As long as the government pays everyone at least $15/hour of work, it sounds fine to me.

50 hours @ 15 $/hour = $750 = Wii + PS3 + 360 + $$$ left over = Good deal

Wait... what's that?  The government just wants free labor and doesn't actually want to pay anyone?  Oh.  I see.

Appearently you've never worked a day in your life before...

When someone takes tax money from you, they are requiring a number of hours you work at your job, to be rendered to them for free. It's still forced work. If my job pays me $8.00 an hour, and I work 40hrs a week, I make $320.00 a week. If the government takes 20% of that in taxes ($64) then I have spent an entire 8 hour workday just to pay the government - it's still forced labor. Had the government not taken that much money, I would have spent more time working for my betterment, and less time for the betterment of others. Forced volunteer work is the same thing, you just aren't getting $$$ first for it.

You honestly think that 100% of your tax money is going to better you, and everyone else? Really? You think that the UK Number 10 spending 100,000 pounds on an incomplete website is benefitting everyone? Bombs for Iraq benefitting everyone? Yeah. Government is 100% efficent in what it does.

I don't think you get what 'my' system is:

People pay taxes, but they aren't forced to pay for the betterment of everyone else. Very specific civil services are implemented at the discretion of local governments (police, fire, EMS, roads, ect). Each is a competitive implementation..If a town wants to entice new workers by lower taxes, it goes with a private firm, or finds a way to make their own services more efficent.

Government mandates retirement plans for all citizens, but does not create a massive monopoly for pensions. Rather, they allow citizens to pick their own retirement plans, with unique benefits and risks. - they get the benefit of retirement, with the freedom of choice on how they spend their retirement. Put it in T-Bills? 401K? IRA? CDs? Other investment options? All of it would be ok.

Education is still mandated by the government, but the government does not monopolize the education system by running every school. Rather, they provide vouchers for every citizen to go to the school of their choice. Rather than be forced into low-quality schools, they are allowed to pick good schools, and balance out school performance with school preference (distance of school, sports offerings, ect). If a person decides to homeschool their child, or the school doesn't require the entire price of the voucher (a set rate...$10,000 per student year), then the money left over is given to the family as a tax credit. This ensures proper competition among the schools, as they strive for student performance rather than the bureaucratic system we have in place right now.

Healthcare is, again, required under a universal system, but like pension, it's not a government monopoly like the NHS that rules the day. It's every business picking the kind of healthcare that's right for their employees. If a person decides to ruin their life with poor living choices, then their HC provider requires higher rates like car insurance. This then gets said people to live a better life, free of poor choices and bad behavior. Again, people still have their freedom but are still getting the benefits - all without the government reigning over the populace by forcing them to buy into a wicked monopoly. Businesses wouldn't be forced to have extensive coverage for every person, but a very basic requirement.

That's 'my' system: Freedom for people to make their own choices, rather than the government. As I've always said, the government can mandate solutions, but should not be in the business of providing them, because that's a monopoply. I think you'd clamor and complain in your parliment gave over the NHS to British Petroleum. Why then, is it any different if that name is replaced with the Labour Party, or any other part of government?

perhaps they might enjoy volunteering at a library or museum more.  its their choice where and even if they want to.

Meh, everyone knows the NHS is primarily funded by smokers. In the UK, when taxes on cigarettes go up it is a clear indication that the NHS has had costs rise in some way. In fact, I reckon if you could plot the income on cigarette tax and NHS outgoings they would match up pretty well.

I just find it a bit funny, that's all.

How about this.

Let’s say the government can find someone to pick that trash up for them for 10 bucks an hour. So, instead of making the History student pick up the trash they just make him pay $600 to get out of having to do it, and give it to the guy willing to pick it up for 10 bucks an hour. He gets to pay that $600 at 10% of his income until it’s paid off.

Are you for that?

That's not true at all!

Only the state of Maryland requires Student Service Learning Hours for graduation.

It's 50 hours woven into 13 years of education.

That's 3-4 hours a year, if it's evenly spread.

I don't think it's time to be shouting "fascism" just yet, seeing as this is designed to help improve strength of community - which a) would reduce number of ASBOs, and b) would the opposite of what a fascist state wants.

Plus, it's part of education, so it will be within schooling hours.

So its okay for the UK government to attack the civil liberties of a group not able to voice their opinions?

Are you joking? Tobacco duty brings in the Gov't £7.8bn a year, health costs the Gov't £94bn a year.

Source: HM Treasury.