I Believe...

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Ben Blaney

Well yes. And... No.

I agree that tax could be put up without most people really noticing.
But I really, really start to have a problem when I simultaneously see
service levels declining.

A (small) example:

My council tax went over a grand for the first time this year. A
psychological barrier. Grumble, grumble, moan, moan, pay.

Then the council stick a piece of paper to the top of my bin saying that
there won't be any rubbish collections at all over Xmas. It will, in
fact, be fifteen days between collections.

I am left spitting feathers and with (naturally) no recourse.

It seems to me that in a year when the majority of local people have
seen their tax bills hit a significant barrier, *someone* would have
thought "Better not piss the peasants off". But "they" don't think that
way.

And that's (probably) symptomatic of a wider problem. If I was sober I
would expand this argument. However, I suspect I am becoming Auvacheian,
so I shall go to bed.

Good night.

 

The problem is people outside the arena of work can't get access to that
stuff they need to learn. Vicious circle of self destruction.

In the 10 years I've been working I reckon I throw away about 2/3 of the
things I've had to learn every 5 years. Sadly I've not seen this as a
problem as I enjoy learning.

Maybe we just need to look at the problem differently, more as an
obstacle, in that everyone continually needs to adapt but be given ways
to do so, and recognised methods of identifying those that can.

An old friend of mine reckoned his degree in archaeology was the best IT
qualification he could have gained. When asked why his reply was "Well
it's taught me how to dig through layers of shit and only pay interest
to the valuable things. He had a point.

 

15 years ago local government didn't have to produce performance
statistics, league tables, key performance indicators...


...am I getting warm yet?

 

The message <bt70im$40frb$-berlin.de>

That's okay then, since Champ is the same age as my oldest son, and
I've never been other than "badly dressed" ...or even badly undressed
upon occasion.....!

 

The message <bt72ts$3tuu0$-berlin.de>

I've been doing a bit of reading up on Social Anarchy, and I'm
inclined to agree with you!

 

The message <>

Cribbed from a Roosevelt speech, written by a Saatchi, what d'you expect?

 

The message <>

You don't want to start with Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor's
wealth and power? I'd have thought that was the logical place to start.

 

The only way for a government to be truly effective is to harness the
individual's self-interest for the greater good.

 

Nice theory but it goes against human nature. How would I motivate myself if
everything I did was shared with folk who can't be arsed?

 

I knew I was losing it when even my imaginary friends started saying
nasty things about me.

You too eh?

;-p

ZK - tee hee

 

Yeah, same here, bummer init.

You do have recourse, sort of. It's called the ballot box. Here in LB
Richmond we recently switched from a lib dem council to a tory one.
The lib dem tossers were feckin' useless. Well no surprise that the
tories are utter shite too but at least we got rid of the stinking lib
dems (and Dog help us if the pinko commie labour mob ever get in
around here, which they won't). Still got a lib dem MP mind, and she's
rubbish IMO. Anyway... onwards...

Um, I suspect that it's to do with central government funding; which
in turn allows the new labour honchos back at the ranch to give more
dosh to their favoured districts (i.e. pinko labour controlled ones)
and less to anyone else, making their areas look better than the
others IYSWIM. The tories did it, quite spectacularly (E.g. The City
of Westminster (Tory) got more transitional grant than the entire city
of Birmingham (Labour)). It'd be niave to think that new labour
wouldn't do the same thing, even if some of the boroughs are pinko
labour (Peoples Republic of ...). This is of course all a bit academic
cos the Guardianista Limp Wristed Liberal (Labour) Pinko Commie
Brigade (that's a good'un dontchya think? <g>) blow all the dosh on
stuff like "alternative lifestyle outreach workers" or taking grannies
to court umpteen times for non payment of twenty pee or summat like
that anyway.

Whereas here in sunny Richmond (Kew) we get stuff like the most
piss-poor library service that it has ever been my misfortune to
witness, but street cleaning services that are second to none. Odd
init?

Ag, whatever, nowt like a good old gnashing of the teeth

ZK - knackered, why did I get up so early today?

 

Which is the only logical argument really. Not one I accept mind you
since the wealthy will only put their wealth out of the reach of the
taxman by either moving the money- bad for the economy since it's
potential investment funds going out of circulation or moving
themselves- additional problem that their personal spending's gone too.

If you make inheritance 'illegal' then there's little incentive for
people to save beyond funding their old-age and given that the old age
is likely to stretch on longer than planned for most (and money's value
will shrink more than expected) then this will result in the state
having to fund more elderly people without resources... which they could
do with the inheritance money.

Hmm, it would also cause the property prices to crash since (I think)
the majority of wealth is held in property. I suppose this is probably
'a good thing' if they stabalise again at a more realistic level,
encouraging mobility of labour etc. etc.

But all in all I'm not in favour. The state gets a large enough slice
of my income during life and is likely to get a reasonable slice of my
equity after death anyhow.

 

<waves ... with two fingers>

 

I agree with this strangely enough. Everyone should start from a roughly
level playing field. I don't think it's achievable though. One could try
reviving the Hitler Youth and placing all children into it at age 5 and
then....Oh hold on we lost that war....OK lets extend the Scouting Movement
with compulsory....

Nope, the only way is to prevent any individual accumulating
disproportionate wealth. I'd start at company ownership and executive salary
enhancements. The last time this came up lots of people disagreed though,
Bear was first in line IIRC.

 

why?

 

I don't think I'd restrict company owners and executives earning from as
much as they are able to.

What I would like to see is a system that reverses the way % raises on
different salaries have a geared effect, forever widening the gap
between high and low earners.

The only soution I can see to that is to ensure pay will never increase
beyond a set ratio between each tier of an organisation. Overall this
would allow shared wealth, and still allow unlimited earnings potential
for a companies success but would distribute the wealth between everyone
involved without the gearing effect that we see at present.

Anybody earning a fortune would of course refuse the concept as
unworkable. I can't see a way to work around that.

 

and to make all incentive schemes and pension benefits global within the
company

Exactly what I originally suggested

 

Not all yts courses were bad, after I got kicked out of marine college I
joined a yts course at a local company which started me off in my IT
career. I got fairly good on the job training and it allowed me to get a
'proper' job later on. On the downside it was in Cane's favourite town[1].

[1] Darwin

 

**** it, leave it to the market. I don't see why there should be any
regulation on this at all.

 

True, but at least in that case it didn't result in people devoting
three or more years of their life to something that has little future
value for them and will result in frustration.