaimed business person. Is it really this bad or have I just picked up a very fatigued businessman/banker, Any comment ?
Thanks another very interesting post.
Seeing as the government take so much it's hardy surprising people want a little back, again I only know a few people who sponge off the state, bar standard family allowance which considering
the amount of tax i/we pay it's a joke..
Only the other day i was chatting to some engineering bloke who said, he'd seen an increase in work coming back from china as they could not do the job, in fact they said impossible.
Chemicals/Medical/Weapons/software/Computer Engineering/Video Games/food engineering etc etc *upgrades for TVR's* ;-)
Regards that debt - A War, the one thats being planed right now//
k managers.... i agree.
IQ and the Wealth of Nations - good read.
I've just created a new *innovative* service that will generate millions in revenue* and create a fair few jobs! and in 5 years will change the way people shop on the net, and i'm a moron cus i can't spell -
Like i said, imagination is key, take the iphone, lots and lots of ways to create money using this toy and all the wonderful tech that comes with it, another venture i'm pushing atm.
Don't mean this as a knock (far from it) but what are you creating? out of interest.
bosscerbera said:
Ergo there is no need for personal responsibility. Jeez, act the prick at work, harm yourself and sit back while your employer fights off your government-endorsed compo claims. People are most bothered about what the government can give them - hardly surprising when the majority of the population is employed by, or on the welfare take from, the government
I've personally never seen that happen at work*, the odd case of genuine injury sure but you make it sound like staff are slashing wrists and waiting for some cash to roll-in.Seeing as the government take so much it's hardy surprising people want a little back, again I only know a few people who sponge off the state, bar standard family allowance which considering
the amount of tax i/we pay it's a joke..
- And if they did... they would be fired.
bosscerbera said:
No, see we're so fking smart the world's beating down our door to buy our services, right? We don't have to dig or make anything, we "manage" and "advise" other countries who dig and make. Which, actually, makes us pretty useless because after a while the world's diggers and makers figure out for themselves what little we ever provided.... and then what? How do we pay back hundreds of billions, trillions of debt?
Motor-sport seems to do well here :-)king smart the world's beating down our door to buy our services, right? We don't have to dig or make anything, we "manage" and "advise" other countries who dig and make. Which, actually, makes us pretty useless because after a while the world's diggers and makers figure out for themselves what little we ever provided.... and then what? How do we pay back hundreds of billions, trillions of debt?Only the other day i was chatting to some engineering bloke who said, he'd seen an increase in work coming back from china as they could not do the job, in fact they said impossible.
Chemicals/Medical/Weapons/software/Computer Engineering/Video Games/food engineering etc etc *upgrades for TVR's* ;-)
Regards that debt - A War, the one thats being planed right now//
bosscerbera said:
Do you really think Britain's collective intelligence is greater than that of other countries? I get letters from bank "managers" who can't spell or string a sentence together. I have to correct percentage calculations for £200/hr lawyers. Do I let this go on the basis they are "doing their level best to express themselves"? Or do I deduce they are as thick as pig st?
£200/hr is not a moron's wage, regards wt? k managers.... i agree.IQ and the Wealth of Nations - good read.
bosscerbera said:
don't get me wrong, there are some brilliant people in Britain. There fking must be. Somewhere in the minority of <25% of the population that actually makes money there are some big hitters who generate enough to pay for the other 75% to live here - employed in the public sector or on benefits. And now it falls on the shoulders of those few - whose jobs are in jeopardy thanks to the decisions of the elected - to earn even more, to be taxed even more.
Sure thing and agree, BUT that has always been the case no? i few hard working people creating jobs for the masses? more people start/own/run business's now than ever before, looking back a few generations most men worked in a factory while the wife tended the children, and were happy with their lot, as it were. They never had the tools we have.king must be. Somewhere in the minority of <25% of the population that actually makes money there are some big hitters who generate enough to pay for the other 75% to live here - employed in the public sector or on benefits. And now it falls on the shoulders of those few - whose jobs are in jeopardy thanks to the decisions of the elected - to earn even more, to be taxed even more. bosscerbera said:
Regarding innovation. Most contemporary innovations are derivative of earlier iterations and tend to add complexity (typically with electronics/software/robotics). The rate of "innovation" in software/electronics is such that hardware becomes obsolete almost as fast as you can wear out a pair of socks. And what fuels the demand for the annual new telly/computer/gadget? Mortgaged houses.
Most the people I mix with work hard to fund such stuff, doubt they re-mortgaged to purchase an iphone.I've just created a new *innovative* service that will generate millions in revenue* and create a fair few jobs! and in 5 years will change the way people shop on the net, and i'm a moron cus i can't spell -
- sadly i won't be making lots of money from this...
Like i said, imagination is key, take the iphone, lots and lots of ways to create money using this toy and all the wonderful tech that comes with it, another venture i'm pushing atm.
Don't mean this as a knock (far from it) but what are you creating? out of interest.
cymtriks said:
As this thread has now started on a tax and benefit reform direction I suggest:
The really effective bit is the benefit reform. Just consider what the universal payment does:
Couldn't agree more..- One rate of tax on every kind of income
- One personal allowance, transferable between husband and wife
- One flat rate universal benefit
- A small range of benefits based on need and how much you have paid in via tax
The really effective bit is the benefit reform. Just consider what the universal payment does:
- no one gets nothing
- if you pay in you will always qualify for more
- you don't get more by making your situation worse
- you don't get more by having kids you can't support yourself
- you won't lose benefits because you dared to make things a bit better (no more 16 hours a week rule)
- university grants are restored
- saving for a rainy day won't leave you wondering "why did I bother" (no more means testing)
- saving for your old age won't leave you thinking "why did I bother" (no more means testing)
- maternity pay is no longer a problem for employers (the current system is a tax on equality)
- carers and disability is covered and you won't get a forty page form when you are sick or caring for your old mum
- the state pension is covered
- no one gets nothing
- the system is simple
- no more complex forms to means test those least able to fill the forms in (senile elderly, mental health, the very ill)
Edited by cymtriks on Friday 13th February 08:59
At last some common sence
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff