By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SciFiBoy on 24 September 2009
starcraft said:
Great, name calling. You're getting more mature about this by the second.

Every single idea you have come up with fundamentally ignores the fact that though the UK could have said no like you said, it actually said YES!!! New Labour is definitely left wing by Tory standards. They may not be as left wing as you'd like, but either way they went to war in your name. In a democracy you wear the good and the bad decisions your government makes. And then you try to make the best of them. If cutting and running on a situation you helped create at the expense of millions of poverty stricken and war-torn people you plunged into misery is your idea of progression, then that's another story altogether. That makes you heartless rather than ignorant.

I'm sorry by the way. What power is it the Royal Family has that offends you? Did you read what I wrote? Even ignoring the MASSIVE trade, tourism and prestige benefits the Royal Family brings to the UK every year (I believe that between them they engage in some 3000 meetings and the like every year), the UK Treasury PROFITS to the tune of ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION POUNDS OR MORE EVERY YEAR from the Royal Family's estate. In other words, even in directly tangible terms the people of the UK MAKE money from the royal family rather than losing it.

@ bolded - okay, half of that is just designed as flame bait, so please stop, also, if you read my posts, you would know one issue i have with the war is the fact that in all likelyhood we wont be able to make the best of the situation, in fact, we may even leave the country just to see it detireorate once more when we leave, its a conflict that neither the empire or USSR could win, how you think we can is beyond me.

@ italics - i think you over exagerrate all of those things stupidly, not to mention we can easily replace that with other things, new diplomats, trade negotiators, etc, prestige? who cares, its 2009 not 1609, surely its based on things other than the monarchy by now, if not who cares what people think about us on that count, i dont, even if we do make money from them (source btw?), id rather get it from something more worthwhile than a few useless aristocrats.



Around the Network
SciFiBoy on 24 September 2009

sorry if im posting stuff angrily, but im very tired atm, so im liable to snap



Soleron on 24 September 2009

I'm voting Liberal Democrat. My constituency is safe Conservative and I'm not against a Conservative government, but my idea of a perfect government is 20 Vince Cable clones as all of the ministers. I agree with the Conservatives on most economic and social issues, but not on privatisation - I'd like to see a lot more utilities etc. nationalised. My main reason for LD is Proportional Representation; we need more than two options at a time and if 5% of the country want something it should get 5% representation in Parliament.

Labour has been a disaster for anyone not extremely rich or unemployed. Especially on education; their effective privatisation of schools and the proliferation of soft options and grade inflation is something I face daily at school.

The main problem facing our country is that politicians are influenced by business (even talking to them is too much, I despise lobbyists and think tanks). No party is willing to stand for that, unfortunately.



starcraft on 24 September 2009
SciFiBoy said:
starcraft said:
Great, name calling. You're getting more mature about this by the second.

Every single idea you have come up with fundamentally ignores the fact that though the UK could have said no like you said, it actually said YES!!! New Labour is definitely left wing by Tory standards. They may not be as left wing as you'd like, but either way they went to war in your name. In a democracy you wear the good and the bad decisions your government makes. And then you try to make the best of them. If cutting and running on a situation you helped create at the expense of millions of poverty stricken and war-torn people you plunged into misery is your idea of progression, then that's another story altogether. That makes you heartless rather than ignorant.

I'm sorry by the way. What power is it the Royal Family has that offends you? Did you read what I wrote? Even ignoring the MASSIVE trade, tourism and prestige benefits the Royal Family brings to the UK every year (I believe that between them they engage in some 3000 meetings and the like every year), the UK Treasury PROFITS to the tune of ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION POUNDS OR MORE EVERY YEAR from the Royal Family's estate. In other words, even in directly tangible terms the people of the UK MAKE money from the royal family rather than losing it.

@ bolded - okay, half of that is just designed as flame bait, so please stop, also, if you read my posts, you would know one issue i have with the war is the fact that in all likelyhood we wont be able to make the best of the situation, in fact, we may even leave the country just to see it detireorate once more when we leave, its a conflict that neither the empire or USSR could win, how you think we can is beyond me.

@ italics - i think you over exagerrate all of those things stupidly, not to mention we can easily replace that with other things, new diplomats, trade negotiators, etc, prestige? who cares, its 2009 not 1609, surely its based on things other than the monarchy by now, if not who cares what people think about us on that count, i dont, even if we do make money from them (source btw?), id rather get it from something more worthwhile than a few useless aristocrats.

I have read your posts, and you have many issues with the war.  But progress has been made against the Taliban, and even the recent election's critics are only arguing about around 20% of the vote.  I believe the government would have won a majority even with a reasonable shift in that portion of the vote yes?  As someone already pointed out to you, the USSR's war with Afgahnistan was something of an unpublicised Vietnam.  The West backed the Afgahni's.  Even if they hadn't, this is entirely different.  We are not at war with Afghanistan, we are at war IN Afgahnistan.  It is not a matter of defeating the Taliban, it is a matter of ensuring that the Afgahn government is stronger than the Taliban.  Leaving prior to that will end in a bloodbath.

What am I overexaggerating?  The UK DOES have other officials to laud it's investment and trade credentials.  But it also has something no other country has in it's high profile, internationally recognised Monarchy.  Why not have both?

As for sources on the ENORMOUS income the Royal Family generates for the UK taxpayer ASIDE from all of their input into trade and investment generation:

http://talent-talk.com/2008/07/human-capital-uk-royal-family/



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

highwaystar101 on 24 September 2009
SciFiBoy said:
Pyro as Bill said:
Most taxes should be abolished. Law enforcement and defence is all we need. If we legalised drugs, law enforcement costs would be drastically cut.

Leave welfare to charities, they are far more capable than any government is.

A 50 K salary leaves you with ~35K after tax. On a regular 9-5 Mon-Fri job, the government takes everything from 9am Monday to lunchtime Tuesday. Then they take Tuesday afternoon in VAT assuming I spend all my money VAT only goods. If I spent all my money on petrol I'd be left with about 10K.

What gives any government the right to steal upto 80% of somebody's wealth?

so far as im aware, the government dont take 80% of anyones income, nor am I ever going to suggest such a stupid measure.

dont be soo stupid, most charitys dont have anything like the money or resources to provide education and healthcare and welfare, I cant see any of them in fact being able to do so.

Tell my dad that...

He doesn't pay 80% tax but he is in the top bracket for just about every tax, income tax, national insurance and council tax. It really annoys him and I agree the tax is insane. However, I do not agree that cutting services is the best way to lower tax. Three ideas spring to mind...

1. Increase efficiency - Anybody working for law enforcement in the UK will tell you the same thing, the law enforcement system is criminally inefficient (Pun unintended). The government is just not efficient for numerous reasons, I could give examples until I'm blue in the face, but I wont bore you. Increasing efficiency will provide better services at and reduce taxes and it could be done so easily.

2. Remove regressive taxes - This is the double edged sword of win-win. Did you know that when the government increased the tax for those who earn over £150,000 PA from 40% to 50% the predictions on the income from the tax was drastically off. The reason for this is immigration, the 10% increase was the final straw for a lot of people, and of course a lot of them can afford to move to tax havens with the amount they earn. My dad was talking about moving to Dubai when they announced it.

The solution is simple, do not tax the drivers of progress. A lower income tax will offer more incentive for individuals to earn more money and will keep those who earn large wages from immigrating to tax havens.

3. Legalise drugs and prostitution - legalising drugs and prostitution also works in an effective manner. It will relinquish the burdens that police and healthcare face as results, the use of the drugs can be monitored instead of being underground so they are safer to use and you get the added business tax from them.

 

 

If only I ran the country lol.



Around the Network
SciFiBoy on 24 September 2009
highwaystar101 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Pyro as Bill said:
Most taxes should be abolished. Law enforcement and defence is all we need. If we legalised drugs, law enforcement costs would be drastically cut.

Leave welfare to charities, they are far more capable than any government is.

A 50 K salary leaves you with ~35K after tax. On a regular 9-5 Mon-Fri job, the government takes everything from 9am Monday to lunchtime Tuesday. Then they take Tuesday afternoon in VAT assuming I spend all my money VAT only goods. If I spent all my money on petrol I'd be left with about 10K.

What gives any government the right to steal upto 80% of somebody's wealth?

so far as im aware, the government dont take 80% of anyones income, nor am I ever going to suggest such a stupid measure.

dont be soo stupid, most charitys dont have anything like the money or resources to provide education and healthcare and welfare, I cant see any of them in fact being able to do so.

Tell my dad that...

He doesn't pay 80% tax but he is in the top bracket for just about every tax, income tax, national insurance and council tax. It really annoys him and I agree the tax is insane. However, I do not agree that cutting services is the best way to lower tax. Three ideas spring to mind...

1. Increase efficiency - Anybody working for law enforcement in the UK will tell you the same thing, the law enforcement system is criminally inefficient (Pun unintended). The government is just not efficient for numerous reasons, I could give examples until I'm blue in the face, but I wont bore you. Increasing efficiency will provide better services at and reduce taxes and it could be done so easily.

2. Remove regressive taxes - This is the double edged sword of win-win. Did you know that when the government increased the tax for those who earn over £150,000 PA from 40% to 50% the predictions on the income from the tax was drastically off. The reason for this is immigration, the 10% increase was the final straw for a lot of people, and of course a lot of them can afford to move to tax havens with the amount they earn. My dad was talking about moving to Dubai when they announced it.

The solution is simple, do not tax the drivers of progress. A lower income tax will offer more incentive for individuals to earn more money and will keep those who earn large wages from immigrating to tax havens.

3. Legalise drugs and prostitution - legalising drugs and prostitution also works in an effective manner. It will relinquish the burdens that police and healthcare face as results, the use of the drugs can be monitored instead of being underground so they are safer to use and you get the added business tax from them.

 

 

If only I ran the country lol.

1. okay, no argument from me on that
2. can you do that and mantain public services to a high standard? if you can, great, if you cant...
3. agreed



SciFiBoy on 24 September 2009
starcraft said:
SciFiBoy said:
starcraft said:
Great, name calling. You're getting more mature about this by the second.

Every single idea you have come up with fundamentally ignores the fact that though the UK could have said no like you said, it actually said YES!!! New Labour is definitely left wing by Tory standards. They may not be as left wing as you'd like, but either way they went to war in your name. In a democracy you wear the good and the bad decisions your government makes. And then you try to make the best of them. If cutting and running on a situation you helped create at the expense of millions of poverty stricken and war-torn people you plunged into misery is your idea of progression, then that's another story altogether. That makes you heartless rather than ignorant.

I'm sorry by the way. What power is it the Royal Family has that offends you? Did you read what I wrote? Even ignoring the MASSIVE trade, tourism and prestige benefits the Royal Family brings to the UK every year (I believe that between them they engage in some 3000 meetings and the like every year), the UK Treasury PROFITS to the tune of ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION POUNDS OR MORE EVERY YEAR from the Royal Family's estate. In other words, even in directly tangible terms the people of the UK MAKE money from the royal family rather than losing it.

@ bolded - okay, half of that is just designed as flame bait, so please stop, also, if you read my posts, you would know one issue i have with the war is the fact that in all likelyhood we wont be able to make the best of the situation, in fact, we may even leave the country just to see it detireorate once more when we leave, its a conflict that neither the empire or USSR could win, how you think we can is beyond me.

@ italics - i think you over exagerrate all of those things stupidly, not to mention we can easily replace that with other things, new diplomats, trade negotiators, etc, prestige? who cares, its 2009 not 1609, surely its based on things other than the monarchy by now, if not who cares what people think about us on that count, i dont, even if we do make money from them (source btw?), id rather get it from something more worthwhile than a few useless aristocrats.

I have read your posts, and you have many issues with the war.  But progress has been made against the Taliban, and even the recent election's critics are only arguing about around 20% of the vote.  I believe the government would have won a majority even with a reasonable shift in that portion of the vote yes?  As someone already pointed out to you, the USSR's war with Afgahnistan was something of an unpublicised Vietnam.  The West backed the Afgahni's.  Even if they hadn't, this is entirely different.  We are not at war with Afghanistan, we are at war IN Afgahnistan.  It is not a matter of defeating the Taliban, it is a matter of ensuring that the Afgahn government is stronger than the Taliban.  Leaving prior to that will end in a bloodbath.

What am I overexaggerating?  The UK DOES have other officials to laud it's investment and trade credentials.  But it also has something no other country has in it's high profile, internationally recognised Monarchy.  Why not have both?

As for sources on the ENORMOUS income the Royal Family generates for the UK taxpayer ASIDE from all of their input into trade and investment generation:

http://talent-talk.com/2008/07/human-capital-uk-royal-family/

nevermind, I disagree about your interpretation of both, but im way too tired to spend 3 years arguing over evey detail.



starcraft on 24 September 2009

That would be dismissal again ;)



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

SciFiBoy on 24 September 2009
starcraft said:
That would be dismissal again ;)

no, im simply stating that we both have different iterpretations of both issues, its perfectly clearl that no amount of debate or argument is going to change either of our stances, so lets just agree to disagree okay, otherwise we will be here for years.



highwaystar101 on 24 September 2009

@ Scifiboy - Eliminating regressive tax effectively could result in lower taxes and higher national income.