tax evasion?

numero sept

To me, the "NHS" is no achievement. Public healthcare never is.

Yes alright then, go to Africa and tell them that.

Reply 21

FadeToBlackout

So the fact that they cured my brother's cancer at a cost of some £150,000, with no cost to us whatsoever, isn't a good thing?

I can't personally see how you can say that. What are your reasons?

Who is the state to force people to pay tax to help "your brother"?

Reply 22

We shall remember that when you get cancer.

Reply 23

FadeToBlackout

15

numero sept

Who is the state to force people to pay tax to help "your brother"?

The state is the legitimate government machinery put in place over time and tested and proved to work. If you do not like the authority of the state, move to a deserted island or something (which may or may not have polar bears) where there is no authority. Otherwise, express your opinion via the democratic process.

People are obviously happy with the state, else there would have been insurrection and revolution a long time ago. It is the Establishment, and is seen as legitimate.

Anyway, I see things differently. The state "forces" people to pay tax to help the people. My brother had cancer and was cured at a cost to the taxpayer; so are many other people, all of whom will pay tax themselves now or in the future. Any person who gets injured will get helped via taxpayer's money, which is in my opinion how it should be. Your seeming complete rejection of the idea of the paternal state providing services for the people at a cost to the people would result in nothing more than anarchy. Government and state is needed and required, it is too utopian an ideal to believe that civilisation will survive without them.

(Oh look, I've turned this into D&D :rolleyes:

)

Reply 24

I agree with you thought FTB. Is numero sept telling us that over time he is worse off because of the state? So he has never used public transport (even if it is commercialised these days the infrastructure was originally private), has never had health care which made him better, never enjoyed watching something on the BBC etc etc....

Reply 25

Shake 'n Bake

14

FadeToBlackout

So the fact that they cured my brother's cancer at a cost of some £150,000, with no cost to us whatsoever, isn't a good thing?

I can't personally see how you can say that. What are your reasons?

If the Nhs chooses to charge patients people who complain about the system now will complain even more then. The Nhs is not perfect but we have to realise how lucky we are. In America you have to pay to give birth, you have to provide details of health insurance before you are even seen to. So many students would be in seriously more debt after a drunken night out etc.

Reply 26

Shake 'n Bake

14

Alex Mann

I agree with you thought FTB. Is numero sept telling us that over time he is worse off because of the state? So he has never used public transport (even if it is commercialised these days the infrastructure was originally private), has never had health care which made him better, never enjoyed watching something on the BBC etc etc....[/QUOTE]
I was with you until the BBC comment. A commercial here and there would'nt hurt. Especially if it reduces the overpriced television license.

Reply 27

Yeah okay maybe that isn't the best example. But there are so many public services and I don't believe anyone who says we shouldn't have tax, has never benefited from one....

Reply 28

L i b

19

FadeToBlackout

The state is the legitimate government machinery put in place over time and tested and proved to work.

No state has ever been legitimate, by its very nature it exists to use force. The concept of legitimate statehood is simply a piece of Western post-nationalist propaganda.

People are obviously happy with the state, else there would have been insurrection and revolution a long time ago. It is the Establishment, and is seen as legitimate.

Well there are a few of us that aren't happy with it, so that rather negates your point. I don't see why the herd has any more right to oppress than an individual does.

Anyway, to the main thrust: healthcare can be funded in other ways than by forcing people to pay for it generally. And, of course, this method is hugely unsatisfactory as you will realise if you live in certain cash-strapped health board areas.

Alex Mann

I agree with you thought FTB. Is numero sept telling us that over time he is worse off because of the state? So he has never used public transport (even if it is commercialised these days the infrastructure was originally private), has never had health care which made him better, never enjoyed watching something on the BBC etc etc....

I am not No.7, but can I point out a glaring logical flaw here: I may benefit from the state imprisoning and beating terrorists without trial; that does not mean that I support it.

Equally I'd "benefit" from having someone steal my wallet and use the contents to deliver me a large bunch of flowers. Again, I don't support that sort of behaviour.

Reply 29

doctormbbs

Alot of Pakistani citizens of UK don't pay tax while minicabbing at the late hours of the night.....

;poo
:proud:

Reply 30

LibertineNorth

I am not No.7, but can I point out a glaring logical flaw here: I may benefit from the state imprisoning and beating terrorists without trial; that does not mean that I support it.

Equally I'd "benefit" from having someone steal my wallet and use the contents to deliver me a large bunch of flowers. Again, I don't support that sort of behaviour.

Your last example is not even relevant so I am not going to reference that. The first one: I have never read anything about our state beating terrorists. If anything ever happens, its vigilantes abusing their powers, and not state condoned.

Reply 31

L i b

19

Alex Mann

Your last example is not even relevant so I am not going to reference that. The first one: I have never read anything about our state beating terrorists. If anything ever happens, its vigilantes abusing their powers, and not state condoned.

I didn't say that it did happen, it's irrelevant to the point. You see, I was giving an example of how the argument in question has no basis in logic. I'm not sure why you can't grasp that or dismiss my other example as irrelevant. I believe they are both perfectly in point.

If you'd like a clear summary of my counterargument: just because you "benefit" (ie, gain something from it generally considered positive) from something does not mean that you should or do support it or the means used to attain the said benefit.

Reply 32

Well you may not agree with something, but this is a democracy, and we vote for these things. The way forward if you want change is to campaign and vote rather than just not pay your taxes. Nothing comes for free in this world: if you benefit directly from healthcare, why would you object to paying tax to fund it?

Reply 33

FadeToBlackout

15

LibertineNorth

No state has ever been legitimate, by its very nature it exists to use force. The concept of legitimate statehood is simply a piece of Western post-nationalist propaganda.

Maybe the concept is propaganda, but then again (to take a postmodern point of view) so is any and every concept; mere propaganda of its' supporters. Some concepts such as the state have been accepted by the many as the status quo; others such as a stateless individual utopia, as seemingly advocated by No.7, have yet to find any favour at all.

In my opinion, the state may well exist only to use force, but it is still the state that has been proven and accepted over time.

Well there are a few of us that aren't happy with it, so that rather negates your point. I don't see why the herd has any more right to oppress than an individual does.

I do see. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; as do their opinions. You mentioned a "few of us" who aren't happy with it; hence the majority tacitly support the idea by not opposing it. And the "herd", in this case, have more right to "oppress" because they are the majority. An individual oppressor is a dictator, generally acknowledged as a Bad Thing, whereas a "herd". i.e. the majority of the people, have the right because it is a majority and therefrore a democracy. True, taxes may be seen as oppressive, but they are also necessary in order to both maintain the machinery of state and also provide its' services.

Anyway, to the main thrust: healthcare can be funded in other ways than by forcing people to pay for it generally. And, of course, this method is hugely unsatisfactory as you will realise if you live in certain cash-strapped health board areas.

However, the corolary to this is if you live in certain cash-rich health board areas you are well off. Of course the system isn't completely working; whilst it is an achievement, it is a compromise and is not the socialist shining achievemant Bevan wanted, for example he was going to abolish private practice but was forced to compromise on this by the GMC; likewise with dental and opticians' and prescription charges. The system was a compromise from its' inception, but is still a massive achievement. Even if you live in a cash-strapped area you still get treated for free. Healthcare can be funded in other ways, but none allow the same provision and extent of care.

Besides, healthcare is just one of the many servies the state provides. Certainly it can be funded independantly, but would not be as good if it was so; the same story is present in privatisation, where (generally) any success has now been lost. In short, the state is required and in order to maintain it, taxation is needed. The advantages of having a state, in my opinion, outweigh the disadvantage of taxation. I would rather live in, say, Iceland which has huge levels of taxation but an equally large provision of services, as in a tax-less dystopia, where I would be bereft of the support and structure and cohesion given by the state.

Reply 34

L i b

19

FadeToBlackout

Maybe the concept is propaganda, but then again (to take a postmodern point of view) so is any and every concept; mere propaganda of its' supporters. Some concepts such as the state have been accepted by the many as the status quo; others such as a stateless individual utopia, as seemingly advocated by No.7, have yet to find any favour at all.

Oh, I don't know. The Anarchist movement has had quite a few supporters over the years. For my own part, I am not an Anarchist, but I don't believe that states should be linked to nations, culture etc and I fundamentally disagree with democracy as anything more than a check on power.

I do see. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; as do their opinions. You mentioned a "few of us" who aren't happy with it; hence the majority tacitly support the idea by not opposing it. And the "herd", in this case, have more right to "oppress" because they are the majority. An individual oppressor is a dictator, generally acknowledged as a Bad Thing, whereas a "herd". i.e. the majority of the people, have the right because it is a majority and therefrore a democracy. True, taxes may be seen as oppressive, but they are also necessary in order to both maintain the machinery of state and also provide its' services.

'Needs' don't come into it. While I would be happy for taxation to be used for healthcare where there is no other alternative (ie, the care of the mentally ill, the stablising of medical conditions of those who die without being able to pay for care) I don't believe 'need' is addressed by this and more than a gang of thugs who robbed you in a dark alleyway 'need' your mobile phone.

Anyway, groups do not aquire rights. Only individual, sentient human beings can have these things - and, to paraphrase Rand, every man is an end of himself, not a means to the ends of other men.

Even most democrats agree with the ideals of fundamental rights and liberties which are not subject to the will of the majority. A bit like the fundamental provisions of international law that states cannot opt out of, for example the prohibition on genocide. Where I differ from these democrats is that I am not a hypocrite. As I've said, groups do not have more rights than an individual, thus neither should a state. Every right I give the state, I'd give to an individual as well.

is not the socialist shining achievemant Bevan wanted, for example he was going to abolish private practice but was forced to compromise on this by the GMC

I didn't know that actually. Interesting bit of history there.

Healthcare can be funded in other ways, but none allow the same provision and extent of care.

I disagree. Physicians are doctors, not clerical finance officials. Patient care should be utmost in the mind of doctors, any funding concerns a simple afterthought to be considered by others.

I realise I haven't provided my alternative, so I'll illustrate it for the sake of argument. I would like healthcare free at the point of use, with licensed doctors unable to refuse to treat a patient. But equally the system would be entirely private - businesses and charities providing the services. Healthcare would therefore be free at the point of use, and cost would be addressed after treatment. I would presume the majority of people would equip themselves with private healthcare. For those who did not, they would be billed through the state, which would pay the cost and then charge the individual in the same manner as a student loan being extracted, ie with a reasonable income threshold. If a person died without their debt being paid, then it would be provided by general taxation.

Rip to shreds at will.

Besides, healthcare is just one of the many servies the state provides. Certainly it can be funded independantly, but would not be as good if it was so; the same story is present in privatisation, where (generally) any success has now been lost.

Oh, I don't know. I just got broadband and a telephone installed in my new house within 24 hours of contacting Telewest. Before the days of privatisation, it would take weeks to get a new phone line installed. There are a million small examples I could come up with othe examples, of course. Admittedly its been a mess in areas such as the railways, but equally the railways do not bode well to competition unless the councils start allowing new lines to be laid.

In short, the state is required and in order to maintain it, taxation is needed. The advantages of having a state, in my opinion, outweigh the disadvantage of taxation. I would rather live in, say, Iceland which has huge levels of taxation but an equally large provision of services, as in a tax-less dystopia, where I would be bereft of the support and structure and cohesion given by the state.

The state doesn't need enormous taxation to survive though. In fact, I'd say that massive taxation endangers it as it becomes an oppressive force. I would not like being forced to pay for what I do not want and certainly don't need. I earn money to become independent, not to be told what to spend it on.

If you want to be nannied, I'm sure there is some sort of service that provides these things for adults. Equally you could go off and live in a commune. Unfortunately, I cannot go off and live in my ideal world.

Alex Mann

Well you may not agree with something, but this is a democracy, and we vote for these things. The way forward if you want change is to campaign and vote rather than just not pay your taxes.

But that will never do anything quite simply because the concept of democracy stacks against me. Imagine the scenario if Britain entered into a democratic union with the United States tomorrow, the 'democratic' outcome of elections to our unified legislature would be completely different yet, essentially, nothing has changed in the Anglo-American area. That, I believe demonstrates just how artificial concepts of democracy are when they are forced upon groups.

Nothing comes for free in this world: if you benefit directly from healthcare, why would you object to paying tax to fund it?

Because it's simple robbery. As I've said, I don't care if it benefits me or not - I don't see that as relevant to the fact that it is immoral. In fact, I don't believe the drawing of any taxation apart from that which is entirely necessary to secure life, keep people from starving, providing justice and instilling basic educational values is moral at all. I would allow the state to steal from me in those circumstances, just as I'd not consider a person who stole a loaf of bread from me to feed his starving family as a criminal.

Reply 35

LibertineNorth

But that will never do anything quite simply because the concept of democracy stacks against me. Imagine the scenario if Britain entered into a democratic union with the United States tomorrow, the 'democratic' outcome of elections to our unified legislature would be completely different yet, essentially, nothing has changed in the Anglo-American area. That, I believe demonstrates just how artificial concepts of democracy are when they are forced upon groups.

It's not the concept of democracy that is against you. Rather, the fact that the majority just don't agree with you.

Because it's simple robbery. As I've said, I don't care if it benefits me or not - I don't see that as relevant to the fact that it is immoral. In fact, I don't believe the drawing of any taxation apart from that which is entirely necessary to secure life, keep people from starving, providing justice and instilling basic educational values is moral at all. I would allow the state to steal from me in those circumstances, just as I'd not consider a person who stole a loaf of bread from me to feed his starving family as a criminal.

Entirely necessary to secure human life? Well that is what your taxes are doing when they go into the NHS! I know at least 4 people (including myself) who's lives have been saved by outstanding cancer treatment. You're saying that paying a small tax, for a service which may one day save your life, is not warranted!

Reply 36

FadeToBlackout

15

Entirely necessary to secure human life? Well that is what your taxes are doing when they go into the NHS! I know at least 4 people (including myself) who's lives have been saved by outstanding cancer treatment. You're saying that paying a small tax, for a service which may one day save your life, is not warranted!

I think Libertine North, in the paragraph you quoted, agrees with you there- that taxes should be used to secure human life. :smile:

*******

To Libertine North:

We definately seem to disagree over the rights permissable for the individual. I seem to be a lot more conservative and ossified, in that I believe that the established democratic state does and should have some power (though not complete power) over the individual, otherwise things as they currently are would grind to a halt. As I see it, the individual has rights but a collection of individuals together as one, democratically, has a greater right due to the sum of their responsibilities.

To use a case in point, the United States widely trumpets its dedication to individual freedoms, as set out in the Declaration of Independance; yet transgress the state and those rights are revoked. I suppose this example works both ways, showing that the state currently has greater power than the individual and always has, but also highlighting what I suppose you'd term abuse of this power. Either way, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point, as we're both unlikely to change our minds.

Because it's simple robbery. As I've said, I don't care if it benefits me or not - I don't see that as relevant to the fact that it is immoral. In fact, I don't believe the drawing of any taxation apart from that which is entirely necessary to secure life, keep people from starving, providing justice and instilling basic educational values is moral at all. I would allow the state to steal from me in those circumstances, just as I'd not consider a person who stole a loaf of bread from me to feed his starving family as a criminal.

The minor problem with that is, in practice, the state would have to draw what you'd term immoral taxes to pay for itself and its machinery. The situation you've described would also lead to individual people being given great power, quite literally the power of life and death over funding. Who decides how much the individual people need to prevent them from starving? Who decides whether medical conditions are life-threatening or not, and who has the right in all the gray cases on the border to decide who, effectively, gets treatment and has a greater chance of living and who does not? The state currently does all that, especially since the new liberal welfare reforms followed by the big Labour reforms in the late 1940s and 50s. My interpretation is that you wish the state to provide a basic level of service to all; "to draw a line, under which we shall not allow persons to live and labour" as Churchill put it in 1906 (I think...). I can agree with the sentiment here, however I think of it as the basis rather than the entirity of what the state can provide. For example, the provision of housing for the needy, and providing more than life itself. I believe that the state can and should provide as decent a quality of life for all who need it to, beyond simply securing life itself. To me, that is not enough. I believe that the state (in much the way the early welfare providers wished it to) should aim to provide for the citizens to give them a decent quality of life, not merely to allow them to survive. I think this is the crucial difference here, as I believe that the state should have the right to tax to the extent it needs in order to fund this, whereas (as far as I can see) you support the thesis that it should be no more of a burden on the people than to secure their lives.

The other sticky point is pensions and care. Does your idea for the State to ensure life extend to these too? As was originally planned, the retired and disabled were to be supported by the younger generation working, through their taxes, and this generation was in turn to be supported by the next. I believe that to abolish State pensions would be wrong.

I do agree with you to an extent, also, about privatisation. That can be taking things too far in my opinion, as competition and capitalism force the providers to give a decent service or people will go elsewhere. A case in point seems to be the railways, run down and neglected after privatisation and needing cash and support which they are simply not getting. In my opinion the problem could be solved (thin out the number of operating companies and make them pay for the track and infrastructure as well as run the trains, as it worked very well from 1926-1948) but I don't think the concept of private practice should be applied to healthcare. In my opinion the NHS is a great achievement, and it is far easier and cheaper and less work overall to fund it as it is. The biggest problem I can see with your system is that it would be divisive into those who can pay and those who cannot, and in practice would be just as expensive as the current system, because you'd have to have a huge amount of administrative staff to organise the system of payments. The original idea behind the NHS was that no-one need defer or go without treatment on the grounds of cost, and I believe this has been achieved. However, if payments were introduced, even with a sensible paying-back plan as you suggested, I believe that many people would go back to the old ways of not seeking treatment. I just can't see your alternative system as being workable. Personally, I think we should abolish private practice altogether and have optical and dental care on the NHS as well, as Bevan wanted, so that the idea can be properly implemented; but it's not going to happen in this political climate.

In short, as far as I can see the state already provides everything you wish it to, and a few other things that are needed but that you seemingly don't support. As I see it, the status quo in terms of taxation should be kept, because of this provision of services is already in place. You could not cut tax without cutting the services available, and to do so would mean that the state could not fulfil what you expect it to; hence I cannot see how taxation could be lowered.

Reply 37

FadeToBlackout

The state is the legitimate government machinery put in place over time and tested and proved to work. If you do not like the authority of the state, move to a deserted island or something (which may or may not have polar bears) where there is no authority. Otherwise, express your opinion via the democratic process.

People are obviously happy with the state, else there would have been insurrection and revolution a long time ago. It is the Establishment, and is seen as legitimate.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make the state legitimiate. The government is coercive, for many reasons. I never chose to accept the authority of the state.

Anyway, I see things differently. The state "forces" people to pay tax to help the people. My brother had cancer and was cured at a cost to the taxpayer; so are many other people, all of whom will pay tax themselves now or in the future. Any person who gets injured will get helped via taxpayer's money, which is in my opinion how it should be. Your seeming complete rejection of the idea of the paternal state providing services for the people at a cost to the people would result in nothing more than anarchy. Government and state is needed and required, it is too utopian an ideal to believe that civilisation will survive without them.

(Oh look, I've turned this into D&D :rolleyes:

)

Oh really? For most of human history, there were no governments!

Yes, people will seek to help each other. So why then is force, in the form of taxation, necessary?! It's simply an issue of supply and demand. If the demand for a good or service, exists then people will create the supply to meet that demand within a free market.

Reply 38

Alex Mann

Yes alright then, go to Africa and tell them that.

I will. I believe that any government service, provided by taxation, is immoral.

Reply 39