If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
I can't believe this....
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
The United Kingdom now has a higher tax burden than Germany!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2319071.stm
As a proportion of GDP, the German government now collects less money from their citizens than Britain does.
This cannot be just. Taxes are too high dammit!!!! I suggest lowering the basic and higher rates of income tax by 10% respectively and raising the personal allowance to ten thousand pounds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2319071.stm
As a proportion of GDP, the German government now collects less money from their citizens than Britain does.
This cannot be just. Taxes are too high dammit!!!! I suggest lowering the basic and higher rates of income tax by 10% respectively and raising the personal allowance to ten thousand pounds.
0
Comments
End your socialist state? No more dole? No more socialized medicine? The freebies end? Responsibility for self???
Steelgate's moans and rails are heard all the way over here. :eek:
The state shouldn't steal as much money as it does already. In addition Britain must remain competitive by having lower taxes...:)
Basic economics...spending cannot exceed income, so what will you get rid of? And of course parts of your economy are socialist. So are parts (although less than the UK) of the US economy. Denying it is lying to yourself.
I'd place greater private involvement into public services and further privatise state industry.
And it depends on how you define socialist. If you mean collective ownership, then I can't see how dole money is classified under that.
Just some food for thought.
:eek: That no less than Encyclopedia Britanica should affirm such a social reprobate as...
moi. :eek:
p.s. ~ thanks for the assist!
An interesting definition.
I was always taught (and ever political dictionary I have) tells me that socialism is a belief in the collective ownership of the means of production and a drive towards greater economic equality in society.
Collective ownership isn't socialism, it is communism.
Just as a point of interest, the Nazis were even more socialist than we are now, and believed heavily in government support of the people...National socialism.
ALL socialists believe in collective ownership of the means of production.
If you want something you have to pay for it. I believe taxes should be increased for top earners in this country. An extra 5% on amounts over £100,000 is not going to affect anyone who earns such wages, yet it would give our public services a much needed boost.
What the scandal that is PFI, the system is a disgrace it leads mainly to worse services and at MORE cost to the treasury, how can that be good, as it increases the tax burden, something you are so opposed to?
As for privatisation, what do you want to privatise exactly and what would be thye benefit?
You are not arguing with me, you're arguing with the staff at the Encyclopedia Britannica...
The BBC for a start.
And the OED (,i.e. the Oxford English Dictionary) backs up my view.
Cmon..............
Just rename the BBC as CNN2
Ideally there should be no state run broadcasting institutions.
I also assume that you do not believe that TV as a powerful media form should not have controls on it for the sake of society ie not wall to wall 'lowest common denominator' shit.........?
Society, schmiety. And what sort of 'controls' are you blabbering on about?
Greater economic freedom must preferable to some prick whining on about the state of TV programmes. The Discovery Channel does documentaries and it's private!!!!! Shit, if there's nothing good on TV rent a video, take a walk...why not do something else to occupy your time..it won't be a bad idea, would it :rolleyes:
Or seeing as you don't care about 'society' do you not care if there are actually any benefits, in which case you will also not care if harm is done by keeping the BBC under state supervision, please tell me.......................
The ones that keep kiddy porn off our TVs fool..................
It's good because the role of the state should not be too excessive. Why does the government need to own any tv stations?
And yes, somebody is a prick if they need to watch TV 24/7.
You must admit that there is an important role for the state in monitoring TV and you STILL haven't explained what the benefits of privatisation ARE....................:eek2:
Perhaps because there are none. Other than he would save himself £104 per year of course.
Personally I think it's money VERY well spent.
If the BBC was privatised it'd probably be bought by Rupert Murdoch. One only has to have a look at Sky 1 to imagine what kind of horror would await us.
If anything, the state needs to control more of our services. Starting with the railways and water supply.
Of course, the above statement is not socialist fallacy...:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The Hatfield rail disaster, to name but one incident, was caused solely by Railtrack's (then a private company) refusal to upgrade the line when metal fatigue was showing because it would eat into its profits. Perhaps you would like to discuss "socialist fallacy" with the families of the victims. :rolleyes:
Water companies have consistently avoided installing new pipes for their networks or done so at an alarmingly slow rate, the reason also being that they don't want the costs to eat into the massive profits destined for shareholders. Most government targets for leak reduction have been ignored or not met in full. When a Midlands water company was given an ultimatum to reduce water leaks, do you know what they did? They didn't get their massive wallets out and installed new pipes. Oh no. The greedy fat cat bastards reduced the water pressure instead so less water would be lost through cracks. They reduced the water pressure so much that when firefighters attended a factory fire and connected their equipment to the fire hydrant, only a miserable trickle would come out.
I know that in this country successive governments have starved public services of money, but do you think that a well-run state railways or water company would do such things?
Private companies should stick to retail and financial services. Let the state run frontline public services and keep the greedy fat cats away from them.
Ideally the state should be as small as possible.
There are many vital public utilities where I would agree with Alladin that it is unethical for private companies to run them and there is no proof that they do it batter or even as well as public companies..............