[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by obstupefacere)
1 - Then the youth should go into education if they are under skilled, same with the adults. As far as when I last checked, all people are entitled to have university fees loaned up front for their first degree. Now, if they are idle and get a 3rd class, only themselves to blame.

2 - I said people in education should have state funded. As education is the key to social mobility.

3 - If it is expensive, earn more money.

4 - People die all the time. They shouldn't die slowly at my expense in the bureaucratic nightmare that is the NHS.

5 - Vaccines for that occur in the youth, which I have explained needs to be state funded. At any rate, even the poor can afford a TB jab, its cheap.

1 - Just again proving how deluded you actually are. You do realise its not just people who do not have an education who are unemployed.

3 - And how is someone supposed to do that? Go up to your employer and say "excuse me, but because some greedy ***** have decided I should bankrupt myself if I ever get a serious illness, is there any chance I could have a pay rise so I could get at least some kind of insurance"? Don't be so ****ing stupid.

4 - The NHS is not a "nightmare". It is not perfect, but its bloody better than being in several hundred pounds worth of debt cos you got cancer.

5 - Didn't address the main point though. Illness and disease are everyones problem.

[HJV]

Yes, let's copy the American model because they're even more ****ed than we are? Makes sense.

[obstupefacere]

(Original post by gradjobplease)
I don't usually play this card, because it's not fair on people. But you have particularly wound me up.

My Dad started work at 15 and was never out of a job until he died at the age of 53 of cancer two years ago. He worked 10+ hour days and set up his own business giving financial advice. He lived a healthy lifestyle, didn't smoke, drank occasionally. He ticked all your ****ing boxes, pal.

Do I have a problem with you paying a portion of his healthcare costs? No I don't and I never will. Neither will a majority in this country, so stop crying about it.

Well I have a bloody problem with paying for them.

My Dad left school at 14 because his parents couldn't afford to buy the sports uniform for the county school he got into with a scholarship. By twenty he was regional manager for contracts for BT.

He died two years ago of ventricular failure. It isn't my responsibility to pay for other peoples healthcare or treatment, and I resent the implication that I should hold the hand of fully grown men who aren't able to look after themselves - pathetic.

[Bax-man]

(Original post by Markleberry)
I actually support state redistribution on the grounds of efficient resource allocation, not on any moral precept. Just saying.

I'd be curious to hear how states (which suffer from problems of economic calculation, particularly the absence of the market test of profit and loss) lead to more efficient allocation of resources than markets, which are driven by price signals.

[Bax-man]

(Original post by HJV)
Yes, let's copy the American model because they're even more ****ed than we are? Makes sense.

America and "free markets" are not synonymous. They're not even close.

[de_monies]

(Original post by Clip)
Then maybe they should be as smart, hard-working and all round awesome as I am.

And arrogant?

[Otkem]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
1 - You think its that simple? For a start jobs are very hard to get right now. And second of all, why do you assume you could easily afford it if you had a job? My parents work and there is no way we could afford private healthcare.

2 - As above. You cannot assume everyone can afford insurance. And what if you are 18/19 (as my friend was when she was told she has leukaemia)?

3 - But the point is many people CANNOT afford it themselves. That is why we have the NHS.

4 - The same is true for many other people who depend on the NHS ("not having a chance to have an action plan").

5 - You are saying people should suffer and die. That is vile.

6 - Healthcare is not the same as a car. You will not suffer horrific pain and die if you do not have a car. Without healthcare, that is what would happen to many people.

7 - As I said, if you think people NEEDING (read that working NEEDING, as in they have no choice) to rely on the state to provide healthcare makes them scroungers, then you are ****ing deluded.

We will always need lawnmowers. If I worked in the Job Centre, I would tell claimants to cow off and make their own jobs.

[obstupefacere]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)


1 - Just again proving how deluded you actually are. You do realise its not just people who do not have an education who are unemployed.

3 - And how is someone supposed to do that? Go up to your employer and say "excuse me, but because some greedy ***** have decided I should bankrupt myself if I ever get a serious illness, is there any chance I could have a pay rise so I could get at least some kind of insurance"? Don't be so ****ing stupid.

4 - The NHS is not a "nightmare". It is not perfect, but its bloody better than being in several hundred pounds worth of debt cos you got cancer.

5 - Didn't address the main point though. Illness and disease are everyones problem.

1 - Anyone with a degree who doesn't have a job... Is just hopeless.

3 - You aren't meant to crawl for a handout, you're meant to work for it. You remember "work" don't you, its that thing we had before socialism.

4 - Its bloody immoral to expect me to pay for your treatment. I mean I have to whilst the law says so, but I can still resent it, and petition my MP to vote against it.

5 - Illness and disease are a major social problem. Fine people if they don't take basic precautions, in the same way we would fine people for not disposing of waste properly.

[Teaddict]

(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
They are recommending a flat rate of income tax at 15%, personal tax allowance of £12000, Corporation tax of 15%, NI reduced to 10% with option to contract out of some of the benefits.

Sounds like a brilliant idea. The more tax competitive we can make our economy, the more wealthy individuals we can attract to our shores for tax purposes, the more investment we can attract and the more businesses we can attract.

- Scrapping the NHS and replacing it with a 'catastrophe' insurance system and requiring people to make health savings accounts to finance their healthcare needs (and deter them from overconsuming health services)

This has some merit. Judging by this paragraph alone they would replace the existing National Health Service with a model based on Singapore which, for the record, is a very good, efficient and cheap healthcare system. It provides subsidy for the poorest who cannot afford it and means the wealthy pay more for their healthcare.

This is a good policy, although politically, it's deadly poison and would destroy a party for decades.

- Making parents of children at state schools pay for a quarter of the cost of the education. Scrapping social engineering mechanisms like the pupil premium, Sure Start and government subsidies of STEM areas in universities(Science Technology Engineering and Maths)

I don't agree with this section at all. I do believe in opening up the state sector to competition from charities, businesses, cooperatives and parent groups though. I think most people would argue "I am paying taxes for schools, why am I being asked to pay more?" - that's quite a reasonable argument to make.

In regards to government subsidies of STEM subjects, I believe they are vital. We should be investing more in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. They are very important areas and will decide how competitive this economy is and how much we can move into higher value sectors.

We need more British students to take up these subjects which requires intervention at earlier ages and more investment.

- Scrapping freebies for pensioners (bus pass, tv licence, winter fuel allowance, married couples allowance for pensioners).

All of these should be scrapped and should be replaced with a higher state pension to compensate. I do support a marriage allowance though.

- Running a more efficient military by reducing Navy personnel from 35000 to 15000, army from 102000 to 62000, RAF from 38000 to 18-23000 and ending "futile military interventions"

Coming from a very pro-military and interventionist individual, my only response to this is HELL NO!

- Scrapping overseas aid

I want to see international aid reduced because much of it is poorly spend, poorly targeted and overall wasted, however, as an extension of diplomacy, I think overseas aid is important. It's the same reason I support the Foreign Office funding BBC Worldwide.

- Removing middle class benefit entitlements, introducing a flat rate of housing benefit, requiring benefit recipients to work.

Absolutely - the idea that the middle classes need benefits is madness. Compensate their loss through tax cuts and destroy the nonsensical dependency on welfare.

- Rolling out tolls and road pricing and privatising motorways to deter congestion by forcing people to pay for their use.

I think this has a lot of merit - those that use the roads should pay for them. Naturally though, road tax and taxes of that nature should be abolished.

[HJV]

(Original post by Bax-man)
America and "free markets" are not synonymous. They're not even close.

Well no, but on practically all the points (aside from the "smaller military") the US is closer to what this think tank suggested than Britain is.

[obstupefacere]

(Original post by Teaddict)
I think this has a lot of merit - those that use the roads should pay for them. Naturally though, road tax and taxes of that nature should be abolished.

That idea gives too easily towards monopoly as competition in infrastructure is not easy to apply, it would be better to either operate a road tax system or levy a higher tax rate on fuels, which would act as a pay as you go, whilst encouraging environmentally friendly behavior.

[gradjobplease]

(Original post by obstupefacere)
Well I have a bloody problem with paying for them.

My Dad left school at 14 because his parents couldn't afford to buy the sports uniform for the county school he got into with a scholarship. By twenty he was regional manager for contracts for BT.

He died two years ago of ventricular failure. It isn't my responsibility to pay for other peoples healthcare or treatment, and I resent the implication that I should hold the hand of fully grown men who aren't able to look after themselves - pathetic.

I don't want to pay for the Nuclear deterrent, as I don't think it benefits us, are you willing to pay the £20bn it'll cost? You can't just pick and choose things, otherwise no one would ever pay any taxes.

[Markleberry]

(Original post by Bax-man)
I'd be curious to hear how states (which suffer from problems of economic calculation, particularly the absence of the market test of profit and loss) lead to more efficient allocation of resources than markets, which are driven by price signals.

May I just point out at this point that I'm talking about taxes. The argument over resources like healthcare is not one I would like to have (read - I haven't studied it in any detail, and would thus be arguing based on preconceptions).

My standard-issue argument for this kind of thing is thus:
- Right now, consumption is the problem with our economy. Simply put, there isn't enough of it, and what consumption there is is due to go to hell in a handcart once personal debt deleveraging begins.
- The consumer spending of the rich is lower as a proportion of income than that of the poor, as shown by marginal propensity to consume. Furthermore, money devoted by the rich to investments in speculative markets imposes negative externalities upon everyone else, thus causing detriment to the wider economy* (the commodity boom, for example).
- Thus, redistributing benefits to the relatively poor, when paid for through progressive taxation, creates an allocation of resources that results in greater efficiency in terms of consumer spending and thus less waste in terms of withdrawals from the circular flow of income and harmful investment (not good investment).

I realise that as an argument the above is pretty crap, but right now I'm in UCAS panic mode so I'm afraid that's what you're stuck with.

*I realise this is not applicable to every rich person, and do not wish for higher taxes simply because of this. Reductions in harmful investment are simply a beneficial side-effect, even if they result in reductions in helpful investment (e.g. buying shares in businesses or investing in government bonds).

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Otkem)
We will always need lawnmowers. If I worked in the Job Centre, I would tell claimants to cow off and make their own jobs.

Why aren't I surprised that you are here.
I'd love for you to prove that we have enough work available for 2 million people to mow lawns (or whatever bull**** you want to come up with). Not going to happen.

(Original post by obstupefacere)
1 - Anyone with a degree who doesn't have a job... Is just hopeless.

3 - You aren't meant to crawl for a handout, you're meant to work for it. You remember "work" don't you, its that thing we had before socialism.

4 - Its bloody immoral to expect me to pay for your treatment. I mean I have to whilst the law says so, but I can still resent it, and petition my MP to vote against it.

5 - Illness and disease are a major social problem. Fine people if they don't take basic precautions, in the same way we would fine people for not disposing of waste properly.

1 - And that is what we are living with right now. So well done for accurately describing our economy and the job prospects of young people.

2 - No. The thing we had before we had any left leaning policies (do not confuse anything in our society as being socialist) was mass suffering and death. Its partly why the NHS was created in the first place. Because charities and insurance was not enough.

3 - Immoral? Rofl. No. Its immoral that you are happy to see people die and suffer because you are a greedy bastard.

4 - Again, most cases have nothing to do with "not taking precuations". You can't take precautions against getting cancer, or dementia or whatever.

[obstupefacere]

(Original post by gradjobplease)
I don't want to pay for the Nuclear deterrent, as I don't think it benefits us, are you willing to pay the £20bn it'll cost? You can't just pick and choose things, otherwise no one would ever pay any taxes.

It is great you have an opinion on things.

Write to your MP or talk to your local association about it. The whole point of living in a democracy is we are open about our ideas and share them, and then let people vote.

No government is 100% perfect for anyone, which is why we have to petition for those things we want changed. I want a more free society, so I petition for that, if you are anti-nuclear, go for it.

[obstupefacere]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
1 - And that is what we are living with right now. So well done for accurately describing our economy and the job prospects of young people.

2 - No. The thing we had before we had any left leaning policies (do not confuse anything in our society as being socialist) was mass suffering and death. Its partly why the NHS was created in the first place. Because charities and insurance was not enough.

3 - Immoral? Rofl. No. Its immoral that you are happy to see people die and suffer because you are a greedy bastard.

4 - Again, most cases have nothing to do with "not taking precuations". You can't take precautions against getting cancer, or dementia or whatever.

1 - The economy is the people. Hopeless spineless people leads to a weak economy.

2 - Socialist was a bit of a strong word. Collectivist would be better.

3 - I believe in the long term. A strong economy will generate jobs and improve quality of life, which is better for everyone.

4 - Insurance is a precaution.

[gradjobplease]

(Original post by obstupefacere)
It is great you have an opinion on things.

Write to your MP or talk to your local association about it. The whole point of living in a democracy is we are open about our ideas and share them, and then let people vote.

No government is 100% perfect for anyone, which is why we have to petition for those things we want changed. I want a more free society, so I petition for that, if you are anti-nuclear, go for it.

Yeah, good luck petitioning that the NHS should be abolished. I don't think any political party has that as a platform (not one I've heard of anyway).

I think in particular you should use the reasoning that "If they can't afford health insurance, they should die, because they are probably stupid or lazy", I think your MP will see you have a strong case.

[obstupefacere]

(Original post by gradjobplease)
Yeah, good luck petitioning that the NHS should be abolished. I don't think any political party has that as a platform (not one I've heard of anyway).

I think in particular you should use the reasoning that "If they can't afford health insurance, they should die, because they are probably stupid or lazy", I think your MP will see you have a strong case.

I am a member of the Conservatives... I and the other people at the association and conference get a vote on who our representatives our.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by obstupefacere)
1 - The economy is the people. Hopeless spineless people leads to a weak economy.

2 - Socialist was a bit of a strong word. Collectivist would be better.

3 - I believe in the long term. A strong economy will generate jobs and improve quality of life, which is better for everyone.

4 - Insurance is a precaution.

1 - Not the case at all. The reason there are so few jobs about has got nothing to do with the people who are trying to find jobs.

2 - I wouldn't even go that far. I would just say some people have morals and actually don't want to see people needlessly suffer and die. Unlike you.

3 - What the **** does "I believe in the long term" mean? Of course there is going to be a long term (well unless we are hit by an asteroid tomorrow). And somehow, I doubt that "long term" has anything to do with millions of people suffering and dying because they cannot afford private healthcare. Hell, even the americans realise that you need some kind of government support for the less well off.

4 - This is getting kind of circular now. Not everyone can afford insurance. Insurance is expensive. Insurance does not cover many conditions. Etc etc etc.

[de_monies]

(Original post by Otkem)
We will always need lawnmowers. If I worked in the Job Centre, I would tell claimants to cow off and make their own jobs.

Id happily mow your loan if you were willing to pay and are located within West Yorkshire; as long as you provide the lawnmower and pay at least minimum wage.

People can not get a job because there are not enough out there! Consider 500000 jobs with 2500000 unemployed