tax evasion?

numero sept

It cannot teach children in schools properly. It lessens the value of sterling, so your money can't buy as much and your purchasing power is diminished. Government can do NOTHING right.

Rubbish. This nation is better educated than ever before, the fact that we have so many young people on this internet forum debating attests to that. Besides, if you don't like state teaching there are private schools, although I personally don't think they are any better than our perfectly good state schools. And what are you talking about, lessens the value of sterling! have you seen how strong the pound is against other currencies?!! And if you would tell an African that a national health service is wrong, see the reaction you get. Millions of people die every year, from something that we in this country treat every single day as standard. If you seriously believe we would be better off without a Government, and that no government would not mean the deaths of millions of people, you are wrong. Very wrong.

Reply 41

by-torslayshisfoe

Alex Mann

Rubbish. This nation is better educated than ever before, the fact that we have so many young people on this internet forum debating attests to that.

The National Curriculum is a joke and teaches children superfluous things.

Besides, if you don't like state teaching there are private schools, although I personally don't think they are any better than our perfectly good state schools.

Huh? A complete free market in education would improve standards and lower costs.

And what are you talking about, lessens the value of sterling! have you seen how strong the pound is against other currencies?!! And if you would tell an African that a national health service is wrong, see the reaction you get. Millions of people die every year, from something that we in this country treat every single day as standard. If you seriously believe we would be better off without a Government, and that no government would not mean the deaths of millions of people, you are wrong. Very wrong.

Yes, government does lessen the value of sterling. With it inflating the money supply, it removes the purchasing power of the pound. £1 could buy you more goods and services ten years ago than it can today.

Reply 42

L i b

19

FadeToBlackout

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.

Oh, I'd happily pay the associated costs. But I'd also like to see the government trying to raise its own funds. The Crown Estate revenue, income from North Sea oil, lotteries, certification of private enterprises as meeting certain standards - the government could have quite a few ways of raising a few quid. Hell, they could even open their own super-casino.

I'd also like to see government, especially local government, be something people can see themselves contributing to voluntarily. I don't know if many people donate funds to the NHS or even if the NHS accepts donations; but it certainly should. Equally I think this would do a great deal for local communities, who would be able to decide their priorities in spending money more freely - I don't want to see a society that doesn't give, just one that isn't forced to do so. I don't believe that force makes anyone any more moral: the government is spending other people's money and the public have no choice over their giving.

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.

I don't think this distinction need ever apply. In the off-chance someone isn't insured then they should be treated anyway and billed for it later for any medical need (obviously this wouldn't apply to things like unnecessary cosmetic surgery etc - but the NHS already makes decisions of this type).

Like I've said, no one should be denied treatment based on present inability to pay. They will be considered to have a debt afterwards, yes, but that will not be a consideration at the time.

I mentioned my belief in how it should be funded - it would not affect many of the poor who would not reach the basic income threshold. But more importantly the idea of an unpaid debt would still act as a fairly reasonable encouragement to invest in insurance.

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.

See above, I suppose. I don't think these choices need be made to any more of a degree than the present NHS does.

I'll have to cut this short since I've got to meet somebody for lunch, but I'll get back to the pensions and housing etc issues later. As a quick answer to whether I support taking the state out of these matters, I would have to say 'yes, with a but' for both. Obviously the transitional period would be a difficult one, but Libertarians are not generally revolutionaries. To suddenly declare there will be no more state pensions would plunge not only today's pensioners, but also every generation after my own that are still working today, into a very undesirable situation. I'll explain a bit more of my opinion later.

tax evasion?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you