You do.
LVT would not be based on your earnings.
LVT again. That is what you need.
LVT will put it right.
It is true.
So sharks can take the funding.
That is true.
You don't.
LVT again...the solution.
Principles stay the same. The most successful business people in the world are? Not the Jews.........but the Quakers. Cadbury's, Huntley & Palmers, Honeywell, Clark's Shoes, etc. Companies set up in the 1800s and still major concerns today. The Quaker principles they were laid down on are still sound today. When they move away from the base principles they get into trouble.
LVT is a sound principle and will always work: spread the proceeds of production, eliminate poverty. Make the vast majority of the population better off, etc, etc.
Oh good grief. That's simply a pipe/wet dream.
The Dutch have tried this kind of game with things like train taxis. THe idea is that you buy a taxi ride as an add on to the train fare at a lower cost. Then when you arrive at the destination you get crammed in to a car with goodness knows who and driven around to the destination of each, order decided by the driver.
I went in one of these once and ended up 45 minutes late for a meeting, when had I gone by individual transport it would have taken 5 minutes and I would have been early.
These grand ideas sound all very fine in theory but fail to account for people's time.
There are adequate telecoms virtually everywhere now to be able to work or run a business from home.
Increasingly businesses are using combinations of office space and home working. There are some for which this won't work as you say, but moving businesses out of the large cities, even if only a proportion, would reduce the need for public transport and provide a better match between work patterns and travel.
I didn't say that all mass transport can go away, simply that the forms and needs of transport would change for the better.
Clearly not all the cases can be covered, but around 75-80% of households now own at least one car.
So the provisioning of public transport should look at the needs of the remaining 20% and not try to force the majority to use something that does not meet their needs.
>
Most businesses can't be run from very small British homes. There is no space.
Replace RTA with waiting for a heart operation in the NHS...
(500 a year die from that alone - Hansard 7 May 2003 : Column 726)...
In article , Dave Plowman (News) writes
Sorry, it was not deliberate. I missed that.
Yes, I agree. I find colours are oversaturated too, preferring a picture with the colour control turned down. The improvement in overall picture quality makes up for it though.
Obviously that depends on the nature of the business and the home.
An individual contributor or intellectual property business usually can, but I doubt whether you would be able to run an oil refinery on your dining room table in Milton Keynes.
Most people do not have a spare room large enough to use as an office.
As I do not live in the good city of Milton Keynes that would very difficult to do; I just love their ropad system,
At least they knew what they were dieing of, not just hoping that the local 'Old Maids remedy' will work, 'cos that's all they could afford....
You say that but then want tax cuts, what you are really saying is that you want to pay what *you* think is a correct level of tax - not the required level of tax if society is going to take care of it follow citizens.
But that is your choice, with a correctly funded and run NHS there would be little need for private medical insurance (you'll get treated by your need, not by your wealth or that of your employer), if you really want to have an appointment / treatment when you want it than I see no reason why you shouldn't have to pay extra and the true cost of that service (such as the cost of training within the private sector rather than sponging off the NHS for training).
Couldn't agree more, but all the time management and accountants are creaming it I doubt it will happen - other than to scrap the NHS and go over to a profit based health care service...
Then you know as little about the NHS as you know about the railways, nothing. Are you seriously suggesting that an OAP bum wiper is on a level with ICU staff ?!
Oh right, so as long as the state is funding private profit that is good, but if it's funding a public service that bad....
So you don't care, you only care about yourself and if you can make money out of health care, otherwise you would be arguing for a tax increase to fund real free at the point of use health care.
QED.
The problem is that to much money is being spent in back room staff and not in front line care.
There isn't. Unless you object the personal choices that are given to you...
So why didn't you either pay for your own taxi or ride the bus that was waiting for the train ?....
As long as you have both space and can affort the cost of setting up a SOHO. Or are you suggesting that the state funds private bussiness to encourage home working ?...
How does moving a business reduce the need for transport, people still need to travel to where ever and in some cases moving away from a location can been you either chuck trained staff out of jobs or you increase the amount of commuting.
People still need to travel, if they can't travel by PT then they are going to use their own, that is unsustainable.
And with two people working, one gets to work the can't...
And just how are you going to accommodate that 80 percent on the roads, the road system can't cope now ? Oh, I know, private toll roads....
About the only person who does !
IYHO, of course....
Of course it's not, but then it does rather place your arguments into the straw man category...
The point is, it was done successfully once and there is no reason other than ideology why it couldn't be done again...
You seem to be
The problem is not being state owned or funded but the level of funding.
That is plain hypocrisy and dog-minded bull - state bad, private ownership good.
You are nothing but a carpet bager if you think it bad for state owned serviced to be funded but it's OK for private companies to have such public funding.
But the point is, they shouldn't have ordered such trains, or at least mentioned the problem and sorted the funding to update the supply, not cry wolf after delivery and expect a state hand out to cure there balls up. oh, and BTW IIRC this was before the state had to sort out the Failtrack mess.
But they do use 'flight paths', and you can only have so many aircraft in any section at a time, it's not an unlimited free for all up there - Thank Gawd !
I know nowhere else in the UK where you can legally drive just about anywhere at 60 or 70mph around a city. Wizzzo!
Hisd opinion is not honest.
Not the same as all rains running down one track. Not the same.
The arithmetic is fairly simple.
If one removes the NHS as an oversized delivery vehicle with top heavy bureaucracy and inefficiencies and keeps a simple funding operation only (remember I said everybody receives the same funding), then the costs of the whole thing to the tax payer are reduced anyway.
However, I didn't even suggest a reduction in tax contribution to healthcare provisioning. It could be kept the same and far more cost effectiveness achieved by the government being out of the delivery business.
You're missing the point. First of all there is no way to efficiently fund and operate a healthcare management and delivery system on the scale of the NHS. It needs to be scaled down or closed down and replaced with a funding arrangement only.
Even with some form of government operated system, there is no way that it can be funded to the level required to meet all needs and requirements.
In terms of "need", who defines that? At present it is done by way of national policies handled by NICE etc. and by various faceless individuals in committees who use criteria such as value to society to determine priorities. I would define "need" more widely to also include availability and timing of treatments to fit with other things that I have or want to do.
I don't have a problem with paying extra to have an appointment when/where I want it. However, I do think that the amount that would have been costed for this in the NHS should be provided to offset the cost.
Your argument about training is illogical. There is no reason at all why people trained in the public sector should not move at will to the private sector. In all other fields this is way things work.
That would be a far better idea.
Of course not, but there is no special case here. I haven't suggested that an ICU person is on a level of training with an OAP bum wiper as you put it. I was comparing what you are suggesting for healthcare with what happens elsewhere.
If somebody goes to university, the government subsidises the cost, yet there is no requirement for the graduate to work for the government for a period of time. Arguably he does anyway by virtue of paying taxes.
Hospitals, among their many roles are teaching environments and indeed many are attached to universities anyway. I see no reason why they should be protected in some way. Some people will stay, others will want to move to the private sector because they prefer it. There's no difference in that principle for whether they are a doctor of medicine or a lawyer.
There is nothing wrong with the state funding private companies to provide delivery of services. The profit motive leads to greater efficiencies, accountability and better services.
That's your conclusion based on your left wing prejudices that healthcare has to be government funded, provided and ring fenced from any possible competition.
It is neither what I said nor implied.
Exactly, which is why it would be better to shut the whole thing down and to start again with government providing funding only.
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.