That's if you want to quote multiple posts from a thread, to retain the post link (blue arrow) you just need to keep the post number/identifier in each tag (the numbers after the semicolon in the opening tag).
I quote you once, then copy the [ quote = [name]; [no] ] at the beginning of each section I want separated with a [ / quote] at the end of each section (without the spaces in all cases but I can't type that without it turning into a quote ) but maybe I shouldn't have told you that
Nah. I don't bother when I single quote, but I write most of my tags across most of the forums I visit these days, so I'm used to doing it. Anyway, back on topic.
Jeez, this is what happens with you youngsters who never learned to write code. In my days you had to know BASIC. You had to write UNIX. You had to write your own MS-DOS batch files. It taught you to look at code and analyse its structure. Now you kids need everything point-and-click on a GUI platter. Grumble... mumble... Kids these days-- GET OFF MY LAWN, dammit! Grumble... mumble...
My two cents, if I may: I believe, that the solution to this problem is quite simple, but also quite radical. Minimalist state. No benefits, no minimum wage, no guarantees, no money from the government (=working people), only very small taxes around 10 % compared to nowaday's 60 % or more. If the government didn't take a lot of your money in various taxes, you would have much more. Even lowest paid workers would have much more. Who doesn't work wouldn't get anything for free. Of course the transition from socialistic state to minimalist state would probably result in a civil war. Current socialistic state created too many people who are extremely dependent on it and drastic change to a state where it is "every man for himself" would leave them absolutely useless -> unhappy -> angry -> violent. And to cope with that you need guns. If I remember correctly, UK government does not trust its people very much, therefore the gun politics are very strict.
Everything's technically propaganda. It does after all promote a certain agenda. To say that only NK or Nazis use propaganda is entirely false as modern governments use it all the time. Hell look at Kony 2012, that was one hell of a propaganda movement.
Bit too extreme. Anything with very high capital costs and hence low competition and so being monopolised and priced artificially high can't be left too run privately. Healthcare, infrastructure, law and order are all best done by Government. You also need to avoid there being a vicious circle at the bottom by providing a good standard of education for all right the way through too University level. You a can't have people outright starving in the streets either. Personally I'd advocate military barracks style accommodation.
Oops. I rad the definition as to harm and missed out the harm bit. I was wrong, technically it is prpoaganda, but the word still implies its something sinister.
Unless you plan to remove all forms of taxation - national insurance, vat, fuel duty etc. - the lowest paid workers won't be better off because many are no longer within the income tax threshholds even now. And where will the money come from when they fall ill and need medical support or for them to live beyond working age since in your utopia no pension support would be provided or healthcare able to be funded? Do you by any chance follow current affairs at all? Are you aware that in Greece you receive no financial support or healthcare after 1 year unemployed. I'm aware that the Greek government played fast and loose and are more to blame than most governments but suicide levels are up dramatically, people without jobs have no food, one of the big charities is actually handing out food parcels to these desperate people. And you'd advocate worse that this for the UK, no support at all, would you?
Crap idea. And not just because the proles would revolt. Why? Because you'd have to arrange all your own safety nets and fundamental needs yourself: your own education, your own health insurance, your own income protection, your own security. No problem, you say. Without taxes you have the money to buy all that stuff privately. Which means that this stuff is provided through private commercial enterprises. How well that works in practice we are seeing for example with private health care in the US and the privatisation of public services in the UK. Because health and social care and insurance are complex entities, it is difficult for a customer to make an informed choice and not get ripped off by unscrupulous enterprises. When you are in hospital with cancer it is kind of difficult to sue your health insurance or mortgage insurance company if they decide to welch on the deal. It is hard to know whether the advanced maths your children get taught is up to scratch. Because private enterprises are basically there to make a profit, they may decide not to provide services that are considered high risk or unprofitable but are still very necessary as far as the customer is concerned. If no-one wants to insure you because high cholesterol runs in your family, what are you going to do (except pay a crippling premium or just cross your fingers and hope not to get ill)? If a security company refuses to provide you a service because your neighbourhood is a bit rough, do you sleep with your own gun under your pillow? If schools do not want to teach your kids because they are not that bright and therefore may bring their performance stats down, do you quit work and teach them yourself? So you'd have to have impartial bodies with legal powers monitoring these enterprises, enforcing quality standards and forcing them to provide an equitable service for a reasonable price. Oops: such bodies must be governed and cost money to run. Taxes, right there. Welcome to socialism.
Who would pay for your roads/hospitals/schools/fire stations/police service/regulatory bodies/agencies of government if people were taxed dramatically less (thus government had less revenue to use)? What you're missing completely is the fact that people are so hostile to paying taxes because they feel they have no real control over how the taxes are spent. This is a legitimate criticism of course, but it's nothing to do with a criticism of government in principle (or of high taxes in principle); it's a criticism of anti-democratic government, which is exactly what we have now. Would the people of Britain vote to spend £30 billion on Trident? Or the billions on the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or the billions on Private Finance Initiatives which have cost us 3x as much compared with publicly funded development? I think not. They'd want much more spending on education/health/public services, but government policy is not reflective of this. So I don't think the problem is taxes; it's how taxes are spent at the local, regional and national level. Remember, if taxes were better spent on public institutions/utilities, you wouldn't have to pay as much out of your own pocket in user fees (because you would have paid for them in taxes). Also, if you had less government you'd have even less protections from private tyrannies than you have now. Want nutritional information on the front of food labels? Want regulation of drugs and their prices? Want protections on rates of pay, hours of work, conditions of work? Want a national health service than isn't designed to extract profit? Want a state pension? You need a government (currently) to do that, because private unaccountable companies who only care about short term profit will not provide those things unless are forced to by something bigger. No alternate organisation currently exists which can protect you against corporations. If you had no government or a much smaller one, you magnify the power and influence of private tyrannies, and if you cared about freedom and democracy, you absolutely wouldn't want to concentrate decision making and power even more so into unaccountable institutions.
I would not want the public voting on how taxes are spent, I would however like to have more industry professionals in government for longer periods of time to get things working properly. The public know nothing and make stupid decisions.
Punch her in the overies... Me and the gf are looking for our first flat together, probably have a £100,000 budget. We just want a modest 1 bedroom flat. We both hold down jobs and earn about £35k a year between us. There needs to be more help for people 'doing things properly' like government backed deposits for first time buyers (I know this exists in some counties but now where we live). It is unfortunately all to easy for people to get a free ride, and personally I don’t blame them, the 'system' enables it. Like a few others have said, do what you think is right, you cannot force your morals on others. And there is very little point about raging about it, there will be a tipping point, its is not sustainable...We are already seeing the beginning of the change (think benefits caps forcing people out of their communities etc).
Completely the right idea. I've been in the private sector my entire working life and have had the opportunity to work in many sectors and industries as well as carry out work contracted out by central and local governemntal bodies in the public sector. I can say without equivocation, that bar none, the attitude to work, success, and efficiency in the public sector is atrocious. If it would not breach nda agreements I could cite senior public servants making statements that I would reasonably expect a 16 year old school leaver with no qualifications or experience to recognize as ludicrous. To return to the message I heard when reading the OP, and agreed with, the issue here is one of people not defrauding the system. At least not in respect of doing things out with the rules if the system, it is that the system permits this behavior and the people responsible for manging, maintaining, and yes, improving, the system are (in my experience) either incompetent or at best disinterested and not motivated to improve i or raise suggestion to close loopholes when they are identified. I will get flamed for this but if you are having your 2nd child with no means to support then you are not fit to be a parent and responsible adoptive parents should be found. Once can be a mistake, twice is irresponsible. You should NOT be rewarded with a bigger house. The state benefits system is supposed to be a safety net to catch people when they fall, not a lifestyle choice. Prime example from personal experience. I found myself unemployed as a result of bad decision to leave one job and join a startup. It didn't work out and the financial markets collapsed at the same time. Oh yeah, and my first child was born. We had no savings to fall back on, and for the next 6 months we struggled by on my wifes statutory mat pay, and my me age unemployment benefit. We were taking in a vastly reduced income and had to sell various antiques and prized possessions, and used credit cards to pay the mortgage, deal with the baby's needs, and eat. When I went to the local council to ask about housing benefit (something that hurt my pride and self worhmore than I can describe) we were unlikely to be able to pay the mortgage for another month. Their response was that they were unable to help mebecause i had a mortgage. Were I renting, then they would gladly pay whatever rent I needed. To get help i had to lose my house first. I spent night and day applying for jobs and landed one just in time to keep the house around the same time as my wife was able to return to work. I give this story to make clear my point above: the system does not provide help when it is needed, but when it is abused it rewards this dysfunctionallifestyle choice behaviour and the entitlement mentality that has pervaded the UK in the past decade and which is not of benefit in any way to society. For further context, I could not even get a debate on overepaid taxes until the end of the financial year. I am not rich, I do not have an expensive house or car, but I pay tens of thousands to the tax man annually to provide lazy irresponsible people with a quality of life that I could not have when I asked the same people that take my contributions. It is both sickening behaviour to claim unneeded benefits or expect money and lifestyle from the state when alternatives are available. It will be the ruin of this country and I dread the violence that will erupt from all sides when it comes to a head. If you disagree with the above, then before replying, ask yourself if you think people should b reposile for their own decisions and behaviour. If you do, then we are at least in agreement on the fundamentals .
