I have never quite understoood how budgets work. It seems someone, somewhere makes an (informed?) decision as to how much money will be needed over a given period for a particular purpose. If all the money is used, or exceeded, it is assumed it was needed and will be needed again so more money is allocated for the next period. If the money isn't used it's assumed too much was allocated and less is allowed for the next period. Seems a little daft to me. How often can exactly the same expenses arise each month/quarter/year. Instead of just not spending the money it ends up being used for non-essentials or it will be 'lost' and less money forthcoming in future. Something happened in the nearby town of Tetbury recently that has made me think about budgets again.
Tetbury is a very old, very lovely small town on the edge of the Cotswolds. In the middle of Tetbury beside a crossroads of the two 'main' streets is a wonderful old town hall built on stone pillars and a market is held beneath it between the pillars twice a week. A small road runs down one side of it that traffic from one direction can use to side-step the roundabout at the crossroads - a mini 'rat-run' if you like. There was parking for about four cars (parking space is at a premium in Tetbury) and the narrowness of the road between the parked cars and the market hall meant cars had to drive slowly - apart from the occasional maniac of course, but maniacs appear everywhere. I'm not aware of anyone actually being hurt there, nor is anyone else I've spoken to. Nevertheless, various proposals were put forward and discussed and eventually plans proceeded to pedestrianise the small road alongside the market hall.
At the same time proposals were put forward to put in a pedestrian crossing on one of the roads leading off the crossroads. A sensible idea as it could be rather hairy trying to cross that road, especially for the elderly, despite Tetbury being a small country town.
All the work has now been done. Hah!
The work itself it shoddy; poorly finished with new tarmac not blended in to existing tarmac resulting in an uneven surface; tarmac pushed up onto existing cobbles in lumps; curbing hacked off at the ends leaving holes for people to catch their feet in and trip and other problems.
Slightly raised cobbling has been sited in a strip at either end of the little road and some of the paving has been extended into space at the end of the town hall where the road opened out.
The appearance is messy and not compatible for a Cotswold stone town. Cobbles or the smooth paving seen elsewhere in the town would have been more appropriate than tarmac; more in keeping with the Cotswold stone buildings. Tourists come to Tetbury because it's pretty, to visit Prince Charles' shop in the centre after seeing his country house down the road near Westonbirt. Visitors to nearby Westonbirt Arboretum use the cafes and patronise the other shops. If more work is carried out along the shoddy lines of the last then Tetury will cease to be a draw and money will not be brought into the area.
Meanwhile, 20 yards down the road, the crossing is in place after narrowing the road. It's a short road so I imagine it looks like an hourglass from above with the middle pinched in where the crossing it.
I agree with the crossing but surely it would have been sufficient to install two beacons and employ some paint for the 'zebra' crossing and the zigzag lines either side of it to prevent people parking? Why go to all the cost of digging the road up and widening the pavement - it's not as though that extra paving will be useful for anything and with that ghastly tarmac too! The money saved there could have gone towards decent stonework near the town hall. If indeed any of the work there was necessary, which I dispute!
There's a lot of grumbling going on around town, in the cafes, on street corners, in the queues in shops.
Both during the consultation period and now it's done I've heard justification on the basis that 'we'd have lost the money if we hadn't used it'. I've heard this many times in the past for projects that in my and many others opinions were a waste of time.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's a good saying. If something doesn't need doing, save the money, put it back in the pot, refund it to the taxpayers - don't just do something for the sake of it!
This little project cost £40,000 at a time of economic crisis, when there are numerous dangerous potholes around the county following the hard winter that need filling. Traffic lights or a roundabout is badly needed at the other end of Long Street (the main street). Just think, how many projects in how many towns are being carried out because 'they would lose the money if they didn't spend it'? And that's just roadworks. Budgets extend into every part of the community. Just how much money are we wasting that could be usefully diverted elsewhere or refunded to the taxpayer, or used to reduce the national debt?
Like the tax system change I considered earlier, isn't there anyone out there who can 'crunch the numbers' and work out the wastage of a budget system (and the current tax system versus the one I outlined please). If the numbers support it - fine, if they don't, well....
Ok, now I've considered the problem, time to go away and think about a better system. I'll see what I can come up with. Any suggestions folks?
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
12 Electoral systems
I had been thinking about immigration but the recent election has put that on the back burner for a while. We've been to the polls, given our verdict and still we are waiting for the result. Oh, we know the numbers but we've no idea who will be 'leading' us because none of the parties achieved an overall majority. Consider...the Conservatives got 306 seats with a total 10.7 million votes. Labour got 258 seats with a total of 8.6 million votes and yet although the Liberal Democrats got 6.8 million votes that only entitled them to 57 seats. It's absurd! Whether you voted Lib Dem or not it's easy to see why they want the system changed. Certainly the people who voted for them could be forgiven for thinking they are second class citizens, all votes are equal but some are more equal than others - pardon the mis-quote.
I've been trying to think of a better solution but it seems that everything I can come up with has already been thought of and is being used in another country and whatever system is used they all fail in some way. So we'll have to accept that we're not going to have a completely fair system - until some genius comes up with one. The main thing is to keep the country running with as little disruption as possible. Until we change it, please can we abide by the current 'first past the post' system and let the Conservatives get on with it? If they fail, we vote another party in when we next go to the polls but stop all these cloak and dagger manoeuverings. They are unsettling and unhelpful.
On the subject of alternatives...I've been surfing the net and I must say the system outlined in a comment on one of my previous posts appeals most, with a little amendment perhaps. How about...everyone votes, if there's an overall majority go with it, if there isn't then everyone votes again, this time with only the two parties with the largest number of voters in the running. Whoever gets the most on the second run gets to form a government BUT the seats remain allocated in accordance with the first vote - the second vote simply confirms who the country would prefer in overall charge.
Actually, I quite like the idea of parties not having an overall majority, perhaps it will make them think more about what they're doing. It's just the uncertainty of what's going to happen that I dislike.
There are already plenty of blogs around discussing the issue but...any thoughts?
I've been trying to think of a better solution but it seems that everything I can come up with has already been thought of and is being used in another country and whatever system is used they all fail in some way. So we'll have to accept that we're not going to have a completely fair system - until some genius comes up with one. The main thing is to keep the country running with as little disruption as possible. Until we change it, please can we abide by the current 'first past the post' system and let the Conservatives get on with it? If they fail, we vote another party in when we next go to the polls but stop all these cloak and dagger manoeuverings. They are unsettling and unhelpful.
On the subject of alternatives...I've been surfing the net and I must say the system outlined in a comment on one of my previous posts appeals most, with a little amendment perhaps. How about...everyone votes, if there's an overall majority go with it, if there isn't then everyone votes again, this time with only the two parties with the largest number of voters in the running. Whoever gets the most on the second run gets to form a government BUT the seats remain allocated in accordance with the first vote - the second vote simply confirms who the country would prefer in overall charge.
Actually, I quite like the idea of parties not having an overall majority, perhaps it will make them think more about what they're doing. It's just the uncertainty of what's going to happen that I dislike.
There are already plenty of blogs around discussing the issue but...any thoughts?
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
11 Voting - less rant, more reason
I've been re-reading my last post and I realise the last part became more rant than reason.
The only thing I have to add about how we vote is that we should try and vote according to conscience, not strategically. Consider the following possibility - the current government, party A, does not please us but although we think party B is better we've heard via the opinion polls that party C is more likely to get in. We might then be tempted to vote C instead of B simply because we don't want to 'waste' out vote. To me, this seems a waste in itself - we haven't made our view known. If sufficient others act the same way there could be a totally different outcome than might otherwise have been.
The whole point of an election is to find the party favoured by the majority. If we vote according to what we THINK the majority will vote we are not getting a true reflection of the views of the country. To this end I think polling should stop as soon as an election is called. Publishing polls, independent or otherwise, influences the way people decide how to vote. Best we vote honestly and wait for the result, don't you think? Could I suggest to all parties that they trust in their policies to get them into government, not in manipulating the electorate according to the latest poll?
Having got that out of the way I'd better address the 'rant' part of my last post. I do feel rather strongly about voting in person. Firstly, it shows commitment. It's not as though we have to fear being gunned down in the streets because we've had the temerity to get out there and lend our voice to the electoral procedure. I still say the type of person who makes an effort to go and vote will also be more likely to be the sort of person who's thought it through and will give as informed a vote as they are able.
Secondly, I feel it's less open to abuse. I can more easily believe that electronic or postal voting systems can be tampered with than paper ballots submitted in person. It would be quicker and easier to register fraudulent votes by computer or post than it would by making multiple visits to a polling station. Computer systems break down and can be hacked into, postal systems can be intercepted. I'm not saying paper ballots in person can't be tampered with, just that it would be more difficult.
If anyone can prove my concerns are groundless then fine, otherwise I shall remain opposed to any method other than paper ballots.
The only thing I have to add about how we vote is that we should try and vote according to conscience, not strategically. Consider the following possibility - the current government, party A, does not please us but although we think party B is better we've heard via the opinion polls that party C is more likely to get in. We might then be tempted to vote C instead of B simply because we don't want to 'waste' out vote. To me, this seems a waste in itself - we haven't made our view known. If sufficient others act the same way there could be a totally different outcome than might otherwise have been.
The whole point of an election is to find the party favoured by the majority. If we vote according to what we THINK the majority will vote we are not getting a true reflection of the views of the country. To this end I think polling should stop as soon as an election is called. Publishing polls, independent or otherwise, influences the way people decide how to vote. Best we vote honestly and wait for the result, don't you think? Could I suggest to all parties that they trust in their policies to get them into government, not in manipulating the electorate according to the latest poll?
Having got that out of the way I'd better address the 'rant' part of my last post. I do feel rather strongly about voting in person. Firstly, it shows commitment. It's not as though we have to fear being gunned down in the streets because we've had the temerity to get out there and lend our voice to the electoral procedure. I still say the type of person who makes an effort to go and vote will also be more likely to be the sort of person who's thought it through and will give as informed a vote as they are able.
Secondly, I feel it's less open to abuse. I can more easily believe that electronic or postal voting systems can be tampered with than paper ballots submitted in person. It would be quicker and easier to register fraudulent votes by computer or post than it would by making multiple visits to a polling station. Computer systems break down and can be hacked into, postal systems can be intercepted. I'm not saying paper ballots in person can't be tampered with, just that it would be more difficult.
If anyone can prove my concerns are groundless then fine, otherwise I shall remain opposed to any method other than paper ballots.
Monday, 19 April 2010
10 Should we vote? How should we vote?
The first question is a daft one really; of course we should vote. Millions of people around the world have no say in the way they are governed. We do! It may not be perfect and we may feel that our little vote won't make any difference but all the little votes add up to the will of the people. Anyone who doesn't vote needs to keep their opinion of the country and the way it's governed to themselves until they do vote.
How should we vote? Well this isn't about whether we should vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal or anything else; this is about how we USE our vote.
When voting, if we feel the current government is doing a good job and there are no better alternatives then it seems sensible to vote for the current party in power.
If we feel the current government is not doing a good job and there is a clear, better alternative, then it make sense to vote for the alternative.
The problem seems to be, listening to current gossip, when the current government is not doing a good enough job but there is no appealing alternative. Some advocate not voting at all since it's a waste of time and we won't get anyone good anyway. Others prefer to spoil their ballot papers 'in protest'. I really can't see how either of those achieves anything. No, the better option seems to me to vote for the best of the alternatives. If the other party get into power and also do not do a good job, vote for one of the others. Do this enough times and eventually even our somewhat blinkered politicians will see that in order to stay 'in power' they'll have to do a good job or get thrown out. Leaving inadequates in power simply means they have no reason to do better.
While on the subject of voting, let's consider the voters themselves. Anyone who cares about the country and considered options will get off their backsides and go and vote. Anyone who doesn't make the effort is presumably not the sort of person who can make an informed and valid decision. Being allowed postal votes or internet voting means lazy people who have not considered the position are more likely to vote and perhaps we do not need to know what they think! Yes, I am aware there are people who cannot physically, for one reason or another, get to a voting booth - I don't include them in the last statement, it's the general principle I'm trying to convey. It should not be an easy option for those who can't be bothered.
How should we vote? Well this isn't about whether we should vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal or anything else; this is about how we USE our vote.
When voting, if we feel the current government is doing a good job and there are no better alternatives then it seems sensible to vote for the current party in power.
If we feel the current government is not doing a good job and there is a clear, better alternative, then it make sense to vote for the alternative.
The problem seems to be, listening to current gossip, when the current government is not doing a good enough job but there is no appealing alternative. Some advocate not voting at all since it's a waste of time and we won't get anyone good anyway. Others prefer to spoil their ballot papers 'in protest'. I really can't see how either of those achieves anything. No, the better option seems to me to vote for the best of the alternatives. If the other party get into power and also do not do a good job, vote for one of the others. Do this enough times and eventually even our somewhat blinkered politicians will see that in order to stay 'in power' they'll have to do a good job or get thrown out. Leaving inadequates in power simply means they have no reason to do better.
While on the subject of voting, let's consider the voters themselves. Anyone who cares about the country and considered options will get off their backsides and go and vote. Anyone who doesn't make the effort is presumably not the sort of person who can make an informed and valid decision. Being allowed postal votes or internet voting means lazy people who have not considered the position are more likely to vote and perhaps we do not need to know what they think! Yes, I am aware there are people who cannot physically, for one reason or another, get to a voting booth - I don't include them in the last statement, it's the general principle I'm trying to convey. It should not be an easy option for those who can't be bothered.
Friday, 2 April 2010
9 Education
I’ll come back to health when I’ve thought it through a bit more but let’s consider education for a bit.
Current policy is geared to getting people into university. Once in university students are expected to pay towards aspects of their education and student loans are set up specifically for this purpose. This leaves graduates in the unenviable position of have hefty debts before they even get a job.
Education should be paid in full for the entire time a youngster is training for their role in life regardless of background. This is to ensure not only does everyone have the same opportunities but that society does not miss the benefit of talents that may otherwise go wasted. This covers nursery school, primary school, secondary school and any further education up to a specified age according to the requirements of the role they are to undertake in society. Individuals shouldn’t be expected to pay for books, equipment, premises, teachers or anything else; however – this should only apply where there is a need for such training.
Since society needs children to be educated and is responsible, in loco parentis, for those children while they are away from their parents it follows, that up to secondary school at least, society should be responsible for feeding and clothing them. At least one full uniform set every year and a good meal every lunchtime. If society is willing to pay for the meals, society gets to specify what the meals consist of. There is no reason a choice should be made available. Providing a set meal each day is cheaper than funding several alternatives, of which children tend to gravitate to the most unhealthy! Society says - if you want to take advantage of the free meals then your children eat what is given them. This way society can ensure children get one nutritious meal a day and this crosses over into maintaining overall public health.
We have a lot more people to cover a much wider variety of roles than a tribe and most of us should be able to fit in somewhere. However, the principle remains the same - we can't all be healers, someone has to be a hunter. For example, everyone does not have the right to go to university and indeed not everyone has the desire to go to university. Everyone should have the same opportunity via the education system but this is not the same thing at all. The education system needs to start off with general education and gradually become more specific, pupils branching out into areas suited to their abilities and desires – providing society has a need for them. If someone wants to move into an area they have no aptitude for and/or which has sufficient people already then they should only be able to do so if they pay for it and their tuition does not cause problems in the mainline system.
This is another area we, as a society, need to change our attitudes. For some reasons we see university as the highest level of achievement. So it is, for a certain number of professions. We need to understand that other types of education like apprenticeships, city and guilds and hands-on experience are just as valid and perhaps more appropriate.
People who are academically brilliant should have their tuition paid for but only in the field in which they are brilliant and where there would be an end benefit to society. By the same token, only those who show an aptitude for other types of work should have their tuition paid for - in that field.
That’s how I see society’s obligation but how does it affect individuals?
Take one child coming up through the system. Gradually he or she will move in a certain direction, it could be one the child is interested in, or one the teacher thinks they’re better suited for or, if he or she’s lucky, it’ll be the same thing. There are an awful lot of ways things can go wrong here because we are dealing with individual views and growing and ever changing children. Perhaps early education could include aptitude tests, following the general trend of the child as he or she grows and interests change. Once they decide which way they want to go it is up to them to prove to society that they, in preference to another should have their tuition paid for in a particular field. They compete for a certain number of places that are available only to the best in the field.
I can’t think of any other way than examination to decide who is better suited to a specific area. However, instead of pass and fail grades each student is allocated a percentage. If X number of students are needed for the next stage applicants are accepted starting at the top percentage and continue down the scale until all places are filled. The rest do not qualify for full state-funding. If, working down the percentages, there are too many people at e.g. 87% for the remaining places then other factors need to be assessed depending on the area they are competing in.
In order to ensure as many people as possible are directed according to their talents, education groups need to be smaller so everyone can be assessed and guided individually. What is this trend to ‘bigger is better’? Bigger primary schools, massive secondary schools and enormous educational centres provide environments where not only individuals can be overlooked but where large numbers can become mobs and gangs. Small groups can be reasoned with and directed; mobs cannot. Small groups more readily lend themselves to a feeling of community, belonging – things that society needs to instil in its children from an early age so they feel the need to contribute when they take their place in the world.
Current policy is geared to getting people into university. Once in university students are expected to pay towards aspects of their education and student loans are set up specifically for this purpose. This leaves graduates in the unenviable position of have hefty debts before they even get a job.
Education should be paid in full for the entire time a youngster is training for their role in life regardless of background. This is to ensure not only does everyone have the same opportunities but that society does not miss the benefit of talents that may otherwise go wasted. This covers nursery school, primary school, secondary school and any further education up to a specified age according to the requirements of the role they are to undertake in society. Individuals shouldn’t be expected to pay for books, equipment, premises, teachers or anything else; however – this should only apply where there is a need for such training.
Since society needs children to be educated and is responsible, in loco parentis, for those children while they are away from their parents it follows, that up to secondary school at least, society should be responsible for feeding and clothing them. At least one full uniform set every year and a good meal every lunchtime. If society is willing to pay for the meals, society gets to specify what the meals consist of. There is no reason a choice should be made available. Providing a set meal each day is cheaper than funding several alternatives, of which children tend to gravitate to the most unhealthy! Society says - if you want to take advantage of the free meals then your children eat what is given them. This way society can ensure children get one nutritious meal a day and this crosses over into maintaining overall public health.
We have a lot more people to cover a much wider variety of roles than a tribe and most of us should be able to fit in somewhere. However, the principle remains the same - we can't all be healers, someone has to be a hunter. For example, everyone does not have the right to go to university and indeed not everyone has the desire to go to university. Everyone should have the same opportunity via the education system but this is not the same thing at all. The education system needs to start off with general education and gradually become more specific, pupils branching out into areas suited to their abilities and desires – providing society has a need for them. If someone wants to move into an area they have no aptitude for and/or which has sufficient people already then they should only be able to do so if they pay for it and their tuition does not cause problems in the mainline system.
This is another area we, as a society, need to change our attitudes. For some reasons we see university as the highest level of achievement. So it is, for a certain number of professions. We need to understand that other types of education like apprenticeships, city and guilds and hands-on experience are just as valid and perhaps more appropriate.
People who are academically brilliant should have their tuition paid for but only in the field in which they are brilliant and where there would be an end benefit to society. By the same token, only those who show an aptitude for other types of work should have their tuition paid for - in that field.
That’s how I see society’s obligation but how does it affect individuals?
Take one child coming up through the system. Gradually he or she will move in a certain direction, it could be one the child is interested in, or one the teacher thinks they’re better suited for or, if he or she’s lucky, it’ll be the same thing. There are an awful lot of ways things can go wrong here because we are dealing with individual views and growing and ever changing children. Perhaps early education could include aptitude tests, following the general trend of the child as he or she grows and interests change. Once they decide which way they want to go it is up to them to prove to society that they, in preference to another should have their tuition paid for in a particular field. They compete for a certain number of places that are available only to the best in the field.
I can’t think of any other way than examination to decide who is better suited to a specific area. However, instead of pass and fail grades each student is allocated a percentage. If X number of students are needed for the next stage applicants are accepted starting at the top percentage and continue down the scale until all places are filled. The rest do not qualify for full state-funding. If, working down the percentages, there are too many people at e.g. 87% for the remaining places then other factors need to be assessed depending on the area they are competing in.
In order to ensure as many people as possible are directed according to their talents, education groups need to be smaller so everyone can be assessed and guided individually. What is this trend to ‘bigger is better’? Bigger primary schools, massive secondary schools and enormous educational centres provide environments where not only individuals can be overlooked but where large numbers can become mobs and gangs. Small groups can be reasoned with and directed; mobs cannot. Small groups more readily lend themselves to a feeling of community, belonging – things that society needs to instil in its children from an early age so they feel the need to contribute when they take their place in the world.
Monday, 29 March 2010
8 Our national health
So, what exactly should our taxes cover? A whole lot more than I can come up with I suspect, but there are some obvious ones; as well as some I feel we should NOT have to pay.
Let’s start with health since I’m proposing to highjack the National Insurance system!
Very broadly … vaccinations against certain diseases and facilities for dealing with epidemics, for example, are essential. Hip replacements and diabetic treatments keep individuals active and contributing – this sort of thing keeps society running. However, services like fertility treatment benefit only the individuals concerned, not society. There are also the knock-on effects of non-essential services. For example, the chances of the children born through fertility treatment needing more healthcare than the average child are higher, possibly even taking either or both parents out of the job pool to care for them. Certainly, at this time, society can’t afford this.
It’s harsh, no doubt about it but remember – a fair taxation system combined with sensible public expenditure should leave us with sufficient in our pockets to pay for what is most important in our lives. If what is important is having children then we can use the money in our pockets to pay for treatment privately.
Now look at the name, The NATIONAL Health Service, not the Local Health Service. Everyone pays into it and should have the same opportunity to use its services. The sufferer of a particular disease in the North West should expect the same service as a sufferer of the same disease in the South East. Allocating budgets here seems daft. Consider; perhaps each area is allocated a certain amount of money per resident to cover prosthetics. However, there are more chances of accidents requiring prosthetics in manufacturing towns than there are in the City of Westminster, say. Each area has different risks associated with it, if something needs doing, it should be done.
Budgets create demarcation lines, borders. Someone could live 5 miles from a hospital but it’s 2 miles over the area health authority border so they have to travel 20 miles in the opposite direction for treatment. Daft!
Our hospitals and health centres have become larger and larger over the years. We don’t need duplicate facilities every fifty miles or so for rare or specialist treatments but we do need local facilities for more general needs, simple broken bones, diagnostic procedures and so on, then send patients diagnosed as needing treatment to a specialist facility. Afterwards patients could be transported back to a local hospital to recover near family and friends. Or perhaps bring back the convalescent homes that used to provide interim care before patients returned to their lives. Also, larger facilities mean more people at risk if there’s an outbreak of something contagious. During times of plague in history, were not people discouraged from large congregations to try and prevent spread of the disease?
There’s more to this subject alone than I can cover in a small blog…but it’s a start.
Let’s start with health since I’m proposing to highjack the National Insurance system!
Very broadly … vaccinations against certain diseases and facilities for dealing with epidemics, for example, are essential. Hip replacements and diabetic treatments keep individuals active and contributing – this sort of thing keeps society running. However, services like fertility treatment benefit only the individuals concerned, not society. There are also the knock-on effects of non-essential services. For example, the chances of the children born through fertility treatment needing more healthcare than the average child are higher, possibly even taking either or both parents out of the job pool to care for them. Certainly, at this time, society can’t afford this.
It’s harsh, no doubt about it but remember – a fair taxation system combined with sensible public expenditure should leave us with sufficient in our pockets to pay for what is most important in our lives. If what is important is having children then we can use the money in our pockets to pay for treatment privately.
Now look at the name, The NATIONAL Health Service, not the Local Health Service. Everyone pays into it and should have the same opportunity to use its services. The sufferer of a particular disease in the North West should expect the same service as a sufferer of the same disease in the South East. Allocating budgets here seems daft. Consider; perhaps each area is allocated a certain amount of money per resident to cover prosthetics. However, there are more chances of accidents requiring prosthetics in manufacturing towns than there are in the City of Westminster, say. Each area has different risks associated with it, if something needs doing, it should be done.
Budgets create demarcation lines, borders. Someone could live 5 miles from a hospital but it’s 2 miles over the area health authority border so they have to travel 20 miles in the opposite direction for treatment. Daft!
Our hospitals and health centres have become larger and larger over the years. We don’t need duplicate facilities every fifty miles or so for rare or specialist treatments but we do need local facilities for more general needs, simple broken bones, diagnostic procedures and so on, then send patients diagnosed as needing treatment to a specialist facility. Afterwards patients could be transported back to a local hospital to recover near family and friends. Or perhaps bring back the convalescent homes that used to provide interim care before patients returned to their lives. Also, larger facilities mean more people at risk if there’s an outbreak of something contagious. During times of plague in history, were not people discouraged from large congregations to try and prevent spread of the disease?
There’s more to this subject alone than I can cover in a small blog…but it’s a start.
Sunday, 14 March 2010
7 Human Rights issue
Before we move into what our taxes should be used for, let’s address the Human Rights issue as this will affect how we decide what society should pay for. I suspect there are as many views on what human rights consist of as there are human beings on this planet. Folk tend to look at what THEY want and need when deciding what human rights are. Understandable!
In my view the only rights any individual has are those that society is not only WILLING to let them have, but is also ABLE to let them have.
In a small society, tribe perhaps, too many healers would leave people sitting around contributing nothing when everyone was well. This would put an unfair burden on, say, the hunters who had to provide meat for more people than necessary. On the other hand, too few healers could be catastrophic if a major disaster happened. Presumably they worked out a viable balance and I’m sure most members of small societies or tribes had more than one skill. I’m also sure they had many a young man who wanted to be a healer but had to be a hunter. The tribe may be WILLING to let him be a healer, but they may not be ABLE to do so because it would unbalance the tribe and possibly lead to eventual starvation and extinction of the whole society.
Bigger societies have a lot more leeway but how do we find the balance between what our society is not only WILLING to do but is also ABLE to do? Not exactly a straightforward issue. I’m sure we would all like to think we could make the very best of everything available to everyone at all times but even I know this is an impossible dream. Basically what society needs are the facilities to keep most people fit for work most of the time and to have reasonable preparations in place for emergencies. Anything that can be managed over and above that is to be welcomed as a bonus.
If we manage to develop a reasonable system of taxation there should be enough money in the hands of the general population to enable them to get what THEY consider to be their human rights. BASIC Human Rights can then be considered in terms of the right not to be harmed in any way instead of the right to have things.
In my view the only rights any individual has are those that society is not only WILLING to let them have, but is also ABLE to let them have.
In a small society, tribe perhaps, too many healers would leave people sitting around contributing nothing when everyone was well. This would put an unfair burden on, say, the hunters who had to provide meat for more people than necessary. On the other hand, too few healers could be catastrophic if a major disaster happened. Presumably they worked out a viable balance and I’m sure most members of small societies or tribes had more than one skill. I’m also sure they had many a young man who wanted to be a healer but had to be a hunter. The tribe may be WILLING to let him be a healer, but they may not be ABLE to do so because it would unbalance the tribe and possibly lead to eventual starvation and extinction of the whole society.
Bigger societies have a lot more leeway but how do we find the balance between what our society is not only WILLING to do but is also ABLE to do? Not exactly a straightforward issue. I’m sure we would all like to think we could make the very best of everything available to everyone at all times but even I know this is an impossible dream. Basically what society needs are the facilities to keep most people fit for work most of the time and to have reasonable preparations in place for emergencies. Anything that can be managed over and above that is to be welcomed as a bonus.
If we manage to develop a reasonable system of taxation there should be enough money in the hands of the general population to enable them to get what THEY consider to be their human rights. BASIC Human Rights can then be considered in terms of the right not to be harmed in any way instead of the right to have things.
6 One tax - can it work?
Well, we have a system in place that could be adapted and scrap everything else. National Insurance is already used to claim a fixed percentage from both businesses and individuals. Since I consider the health of the nation to be part of the responsibilities of society as a whole I don’t see why it has to be a separate claim on our pockets. The money goes into one big pot and is paid out on a need-to-be-done basis.
We all have individual National Insurance numbers. Use a P (Personal) prefix for an individual and an N (Non-personal) prefix for business, charities etc and X for everything else, eg foreign residents earning money in the UK. Banks and building society interest, stocks and shares sales – all can have tax taken before payout and passed to the government by the bank, building society, stockbroker etc; employment income, including basic salary and bonuses – tax can be taken and submitted to the Government by the employers; house sales – tax on the balance between original purchase price and sale price can be taken and submitted to the government by the solicitors. All accounts and transactions must have allocated ‘N.I.’ numbers and this number must be quoted by the payer to the Government for recording by the Tax Office.
Anyone submitting a tax return simply lists all income for the year and how much tax they’ve paid at source and submits payment for what has not already been paid. The figure already paid is compared to what is recorded under the ‘N.I.’ number and the new payment recorded. There’s no working out what tax band applies, no fiddling to bring the amount down to the lowest possible tax band – one percentage for everyone. Tax inspectors should find their work easier when investigating suspect returns and carrying out random checks.
The more tax is taken ‘at source’ the less chance for individuals to ‘fiddle’. One percentage means sources don’t need to know whether their employees pay a particular rate or are eligible for certain subsidies in order to calculate what they should pay; one percentage fits all, leaves no room for argument or misinterpretation and is easy to change annually when the ‘Budget’ is decided.
What percentage? I’ve no idea; one of those things better minds than mine would need to work out!
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, no – if you make a loss instead of a profit you don’t get tax handed back. Tough!
I’d like to re-iterate here that income tax should be the only tax. If we need money to keep us going, we all contribute. Keep it separate from anything else so we always know where we stand.
If social engineering is required e.g. a company violates regulations and causes an environmental disaster, the company is prosecuted and not only has to pay to put the problem right but also has to pay a ‘social penalty’. Remedial work and penalties should both be paid from their profits i.e. after they have paid their income tax – which is a separate issue.
Policing and administration of prosecutions should be covered from the ‘N.I.’ pot as this comes under law-enforcement but the social penalty should be paid to a separate fund. That fund to be kept in case any firm does something so awful that it goes out of business without being able to pay for correcting the problem and does not have insurance to cover it.
As another example, if it was decided that a penalty on petrol use was needed as social engineering the money should also go the Penalty Pot. As petrol is so damaging, perhaps the pot could also be used to fund research into alternative fuel sources.
We all have individual National Insurance numbers. Use a P (Personal) prefix for an individual and an N (Non-personal) prefix for business, charities etc and X for everything else, eg foreign residents earning money in the UK. Banks and building society interest, stocks and shares sales – all can have tax taken before payout and passed to the government by the bank, building society, stockbroker etc; employment income, including basic salary and bonuses – tax can be taken and submitted to the Government by the employers; house sales – tax on the balance between original purchase price and sale price can be taken and submitted to the government by the solicitors. All accounts and transactions must have allocated ‘N.I.’ numbers and this number must be quoted by the payer to the Government for recording by the Tax Office.
Anyone submitting a tax return simply lists all income for the year and how much tax they’ve paid at source and submits payment for what has not already been paid. The figure already paid is compared to what is recorded under the ‘N.I.’ number and the new payment recorded. There’s no working out what tax band applies, no fiddling to bring the amount down to the lowest possible tax band – one percentage for everyone. Tax inspectors should find their work easier when investigating suspect returns and carrying out random checks.
The more tax is taken ‘at source’ the less chance for individuals to ‘fiddle’. One percentage means sources don’t need to know whether their employees pay a particular rate or are eligible for certain subsidies in order to calculate what they should pay; one percentage fits all, leaves no room for argument or misinterpretation and is easy to change annually when the ‘Budget’ is decided.
What percentage? I’ve no idea; one of those things better minds than mine would need to work out!
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, no – if you make a loss instead of a profit you don’t get tax handed back. Tough!
I’d like to re-iterate here that income tax should be the only tax. If we need money to keep us going, we all contribute. Keep it separate from anything else so we always know where we stand.
If social engineering is required e.g. a company violates regulations and causes an environmental disaster, the company is prosecuted and not only has to pay to put the problem right but also has to pay a ‘social penalty’. Remedial work and penalties should both be paid from their profits i.e. after they have paid their income tax – which is a separate issue.
Policing and administration of prosecutions should be covered from the ‘N.I.’ pot as this comes under law-enforcement but the social penalty should be paid to a separate fund. That fund to be kept in case any firm does something so awful that it goes out of business without being able to pay for correcting the problem and does not have insurance to cover it.
As another example, if it was decided that a penalty on petrol use was needed as social engineering the money should also go the Penalty Pot. As petrol is so damaging, perhaps the pot could also be used to fund research into alternative fuel sources.
Saturday, 13 March 2010
5 Tax changes - an idea?
One fixed percentage of all income seems the fairest. Higher earners may pay more in actual money but are still only being inconvenienced at the same rate as the lower earners, yet are reaping rewards for their work by a better standard of living than others, and inclusion in our society. However, there’s no reason why those at the lower end of the pay scale shouldn’t be inconvenienced to the same extent; they will also be benefiting from society and it gives a feeling of inclusion and shared responsibility, of ‘doing my part’. So it’s fair.
Let’s spell this out. I mean every individual, company, institution, charity etc pays a specified percentage of income from whatever source. No exceptions whatsoever.
What are the benefits of one tax only? ...how long have you got?!
First and foremost is that whole fairness issue. It’s fair, and we know everyone else is in the same boat, so we can see it’s fair. It’s simple…if you earn it, you pay it. If there’s not enough money in the pot, the percentage is adjusted up accordingly, and if - dare I say it? - there’s too much, the percentage can go down! .
No teams of accountants/lawyers/politicians sitting down – and being paid - to work out the pros and cons of increasing/decreasing various sources and the possible side-effects. No complicated Budgets that have to be explained and then complained about/apologised for when they turn out to have an unreasonable burden on a particular section, or sections, of society.
Whole departments in the Tax Office can be dispensed with. There would little need for most of these people to lose their jobs in the short term. They could be re-trained in administrative roles and transferred to immigration. By the time they’ve reduced the lists there should have been enough natural wastage not to cause too many redundancies. In the long run the cost of their salaries and pensions would be vastly reduced and we would lose the cost of the buildings etc, relieving the tax burden on society even further.
Businesses wouldn’t have to employ large numbers of people to interpret and implement the Tax Laws. The self-employed wouldn’t have to pay Accountants to work out their tax liability. The employed wouldn’t feel frustrated at having to pay full whack for e.g. a wardrobe, that a self-employed person can get tax relief on by asking the sales-assistant to describe it as a ‘cabinet’ on the invoice! Everyone would spend less energy looking for ways to reduce how much tax they pay and spend more time and money investing in their business and resources.
As businesses invest and grow, they will expand and employ more people, who can afford to buy whatever society produces and the country prospers. Likewise, new businesses can concentrate on getting off the ground instead of paperwork.
The ordinary Joe-on-the-Street has tax deducted from his wages by his employer before he even gets the money in his hand. He then has to live on what’s left, providing food, shelter, heating, caring for dependents etc. Companies and the self-employed can deduct their raw materials (food), premises (shelter), heating, paying employees (dependents) from their income before they are taxed! Why can’t Joe pay for his living expenses before he has to start paying tax? No…it still leaves the whole question of what is a valid tax deduction and what isn’t. Surely it’s better for companies and the self-employed and the employed to pay their taxes based on their income?
It also seems to me that the simpler a system is the harder it must be to find loopholes or ‘work’ (‘fiddle’?) the system.
Why should any one section of society be exempt from paying tax? For example, charities and religious bodies can be tax free. What a can of worms! Firstly there’s the question of what is a ‘valid’ charity or religion? I’m sure there are lots of different views on this! Then there’s the question of who’s going to make up the shortfall? If a charity invests money in a savings account, that money is effectively taken out of the economy for taxation purposes. Those who don’t agree that a particular cause is worthy, end up having to contribute by default because more tax has to be paid by everyone else to make up for that cause’s tax-relief benefits.
Society’s infrastructure has to be paid for regardless of who pays. If one section doesn’t pay then everyone else has to make up the shortfall. How is that fair?
Taxes are to cover transport, communication, education, defence and so on. Whether we are old, or young, married or single, a private individual or a business, charity or church, we all benefit from these things and no one person or organisation should be exempt.
Is one tax for all Impossible? Is it Impractical? Maybe! But let’s explore it as a starting point and build up a workable solution.
Let’s spell this out. I mean every individual, company, institution, charity etc pays a specified percentage of income from whatever source. No exceptions whatsoever.
What are the benefits of one tax only? ...how long have you got?!
First and foremost is that whole fairness issue. It’s fair, and we know everyone else is in the same boat, so we can see it’s fair. It’s simple…if you earn it, you pay it. If there’s not enough money in the pot, the percentage is adjusted up accordingly, and if - dare I say it? - there’s too much, the percentage can go down! .
No teams of accountants/lawyers/politicians sitting down – and being paid - to work out the pros and cons of increasing/decreasing various sources and the possible side-effects. No complicated Budgets that have to be explained and then complained about/apologised for when they turn out to have an unreasonable burden on a particular section, or sections, of society.
Whole departments in the Tax Office can be dispensed with. There would little need for most of these people to lose their jobs in the short term. They could be re-trained in administrative roles and transferred to immigration. By the time they’ve reduced the lists there should have been enough natural wastage not to cause too many redundancies. In the long run the cost of their salaries and pensions would be vastly reduced and we would lose the cost of the buildings etc, relieving the tax burden on society even further.
Businesses wouldn’t have to employ large numbers of people to interpret and implement the Tax Laws. The self-employed wouldn’t have to pay Accountants to work out their tax liability. The employed wouldn’t feel frustrated at having to pay full whack for e.g. a wardrobe, that a self-employed person can get tax relief on by asking the sales-assistant to describe it as a ‘cabinet’ on the invoice! Everyone would spend less energy looking for ways to reduce how much tax they pay and spend more time and money investing in their business and resources.
As businesses invest and grow, they will expand and employ more people, who can afford to buy whatever society produces and the country prospers. Likewise, new businesses can concentrate on getting off the ground instead of paperwork.
The ordinary Joe-on-the-Street has tax deducted from his wages by his employer before he even gets the money in his hand. He then has to live on what’s left, providing food, shelter, heating, caring for dependents etc. Companies and the self-employed can deduct their raw materials (food), premises (shelter), heating, paying employees (dependents) from their income before they are taxed! Why can’t Joe pay for his living expenses before he has to start paying tax? No…it still leaves the whole question of what is a valid tax deduction and what isn’t. Surely it’s better for companies and the self-employed and the employed to pay their taxes based on their income?
It also seems to me that the simpler a system is the harder it must be to find loopholes or ‘work’ (‘fiddle’?) the system.
Why should any one section of society be exempt from paying tax? For example, charities and religious bodies can be tax free. What a can of worms! Firstly there’s the question of what is a ‘valid’ charity or religion? I’m sure there are lots of different views on this! Then there’s the question of who’s going to make up the shortfall? If a charity invests money in a savings account, that money is effectively taken out of the economy for taxation purposes. Those who don’t agree that a particular cause is worthy, end up having to contribute by default because more tax has to be paid by everyone else to make up for that cause’s tax-relief benefits.
Society’s infrastructure has to be paid for regardless of who pays. If one section doesn’t pay then everyone else has to make up the shortfall. How is that fair?
Taxes are to cover transport, communication, education, defence and so on. Whether we are old, or young, married or single, a private individual or a business, charity or church, we all benefit from these things and no one person or organisation should be exempt.
Is one tax for all Impossible? Is it Impractical? Maybe! But let’s explore it as a starting point and build up a workable solution.
4 Taxation - do we need it and is it currently fair?
Money governs every aspect of society; taxation is the tool we use to raise money. Do we have to have taxation? Yes, of course we do. There are certain areas of our society that we have responsibility for as a group if we want to survive; transport, communication, education, defence and so on. Our way of getting these things done is by payment. Everyone pays something towards the pot to keep our infrastructure in place - taxation.
Understanding that we have to have taxes, now we have to work out a fair system of collection. I think our system has become complicated over time as society has evolved. There are numerous taxes, direct, indirect and hidden, and it seems to me that whatever way you look at it, some unfortunate section of society ends up paying more than the rest. If it’s not fair it will generate ill-feeling, resentment and eventually, social disorder.
My thought is that it’s only fair if it’s seen to be fair and it can only be seen to be fair if it’s simple.
• Is it currently fair? Not to my mind. Is it fair that someone living in one part of the country should receive benefits that someone elsewhere in the country isn’t, when they are paying taxes for the same services? Of course not!
• Can it currently be seen to be fair? Again, not to my mind. Some people are eligible for tax relief, others aren’t. Can we see who these people are, why they are eligible for relief and be sure we’re not paying more than our share? No!
• Is it simple? Guess what – not to my mind!
So, what do I think would be fair? Well, put at its very basic, purely from a fairness point of view and accepting that nothing in this life is completely fair for everyone I would say…
…we should pay on the basis that we are all inconvenienced to the same degree.
Paying a set amount is clearly not fair. £10 a week, for example, out of the pocket of a pensioner could be life threatening if it meant they couldn’t eat or keep warm. £10 a week out of the pocket of a millionaire simply wouldn’t be noticed.
But is paying according to a scale – a higher percentage the more you earn, or paying nothing if you’re earning at the bottom of the pay-scale - any fairer? High earners lose 40% of their income. Not as life threatening as £10 for the pensioner but what incentive is there to stay in the UK and keep contributing? What incentive to work harder if the more you earn the higher the rate of tax? On the other hand, what incentive to work at all if someone else will pay for you?
Understanding that we have to have taxes, now we have to work out a fair system of collection. I think our system has become complicated over time as society has evolved. There are numerous taxes, direct, indirect and hidden, and it seems to me that whatever way you look at it, some unfortunate section of society ends up paying more than the rest. If it’s not fair it will generate ill-feeling, resentment and eventually, social disorder.
My thought is that it’s only fair if it’s seen to be fair and it can only be seen to be fair if it’s simple.
• Is it currently fair? Not to my mind. Is it fair that someone living in one part of the country should receive benefits that someone elsewhere in the country isn’t, when they are paying taxes for the same services? Of course not!
• Can it currently be seen to be fair? Again, not to my mind. Some people are eligible for tax relief, others aren’t. Can we see who these people are, why they are eligible for relief and be sure we’re not paying more than our share? No!
• Is it simple? Guess what – not to my mind!
So, what do I think would be fair? Well, put at its very basic, purely from a fairness point of view and accepting that nothing in this life is completely fair for everyone I would say…
…we should pay on the basis that we are all inconvenienced to the same degree.
Paying a set amount is clearly not fair. £10 a week, for example, out of the pocket of a pensioner could be life threatening if it meant they couldn’t eat or keep warm. £10 a week out of the pocket of a millionaire simply wouldn’t be noticed.
But is paying according to a scale – a higher percentage the more you earn, or paying nothing if you’re earning at the bottom of the pay-scale - any fairer? High earners lose 40% of their income. Not as life threatening as £10 for the pensioner but what incentive is there to stay in the UK and keep contributing? What incentive to work harder if the more you earn the higher the rate of tax? On the other hand, what incentive to work at all if someone else will pay for you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
