We Are Now Paying For The Greed Culture Set By Thatcher

[huw]

Sure. And if you guys want to go make a defence system, off you toddle.

Leave me out of it cheers, I don't want one nor to pay for one. I'm saying no to your kind offer.

Sadly for you, it's the guys who are co-operating and mutually supporting one another who will decide who has to toddle. It might seem unfair but there it is, an unregulated market at its most basic.

[Injin]

Try going out on the street and asking a random selection of strangers.

Now, it may well be that a minority of people who don't want the NHS (or fire cover or whatever) are being coerced into making payments by a majority who do. I guess that minority is free to vote with their feet (and many do) though sadly there's no way of making it a one-way ticket, if they get seriously ill they are always free to come back and free-load of the contributions of others.

Sure, and go out on the street and ask a group of strangers if we should have 24 hour policing, be free of cancer and have every other day off work and they'll say yes.

Doesn't mean anything until it's time to put your hand in your own wallet and stump up the cash.

As this is the case, get your hand out of my wallet, thanks.

[Injin]

Sadly for you, it's the guys who are co-operating and mutually supporting one another who will decide who has to toddle. It might seem unfair but there it is, an unregulated market at its most basic.

So, in order to defend me you are going to attack me?

Most retarded thing I ever heard.

[huw]

So, in order to defend me you are going to attack me?

Most retarded thing I ever heard.

How can you possibly expect to be defended, when you've opted out of the system?

That's retarded. You're on your own, mate

[Injin]

How can you possibly expect to be defended, when you've opted out of the system?

That's retarded. You're on your own, mate

How can I be out of the system when you want me to pay for it?

[huw]

Sure, and go out on the street and ask a group of strangers if we should have 24 hour policing, be free of cancer and have every other day off work and they'll say yes.

Doesn't mean anything until it's time to put your hand in your own wallet and stump up the cash.

Try standing on an 'Abolish tax and abolish the NHS etc.' platform and see how many taxpayers vote for you.

As this is the case, get your hand out of my wallet, thanks.

This meshes with the other sub-thread: you're free to leave (but please don't come back if you get sick).

[Injin]

Try standing on an 'Abolish tax and abolish the NHS etc.' platform and see how many taxpayers vote for you.

This meshes with the other sub-thread: you're free to leave (but please don't come back if you get sick).

Votes don't cost anything, try time energy, money. You can't vote yourself my time energy, money because it's not yours to spend. It's mine, hands off, thiefy.

Oh and leave where?

A country?

Can't leave what isn't there.

it's really simple. I don't owe you anything. You don't owe me anything. So let's stop with the thieving.

[wickywackywoo]

No, that is just silly. There is no way to have a society without collective action - try it and you'll soon find youself paying protection money to whichever gang of thugs owns your neighborhood. Or contributing towards the neighbourhood defense organisation - which is not going to have much time for freeloaders. Unless you live alone on a desert island, you ARE going to be compelled to contribute towards society. Whining about it does no good.

It is however clear that the majority of people do in fact want things like collective defense, so to say that no one wants what taxes buy is false. The correct statement is that many people want what taxes buy but don't want to contribute towards them. People are greedy, amazing but true. Sheesh - by your argument, no one wants to buy anything in shops, because only the threat of force makes them pay at the checkout..

Exactly. Most people do not mind paying a reasonable level of tax. They keyword is of course, reasonable. Tax has gotten way out of hand in many western countries with huge numbers of parasites stealing off the productive. In time the host either dies or leaves.

In my view Goverment should be responsible for Law and Order, Defense, a basic emergency health care system, basic education and little else. I reckon this could be achieved easily with a 20% flat tax rate. Naturally hundreds of thousands of public sector workers would need to be redeployed to more productive work in the private sector.

The laughable levels of tax we have today are an abberation unique to modern day history. Most of mankind has never suffered the stifling levels of theft we suffer today.

[huw]

How can I be out of the system when you want me to pay for it?

Well, a community doing mutual defence might just as easily require a non-monetary contribution (taking one's turn on patrol or whatever) but we can consider it as a financial transaction if you like -- the thing to be captured is the expectation of communities that their members contribute a fair share.

You can look at the 'defence' tax as protection money, or you can look at it as a necessary collective response to a real threat (if the community in question has hostile neighbours, for example).

Of course, every individual will have their own perception of which of the above is true. Those who think it's protection money can refuse to take part, which triggers the (protection racket | community survival response) depending on your POV; often this will mean being excluded or ejected from the community and losing the benefits (such as defence) that come from being a part of it.

If your judgement was right; if the neighbours were no threat after all or if you can cope with them alone, then that won't be a problem (though abstaining from the give-and-take of community will probably lead to severe disadvantages in other ways).

[geoffk]

Do people want ther NHS?

No.

you bet they do.because you and i never knows when the bogy man will visit.

i reckon i have had over £1million pounds of treatment off them when they where trying to save my life over a nine month period in intensive care and beyond.....to me you cannot put a value on cost of saving your life...

[Injin]

Well, a community doing mutual defence might just as easily require a non-monetary contribution (taking one's turn on patrol or whatever) but we can consider it as a financial transaction if you like -- the thing to be captured is the expectation of communities that their members contribute a fair share.

You can look at the 'defence' tax as protection money, or you can look at it as a necessary collective response to a real threat (if the community in question has hostile neighbours, for example).

Of course, every individual will have their own perception of which of the above is true. Those who think it's protection money can refuse to take part, which triggers the (protection racket | community survival response) depending on your POV; often this will mean being excluded or ejected from the community and losing the benefits (such as defence) that come from being a part of it.

If your judgement was right; if the neighbours were no threat after all or if you can cope with them alone, then that won't be a problem (though abstaining from the give-and-take of community will probably lead to severe disadvantages in other ways).

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

What does this weird fantasy have to do with the reality of taxation - you pay what they say when they say or armed men come to your house, arrest you and stick you in a box with rapists, murderers etc and if you arm yourself and try to struggle they will call on ever excalating amounts of force until you are either dead or in that boc?

[lets get it right]

Do people want ther NHS?

No.

you bet they do.because you and i never knows when the bogy man will visit.

i reckon i have had over £1million pounds of treatment off them when they where trying to save my life over a nine month period in intensive care and beyond.....to me you cannot put a value on cost of saving your life...

You just did. Over a million pounds I believe. The question for the rest of us is ... was it worth the money?

[huw]

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

What does this weird fantasy have to do with the reality of taxation - you pay what they say when they say or armed men come to your house, arrest you and stick you in a box with rapists, murderers etc and if you arm yourself and try to struggle they will call on ever excalating amounts of force until you are either dead or in that boc?

Actually the analogy still holds: leaving the community = voting with your feet (though you have said you cannot do this as the country is not actually there -- and you accuse me of indulging in weird fantasies )

At the root of our high taxation is the fact that we have so many people who don't believe it's necessary to contribute to their community, preferring to freeload in one way or another. Clearly we need to do something about that, as it eventually infects more and more people into the 'why should I pay for this' attitude.

[wickywackywoo]

How can the person who said ...

"But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty."

.... stand accused of making greed a virtue? It absolutely baffles me.

If encouraging people to stand on their own two feet and helping others unable to do so is called 'greed' well, great, let's all be 'greedy'.

Yes, exactly. What Thatcher stood for was encouraging people to help themselves. Self-interest is entirely natural and healthy. Thatcher being a Conservative understood that. Socialists hate it so they call it greed and seek to drag us all down to the lowest level.

I suspect many of the people who complain and hate Thatcher so much either do not properly understand her philosophy or they are the very sort of people who prefer to ponce their way through life.

[geoffk]

You just did. Over a million pounds I believe. The question for the rest of us is ... was it worth the money?

ask them when they are at the doors of the hospital about to die at the age of 35 i will say you will get a 100% success rate as to whether paying tax for the nhs is worth it,,,i used to moan about my very very large tax bill when working in the diving industry but i can now say i got my moneys worth...

[Injin]

Actually the analogy still holds: leaving the community = voting with your feet (though you have said you cannot do this as the country is not actually there -- and you accuse me of indulging in weird fantasies )

At the root of our high taxation is the fact that we have so many people who don't believe it's necessary to contribute to their community, preferring to freeload in one way or another. Clearly we need to do something about that, as it eventually infects more and more people into the 'why should I pay for this' attitude.

Sorry, you lost me.

Why should I pay for this again?

Apart from the threats, that is.

Make your case, if it's as good as you say it is, then you won't need taxes. If it's not good enough, then we shouldn't have taxes. Either way, logically, taxation needs removing.

[huw]

Sorry, you lost me.

Why should I pay for this again?

Apart from the threats, that is.

Make your case, if it's as good as you say it is, then you won't need taxes. If it's not good enough, then we shouldn't have taxes. Either way, logically, taxation needs removing.

Okay, let's go back to the fantasy community. Assume they have a wall to keep the hostile neighbours out, the extent of the wall means that 100 families can live in the enclosed space. The wall costs £100 per year to maintain, and most of the residents agree to contribute a fair share of £1 to this. However, a few of them refuse, meaning that either there's a shortfall that must be made up by the others, or that the wall will be ineffective at keeping the bandits out. Either way, the community will suffer; it might even be destroyed.

My view is that the community is quite within their rights to demand that the non-payers either pay up, or go and live outside the wall. If they neither pay nor leave, then they will inevitably face whatever sanctions the rest of the community deems appropriate.

[wickywackywoo]

Okay, let's go back to the fantasy community. Assume they have a wall to keep the hostile neighbours out, the extent of the wall means that 100 families can live in the enclosed space. The wall costs £100 per year to maintain, and most of the residents agree to contribute a fair share of £1 to this. However, a few of them refuse, meaning that either there's a shortfall that must be made up by the others, or that the wall will be ineffective at keeping the bandits out. Either way, the community will suffer; it might even be destroyed.

My view is that the community is quite within their rights to demand that the non-payers either pay up, or go and live outside the wall. If they neither pay nor leave, then they will inevitably face whatever sanctions the rest of the community deems appropriate.

How about if the non-payer owned their piece of land prior to the building of the wall and said right from the outset, I don't want this bl00dy wall? Unclear as to why he should be forced to pay for something other people want.

[huw]

How about if the non-payer owned their piece of land prior to the building of the wall and said right from the outset, I don't want this bl00dy wall? Unclear as to why he should be forced to pay for something other people want.

Good point, there are several scenarios where someone might object to paying for the wall, and the problem is that the objections might be perfectly valid or they might be an attempt at freeloading. It's impossible to say for sure, because everything depends on a particular human point-of-view. What seems certain, though, is that if the wall really was vital then the refusenik will pay some price, either in the failure of his community due to the wall not being there when needed, or in some kind of sanction if the wall is built and maintained without his help. (Maybe they will loop the wall around his property, leaving him outside ).

[Injin]

Okay, let's go back to the fantasy community. Assume they have a wall to keep the hostile neighbours out, the extent of the wall means that 100 families can live in the enclosed space. The wall costs £100 per year to maintain, and most of the residents agree to contribute a fair share of £1 to this. However, a few of them refuse, meaning that either there's a shortfall that must be made up by the others, or that the wall will be ineffective at keeping the bandits out. Either way, the community will suffer; it might even be destroyed.

My view is that the community is quite within their rights to demand that the non-payers either pay up, or go and live outside the wall. If they neither pay nor leave, then they will inevitably face whatever sanctions the rest of the community deems appropriate.

That's fine, you are entitled to your view. I have a different view. One that says if you want it so badly, you buy it.

You aren't entitled to steal my stuff and physically attack me for not agreeing with you.

Thanks.

[Krackersdave]

Im not sure what she did that was so bad. Maybe Im too young. I thought she tackled inflation, public overspend and broke unions which were essentially are groups of people who use their collective position to bully the masses. Would appreciate a history lesson on what it was she did that was so bad. I feel we need the likes of Thather back.

We don't need another country wrecking bint like Thatch - we need a feckin PUTIN!

[lets get it right]

Yes, exactly. What Thatcher stood for was encouraging people to help themselves

And to help others ....

"the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

.... who deserve help. Not to help people who sponge off society (that's you and I) all their lives. There is no such thing as society - obviously - it almost goes without saying. Society is a collection of individuals. It isn't a corporate body or a club or a group. She stated the obvious and has been lambasted by fools (I don't mean you) ever since.

[The XYY Man]

Triple breasted whore of Grantham.

There will be much rejoicing in this country when that bitch passes on. I try not to think ill of anyone - it's not in my nature - but when people mention her name I get all worked up and angry. She wrecked so many people's lives and even today there are countless people still scarred by her economic policies of the 1980s.

I hate to say it but I will raise a glass when she dies. I never thought I would think that of anyone but she is the exception.

I will shut up now.

This post echoes a conversation I had with a mate on the subject of Thatcher about 6 months ago. Like yourself, we are not people who wish ill on anyone, but we both agreed that we'd love to shove a red-hot poker up her @rse cold-end first and watch her burn her hands trying to pull it out.

I will celebrate for a week when this community-wrecking milk-snatching old bitch is no more.

The cleverest thing she did was sell council houses and not let councils replace them. Turned decent community-minded folk into selfish mini-capitalists at a stroke, and created a major factor in why we have the mental house prices we all know and loathe.

Blair and Brown (he had her round to tea at No 10 FFS) are excellent disciples of this wicked old hag - but she remains the original and best.

And anyone who thinks she is anything but a wicked old cow - and there are many on this thread who seem to - are, like her, imps suckling at the tits of Satan.

And that's just about all I have to say about that...

[lampkin]

ask them when they are at the doors of the hospital about to die at the age of 35 i will say you will get a 100% success rate as to whether paying tax for the nhs is worth it,,,i used to moan about my very very large tax bill when working in the diving industry but i can now say i got my moneys worth...

Too emotive a subject, and as much as we all want everyone to be saved, it's just not possible. What cost should one life be saved at the loss of so many others? Maybe you got your moneys worth, but how many lives have been lost due to lack of funding in other areas? Where a million pounds could have saved several lives.

It becomes self defeating to continually throw money at a system like the NHS, it's an exponential curve plotting money spent against lives saved.

Now, don't go planting straw men I'm glad you're alive, but I just think there are some tough decisions that need to be made, that people are too afraid to make due to this idea that everyones life can be saved...You need to think about the greater good rather than from just your own perspective.

ed: As a side note, if my life was saved by the NHS anytime soon it wouldn't change my mind on it being badly run and badly managed...the fact still stands

Edited February 12, 2008 by sllabres

[Rain'ard]

How can the person who said ...

"But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty."

.... stand accused of making greed a virtue? It absolutely baffles me.

If encouraging people to stand on their own two feet and helping others unable to do so is called 'greed' well, great, let's all be 'greedy'.

I’m sorry but that quotation doesn’t explain anything about my understanding of selfishness. Taking responsibility for your actions is not outside the thinking of Tory, Socialist or Liberal or any other political perspective, this is down to the individual and taking into account the poetical rhetoric of colourful tapestries and so on states the obvious and doesn’t give reason to the statement of `there is no such thing as society’.

Not many understood at the time, what she actually meant, as it was obvious that if there were no such thing as society how would she have got where she was without the empathy of others who volunteered and helped to get her elected?

Anyway, I never mentioned that quote in my previous posts