Jimmy Carr

[Niall_Quinn]

Sort of. But I'd say "the UK governments (of all political stripes) don't help us by failing to use the tax revenues effectively"

The treasury is a store for OUR money that the politicians are supposed to look after. People on the fiddle, whether tax or benefits, are taking OUR money.

They use the tax revenues very effectively, only not on your behalf. The tax system is just the other shoe dropping in favour of the banking system. Neither are at all necessary however they are extremely lucrative for the few. The tax system and state infrastructure provides you with nothing you couldn't obtain yourself and in conjunction with others for a fraction of the cost, both in terms of money and resource. How much more could be done with the fruits of your labour (for yourself and others) if half that effort did not disappear on interest repayments to debt that was created on a computer screen? This massive wastage is applauded, it's truly unbelievable.

[Letters]

The natural assumption we are all too dumb to organise our own infrastructure and services is too insulting to take seriously.

You know that people vote based on what the nation's most popular paper 'The Sun' says and that the most popular shows are things like X Factor and Eastenders? And you think people can be trusted to organise their own infrastructure?
Good luck with that.

[Coney]

They use the tax revenues very effectively, only not on your behalf. The tax system is just the other shoe dropping in favour of the banking system. Neither are at all necessary however they are extremely lucrative for the few. The tax system and state infrastructure provides you with nothing you couldn't obtain yourself and in conjunction with others for a fraction of the cost, both in terms of money and resource. How much more could be done with the fruits of your labour (for yourself and others) if half that effort did not disappear on interest repayments to debt that was created on a computer screen? This massive wastage is applauded, it's truly unbelievable.

Cobblers. It is a kind of insurance. We all pay the same amount in case one of us needs en entire house/car/whatever replacing after a fire.

We collectively club together for mutual benefit. The other factor that people like the Tories appear to overlook is that a large chunk of the population are simple crap at trying to organise things and need the system to help them do it. Failing to help the weaker ones in this (and other areas) means we reduce the country to the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest and the weak can go hang. I'm afraid I find that not acceptable. If my neighbour's house is on fire, I will lend him my hose and perhaps even help to put out the fire.

[Niall_Quinn]

You know that people vote based on what the nation's most popular paper 'The Sun' says and that the most popular shows are things like X Factor and Eastenders? And you think people can be trusted to organise their own infrastructure?
Good luck with that.

What do those people do in order to watch X-Factor and Eastenders? Do they ring up government and ask them to stick their favourite programs on the box? In fact the truth is bizarre. Turns out there's a company out there, independent of government (I know, I could hardly believe it myself) and if you buy a TV (made and sold by a private company) (the government won't do this for you, you have to go to the shops and buy it yourself), plug it in (you'll have to deal with another non-governmental organisation to get electricity), switch it on (again, no government help with this), call up the cable company (private company) (using telephones operated by yet another private company) and hand over money (earned by your labour and residing in a private bank that you have a contract with, independent of government) then (as if by magic considering government isn't involved at any step) you can watch your TV show. Note again, you have to watch it yourself, government won't watch it for you.

Of course we both know the above is not strictly true because government does provide a string of valuable services that ensure X-Factor can be delivered to you. First they tax the cable company, both in terms of providing a piece of expensive paper called a license and also general taxation on labour and profits.

They tax the shop you bought your TV in. They tax the electricity company. The tax the bank you hold your money in. Then they tax all these companies again by coercing the companies into accounting for tax on their behalf (nice freebie if you have the troops and paramilitary and courts to enforce it).

Finally they tax you. Four times. They tax you on your labour. They tax you with inflation. They tax you with interest and then they tax you on the tax with VAT. You'll need a license to watch the program too.

So even though it may be argued government plays no part whatsoever in the provision of services between you and other private individuals and companies, as you can see they still play a significant role. One we are delighted to see them play it seems. A role it would be "immoral" to disagree with.

Now as we know, it's simply impossible that other forms of infrastructure could be arranged between private individuals operating together in absence of government. There's just no way such a thing could be achieved (unlike in past times and all throughout history where such arrangements were standard). Everything would fall apart and everyone would die if government did not intervene in every aspect of our lives in order to extract the wealth required to sustain itself. If this snake stopped eating its tail we'd all be doomed to find other and much more efficient ways to manage our lives.

The thought of people wanting to benefit themselves and at the same time relieving themselves of a ever increasing burden is ridiculous. Government for the sake of government is the only way to go.

[Niall_Quinn]

If my neighbour's house is on fire, I will lend him my hose and perhaps even help to put out the fire.

Exactly.

[Letters]

Now as we know, it's simply impossible that other forms of infrastructure could be arranged between private individuals operating together in absence of government. There's just no way such a thing could be achieved.

Of course it's possible. In America there's no NHS so you have to pay for private medical insurance.
If you can't afford to then screw you, you're left on the side of the road.
That would be loads better.


The one part of your rant which makes any sense is the different ways we're taxed. That does annoy me, we shouldn't be taxed at every step. I accept that we need a taxation system in order to run things like the NHS and other infrastructure but IMO they should just take what they need from my salary and then leave me alone after that.

[Coney]

Disgraceful how fascists, nazis, anachists, and communists are treated on here.

[Niall_Quinn]

Of course it's possible. In America there's no NHS so you have to pay for private medical insurance.
If you can't afford to then screw you, you're left on the side of the road.
That would be loads better.


The one part of your rant which makes any sense is the different ways we're taxed. That does annoy me, we shouldn't be taxed at every step. I accept that we need a taxation system in order to run things like the NHS and other infrastructure but IMO they should just take what they need from my salary and then leave me alone after that.

I just explained to you in my rant (translation, outside your conditioned spectrum) why tax is counterproductive to the aims you claim you want to achieve. Tax and the fractional reserve system it supports means everything is at least twice as expensive. You confuse a different manifestation of corruption in the States with the system we have in the UK, mistakenly imagining each as polar alternatives. Both are simply systems worked for the same purpose, sustenance of the few. In America the insurance industry owns healthcare, here the pharmaceutical industries run it. Everything from the medicines on the shelves to the research grants are all bent towards the profit motive. Besides, the kicked to the side of the road bullshit often raised by those desperate to defend outrageously obvious corruption is only a recent event in the States. But that's another argument. Going back to the farmer - does he care for his animals because he respects them? The cow wouldn't be in the warm barn for long if it stopped producing milk. There's a certainly lack of equity in an arrangement, don't you think? You say you agree we "need" a taxation system and yet a couple of posts back you lamented the "X-Factor" crowd.

[Letters]

You haven't explained anything.

You said that the infrastructure was arranged between private individuals "in past times and all throughout history where such arrangements were standard". It may have been standard, doesn't mean it was any good:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/nh...ort/123511.stm

Prior to the reforms, the poor often went without medical treatment, relying instead on dubious - and sometimes dangerous - home remedies or on the charity of doctors who gave their services free to their poorest patients.

Access to a doctor was free to workers, who were on lower pay, but 'national health insurance' often did not extend even to their wives or children.

Hospitals charged for services, and although poor people were reimbursed, they had to pay upfront first to receive treatment.

The need for free healthcare was widely recognised, but it was impossible to achieve without the support or resources of the state.

Throughout the 19th century, philanthropists and social reformers working alone had tried to provide free medical care for the poor, but, without government backing, they were destined merely to scratch the surface of need.

The hospitals established by these pioneers dealt mainly with serious illness.

Other demands, such as care of the elderly and mentally ill, were met - at least partially - by local authorities which often ran local municipal hospitals.

Provision, however, was patchy, and people were often locked away in forbidding institutions, not always for their own benefit, but to save other people from embarrassment.

[Niall_Quinn]

You haven't explained anything.

You said that the infrastructure was arranged between private individuals "in past times and all throughout history where such arrangements were standard". It may have been standard, doesn't mean it was any good:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/nh...ort/123511.stm

Good grief. If you stuck the current government 200 years in the past it wouldn't turn into a golden age. It's technology that has improved the world, not poxy governments. In fact a lot of innovation has come despite government and its vested interests. The question is what are our options now, not 200 years ago. There's no such thing as free healthcare and there never was. In fact healthcare in this country is ridiculously expensive hence the outrageous rates of taxation. There are no free schools either, nothing is free, it all costs an absolute fortune. Because government endorses corporate abuse and profits from it the illusion is created that you either have big government or a rapacious plutocracy. This is just scaremongering that serves both the state and their business friends. The revolving door between government and big business is all you need to examine to see this nasty alliance in play.

Capitalism is NOT the act of centralisation and yet that's what we have in this country in the form of a bloated state that interferes in every aspect of our lives and a layer of corporations that are even bigger than the state. Capitalism is about competition, competition drives innovation and innovation is behind the technological advances that have genuinely improved things across the board (and not just in favour if the mega rich). You control the cancer of state and the monopolistic corporation that has undue influence and you can get genuine progress. Right now progress is limited to come **** in blue slagging off some **** in red. It's childish and has nothing to do with lifting people up.

Fear of change is what restricts most people, even as they are shouting for the Goldman Sachs stooge who runs on a ticket for change. But if you take away these bastard's tax system then the fiat money and fraction reserve system collapses and with that goes debt and manipulation of the money supply. At the same time production increases (due to money being freed into the economy rather than being recycled in an inflationary way to bankers) and the economic cycle gets tied to labour and manufacturing rather than a faith based system dictated by the few.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. We are a million miles away from doing anything sensible as human beings are are evidently restricted to this wasteful, degrading and criminal system for the foreseeable future. Because almost everybody point blanks refuses to contemplate an alternative, they refuse to believe an alternative is even possible.