£30,000 per annum income.

[maxi]

I think you totally misunderstand my point. I think the rich should pay more tax, hence my mentioning of how socialist it is. The rich need the support of society, and they can afford to pay for it. So tax the bastards.

That'll never happen eh! the petty bourgeois will continue to exploit the proletariat in order to maintain their econimic and social status! comrade! etc.

 

[Will]

That'll never happen eh! the petty bourgeois will continue to exploit the proletariat in order to maintain their econimic and social status! comrade! etc.

If we dress it up in the language of the oppressors, they might vote it in without realising it.

Just as an example, Mohammed Al Fayed Phones up the tax office and negociates how much tax he pays. Can you imagine doing that yourself? One rule for them, and one rule for everyone else...

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Like those bastards smoking pot. And complaining about tax.

One rule etc

 

[DaGaffer]

Oh i know, but that is the complete opposite of the current system to be honest. It is also flawed in countless ways. Least of them what you mentioned.

Plus the cost to calculate, set and then collect the tax would more than likely out do the amount collected. I was just simply mentioning the alternativce.

(Drug using socialist hmm )

Well, it isn't really the complete opposite; we actually have some of the highest levels of indirect tax in the world already. In fact, Gordon's pretty much run out of stuff he can indirectly tax - the only sacred cows left are food, children's clothes and printed material (books and mags), and he's already made noises about taxing books and mags a few times (although to fair, so did the Tories before him).

This is kind of what I was talking about before; the individual tax burden in the UK isn't low (there actually only 11 major countries in the whole world who pay more tax), but we still can't make the tax we do pay work for us. And its going to get worse.

(Netherlands
Greece
Italy
Luxembourg
Norway
Belgium
France
Austria
Finland
Denmark
Sweden) - if you care.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Take Sweden for instance. They have one of the highest tax Burdens in the world. And with that one of the highest standards of living. (To bring it to some geeks levels.... "CHEAP AS CHIPS ! GAZLLION MEGABUCKET INTERNET1111oneone!!")

Now compare the UK's current account against that of Sweden.....

Big surplus for them big deficit for us (again). The GDP only rose by 2% annually odd in the last 25 years. Similar to us etc etc.

The old chestnut. We import far too much to sustain the economic growth in the long run. Yes we have a huge service sector and overseas investment. The tax model for the UK is one based on high spending and therefor high borrowing, in order to fund capital expenditure to increase growth. IE. We borrow fuck loads now build schools, roads etc so we can continue to grow.
The problem is we over estimate the amount of tax we will collect and under estimate the amount we expend.

If we moved toward far higher imcome tax levels, then this would in theory help the problem. But there are always the silly twats who would look at their pay slips and then start a protest or something about how they have been "robbed". The problem we have is lack of understanding. The budget... what is the first thing you ever hear from it? Alcohol, Fuel, and tobacco tax levels.... dear god.

 

[DaGaffer]

Take Sweden for instance. They have one of the highest tax Burdens in the world. And with that one of the highest standards of living. (To bring it to some geeks levels.... "CHEAP AS CHIPS ! GAZLLION MEGABUCKET INTERNET1111oneone!!")

Now compare the UK's current account against that of Sweden.....

Big surplus for them big deficit for us (again). The GDP only rose by 2% annually odd in the last 25 years. Similar to us etc etc.

The old chestnut. We import far too much to sustain the economic growth in the long run. Yes we have a huge service sector and overseas investment. The tax model for the UK is one based on high spending and therefor high borrowing, in order to fund capital expenditure to increase growth. IE. We borrow fuck loads now build schools, roads etc so we can continue to grow.
The problem is we over estimate the amount of tax we will collect and under estimate the amount we expend.

If we moved toward far higher imcome tax levels, then this would in theory help the problem. But there are always the silly twats who would look at their pay slips and then start a protest or something about how they have been "robbed". The problem we have is lack of understanding. The budget... what is the first thing you ever hear from it? Alcohol, Fuel, and tobacco tax levels.... dear god.

Sweden's a poor comparison, because, a. they have much lower population than us, b. they can't afford their welfare state either, and c. even their politicians have pointed out they need to reform their welfare system.

A closer comparison to us is France, and their higher tax burden and better welfare state is also unaffordable.

Bottom line, you can't have a low birthrate and an ageing population and a fancy welfare state. Something's got to give.

 

[Scouse]

What?

A pint of milk costs the same, if you earn 100k+ or 15k-. So having the same income tax level for all earning brackets is flawed. Someone earning 15k still has to pay for food/water etc etc the same as someone on 100k+.

The difference is the person on 100k+ will most likelt live in a bigger/nicer house, pay more for organic meat, special food etc etc. However the essentials of needing food, place to sleep, clothes etc are the same.

20% of 100k in tax would mean they would have 80k to faff around with. And lets say a percentage of that would go on the basics. Now 20% of 15k leaves barely enough, if any at all for the basics, let alone all the rest.

I fucking hate this argument (with teh anger!). I come across it again and again. Basically because it's a flawed, unfair argument borne out of jealousy and spite.

Tax is a percentage of what you earn. In terms for any fuckwitt to understand (not pointing fingers) it means that if I get taxed at 20% I have to give two of my ten apples away.

If I earn 100 apples I have to give 20 away. If I earn 10 apples I have to give two away.

What's in any way unfair about that??

It means that people who earn more pay more. Automatically, fairly and based on your income.

People who want to "tax the rich bastards" are jealous. Pure and simple. They see people who have cash to burn - and hate them for it. No matter how much tax they have paid.

It's the same with people who have a pop at company directors who earn £250k or footballers who earn millions. Jealous. When they can honestly say they'd turn that sort of cash down themselves because they disagree with it ethically then, and only then, can they carp on about how unfair it is....

I say good luck to 'em. I'd love to do it if I could.


I come from a single parent very low income family. My father was killed in a car crash when I was young and my mother took several jobs and brought up three kids.

She never allowed me to sleep with girls under her roof until I was 18.

Through hard work, a bit of luck and having been blessed with a mind that works OK when I want it to I've managed to drag myself out of low income hell. I now earn comfortably well - depending on how much I work in a year. (I'm self-employed).

I personally resent the higher rate tax bracket (which I have made it into, just about - I'm not filthy rich). I have to pay double the percentage of apples (four out of every ten) - just because I worked my ass off. I think that's unfair.

I could ask myself why but I know why - it's because there's a fucking load of people who refuse to work because the welfare state is a gift to freeloaders - and I know this because I spent ten really easy months on the dole - refusing to take jobs simply because I wouldn't like that sort of work.

There's fucking LOADS of work out there. Tough shit if you don't like it. Get a job, work hard and you'll give yourself a chance of making something of your life. If you don't make it - it's a shame - not everyone can.


The welfare state (regards unemployment benefits for an able-bodied person) should be structured like this:

• You should receive unemployment/housing benefit straight away, no holds barred, on signing on.
• After 6 months, if you've not found any work, you should have to work for a set amount of time per week (say, 15-20 hours) for said benefit.
• You should not receive any benefits if you are under 16. You are your PARENT's responsibility, legally and morally.

You'd pretty much find that those who most need benefits would get what they need to bide their time whilst they find a job - any job. They'd get them and not have to work for them - a fantastic saftey net working as it should.

Once they're in that "any job" they can look for employment that more suits their skills or wishes - but at least they'll be paying their own way.

If you can work, you should be given enough time (and 6 months is plenty) to find it. After that you should be giving something back. People should not expect to be given benefits for free forever. It's a priviledge - not a right. Poor countries of the world don't help their population because they can't - people shouldn't take the piss out of our generosity.

IMHO this is morally right.

 

[MYstIC G]

IMHO this is morally right.

Seconded.

Imagine a world where councils couldn't pay out small fortunes for items as stupid as "street sweeping" because unemployed people were forced to get off their asses. They'd also probably feel better about themselves because at least they'd have something to get up for.

 

[Will]

Flat rate tax in socialist and fair shocker.

Maybe I should be in charge.

 

[Scouse]

If we moved toward far higher imcome tax levels, then this would in theory help the problem. But there are always the silly twats who would look at their pay slips and then start a protest or something about how they have been "robbed". The problem we have is lack of understanding. The budget... what is the first thing you ever hear from it? Alcohol, Fuel, and tobacco tax levels.... dear god.

It's been proven time and again that lower tax levels across the board promote inward investment in a country and higher tax levels discourage inward investment.

Which would you rather have of the following:

• An economy that was employer-rich. There's loads of jobs to go around but not as much job security as people would probably like. People will regularly change their employment circumstances but will generally be in work because of the jobs available
  
• or
  
• An economy that isn't employer-rich. Theres fewer jobs to go around but because of their nature they tend to be very secure "jobs for life" so to speak.

You tend to get the first with a low tax economy and the second with higher tax economies.

I know which one I like. That's why I'm self-employed. I'm not scared of being out of work because I know there's more out there. The trick is to be employable.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Right, well im too tired to right some essay on why my point of view MUST be right. because i like erm write lots of something.

The reason we have a budget deficit is easy for even a complete arrogant tosser to understand (Not pointing fingers). We are spending more then we are receiving. When i say we i mean the Government. And browns reasoning is that if they invest heavily now in CAPITAL expenditure... that's new schools, hospitals, raods etc etc etc then the extra jobs, welfare and all the positive, social and private externalities will make up for the borrowing. So in the long run we are better off.

That includes things like New deal (Funding for training and re-training) which as you so proudly proclaimed makes the labour market as a whole more flexible. More employable. Now i can't be talking bollocks as we have what the lowest unemployment for decades? And in between patronising me about apples, if you stop to think for a minute.

Lets take your apples for instance. For Mr. Bloggs to live he has to spend 8 apples a year to live. food clothes etc etc. Now lets say he earns 10 apples. So 20 PERCENT!!!111one of 10 apples is 2 (You established that, well done) He is left with what? 8 apples exactly what he needs to live.... hooray you all shout.

Now take Mr.Rich he also only needs 8 apples to live. But instead he takes 16 apples, as he likes fast cars, big houses and organic, certified etc etc food.. He earns 30 apples, so 20 PERCENT111one of 30 is... ? 24 well done. So he is left with 8 apples. Right?

And as has already been said, you don't always earn a big wage through hard work. In most cases the opposite. I don't see why taxing the higher earners must be jealousy. Money makes money goes the saying. Most seriously high earners don't even pay tax for fucks sake.

 

[Gumbo]

Brown has screwed up his maths, we are not going to make 3 percent growth over the next few years, get as safe a job as you can now. Recession is coming.

 

[Ormorof]

Now take Mr.Rich he also only needs 8 apples to live. But instead he takes 16 apples, as he likes fast cars, big houses and organic, certified etc etc food.. He earns 30 apples, so 20 PERCENT111one of 30 is... ? 24 well done. So he is left with 8 apples. Right?

i agree taxing higher earners more is perfectly acceptable as no matter what anyone says they are better off in the end anyway

edit: got rid of the maths bit as i feel a fool even trying with maths

 

[Deadmanwalking]

i agree taxing higher earners more is perfectly acceptable as no matter what anyone says they are better off in the end anyway

edit: got rid of the maths bit as i feel a fool even trying with maths

Nah it is 6. I also wrote it wrong. Heh.

6 from 30 = 24

 

[yaruar]

Dagaffer isn't arguing the opposite point to myself though. I've mentioned before that we need higher levels of immigration, especially in Scotland.

Closing tax loopholes for the stupidly rich would also help with the shortfalls of the welfare state. Personally, I'd like to see a flat rate tax for everyone with no loopholes at all. Which strangely enough is a very "free market" view on taxation, while I see it as a very socialist system. If everyone paid, for example, 20% income tax, including big businesses, I think things would be both simpler and fairer.

Progressive income tax is still the best way to regulate an economy, although there has been too much cowtowing to the higher paid in recent years.

Also there are very interesting theories based around negative income tax rates at low levels rather than benefits which is a more complex model but could work well.

 

[yaruar]

I fucking hate this argument (with teh anger!). I come across it again and again. Basically because it's a flawed, unfair argument borne out of jealousy and spite.

Tax is a percentage of what you earn. In terms for any fuckwitt to understand (not pointing fingers) it means that if I get taxed at 20% I have to give two of my ten apples away.

If I earn 100 apples I have to give 20 away. If I earn 10 apples I have to give two away.

What's in any way unfair about that??

[/b]

It is an unfair system for a number of reasons. Mainly that there are diminishing marginal returns on increasing incomes. It may seem fair on an individual level, but isn't fair on a societal level as it would mean a much higher taxation rate for eveyone which would place a much greater burden on the poorer members of society.

The only real argument against a progressive taxation system is the disincentive to work that it causes, although people earning huge amounts of money don't tend to be driven by the same factors which low earners do.

TBH they need to close more taxation loopholes in this country. It's criminal the the people who earn the most money in this country actually pay the least amount of tax. Most of the high paid directors i have worked with get paid into offshore bank accounts and pay no income tax at all. + Hans Reisling (the richest man in the country AFAIR) blackmails the government into him paying 0 tax on any of his income by threatening to leave if they ever send him a bill. I say let the bastard leave then and seize his mansions for back tax

 

[DaGaffer]

The reason we have a budget deficit is easy for even a complete arrogant tosser to understand (Not pointing fingers). We are spending more then we are receiving. When i say we i mean the Government. And browns reasoning is that if they invest heavily now in CAPITAL expenditure... that's new schools, hospitals, raods etc etc etc then the extra jobs, welfare and all the positive, social and private externalities will make up for the borrowing. So in the long run we are better off.

This is flaw No.1 - capital expenditure of the type you're talking about creates jobs certainly, but the bulk of them are public sector jobs, so we still end up paying for the operation of them. Its not real revenue growth

That includes things like New deal (Funding for training and re-training) which as you so proudly proclaimed makes the labour market as a whole more flexible. More employable. Now i can't be talking bollocks as we have what the lowest unemployment for decades? And in between patronising me about apples, if you stop to think for a minute.

Unfortunately, you can. All that's happened is the long term unemployed have been progressively moved off the unemployment stats and into other areas like long-term disability (2.7m and rising) There are fewer 'economically active' people than ever.

Lets take your apples for instance. For Mr. Bloggs to live he has to spend 8 apples a year to live. food clothes etc etc. Now lets say he earns 10 apples. So 20 PERCENT!!!111one of 10 apples is 2 (You established that, well done) He is left with what? 8 apples exactly what he needs to live.... hooray you all shout.


Now take Mr.Rich he also only needs 8 apples to live. But instead he takes 16 apples, as he likes fast cars, big houses and organic, certified etc etc food.. He earns 30 apples, so 20 PERCENT111one of 30 is... ? 24 well done. So he is left with 8 apples. Right?

And as has already been said, you don't always earn a big wage through hard work. In most cases the opposite. I don't see why taxing the higher earners must be jealousy. Money makes money goes the saying. Most seriously high earners don't even pay tax for fucks sake.

Hold on a minute; what's all this "what he needs to live" shit? I don't know about you, but I didn't spend 4 years at university, worked fucking hard since so I could earn "what I need to live". This is the fundamental problem - everyone should aspire to a better life for themselves, and they shouldn't think some other fucker is going to pay for that life. I want my 16 extra apples for me - I earned them, and if I'm paying 20 apples in tax when somebody who's earning a tenth of what I earn is paying 2 - I'm still making a larger contribution in absolute terms (subsidising 9 other 2 apple contributors), so what's the problem? Especially if it makes me more likely to earn enough to pay 25 apples in tax next year because I'm motivated to earn more in the knowledge I'm not just earning all those juicy cox's to give to the chancellor (enough with the fruit already - sorry).

 

[Tom]

I'm not economist, but I do know that I don't like paying tax, especially when I see my local council wasting so much of it, and spongers (as per original post) taking it for doing nothing.

Also, socialism as a model of government is flawed, and does not work. Perhaps when we find a free source of unlimited energy, and we can do away with money, great. But until then, keep your hands off my stack, Jack.

 

[Scouse]

i agree taxing higher earners more is perfectly acceptable as no matter what anyone says they are better off in the end anyway

There's the jealousy nicely summed up.

Hold on a minute; what's all this "what he needs to live" shit? I don't know about you, but I didn't spend 4 years at university, worked fucking hard since so I could earn "what I need to live". This is the fundamental problem - everyone should aspire to a better life for themselves, and they shouldn't think some other fucker is going to pay for that life. I want my 16 extra apples for me - I earned them, and if I'm paying 20 apples in tax when somebody who's earning a tenth of what I earn is paying 2 - I'm still making a larger contribution in absolute terms (subsidising 9 other 2 apple contributors), so what's the problem? Especially if it makes me more likely to earn enough to pay 25 apples in tax next year because I'm motivated to earn more in the knowledge I'm not just earning all those juicy cox's to give to the chancellor (enough with the fruit already - sorry).

Bang on m8.

BTW - I fucking hate what I do (seriously) - but it pays well. Until last night at 6:30pm, when I got told I've got another 3 months work, I was out of a job today.

I take the risks. I earn the cash. I put my own financial security on the line to do it.

Don't try to tell me that I have to give a higher-proportion of my hard-earned to people who get paid for free to toss it off. I already do - and it's wrong.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

This is flaw No.1 - capital expenditure of the type you're talking about creates jobs certainly, but the bulk of them are public sector jobs, so we still end up paying for the operation of them. Its not real revenue growth

Oh it is. As i have said, Brown has made it one of his targets, objectives whatever. That he will never borrow money in order to pay for current expenditure. IE. Pay wages of current teachers, doctors etc. And only borrow cash to expand.

So yes we will have to pay the new doctors wages later on and all the rest of it, but. With the new jobs, it will mean more people have money to be spending in the economy. Which in terms leads to more jobs. Multiplier effect. And more people working (and earning more) more tax collected.

This is all before we take into account the other serious advantages of having more doctors, teachers, nurses.

Not talking financial effetc shere but social benefits. Better healthcare makes the workforce as a whole, healthier, happier and therefor less likely to take time off work. More output per worker..... yay!

Better education? Well that should be obvious. Better educated and trained workforce, which in turn leads to more flexibility in the labour market and overall a host of other social benefits. (Less violent crime, racism, etc etc etc) EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION!!

The standard economic model we work by is the boom, slump model. While not the same as Thatchers boom, bust it is similar. But less extreme.

One year we have a budget deficit, but the next we have a budget surplus which pays off last years deifict. And the cycle continues. What Brown is doing currently is having repeated deificts now, while the economy is still growing rapidly and we can afford to take on the debt. This will pay off in the medium - long term as we see the new hospitals, etc being completed.

It is far too easy at this point, to get your pitchfork out and shout about taxes, lack of spending and how the sponging underclass (Or immigrants it seems) are robbing us of how "Hard earned cahs mates11onE"

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Don't try to tell me that I have to give a higher-proportion of my hard-earned to people who get paid for free to toss it off. I already do - and it's wrong.

Jealousy?

 

[]AC[dRuM]

......keep your hands off my stack, Jack.

What a stack that is eh.

/me admires Tom's stack.

 

[Turamber]

Can't be arsed to read every single post, but it does strike me as funny that a thread started about the volume of teen pregnancies eventually contains a post bewailing the low birth rate in the UK. Hohum.

Anyway, on taxation, why should those with high incomes have to pay tax at a higher rate? Generally speaking those with higher incomes are being more productive, have employees who contribute to the tax system, are entepreneurs (sp?) who help their economy out in various ways.

As we have seen in the last 20 years or so, where these people are taxed to the hilt they leave the country and take their know-how and business acumen with them.

 

[maxi]

I fucking hate this argument (with teh anger!). I come across it again and again. Basically because it's a flawed, unfair argument borne out of jealousy and spite.

Tax is a percentage of what you earn. In terms for any fuckwitt to understand (not pointing fingers) it means that if I get taxed at 20% I have to give two of my ten apples away.

If I earn 100 apples I have to give 20 away. If I earn 10 apples I have to give two away.

What's in any way unfair about that??

It means that people who earn more pay more. Automatically, fairly and based on your income.

People who want to "tax the rich bastards" are jealous. Pure and simple. They see people who have cash to burn - and hate them for it. No matter how much tax they have paid.

It's the same with people who have a pop at company directors who earn £250k or footballers who earn millions. Jealous. When they can honestly say they'd turn that sort of cash down themselves because they disagree with it ethically then, and only then, can they carp on about how unfair it is....

I say good luck to 'em. I'd love to do it if I could.

Bingo! We just hit upon why there isn't a thread berating those who earn millions and pay fuck all tax! Because, and I'm sure Scouse isn't alone, we'd all like to think we'll be that rich one day maybe perhaps and wouldn't like it if it happens to us.

I come from a single parent very low income family. My father was killed in a car crash when I was young and my mother took several jobs and brought up three kids.

She never allowed me to sleep with girls under her roof until I was 18.




Through hard work, a bit of luck and having been blessed with a mind that works OK when I want it to I've managed to drag myself out of low income hell. I now earn comfortably well - depending on how much I work in a year. (I'm self-employed).

Hey me too! and guess what! I'm all for taxing higher earners! so that blows that idea dunnit! I'm not self employed mind, I'm a software developer. I consider myself lucky indeed, it was a rats bollock away from festering in a hovel for the rest of my born days, that or killing myself.

Applying your life as a model to others (again) MASSIVELY over simplifies other peoples existences. I can't begin to list the reasons why for someone else this may be different, It'd take months and it's plainly obvious anyway.

I personally resent the higher rate tax bracket (which I have made it into, just about - I'm not filthy rich). I have to pay double the percentage of apples (four out of every ten) - just because I worked my ass off. I think that's unfair.

What a gyp.

I could ask myself why but I know why - it's because there's a fucking load of people who refuse to work because the welfare state is a gift to freeloaders - and I know this because I spent ten really easy months on the dole - refusing to take jobs simply because I wouldn't like that sort of work.

There's fucking LOADS of work out there. Tough shit if you don't like it. Get a job, work hard and you'll give yourself a chance of making something of your life. If you don't make it - it's a shame - not everyone can.

Again applying your life model to others. I kind of agree i with the 'tough shit' bit, but again point to someone elses, and my posts on deep rooted problems in society etc. Secondly I think you're wrong about making something of your life. You've just said not everyone CAN, but you still expect people who know(for whatever reason) they won't 'make' it to try! what the FUCK is the point in that? People generally do NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CRITICALLY OBSERVE their own state of life, let alone consider the burden of themselves on the rest of society and even if they do the conclusion they have to come to is a grim one. 'ah well, I'll never live comfortably(unless i win the lottery with this 15 tickets!) it but at least through my hard work and graft Wayne Rooney will be able to drive to work in his 100k car on nice, clean new roads, I'm a Good human being' Man what shit!



I'm sorry, It isn't Jealousy or spite, Working Harder does not equal Earning More. It's just fucking Capitalism man! Someone Stays rich at the expense of others, and then there's those in the middle, who aspire to be rich and don'y want the dirty skanks making it harder than they already see it as being. Though in truth it's nigh on impossible.

 

[Whipped]

Just to add something that was said when the interviewed the mother the other morning on TV. This may change the minds of anyone thinking of feeling sorry for these girls and their mum.

The first to get pregnant was the 12 year old. Something that happened after her mother was well aware that her and her boyfriend were having sex in her house. Her reason for letting them, "They'd only find somewhere else to do it". Well, if they were doing it in your house you should have sorted them out with condoms!!! Not blamed the school system.

The eldest girl has had two miscarriages and and aboration. You'd think she might have figured out what seems to happen when she has sex. Duh!

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

OK let’s talk capitalism, since that’s what most of you blindly preach: Let me be as bold as to claim that capitalism isn't really "working as intended". Not as described in the founding book of classical economics: "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" or just "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith (1776). In which the most important concept is that of a free market; the idea is that free trade among buyers and sellers will result is an optimal pricing and an optimal distribution of goods.

This logic is fundamentally flawed in that it presumes that all "players" involved have approximately equal power; this assumption is called symmetry, and is obviously false in (most of) today's world. The big corporations, for instance, destroys the free market that capitalism was envisioned to create... Some (neo-classical economists) believe the internet will help capitalism achieve the free market described by Smith, I say; dream on!

Sadly, it seems to me that the "fairness" of capitalism is as much a utopia and a myth as that of communism. (So, no, I'm not a commie!!!1one)

Seems to me that welfare states, with slight government control over economics, are better than the (current) alternatives. Even though this system also has its dysfunctions, as this thread shows.

 

[haarewin]

Just to add something that was said when the interviewed the mother the other morning on TV. This may change the minds of anyone thinking of feeling sorry for these girls and their mum.

The first to get pregnant was the 12 year old. Something that happened after her mother was well aware that her and her boyfriend were having sex in her house. Her reason for letting them, "They'd only find somewhere else to do it". Well, if they were doing it in your house you should have sorted them out with condoms!!! Not blamed the school system.

The eldest girl has had two miscarriages and and aboration. You'd think she might have figured out what seems to happen when she has sex. Duh!

i also heard that, and that the other 2 girls were jealous of the youngest one with the baby and 'raced' to get pregnant (from the neighbour, i think it was in the scum)

 

[yaruar]

I'm not economist, but I do know that I don't like paying tax, especially when I see my local council wasting so much of it, and spongers (as per original post) taking it for doing nothing.

Also, socialism as a model of government is flawed, and does not work. Perhaps when we find a free source of unlimited energy, and we can do away with money, great. But until then, keep your hands off my stack, Jack.

the problem is that the markets fail to produce, or severly underproduces) a number of goods which are needed by society to survive (public goods and merit goods) the only way for these to be produced is through government intervention which in turn needs to be paid for by taxes. The question however is how much the government wants to spend on these goods

Personally i'd like to see severe cuts in military spending.. We aren't a superpower any more and there is no real threat to our national security on a scale which needs a large standing army.

 

[yaruar]

The standard economic model we work by is the boom, slump model. While not the same as Thatchers boom, bust it is similar. But less extreme.

One year we have a budget deficit, but the next we have a budget surplus which pays off last years deifict. And the cycle continues. What Brown is doing currently is having repeated deificts now, while the economy is still growing rapidly and we can afford to take on the debt. This will pay off in the medium - long term as we see the new hospitals, etc being completed.

I disagree with this, Brown has been going for steady growth and has been trying to stop the economy from growing to rapidly in the short term (although his model may well fall down due to the rapid house price inflation of recent years which could lead to a destabilising slump) Hopefully we will just suffer slowdowns. He's managed to stave off the slump which is effecting at least the USA and Germany at the moment (and probably a few other countries but i've not really kept up with many macroeconomic indicators since i've been working.

However he is gambling on future growth which is always a very dangerous strategy. He has gotten it right for the last few years, but pretty much everyone agreed that he was overoptimistic with his growth figures in the last year and for future years. Again the biggest worry is housing prices as they didn't do enough to curb the huge price increase and if we do have a rapid drop in house prices in the coming years then it will bring the country down with it.

 

[yaruar]

and just to finish off my little posting spree.

we don't live in a capitalist society, we live in a consumerist society.

Consumerism is a cartoon version of capitalism which developed after the second world war in the USA where people we suddenly bouyed with victory and also very scared of the future and nuclear war. Because of this they started to look at only short term gain and pleasure rather than longer term goals. This model unfortunately stuck with is and had moulded modern 'western' society.