What do we want to argue about next?

[Saga Lout]

The government spends about half of our money so for the government to raise the same amount as they do now, they'd have to tax income at 50% or spending at 100% (ish).

That assumes the only reason the government would ever tax stuff (or not) is to make money.

Which is not the case.

That's not the only assumption. The biggest assumption is that a government would want to use just one tax, which is highly unlikely, all the other assumptions are subsidiary to that.

[Saga Lout]

But the reason they want to influence behaviour is because of money, eg smoking costs the NHS and the DWP money. Lockdown, all about costing the Govt money in NHS costs and lost tax revenue. Care about actual people is way down the list of considerations,

No. Smoking saves the NHS and the DWP money. Smokers die younger and quicker, saving the NHS a lot of end of life care and saving the DWP several years of pension payments. We all die, but non smokers linger longer.

[Count Steer]

But the reason they want to influence behaviour is because of money, eg smoking costs the NHS and the DWP money. Lockdown, all about costing the Govt money in NHS costs and lost tax revenue. Care about actual people is way down the list of considerations,

Circular argument. They influence behaviour in order to save money ie tax, so they try to influence the behaviour/health...particularly of some...in order to reduce (or redirect) taxes.

Despite the bald assertion^^^ that smokers save taxpayers money....it's not exactly true. (It depends what you measure/factor in. I can't find any studies that factor in working days lost due to related effects, some studies are placed in countries with different tobacco taxes and state pension arrangements, some factor in Quality Adjusted Life year type costs. None appear to factor in the potential £ benefits of spending the 'smoker's care' money or medical effort on other beneficial things as far as I can see. (I haven't looked at who funded each research project....).

[Cousin Jack]

Whatever.

I am in favour of a lot less tax and a lot less government. I am quite capable of setting my own priorities and spending my own money.
Only defence and law and order are really necessary, the rest would be better without interference from government.

[Count Steer]

Whatever.

I am in favour of a lot less tax and a lot less government. I am quite capable of setting my own priorities and spending my own money.
Only defence and law and order are really necessary, the rest would be better without interference from government.

That system works really well in other places. Private roads, no public health system or education system, no Foreign Office....

Oh.

Tell you what, you try it first in Cornwall.

[Mr. Dazzle]

law and order

Well there's a perfect example straight away.

Is it better value to spend loads more on the police, or to try and tackle the roots of crime instead?

In fact you can probably take out the word "value". Which would be more effective at maintaining order?

[JackyJoll]

Is it better value to spend loads more on the police, or to try and tackle the roots of crime instead??

It’s not just an “instead.”

You have to have a Police force capable of enforcing laws and bringing to justice the perpetrators of the crimes that are committed.

Tackling the roots of crime is great, if it’s actually done in a way that works.

People getting off with crime is one of the roots of crime.

[Cousin Jack]

However, back to small government, why do we need a Foreign Office and lots of well paid Ambasadors?

As far as I can see the FO -

Screwed up totally in Argentina by being 'diplomatic' and not say up front ' Do that and there will be war'. No doubt they are being diplomatic to Spain about Giberalter at the moment, and probably elsewhere.

Offer feeble advice to travellers, with such helpful advice as ' Don't go to Lebanon or Gaza'. Every piece of FO advice I have seen could be gleaned fro reading any newspaper.

Why would I want to perpetuate this expensive anachronism? The FO and indeed the whole concept of diplomacy is unnecessary with modern communications.

[Mr. Dazzle]

the whole concept of diplomacy is unnecessary

Well you would say that, you're a c*nt.

[mangocrazy]

As far as I can see the FO -

Screwed up totally in Argentina by being 'diplomatic' and not say up front ' Do that and there will be war'.

Nothing to do with removing HMS Endurance as a patrol ship from the waters around Las Malvinas, then?

[Cousin Jack]

the whole concept of diplomacy is unnecessary

Well you would say that, you're a c*nt.

OK, I accept you are not a diplomat. I love you too.

[Pirahna]

As far as I can see the FO -

Screwed up totally in Argentina by being 'diplomatic' and not say up front ' Do that and there will be war'.

Nothing to do with removing HMS Endurance as a patrol ship from the waters around Las Malvinas, then?

Or the 57 Royal Marines stationed at Port Stanley to look after both islands.

[Saga Lout]

I wonder if we can get the thread back on track, discussing serious subjects of international importance.

Tea should always be stirred anti-clockwise. (And let's not have any coffee weirdos sticking their oars in. )

[Mr. Dazzle]

(And let's not have any coffee weirdos sticking their oars in. )

Big mug?

[Saga Lout]

(And let's not have any coffee weirdos sticking their oars in. )

Big mug?

Who are you calli...

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes. Must be in a big mug, the bigger the better.

[Noggin]

Coffee is actually a better drink than tea

[Saga Lout]

Coffee is actually a better drink than tea

Plonk!

[Noggin]

Coffee is actually a better drink than tea

Plonk!

[KungFooBob]

I can't possibly be betterer than Yorkshire Tea!

[Noggin]

I can't possibly be betterer than Yorkshire Tea!

Well, I have spent tens of years ‘chain drinking’ Yorkshire Tea. I even have Yorkshire Tea in the apartment!!

But I only use it for visitors!! *

I drink coffee



* I suspect the fact that it wasn’t that easy to get non UHT milk. But actually. Coffee is just better