We all know, or should know, about the little tricks the human systems do. That doesn't mean you can't avoid them by thinking.
I will state again, if you don't have enough time to analyze what you need to be able to see when driving then you are driving too fast.
If you get caught on a speed camera it is not the cameras fault, you just aren't as good a driver as you think you are.
Not if you're a pedant!
It already IS compulsory, unless you can tell us how to opt out of NI payments on income. The reason that it's such a bloody mess is that there's no incentive to make it work properly as it's far easier just to sting taxpayers for more. Things are highly unlikely to get worse if the cold dead hand of the state is taken out of the equation.
The State Pension, for example, is based on no sound economic principle, just sheer stupidity and money wasting rather than the use of actuarial principles.
The snag with
Hmm, something to do the ongoing £5billion a year theft from what were, previously, viable schemes.
That "jam" has already been taken - due to the abolition of ACT - for political reasons and the "restructuring" of society.
Quite. So replacing it with a private scheme will be of no use unless it is compulsory to have cover. Leave it up to the individual, and too many will decide against. After all, youngsters live for ever. ;-)
Wish I had your confidence it would get better. If you look at the US health insurance, they pay approximately 3 times per head that the NHS costs us - and although it may work well for the rich, it certainly doesn't for the poor.
What do you mean by that?
So there will be no 'theft' from private schemes in the way of profits and charges? You must live in a different world...
ACT?
Thank you for summing up a typical Socialist viewpoint where "profit" is synonymous with "theft" in your dictionary. However, without such profit, and the tax paid on it, there would be no State! This could well explain the unlimited "success" of the Cuban, East German and Bulgarian economies, to name but a few.
The UK's financial and professional services generated a trade surplus for the British economy of £40billion in 2010, whilst the financial services employ 1.9 million people, of whom more than two-thirds work outside London. Taxation imposed on the sector was £63billion - which equates to 12% of all Government tax receipts - this is more than the budget of the Department for Education.
Without success such as this we could not afford to have a Department of Education and many other things besides. What is your suggestion - that we print more money instead?
I find the it interesting, given the initial total opposition of the medical profession to the proposed NHS, that they can have their views so comprehensively changed by just by having oodles of public money just thrown at them, regardless of any efficiency in the process, or the outcome.
Advance Corporation Tax.
Just responding to your typical moronic right wing view that all taxation is theft.
No, I leave the moronic statements to you, as you obviously have lots of experience in that respect, e.g:
"And countless insurance companies have gone bust over the years."
First define "countless" and then name five in the last ten years.
That is indeed what it is *supposed* to do. Unfortunately the NI pot is too tempting for governments to dip into - as are all other supposedly special-purpose taxes such as road tax etc.
That's how car insurance works, so I don't see why not.
In which case if it *does* happen to them, they will have to make alternative arrangements along the lines I have already mentioned.
There are no doubt a high proportion of people who will decide that they do not *need* such insurance because they have sufficient family and friends who could step in as caraer should it become necessary.
That's only possible if the employer can reasonably employ a person on that basis. If your employer needed a person who could be relied upon to get through a fixed amount of work per week, and/or who was needed on-site during working hours, it would not have been something your employer would have been *able* to agree to.
Yes - and fathers as well now. At least it is not completely open-ended, which paying for an unproductive "carer" would have to be.
The law regarding maternity leave has resulted in many employers being even more reluctant that they used to be to employ women between certain ages.
Not that I think it would be a bad thing, from a sociological perspective, to return to the old-fashioned system of having the husband as the breadwinner and the wife staying at home taking care of the domestic duties. Unfortunately the economy has changed to make it impossible for a great proportion of families to be able to live on a single income.
There are many situations that I can sympathise with, but at the end of the day I have to take the attitude "tough luck" rather than shell out to solve everyone else's problems. I'd love to be able to save all the starving 3rd World children as well - but pragmatically that is also "tough luck".
If the only people who could be her carers are in Ireland (or Africa or India or China), then pragmatically there is a decision to be made as to whether she needs to move to where she can be properly looked after. Lots of people have difficult problems to overcome, and I do not accept that the only solution available is to take more and more money from the taxpayers.
There is also a similar difference between "suspecting" that someone has committed GBH, and actually seeing him beating up a youngster in the street.
In the theft case the "thief" may believe that he has the moral right to take the tools, and in the second case the pugalist believes he has the moral right to inflict GBH. Can you not see that the two situations are exactly the same - a person acting outside the law because he thinks he has the right to do so?
And I will state again that the brain is capable of analysing only one situation at a time, so there will be plenty of times when you do not have time to analyse what you need to be able to see while stationary.
I am almost entirely an office based Engineer. I design things, write specifications, check other peoples documentation, etc. At least 90% of it could be done at home. Take the kids to school, return home, work, have lunch, work, pick up kids - once kids are in bed work a bit longer. At the worst I could go into the office for a couple of short days to allow for face to face contact and meetings. My level of work is easily measured as there are detailed project plans, with deadlines, expected times, etc. for each document required. Broadband will easily allow me to VPN into the company network, although a USB stick would do.
However - just try getting almost any Engineering employer to agree to that. Despite the fact that it would cost them nothing at all. Employers are frequently not flexible, not because of any difficulty, but because management like to be able to look at who is in the office and do they
*look* busy and so be obviously *managing* their employees.SteveW
Thus pushing up the price of insurance for everyone else, as the risk is not being spread among everyone, but only amongst those of higher risk. Very soon, those with familial histories of problems would find themselves priced out of buying any insurance. Those with insurance would try not to go to the doctor at any point, in case something small pushes up their premiums.
SteveW
Okay, so we should have moved to Ireland, where there were no jobs for me and away from my parents who may need support from us soon enough.
I don't have any problem with paying to help those in need, although I do object to supporting those who have never had any intention to try and support themselves.
You obviously are very much of the "I'm alright Jack" ilk and are not willing to provide support for others who are struggling through no fault of their own and do not have the support networks to assist them.
I'm pretty right-wing myself and feel that far too much is paid out in benefits to those who only ever take, but I do feel that society owes care and help to those who are unable to help themselves through age, illness or infirmity - or for those who are normally productive members of society, but are temporarily unemployed.
SteveW
No they are not the same situations, despite the law being broken in both cases.
In one someone is stealing an innocent person's tools of his trade. He has no right to do so and no right to think that he can - even if he thinks that they are his relative's tools, he has nothing to confirm (even to himself) that that is the case.
In the other case, the victim of the theft, has actually seen the person taking the tools and therefore there is no doubt about the guilt of the thief, however he has no way to prove to the authorities that that is the case and therefore no recompense or punishment will follow.
i.e. In one case, a person punished an innocent person by taking the tools of his trade, while in the other a person punished a guilty person for taking his tools, when the authorities were unwilling to commit any resources to gathering sufficient evidence for a prosecution - and of course even if they had, the thief would likely have had to pay a fine to the state, while paying no recompence to his victim (who would likely have had to lose even more money by taking time off for the court case!
SteveW
I'm not sure that's a recommendation.
Wish I had your confidence. I've a feeling there would be lots who would end up relying on charity.
They'll learn, given time. They'll just have to;!..
I know if a large local Taxi firm where when they have "overloads" like Friday and Sat nights they can bring online home based workers who VPN into their system for DATA and the "office" phone.
Works very well main reason is that the workers find it very attractive working from home, they just don't have to go out to the office for a few hours;!..
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.