So who's paying for this bit of ecobollox ... ?

[Derek Geldard]

Not to mention shipbuilding and charcoal burning.

Derek

[Derek Geldard]

Particularly when you cost in the expenses of working (Assuming you go to work for someone else) IE bus fares / car costs, laundry, and meals away from home with workmates, the "Coffee swindle" etc.

Derek

[Clive George]

I think we've established that regularly driving the route doesn't mean you know the signs. They may change.

Dunno about you, but I notice new works taking place on routes I drive regularly. I'll see new sign posts, etc, and they're dull grey things, not a shiny new reflective sign. A new speed limit sign is more visually intrusive than many of the things you're looking out for anyway, so claiming you missed it because you were lookig for other things is bogus.

Was the case which prompted this thread a simple number change on the sign? How common is a simple number change, as opposed to moving it, putting some red paint down, putting a new yellow border on, putting up a "Speed limits changed" sign? Every time I've seen a new speed limit, it's not just been rewriting the number, it's always had other changes to point it out.

Are we in that situation? I don't think so.

[<me9]

Occasionally one (or more) would fall off, but would have disappeared by the time the driver had stopped.

I was amazed to find that bags of coal in Northern Ireland were 10 stone rather than the 8 stone this side of the Irish sea. Stronger coalmen (or more bad backs) there.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Until the point comes when you are trying to look simultaneously at the road signs, the speedo and the rear view mirror. And fail. This is when rigid legal style driving becomes more dangerous than not having any speed limits at all.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Kiss good bye to most of London and Cambridge. What a nice thought.

[<me9]

More often than not 30 round here.

[Clive George]

Still 50kg here, t'other side of the country to you.

[Clive George]

Wouldn't Peterborough-under-Sea be even better? :-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

That's a very interesting point. And one which most of the Left basically lie about.

If you roughly divide people into 4 income groups

1/. The chronically unemployed 2/. The mostly employed on low wages with occasional unemployment 3/. The almost always employed at reasonably decent wages (the vast majority). 4/ the rich, with cash and savings to spare (a VERY small minority)

Now, what you find is that about 99% of the tax comes from groups 2 and

3 who are in fact the bulk of the population. Probably about 90%, with about 4% basically chronically unemployed and 1% who are really comfortably off.

If we disregard the super rich, who can take care of themselves without help, and for the moment disregard the chronically unemployed and poor, the basic equation is that most of the tax and most - but not quite as much of the services, comes from a very large group of people. Who pay, one way or another, about 55% of their income TO the government, and get back so called 'free services' in exchange.

However, the basic argument is, whether to employ a vast and ever increasing number of bureaucrats to administer this HUGE public purse, allegedly 'fairly', is in fact more, or less efficient, than essentially letting people keep the money to start with, and spending it where they will.

Now there are good arguments for some sort of central FUNDING and REGULATION of essential services, like health and education, but really I see no reason whatsoever why they should be government OWNED and RUN. The only argument for state ownership is to manage a de facto monopoly, like roads, railways, national grid etc etc. Hospitals and schools simply do not fit into that description.

So the argument becomes less taxation for supply of services, than taxation as a way to ensure that e.g. everyone has some form of health insurance, and some form of 'fund' for education. And let them spend it where they think its best spent. True choice. The Tory position as I understand it is somewhat along those lines, that the services could be delivered better and cheaper by not being government RUN, although state FUNDED in some way.

And those who have a bit of disposable income, can e.g. purchase extra tuition, or off insurance special medical care. After all, what is the point of money at all if it wont buy you those sorts of deeply important life choices?

Going back to the chronically unemployed, at some point society has to make a decision about what level of support they are going to get.Personally I don't think its fair that people who lead productive active economic lives should be dragged down by extra taxes to support people who are not, in the style that is often as good as the lower end of the working fraternity.

In particular means testing is totally iniquitous. To place people in a position where to take on low paid work results in an immediate worsening of their financial position, benefits no one. And encourages immigration to fill these positions with people who have not got access to social security in their own countries.

Even the chronically unemployed, or single mothers, are really actually capable of SOME productive work. But the system as it is currently constructed, makes this financially disadvantageous.

It's all this muddle headed socialist 'fairthink' that makes it all so bloody expensive and inefficient.

The overheads of trying desperately to make sure that everybody gets what they need and everybody is taxed according to their presumed ability to pay, destroy the very wealth that is supposed to be being redistributed.

And places the final burden of defining what is fair, and equitable on a central government whose activities have clearly shown that as arbiters of social justice, they are no better than the common man in the street, and possibly, due to the nature of the process that selects them for election, often a very great deal worse.

The Tory policy again is to accept that fact, and get them out of the way of micro managing peoples lives: leave the cash by and large in the hands of those who earn it, to spend where they will, and simply underwrite the COSTS of public services of the minimum acceptable standard whilst leaving the delivery of them to the organisations in question.

This is bad news for NHS regional managers etc etc but good news for everyone else. If we don't like THAT hospital,or school, go to the one in the next county or borough. Just like you would a dentist.

Personally, I would kill two other birds with one stone, and increase taxation slightly, and pay it back instantly to very single citizen in the country, and a basic living pension, slightly less than subsistence level, to be paid to them whether they work or not. And eliminate minimum wages and means tested benefits as a corollary. If you can make an extra 50 quid a week, its yours to keep and no impact on your basic pension. Of course this pension would not be available to immigrants. Instantly your local work force is subsidised vis a vis immigrants. If they can still make a living, good luck. If not, Dover is that way ->

The only means tests should be for people who have a medical condition. And woe betide them if they get caught managing a couple of rounds of gold whilst being officially bedridden.

Of course most of this means the EU membership has to go, but 'what good has Brussels ever done us?'

:-)

[Clive George]

Well, personally I don't try to do that. It's easy enough to spot the road sign and adjust speed, doing the things you describe at appropriate points rather than trying to do them all at the same time.

[Clot]

You raise an interesting point there. Both the examples I mentioned in the thread have been maintained by one county, (not Highways Agency). May be the practice of moving numerical lollipops varies? Certainly in both the cases, it appeared that the lollipops were moved "overnight" without evident warnings. Possibly there were some waterproof notices attached to the posts for a period of time before the transition and also some notice in the local paper.

>

[The Natural Philosopher]

marginal tax rate of 80%, applied to a low income worker.

Put like that, Mr Brown, how do you justify it?

[The Natural Philosopher]

More actually.

softwoods are loaded with resins that make great chemical feedstocks.

Up till about mid 1800's that and animal products was all there was in terms of organic chemistry raw materials.

Really there aren't that many crucial materials that cant be replaced with something else, in most products. Not in bulk, anyway. I means we use steel , bricks and concrete because its cheap and abundant. Not because its best.

[The Natural Philosopher]

covered by 'timber' and 'firewood' basically ;-)

[Mark]

The main reason that an ever increasing number of bureaucrats seems to be required is the fact that government make up more complex systems. For example family tax credits. I'd scrap this and replace it with additional tax allowances.

I don't really care who runs these services as long as they provide a decent service. Publically run organisations have a history of ineffeiciency but private companies are good at lining their own pockets and still providing a poor service.

Sounds fine but I would expect the overall cost of these services to rise at they have to spend more resources in marketing costs etc.. The is also a big danger that this would create a multi-tier society where healthcare and education for the poorer would get worse.

That's alright for those fortunate enough to have the money to make these choices, but touch luck on those who don't. If the rich can get a better education and therefore better jobs then we are in danger of creating a bigger divide in the country.

It entirely depends on the reason why people are chronically unemployed. If it is because they are too lazy to work then they don't deserve much support. If it is because they are ill or have a disability the sitation is entirely different.

I agree with the first point. The "poverty trap" is a bad idea. I think the minimum wage was introduced to remove this trap. I get the impression it has not succeeded. We do need a level of immigration as we are not having enough children in the UK to sustain our economy. Freeloaders should not be made welcome though.

If your referring to NuLabour I would not describe them a socialist. They manage to pick the worst policies from both extremes of the polical spretrum.

If the money gained from taxation is badly spent then yes. I don't believe it has to be this way.

Very true.

I am very much against governments (or anyone else) micromanaging our lives. However while there is very little economic mobility someone does need to protect the average person from the people who hold all the aces.

I'd rather my local school/hospital/dentist etc is brought up to the desired standard then messing about with this.

I'd be happy with such an arrangement.

I will resist making Monty Python quotes ;-)

[Clive George]

Moved, rather than just the number changing?

[The Natural Philosopher]

So you say, till the day you miss one of them.

Like the time I was driving up the M11, in the middle lane, just before the M25, saw signs saying road works ahead, next thing guy cuts across to take the M25 slip road, I am busy with that, getting past three trucks, and a bloody flash goes off in my face. No way could I see the limit signs through three trucks. Or the cones.

Didn't get a ticket for it though. Was only doing about 60 anyway. To this day I don't know what the temporary limit actually was. 50 probably.

[Andy Dingley]

Plus the _vast_ range based on coal tar, which had been around for 150- ish years earlier, as a by-product of industrial coke making for the iron industry (thread passim).

[Clive George]

So, no cones, no signs saying road works ahead, no clues that there was likely to be a change in speed limit. Except there were, weren't there, and you just said you saw them.

Where did the guy who cut you up go relative to the trucks? How long did it take after that for you to get to in front of them?

And are the signs just on one side of the road or both? (what's the legal requirement?)