Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Yes, we watched it.

:-(

We both agreed that we both have such very negative and irritating feelings about the show, and it just doesn't seem to portray 'business' as we know it.

We used to be big fans but one more week might just be the last for us.

ALD,

I think our next meeting is at the Wig and Gown. You are welcome as long as your pockets aren't sown up.

Doctors payments, depends on what they are doctoring.

I have a couple of daughters with PHDs, and payments vary, also, many PHD are being laid off. (The latter is going to happen to the Medics as well.)

Had a friend back in the 80s, who had PHD in Engineering and PHD in Chemistry, but when applying for posts was frequently told he was over qualified. Ended up continuing in his hobby of "computers".

Last time I had sex, it did not work out too well. Could I be over qualified?

Greek,

You challenged me with the following:
Some further figures.

The process of applying for BSF investment was so fiendishly complex that, collectively, Englands local authorities spent an estimated 250 million on preparing their bids, with 60 million being spent on consultancy or advisory costs. Thats 250 million just to fill in the forms, so plentiful was the red tape.

Some councils which entered the process six years ago have only just started building new schools.
Another project starting this year is three years behind schedule.

I have no problem continuing this debate, but only if you can show my figures are wrong. If you can't it is an open and shut case of Labour Government waste.

===========================

I see the BSF as similar to the PFI schemes.

The private finance initiative (PFI) was invented in Australia in the late 1980s, and was originally applied to toll road and railway projects.[1] In 1992 PFI was implemented for the first time in the UK by the Conservative government of John Major. It immediately proved controversial, and was attacked by the Labour Party while in opposition. Labour critics such as the future Secretary of State for Health, Patricia Hewitt considered that PFI was really a back-door form of privatisation (House of Commons, December 7, 1993), and the future

=======================


Again reading back on some threads you will see that I thought the schemes were follies. But they were a way of conning the public into getting something of nothing. Also, perhaps a way of paying friend off. Basically I saw it in this way. (Buying a house for X+nothing, and selling it for 2X+nothing - T.) (T=Time) (Easy money.) Buy to-day and pay to-morrow or do a moonlight flit.

The gate was opened by the Tories and applied with alacrity by Labour. Didnt the private sector like it.

====================


The difference was that, the infrastructure of the country was left to decay by the previous administrations, and needed restitution. The longest period of decay was under Maggie.

Yes, there are always slovenly processing within the Public Sector and the numbers are colossal, but the same slovenliness occurs in the Private sector. However, numbers involved are smaller and dont hit the headlines, but it is the public in general which has to pick up the debris.)

Again some of the costs in this area are due to crazy the NIMBY actions of vociferous groups.

================

I havent number crunched, and I am not inclined to do so. but I hope this is an answer, but somehow doubt it.

Regards.


Ps. regarding SEX. try a different position! 8-)

Fred - 'Perhaps, half, or, at least a large percentage of what is produced by the private centre, is of little value to and of no benefit to society.Are they deliberately production of waste and inefficiency and should they be thrown out on the scrap heap?'

The BIG difference here is that I have the freedom of choice to buy or not to buy private sector output, useless or not. I don't have a choice on where my hard earned money/tax is wasted.

I can imagine you stood in that bucket now trying to lift yourself up by the handle.

Raw,

The problem with waste is that it the disposal of it is paid for the public as a whole.

Also, if it is waste it is produced at a cost to the public in many other ways.

Again, what you define of waste of you pay your taxes for?

If there is waste, but you have a "harmonious" society it may be better to tolerate that wast until you have a better idea.

The motor car engine, although producing "driving or haulage power" produces waste heat on hot day and other pretty useless waste products of degradation of fuel. I wouldn't throw the engines away, but I would hope for some further improvements. (Research done by your partially publicly funded Universities etc, )

Also, the private car user produces "waste" at a cost to his environment and the damages to society in general.


Should general taxation be used to rid society of the products of the individual. (If so, where are your boundaries? If not, how do you charge and obtain payment from the responsible individual.)

The difficulty with cutting down on waste, is what is defined by "waste".

The waste of my neighbour is often compost to me. 8-)

Again, Trident, Aircraft Carriers, Harriers may be a waste to me. Others have different opinions.

I object to paying for their cost, but can't withdraw from "General" taxation.

Fred,

I agree that PFI was equally as bad as the BSF program, but that does not excuse either, so I don't get your point.

Fred, I wasn't refering to 'rubbish' waste, that would be a whole new can of worms, as would the environmental issues and I have no interest in debating either with you. Come to think of it, you are doing what you always do and broadening the scope of the discussion so I don't have the time to continue.

As a shining example of the waste I mean, I refer you to the mothballed on launch, expensive, new aircraft carrier that someone, somewhere, agreed to buy. It wasn't the private sector that signed the contract. I would prefer to have seen that sort of wasted money not collected as tax in the first place. Hopefully the price of steel will increase and we can weigh it in for a profit before it gets wet.

The country is paying 120million a day in interest payments to service its loans, that to me is waste and is doing exactly what, i assume, you would detest. Instead of the tax and spend redistribution of wealth mentatility it is the millions of ordinary folk pouring money into the coffers of the few.

Rawdm999,

Well said. Like you I feel it is almost impossible to continue debating with Fred when he twists things so much. I will though still sometimes quote figures and fact as answers, but will not comment any further on his posts, until/unless he changes tack.

Greek - frustrating isn't it. He frequently states as fact something, which when challenged, he loses in the blur of is twisting & turning.

His response, if any, will determine my next post, if any, as i've remembered how much time can be lost in these futile debates with him.

Raw,

The BIG difference here is that I have the freedom of choice to buy or not to buy private sector output, useless or not. I don't have a choice on where my hard earned money/tax is wasted.

=========

The country is paying 120million a day in interest payments to service its loans, that to me is waste and is doing exactly what, i assume, you would detest. Instead of the tax and spend redistribution of wealth mentatility it is the millions of ordinary folk pouring money into the coffers of the few.

==========

As a consequence of living in a developed society, it is necessary for the reasonable structures and complexities of that state to have financial support i.e. taxation in one form, or another.

In a reasonably caring and organised society, taxation does not have to be only in cash, but probably includes the work, which members of that society provide within it, whether it appears initially directly towards themselves or society in general. Low paid workers in low paid public services are an example. They receive a low wage, but they service others.

Initially, a parent having a child seems for personal benefit, but when you consider that that child may be a future health carer, researcher, trader or businessman and contribute to society at a later date the value to society may change.

The problem which I see with having lower taxes and being able to opt out when the taxation doesnt suit oneself, is defining what is of value yourself and to that society as a whole, I.E. the total environment we live in.

Are the Police an expensive waste of time and who produce little of value.

Unfortunately, they are necessary for the keeping of law and order. But a perfect society may not need them.

(But living out of town, rarely travelling away from my castle and employing a few minders, I dont need, or want them.)

I think, in order to have harmony within a society, a tolerance of mistakes (not criminality) and what can be defined has to be accepted. That does not exclude improving by progress.

The problem is, that when a butterfly flaps its wings it effects everybody.

In order to affect the use your tax, it seems you have to become politically involve and hope you have enough of others to concur with your values.

===============================

I think the squealing about 120million a day, is similar to those complaining about their fix rate prime mortgage which they took out in good times.

Sad, but it looked good, at the time. (Was it turning a blind eye, or have we God's gift of hindsight.)

I hope those who are taking out mortgages at this point in time will feel as good about it in 2years time.

=================================

Greek,

What are you grumbling about?

Havent checked, or disagreed, with your figures, and will accept them for the time-being.

But, I dont think the only sinners were the Labour government when enabling contracts and believed they adopted joyfully the procedures, developed by their predecessors and filled the private sectors teeth with gold to get what they wanted.

Borrowing, from the public to finance the private sectors profit margin and then being asked to bail out by the private sector when things go wrong, is crazy.

(I dont apologise for baiting you earlier (once again). Of course, I dont think the police a complete waste of time!) 8-) or (

Fred

I never said I had a problem with general taxation, civilisation is based on taxation. I do have a problem with higher taxes if, and only if, those taxes are wasted.

'I think the squealing about 120million a day, is similar to those complaining about their fix rate prime mortgage which they took out in good times.'

Rubbish. If people took out a fixed rate mortgage it was their, possibly ill advised, choice. They don't have a choice where their taxation goes.

Do you mean the previous government didn't have its advisors?

If so ?

If not, are they the same as the present to bunch seem to have?

Rawdm999,

I think we are wasting our time with Fred. We state that he refuses to reply on the same subject we commented on, then he asked what we are grumbling about. Now he says that for now he is accepting my figures. Problem is he did not say that before.
So it appears we have to guess what he accepts.
I don't mind debate, but I am done with him for the sole reason he twists everything to make you look wrong. You can't debate with someone like that. It is a waste of time.

You should know better than to argue with an idiot. They invariably drag you down to their own level and end up beating you with their years of experience.

Discussion evolving again & haven't got time.

Greek.

No. It is wiser not to make assumptions, unless it is explicit in what I write


(You have an a perfect right to assumptions, but false assumptions can lead you up a dark alley.)

Also, I feel it is a little like being accusing somebody of villainy, or similar action, and confirming it by on the assumption that, because the individual does not to answer, or plead according to whim, he/she is found guilty and should be "banged up".

I hope that is not the principal that you are operating on.

Greek, we are wasting time. I'm taking Hilary's comment on board and writing it out a hundred times.

try the squelch button. never used it myself.
but then havnt felt the need to write out a hundred lines either.
seems desperate. LoL!
may or may not help
just a suggestion and as always just my opinion and please be sure to dyor
regards
jkd

Raw.

What ever turns you on!