I get what you’re saying but I think simplifying the tax system, closing tax loop holes and making corporations (and private individual via inheritance tax) pay their fair share is the way to finance it all. The amount of money corporations and various rich people get let off for one reason or another is obscene.

  • Amps replied to this.

    It’s just a reminder that we share this world together, Dave. Trisco is not simply a song, it’s a fundacion.

    “Another thread ruined” - Big Fella (RIP)

    I think as a start, it’s prolly best not to vote for the Tories then go from there

    • Amps replied to this.

      C_J I think in Finland for example there are small fees for GP appointments and hospital stays (@Homegrove?). Does this not seem sensible? Or is free healthcare for all still too much of a sacred cow?

      Why the fuck should the poorest and most vulnerable pay when there are giant companies and billionaires who could pay a small amount more and make a huge difference to the whole of society.

        Amps we’re talking real small. And if you have to go a lot you only need to pay once a year. Giving birth was like a 100 € or something.

          Homegrove Regardless, you set a precedent that it should be paid for. And again, we are talking about the poorest most vulnerable people in society, they shouldn’t be the ones having to pay, the people and companies with billions in the bank should be contributing that bit more.

          We’ve never had it completely free in the first place though.

          • C_J replied to this.

            Besides the moral standpoint, I am fairly convinced by the practical argument that redistributive policies make the economy work better anyway, from the data I have seen.

            Poorer households spend a much higher proportion of their income on consumption than rich people do. There is a fairly robust practical argument for things like unemployment benefits and subsidised/free necessities as the overall effect is to free up some of the low-income household budget for spending on crap like widescreen tellies (and Cath Kidston wellies) and thus boost consumer demand in the economy. This is why I (personally) think extreme supply-side economics is short-termist in that it is basically stripping the ability of poorer households to consume out of the economy.

            • C_J replied to this.

              Homegrove You see that’s the problem. Once you start giving stuff to people for free they become dependent on it and think they’re entitled to it.

              for the record, I would not be expecting people on minimum wage or unemployed people to necessarily be contributing to this. The left like to paint this as evil Tories deliberately going after the poor and the vulnerable. I think that’s a bit childish personally.

              • Amps replied to this.

                bosstrabs you’re right Dave. But you won’t find (m)any Tories arguing that tax and the welfare state should be abolished. The point is that it needs to done in a way that is sustainable and not counterproductive in terms of disincentivising employment or crowding out other spending priorities.

                To sum up, tax tech companies more and keep the god awful Labour party out of government.

                Is that about right?

                  C_J I would not be expecting people on minimum wage or unemployed people to necessarily be contributing to this. The left like to paint this as evil Tories deliberately going after the poor and the vulnerable. I think that’s a bit childish personally.

                  I don’t think you have enough cynicism towards the right then…

                  James Buchanan, 2005: people who “failed to foresee and save money for their future needs are to be treated, as subordinate members of the species, akin to…animals who are dependent”

                    C_J Once you start giving stuff to people for free they become dependent on it and think they’re entitled to it.

                    Bigger conversation there then about what as a human you should be entitled too. Another slippery slope… should they be entitled to water? Food? Shelter? Healthcare? Where do you start and stop? I think if a country is as wealthy as the UK is, we should be able to look after our own, and we should be able to give people free medical care, regardless of the fact that some of them will take it for granted or feel entitled to it.

                    Are you really that upset by the fact that some poor people are cunts, that you look at the state of America, and think, ’Yeah, they’ve got it right, I fancy a bit of that’? Plenty of the rich and wealthy are cunts too.

                    I think there is an onus on the NHS itself to do better with management of its service / funding too. If we take the example from yesterday, the Government has done its bit in setting up these arrangements with other countries - the responsibility for reclaiming the costs falls to the NHS. When the unclaimed costs run into the hundreds of millions its pretty negligent on their part to not be recovering the money which could be reinvested into the service.

                      Amps To be fair though, quoting someone like James Buchanan, an extreme libertarian who was part of the Mont Pelerin Society as typical of the right is roughly equivalent to the right quoting an extreme-left tankie who writes stuff like the owners of capital should be first against the wall and then saying “see, that’s lefties!”

                      • Amps replied to this.