The new underclass in Britain

[roadrunner_0]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Toccata & Fugue again.

excellent T&F

[Snurx]

Police/prisons don't solve people infring on others rights. How would they do that? They do, in a way, make people more wary of comitting crimes, but that only makes the criminals harder as they don't want to be caught. It's the social problems that create criminals that must be solved, not attacking the people who become criminals.

Forcing people to do things is not the way to go. We have a draft, so that "everbody" goes to the military. But it's easy as **** to not go, and if you have a criminal record (like drugs) and say so, you're almost guaranteed to get away. So, people like chavs get away easily, while bored people have something to do for a year.

Nod, Norway is in no way a socialist state. It has one of Europe's worst policies regarding asylum seekers, there is rascism and fascism on the rise, and rich people get richer while the poor get poorer. Just beacause our state is wealthy does not mean that it's not there to protect the rich.

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No country has ever existed which did not have a state-supported police system!

fixed

PS. Being a mother is the hardest job of all.

PPS. Why is Jonny in a Britain thread?

[Super]

Originally Posted by Ste

how would they earn a profit?

They don't have to provide it for free.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yeah but free child care and a high average income, that's Bolshevism I tell you!

Free child care doesnt exist in Norway.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

http://www.norway.go.tz/policy/famil...re/daycare.htm
Perhaps there is soem form of cover charge, in that case I'll replace free with comprehensive.

I thought Norway was famous for its childcare.

"As from May 2004, the price of enrolment in an ordinary day-care institution is not to exceed NOK 2,750 per month."

NOK 2750 = 220 £ roughly calculated.
So its far from beeing free, but its still subsidized.

The special thing with Norway and Scandinavia is the very high participation in the labour market. The last numbers I saw, we were almost 10% over Holland in work participation. That means that there is more people paying in to the pension scheme, among other things.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

.

I was being deliberately hyperbolic. However the figures I had in my head were related to the American taxation breakdown which I recall reading about a few months ago (I have little interest in the British system). I'm not sure what the breakdown for Britain would look like, and Google wasnt very helpful. I would guess its something like top 15% contribute 60-70% of the total tax burden, but this is admittedly speculation.

Government is funded by those across the spectrum but especially those who earn the most money. If you can't tell the difference between earning and producing then there is very little hope for you

The money has to come from somewhere in order to be 'earned'. Those that produce the most wealth are the ones that either directly or indirectly fund everything. The 'unproductive civil servants' you mention will be relying on tax money in someway, which has to be produced somewhere along the line.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Police should be paid for through taxes.!

I don't think you're looking at this right; I suspect you're thinking along the lines of 'the police couldnt be privately funded in todays world - that'd never work'. But given that people managed to wake up to the point where a near-libertarian society was realisable, it isnt out of the question that the minimal state could be funded entirely via voluntary donations. There will be a free-rider problem to work out, but I dont think it's unrealistic - again we arent talking about 'people today', we are talking about the people there would have to be in order to get to point X in the first place.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I was being deliberately hyperbolic. However the figures I had in my head were related to the American taxation breakdown which I recall reading about a few months ago (I have little in interest in the British system). I'm not sure what the breakdown for Britain would look like, and Google wasnt very helpful. I would guess its something like top 15% contribute 60-70% of the total tax burden, but this is admittedly speculation.

From a quick google I found this: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...e_taxation.htm. Scroll down around halfway and you'll find a graph compiled from this http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...uence=3&from=0 (official) information. It has the top 20% in america contributing around 65% of the total tax burden, which is pretty close to what I remember reading before. I would imagine this is higher in Britain due to lol socialism lol.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Super

They don't have to provide it for free.

Explain how you actually think it could work?
They only put fires out on houses that have paid them?
They wait for payment from the house owner before attempting to put out the fire?
What if there's a fire where there is no 'owner' of the property?
They charge anyone who's property catches on fire and they have to put it out? And then set it back on fire if they refuse to pay?

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

http://www.norway.go.tz/policy/famil...re/daycare.htm
Perhaps there is soem form of cover charge, in that case I'll replace free with comprehensive.

I thought Norway was famous for its childcare.

Well, they (the "socialists") want to give people "free" childcare. But, they focus on having places for everybody, instead of giving a selected few free. Now, that's kinda good, but no way in hell are they going to be able to follow up on their goals. There is, however, a maximum price for daycare, and it's going to go down. But still, the price is formidable for families on minimum wage or on the dole.
There is also a cashsupport system for women that wants to stay home instead of working, with the babies. It's obviously very sexists, you know, the whole "core family" stuff, and it's being slaughtered by a lot of experts, althought that's not really something to rely on. However, it's a typical example of the right-wing Christians that run this country (to a extent), and how they are trying to build up the core family and their lunatic views again.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Ste

Explain how you actually think it could work?
They only put fires out on houses that have paid them?
They wait for payment from the house owner before attempting to put out the fire?
What if there's a fire where there is no 'owner' of the property?
They charge anyone who's property catches on fire and they have to put it out? And then set it back on fire if they refuse to pay?

Fundamentally, fire protection is no different than any other form of insurance.

I think if you can afford to own property then you can afford to take care of it to some minimal extent. That includes maintaining the property so that it's not a public nuisance (falling down on bystanders), paying for insurance and, if necessary, paying for fire protection. As a practical matter, if the property owner could not demonstrate that they had paid for fire protection the mortgage holder would call in their loan PDQ. Likewise, insurance underwriters would not insure property that did not have fire protection (except maybe at a stiff premium).

In short, property carries significant financial incentives to preserve it's value.

I suppose you could have a property that was worth so little that it was uneconomical to pay for insurance or fire protection, but then you're probably looking at a public nuisance or something close to it (e.g., the proverbial abandoned warehouse). In that case the property probably isn't worth saving and they should let it burn. Firefighters would only prevent the fire from spreading to neighboring properties and they could use the fire as a training exercise.

[LHC]

Originally Posted by Ste

Explain how you actually think it could work?
They only put fires out on houses that have paid them?
They wait for payment from the house owner before attempting to put out the fire?
What if there's a fire where there is no 'owner' of the property?
They charge anyone who's property catches on fire and they have to put it out? And then set it back on fire if they refuse to pay?

Sell fire safety equipment for a profit and fund the service that way, and then work on a donation based system to cover other costs.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Fundamentally, fire protection is no different than any other form of insurance.

except for the burning to death part.

[Super]

Originally Posted by Ste

Explain how you actually think it could work?
They only put fires out on houses that have paid them?
They wait for payment from the house owner before attempting to put out the fire?
What if there's a fire where there is no 'owner' of the property?
They charge anyone who's property catches on fire and they have to put it out? And then set it back on fire if they refuse to pay?

Basically Tactitus said everything that I was going to. I was going for a 'subscription' concept, but when I was out, I changed my mind andI likened it more to a type of insurance. The thing is, a private fire service would have more incentive to innovate, and ofcourse have an incentive to provide a better service, as there would probably be competition.

This link talks about a private fire service that was actually run, in America. It said that it actually lowered fire insurance to 25% of what it was under a government funded service.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

From a quick google I found this: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...e_taxation.htm. Scroll down around halfway and you'll find a graph compiled from this http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...uence=3&from=0 (official) information. It has the top 20% in america contributing around 65% of the total tax burden, which is pretty close to what I remember reading before. I would imagine this is higher in Britain due to lol socialism lol.

I suspect this is just as bogus as the norwegian tax system. Officialy there is 28% tax on capital in Norway, for instance if a company you own shares in pays out dividence. However, you get that 28% refunded. So it shows up as Mr. Rich pays fx 4million £, while Mr. Rich pays something like 1500£.
Then you have those who owns property, and doesnt even in theory pays 28%.

Like this guy, who one time owned Wimbledon Football Club. He is good for about 50million £ atleast, today. (Also notice that he officaly has no income or fortune heh)

skatt.ba.no: Resultat av søk i år 2002 for "BJØRN RUNE GJELSTEN":
(ive done the translating heh)

Surname First Name Place Age Fortune Income Tax paid
GJELSTEN BJØRN RUNE 0286 OSLO 48 0 0 11.489

So he paid 11.489NOK in taxes for 2002, witch is slighly less 1000£.

As the richest people in US can effectivly purchase the next president, I really dont belive the numbers to be true. My bet is that there is some sort of scheme to get the top5% seem like they pay more than they really do, like in the "socialist" Norway.

[Ninja_spammer]

I love it when Jonny trolls these kind of threads.

Pay as you go fireservice, what a brilliant idea, lets hope they dont start setting their own fires and charging to put them out.

Of course the police 'would' stop them but they have come to a financial agreement with the fireservice on such matters.

Max Barry must be loving his sales figures at the moment.

[Super]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Pay as you go fireservice, what a brilliant idea, lets hope they dont start setting their own fires and charging to put them out.

Funny, no one suggested a pay as you go fireservice. Maybe you should read the thread first.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Ste

Meet the 'Neets'

They aren't chavs, they aren't asylum seekers. They are people who are not in education, employment or training. They number 1.1m and they are 22 times more likely to be teenage mothers; 50% more likely to suffer from poor health; 60% more likely to be involved with drugs and more than 20 times more likely to become criminals.
They cost our country billions of pounds.

So, what do you think should be done?

They should be processed and put in the Coulomb Machine.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well what if everyone put their money together in a big pool to provide essential services and there was some form of central administration to make sure the money got distributed in the right way and regulated those services.

I'm cool with that presuming it was all voluntary. I expected you to have some vague idea of my opinions seeing as I'm fairly sure this isn't the first time GD has discussed political leanings but it seems like it's my lot in life to refute inanity for eternity.


PS I don't think the ideas of paying for a fire service or having toll roads are that outrageous guys. In fact I'm pretty sure they've been done and they worked fairly well.

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

I love it when Jonny trolls these kind of threads.

Pay as you go fireservice, what a brilliant idea, lets hope they dont start setting their own fires and charging to put them out.

Of course the police 'would' stop them but they have come to a financial agreement with the fireservice on such matters.

Max Barry must be loving his sales figures at the moment.

Firstly I'm not trolling and secondly it'd be completely illegal to set fires which you seem to have vaguely mentioned. You then seem to make some bizzare remark implying corruption which somehow only applies to the situation I propose but frankly I think I got lost somewhere along the way.

[JonnyBGood]

What about legislation? I'd agree with freely entered into contracts being enforced if that's what you mean but you wouldn't be able to sign up your children when you got older or whatever. I'm not too sure if I get your point.

[Ninja_spammer]

Granted I was reading this at 3 am or something but you seem to be basically championing the idea of privatising essential services (fire,health,maybe education).


Well except for the ones you think *you* might need access to (Police, been mugged again have we sir?) in which case its ok to use evil taxes.


If you are not trolling then I have clearly misunderstood both your stance on these issues in the past and the state of your tenous grasp on reality.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well if the infrastructure of Government was voluntary who would enforce contracts, how could property exist if not everyone consents?

The police enforce contracts and property states would be carried over from whatever existed previously unless it was something completely insane like four people owning 98% of all land including every single scrap of arable land.

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Granted I was reading this at 3 am or something but you seem to be basically championing the idea of privatising essential services (fire,health,maybe education).


Well except for the ones you think *you* might need access to (Police, been mugged again have we sir?) in which case its ok to use evil taxes.

I am not outlining again why I view the police as a radically different service to health or fire services.

If you are not trolling then I have clearly misunderstood both your stance on these issues in the past and the state of your tenous grasp on reality.

Now who's trolling

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

tenous grasp on reality.

says the man with the rand quote in his sig.

[Ste]

where does the money come from to pay the government? Or is that voluntary donations too?
Is the justice system covered by your tax for crime prevention?
And will all land everywhere (every square metre) have an 'owner'? Including all roads? and a charge to the owner of the road will be paid by people driving/walking on the street to cover maintainence of the road?
With the fireservice thing - you're saying everyone has the choice to pay a type of insurance to a local fireservice. What happens if they don't? Does a fire in one property only affect the people living in said property?


It's all very well saying "I disagree with taxes" but you seriously can't expect them to be done away with completely?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Ste

where does the money come from to pay the government? Or is that voluntary donations too?
Is the justice system covered by your tax for crime prevention?
And will all land everywhere (every square metre) have an 'owner'? Including all roads? and a charge to the owner of the road will be paid by people driving/walking on the street to cover maintainence of the road?
With the fireservice thing - you're saying everyone has the choice to pay a type of insurance to a local fireservice. What happens if they don't? Does a fire in one property only affect the people living in said property?


It's all very well saying "I disagree with taxes" but you seriously can't expect them to be done away with completely?

Necessary administration (there would not be a lot of this) would obviously be funded through taxes as well. I've already stated that law courts fall under my broad heading of "police services". Yes you will have to pay to use people's property if that's what they desire. If a property is not covered by fire insurance nobody is under any obligation to put it out.

I don't disagree with "taxation". I disagree with unnecessary taxation (as I'm sure you do). My definition of unnecessary is just a lot larger than yours.

[JonnyBGood]

I'm pretty sure it'd be called the police and I've already stated that I'd view a flat-rate tax as best. Otherwise one could equally say that people who have crimes committed against them and use the police service most should pay more than others for that because they're benefitting more. I just want to see some sort of basic status quo implemented. I don't really view not having your property taken from you as a benefit, more the lack of an infringement.

[JonnyBGood]

You could opt out of society altogether but unfortunately that'd mean you were no longer protected by police services.

[Yahwe]

i liked it when you people just had lots of independant city states.

there were way more cool wars and stuff

It was a boom time for us divinities, now its all too peaceful.

can't you just all declare yourselves indepentant states again?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'd rather not have a state-supported health system. I'm not that up-to-scratch on the precise intricacies of the american health system.

The US government actually spends more per capita on healthcare than just about anyone else.

That's governmental spending, not private, which is another enormous sum on top.

Yowzah.

[Weeks]

Confine them to RP?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Phang

except for the burning to death part.

someone negrepped me for not making sense so i will take that as a request:

fire services don't just protect property when they put out fires, they also stop people from dying. that's why a fire service isn't the same as, for example home insurance - there's more than personal property at stake.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The US government actually spends more per capita on healthcare than just about anyone else.

Per capita spending is not a very good way to compare government spending between countries due to some countries being substantially richer than others. Percentage of GDP is probably a better metric, and by that measure US government spending on healthcare is about 6% (by comparison, Canada's is 7% and the UK's is over 8%). However, rather than being spent on all healthcare needs, the bulk of the US government's spending on healthcare goes to retirees (medicare/medicaid) and to veterans.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phang

someone negrepped me for not making sense so i will take that as a request:

fire services don't just protect property when they put out fires, they also stop people from dying. that's why a fire service isn't the same as, for example home insurance - there's more than personal property at stake.

What if your house falls down on top of you and kills you though?!?!

[Phang]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What if your house falls down on top of you and kills you though?!?!

home insurance generally doesnt help

[JonnyBGood]

Clearly you haven't talked to Eaglestar.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Fundamentally, fire protection is no different than any other form of insurance.

The main difference is the time frame. Insurance companies now have months to decide whether to make a payment, fire companies would have to decide instantly - that's quite a big difference. The claims my company are sometimes involved with (involving property and building insurance) can take literally years to be settled.

If I see a fire across the road, I phone one number and the fire brigade come put it out. I don't have to find out if the property has fire protection and if so, who with.

You could imagine either some sort of plaque saying "Protected by Company A" or a multi-company database somewhere, but it's trickier and you'd want something speedy. if the house next door isn't covered by anyone and there's a fire, what do I do? Phone my fire company and ask them to come round and wait until it spreads to mine?

They could put the fire out for them and then bill them, but I don't think you could demand payment on a service you never requested (unless you're the government of course ). I'm not sure how it's supposed to work in a libertarian society but I presume there would be some sort of rescue service too (i.e. kid spotted in burning building, can't track down the insurers of building...do we let the kid burn?).

Your other points are very valid, although I think you underestimate how many people wouldn't get fire insurance. Yes, there are strong incentives for them to do so, but that could be said about building insurance or contents insurance now and a lot of people still don't. It's always a danger to bet on people looking after their long term interests over a short term gain.

There are other issues like in rented properties or blocks of flats, but they could be taken care of as part of a tenancy / lease one presumes.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Per capita spending is not a very good way to compare government spending between countries due to some countries being substantially richer than others. Percentage of GDP is probably a better metric, and by that measure US government spending on healthcare is about 6% (by comparison, Canada's is 7% and the UK's is over 8%). However, rather than being spent on all healthcare needs, the bulk of the US government's spending on healthcare goes to retirees (medicare/medicaid) and to veterans.

If you take with the private sector in health care, its something like 14%. (USA)

[Dace]

The poor should eat the fat.

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

says the man with the rand quote in his sig.

It's one of the few accurate/sensible things I have read from her.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The main difference is the time frame. Insurance companies now have months to decide whether to make a payment, fire companies would have to decide instantly - that's quite a big difference. The claims my company are sometimes involved with (involving property and building insurance) can take literally years to be settled.

Not all aspects of insurance have the same urgency however. Money in particular can take a long time to flow through the system but, where necessary, services can move much faster.

One example would be private health insurance (which we have here in the US). If I keel over with a heart attack, I wouldn't want to spend months waiting for treatment. And in fact, I wouldn't. The bills may not be settled for months or even years (or maybe ever if I'm underinsured), but I'll be treated more-or-less immediately. \o/

If I see a fire across the road, I phone one number and the fire brigade come put it out. I don't have to find out if the property has fire protection and if so, who with.

There's no reason this couldn't continue. A single emergency number could handle all police, ambulance and fire calls--they can look up who to call. In fact, they already have to do that anyway, since they have to figure out which fire department is closest to the fire (and if that fire department is busy, who's the second closest, etc).

They could put the fire out for them and then bill them, but I don't think you could demand payment on a service you never requested (unless you're the government of course ).

I think the only relevant question is this: would a property owner have the right to let his building(s) burn? That is, to refuse all fire fighting service? I think the answer to this question, in the typical case (urban setting, other buildings nearby), has to be 'No.' on the grounds of public safety. Given that, the only remaining issues are 'which fire fighting company' and 'how much.' Obviously, the property owner can and should make these arrangements in advance. However, if the property owner neglects to do so then he may be stuck with a bill from whomever shows up to fight the fire.

If a service 'has' to be done then someone has to pay for it, and the only two choices on the table are (a) the general taxpayers--most of whom derive little or no benefit from the building and have little or no incentive or means to prevent fires in the building, or (b) the property owner. Seems like an obvious choice to me!

The fact that the owner didn't explictly request fire fighting service seems irrelevant (it'd be a bit like a man who collapses unconscious on the sidewalk and then refuses to pay his medical bills on the grounds that he never requested any treatment). It was an emergency; something had to be done; he was the primary beneficiary; ergo, he gets the bill. In any case, if the choice is between all taxpayers paying bills they didn't explicitly request vs. some property owners with fires paying bills they didn't explictly request, the later seems like at least a modest improvement to me.

The only other issue here is what if the owner can't or won't pay, but that's a civil matter. All businesses have some deadbeat clients--it's just one of the many 'costs of doing business.' :/

I'm not sure how it's supposed to work in a libertarian society but I presume there would be some sort of rescue service too (i.e. kid spotted in burning building, can't track down the insurers of building...do we let the kid burn?).

The only rational policy would have to be 'save first, bill later'. Even libertarians know it's a lot harder to collect money from dead people.

Your other points are very valid, although I think you underestimate how many people wouldn't get fire insurance. Yes, there are strong incentives for them to do so, but that could be said about building insurance or contents insurance now and a lot of people still don't. It's always a danger to bet on people looking after their long term interests over a short term gain.

Well, it's their interests and their gain (or loss) and their choice. Vive la liberté!

[Ninja_spammer]

So its not ok to tax someone because thats taking money for something they dont have a say in,may not want or need etc, but it is ok to charge them as a private company for providing a service which they dont have a say in,possibly did not request and may not want because that is freedom of choice .


What do you do in cases of arson?

Or fires on abandoned land or multiple car crashes where people need cutting out of car wrecks?

Maybe a major plane crash or terrorist incident ala 11-9?

Who do you charge then or do you charge everyone involved including the dead or their family, perhaps the airline company pays?

Would the fire service still investigate the causes of fire at all times or just when they get paid?


What about non-emergency call outs or false alarms?

[JonnyBGood]

"Let it all burn."

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

So its not ok to tax someone because thats taking money for something they dont have a say in,may not want or need etc, but it is ok to charge them as a private company for providing a service which they dont have a say in,possibly did not request and may not want because that is freedom of choice .

Well, it is their building. I dunno, but it just seems to me that the vast majority of property owners really don't want their buildings to burn down. Is it different where you are?

And while it might be coercive to force a property owner to pay to have a fire on his property extinguished, certainly that is better than to force some third party to pay for it?

What do you do in cases of arson?

Arson is a crime; I don't see why that would/should change.

Or fires on abandoned land or multiple car crashes where people need cutting out of car wrecks?

I'm not sure what you mean by abandoned land. In the US, all land is owned by somebody and they would be responsible for it.

With respect to car crashes, they would bill the people they rescued. Their car insurance would probably cover it.

Maybe a major plane crash or terrorist incident ala 11-9?

Who do you charge then or do you charge everyone involved including the dead or their family, perhaps the airline company pays?

You charge the property owner. If the fire was caused by some other party, then the property owner can collect damages from them. Most likely their insurance would cover it regardless.

Would the fire service still investigate the causes of fire at all times or just when they get paid?

Arson would probably be investigated by the police instead of the fire department, but surely that kind of change is not likely to cause the planet to go spinning out of its orbit?

What about non-emergency call outs or false alarms?

What about them? I have an automatic fire/burglary alarm on my house. If it generates too many false alarms I get charged by the city. Presumably, that wouldn't change if the fire service were privatized.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Apart from the philosophy of the issue, does anyone actually have a problem with the fire service?

Privatizing fire service wouldn't be my highest priority, but I do have a problem with the mindset that can't imagine a world without government services; or who simply can't see beyond the status quo. There actually are places on the planet that have private fire departments instead of public ones and they somehow manage to keep fires in check without total chaos. You should try dreaming outside your philosophy, Horatio.

[Super]

It only came up because someone suggested that the fire service wouldn't exist unless it was run the government. I don't know if it would be better or not, but it's certainly do-able. However, this isn't the only way it could be run. There is also the charity angle. The first example that springs to mind is the RNLI, who have provided an excellent service purely from membership fees and voluntary donations.