Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Kiss me, Hardy | |
Author: Admiral Nelson | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 06:52:35 11/19/04 Fri "The English disease" is a witty American nickname for homosexuality. I wonder why? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Actually... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:42:43 11/19/04 Fri Admiral Nelson said "Kismet, Hardy" before his death, which means fate. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Well, | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:33:00 11/19/04 Fri Foreigners think that the British are strange - quite correctly. A few examples: Sexe a l'Anglaise is how the French describe being whipped for pleasure. An Austrian friend of mine told me that a friend of his laughed for hours when he explained that the British actually queue up at but-stops and post offices without the need for instructions to do so. The British, high and low form their own communities whenever they are abroad and refuse (or at least are perceived by the locals not) to fully fit in with the locals. There is certainly something different about the British. I know that they can appear so very haughty and unemotional but this must not be confused with asexuality. The British are in fact one of the most sexually-obsessed peoples on this earth, although it it mainly toungue in cheek fun-seeking stuff as opposed to the crude entirely off-turning porn that others mistake for erotica. Also could you kindly offer your own definition of "wit" for the benefit of the world? It appears that your definition is quite different from that of the English-Speaking world and we would be very interrested to hear it... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: In fairness... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:26:06 11/19/04 Fri Think of all the dodgy things for which we use euphemisms involving the word 'French'. French kissing, French letters, French courage (occasionally rendered as Dutch courage), etc etc. I think that the business about queuing is right... which of us, hand on heart, can think of anything more irritating than people who don't queue in an orderly fashion? The thing about sex is obviously written by people whose jusgement is based on watching too much "Carry On, Doctor" and an obsession with Kenneth Williams saying "Oo, matron." As for Sexe a l'Anglaise, I understand that the S&M capital of the world is in fact Japan. The only one which is not susceptible of a ready explanation is the ghettoisation of Brits abroad. Here in Venice, the expat community is centred round the consulate and, mainly, the Anglican church. Even non-Christians turn up at 10-30 on Sundays in Campo San Vio, including myself, a Hindu lady and, the other week, a Muslim guy from Bradford with the full beard, salwaar kameez and skull-cap, who said that he missed chatting to British people and thought that he might find some at the Church. He did, as well as glasses of orange squash, hobnobs, a pot of darjeeling and a bloke with a monocle. On the other hand, all of us interact with the natives, and phenomena like the Anglicisation of the Costa Del Sol, the Argarve, Tuscany and Faliraki are somewhat unusual. And, indeed, most self-respecting Brits would rather go to Fallujah for a quick holiday than to Marbella, Ibiza, or Agia Napa, largely because of what our countrymen have done to these once fine places. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: I'm not sure Agia Napa was ever desperately fine.... but it was certainly nicer as a few rocks and a beach.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:38:22 11/19/04 Fri On the other hand Cyprus in general is very British and I get a bit annoyed with self-appointed travel toffs who smirk at it for not being 'Greek' enough. It is an Anglo-Greek-Turk medley and there's nothing wrong with that. We should celebrate the fact one can buy a nice Pizza Express pizza there, proper chips to go with one's moussaka, and, rather like the Falkland Islands, have to fly to London to get almost anywhere else on earth in a fine 'all roads lead to Rome' piece of geography-defying Britishness. Unfortunately I fear the main reason most of us don't want to go to the places you mentioned is because a significant proportion of our population are brain dead, deserve the New Labour government their utter indifference to politics or the world helps bestow on us, and frankly are not worth the scarce resources they waste getting up every day. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Brazilians are terrible queuers | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:15:58 11/19/04 Fri Which is odd, really, given the length of time they have to spend waiting in queues to get simple things done. When I first got to Brazil, I remember going into a bank and seeing a queue of some 20 people and saying to my wife "there must be a problem, let's come back later", to which she replied "sorry, but this is about as short a queue as you will ever get in a bank". They even paint lines on the floor for people to queue between, but these are routinely ignored. Completely. Like the lines on the roads which I (foolishly) continue to associate with the concept of not veering drunkenly from one lane to another without warning. But the oddest thing is that the same Brazilian who will wait patiently in a queue in a bank - exactly as if it were completely normal and acceptable to have to spend your entire lunchtime on a single transaction - will then blow his horn at you when you stop at a red light that he doesn't feel like stopping at. The problem is that they just don't get the concept of order. The idea that rules should (1) make sense and (2) be respected has simply never reached these shores. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Old joke. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:30:02 11/19/04 Fri I think I was reading somewhere about a facetious response in a physics examination at some university. The question was about the shortest possible lapse of time in a temporally stable universe, as experienced by a stationary entity, or some such nonsense. One candidate gave two possible answers. The second smallest amount of time, he said, was represented by monarchy, because at the precise moment that the old King dies, the new one becomes king. There was however, he said, an even smaller amount of time than this. That is the time which elapses in Latin countries between the traffic lights going green and the driver behind you souding his horn. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Commonwealth Driving Habits... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:55:44 11/19/04 Fri You mean it’s worse out there in then in Britain! It is certainly interesting observing the driving habits of Europeans, and others throughout the world. You will be glad to live in Venice, as you will be spared the driving habits of an average Italian. French motoring is hilarious. Two cars meeting head-on down a narrow street is interpreted as a test of manhood, with neither driver taking the practical measure of reversing to allow their respective journeys to complete. The situation is generally resolved by wearing out their horns. I personally have observed two facing cars honking at each other until the sun sets below the horizon, only to resume their activities at first light. However, when I was in Canada, I hired an SUV and drove from Vancouver to Calgary, and many other places in between, over three weeks. It was quite a surreal experience for me, as someone who is used to hammering along at a three figured speed. I have never come across such sedate, polite and relaxed driving in my life. Unlike Britain, a green light is not a signal to light up the rear tyres, and propel yourself towards the horizon, or indeed, the next set of traffic lights. Nobody seemed to be in a hurry, and amusingly, people referred to distances as a number of hours drive. When I got back to the airport in Glasgow, my car journey home seemed like Death Race 2000 by comparison. I regret to inform you that I have reverted to my evil ways, and the roads no longer seem intimidating. Australian driving also seems to be like the Canadian model. No-one dares exceed the speed limit by 1 KMPH, or the plods will get you. Give it time though, and the British drivers will be under the cosh as much as you Aussies – we’re going that way unfortunately. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: distance and time | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:10:07 11/19/04 Fri >... amusingly, people referred to distances as a number of hours drive. It works the same way in Australia, except in the Northern Territory, where it is acceptable to define distances in terms of the number of cans of beer drunk during the drive. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Boats and Continental distances | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:02:36 11/19/04 Fri Firstly, the stereotype of Italian driving is not confined to places where there are actually roads. If you spend any time in Venice, you will be initially surprised by the suicidal eccentricities of the ragazzi in their little speed-boats, until you realise that it is just the maritime extension of the universal Latin attitude towards vehicles - driving is not a means for getting from A to B, it is a competition in manliness. This applies even to those with little dogs with long ears who sit in the prow, the wind ruffling their ears as the boat bounces up the canals or across the Laguna. Secondly, Continental distances are very difficult for Brits to understand. We consider London to Edinburgh - about 400 miles - to be an epic journey akin to Scott's trip to the Antarctic, and allow ourselves a couple of days just in case there's traffic. By comparison, a friend of mine was staying with some mutual acquaintances in the American Midwest, and they decided to go out for dinner. The Wisconsinite host recommended a little Chinese place "just up the road", which turned out to be a 70 mile drive taking just over an hour. Can you imagine driving 70 miles for an ordinary dinner and then driving back again afterwards? We might go as far as 5 miles to the next town for a particularly good meal, but a 140 mile round-trip for a bucket of kung-pow chicken seems to us to be the height of lunacy. Still, I like my little island, and am glad that Glasgow is not 2500 miles from London; it's just that sometimes these things make me think... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: emptiness | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:55:42 11/19/04 Fri All Australians have heard stories of people arriving in Sydney from small countries (usually Japan) and wanting to take a taxi to "that big rock in the middle of the island", a distance marginally greater than that from London to the Canary Islands. I remember when a friend and I drove the 4000-odd kilometres (or 2500-odd miles) from Sydney to Darwin. We had planned to take a whole week, because we weren't in any hurry, but we got bored with everything being so flat and sped it up a little to have an extra day once we got there. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: correction: Sydney-Uluru distance is more like London-Kiev | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:02:42 11/19/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Lost in translation | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:05:47 11/19/04 Fri Well, even betwixt Commonwealth family members it can be strange After all, I would not recommend to any UK cousins visiting Canada who want to borrow a cigarette to ask: "Can I bum a fag, mate?" LOL [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Don't say 'knock me up in the morning' either! | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:52:46 11/19/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: density | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:44:29 11/19/04 Fri In answer to the original question, >>"The English disease" is a witty American nickname for homosexuality. I wonder why? it would seem to me that any culture still capable of defining homosexuality as a disease would also be more than capable of defining the simplest of epithets as "wit". [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: 'English Disease' | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:09:02 11/19/04 Fri With Britain having one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe, how can homosexuality be an English 'disease'? What about San Francisco? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: The highest. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:50:40 11/19/04 Fri More teenage pregnancies per teenager than any country in Europe, I believe. You see how we exceed the achievements of Europeans in everything we do. As for homosexuality in San Francisco, I wonder if anyone else has noticed the fact that gay communities seem disproportionately concentrated in places beginning with 'S': Sydney, Shrewsbury, Soho, San Fransisco, Seattle, Salisbury Plain... most suspicious. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Canada has broken that trend | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:55:43 11/19/04 Fri The largest gay community in Canada is in Toronto. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: No chance of renaming it 'Siksika' to prove me right? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:47:08 11/19/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Gay Salisbury | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:01:55 11/19/04 Fri Salisbury Plain? Are you serious? I live in Salisbury. There is quite a few gay bars here, my mates mum was a bouncer at one of them. I didnt realise Slaisbury was any more gay than other parts of Britain. Is it really more gay than the other parts? I ask you in all seriousness. As for the teenage pregnancy, you may recall the 14 yearold girl who had an abortion last year without her parents knowledge, was on the news about a year ago. Shes pregnant again! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:04:56 11/19/04 Fri Well, actually, I wasn't being entirely serious - I was more making a comment on the goings-on in the army barracks which can't be too far from where you live! But I was being half-serious, because, in my experience, very few of the smaller towns in Britain are not so open-minded as the people of Salisbury seem to be, from my occasional visits. Take Shropshire, for example, which I know well. I have known red-blooded bikers with girlfriends being attacked for their perceived homosexuality all across the county - but then, as I say, you get to Shrewsbury and everyone is either a goth or gay, and often both. And as for teenage pregnancies, I am pleased to announce another British World Record: the world's youngest recorded grandmother, aged an impressive twenty-seven. I believe that she is from one of our big cities, like Glasgow or Birmingham. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: the army barracks | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:20:02 11/19/04 Fri Uhem, you will use tact when talking abotu the army barracks. My dad is in the army and thus spends much time in that area lol. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sorry! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:54:11 11/19/04 Fri No offense meant, of course... I have a few friends in various armies, too, including a young woman in the Israeli force, and of course we all know what they're like! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Offense?! Offence, I think that you mean! :-P | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:10:42 11/19/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I usually have to use the word "offesa"! Not my fault! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:47:23 11/20/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fair enough - But I can't stand Americanisms ;-) | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:53:17 11/20/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: More British Weirdness | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:31:56 11/19/04 Fri Tell me, are we the only country in the Commonwealth, and indeed the world, where a licence is required to watch television? Moreover, do any other countries pursue unlicensed viewers who surreptitiously watch TV, with sophisticated detector vans, sporting an array of antennas, dishes and oscilloscopes? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Better than having crappy adverts on TV! | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:58:21 11/19/04 Fri The BBC is a respected insitution worldwide, and is one of the few television companies (well, corporation) in existence whose job is to deliver good quiality programmes to viewers, not eyeballs to advertisers. It is currently working on a revolutionary streaming codec, that will allow viewers to watch old TV programmes from its website, whos compression and quality is superior to that of Microsoft and RealOne. The code for this codec has been released under the GPL, meaning that anyone may take it and use it as they wish, even resell it if they so desire. Can any other TV company do this? It develops a range of programmes of its own that are unique in their humour and general content world wide, and yet still turns over a profit from selling these elsewhere. Having a few vans about and paying £10 a month (equivalent) for about 8 channels, BBCi (online, interactive, etc), full of this brilliant content is a small price to pay. I truely will mourn the day if it is ever privatised. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Well, if it is sold off or destroyed, not just privatised | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:00:00 11/20/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Auntie is not what she was. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:56:15 11/20/04 Sat Who can deny that the BBC's progamming is the best in the world? I certainly don't. Apart from BBC news' manifest inclinations to present the Tories as madmen and not even efficient madmen at that, to imply that invading Iraq was akin to Germany invading Poland, and their implicit suggestion that Tony Blair is a real-life Flash Gordon (who will save every one of us), I have no argument with Auntie. Except... ...The propaganda campaign by the BBC to get people to pay the license is getting more like Big Brother than anything real. "We have a list of everyone without a TV license. Just so you know" emblazoned across London omnibuses, for example. And the vans with satellite dishes and the inordinate fines (£1000? for watching Father Ted without a license? That's about the price of a good suit, for heaven's sake!)... it's a bit authoritarian for my liking. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ABC/BBC | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:16:04 11/20/04 Sat It is interesting that you refer to the BBC as "Auntie" - the same name is given to the ABC here is Australia. The BBC is an institution that you should all be proud of, particulary the BBC World Service. It is far better than our ABC. I regulary listen to the BBC World Service on the radio here and get much of my news from the BBC Website. I also enjoy listening to a few other BBC radio programmes every now and again via the internet. The quality of the ABC is far better than the commercial networks in Australia, however it is well behind the BBC. I wish the Australian government would increase its funding at a faster rate. We should be looking to the BBC as a model. It does seem slightly strange to charge a licence fee for the BBC though, you would think it would be much more efficient to pay for the BBC directly out of people's taxes, as is done in Australia. I realise there are some issues with bias (similar to the ABC here) but it would be sad to see the BBC scaled down or privitised. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Nope | |
|
Author: Silly Billy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:59:07 11/19/04 Fri Belgium required the ownership of a TV licence up until 2 years ago, when they privatised public television. And Ireland certainly still has them - in fact, the prices are about double those paid in Britain because of the ridiculously oversubsidised Irish-language television and radio stations that must be supported. I could not definitively state whether there are other states that operate such licensing systems, but even those that pay for broadcasting through general tax revenue are imposing a kind of licence fee - and one that is harder to avoid paying. This is definitely true of the French (who subsidise their media and culture massively), and I hear that the Germans and the Italians are much the same. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: But what about people in between? | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:51:33 11/20/04 Sat I'm strongly in favour of public service, as you may have noticed. The major problem with private services is not with the poor who cannot ever afford pay for it, but with those who can barely. The people that would have to take a severe hit in their standard of living to enjoy the benefits of health care insurance, TV, education, et cetera. What's more, having two or three 'tiers' of service is particularly unacceptable. People who fall back on the health service should be able to do so witgh confidence that they will recieve a good service. Now, you may argue that the NHS is bad at the moment, but as we all know, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. It really is not bad in comparison to what it would be if those in the upper tax bands weren't 'donating' generously towards it. If they could freely choose a superior service instead of paying tax, then they would. But then the quality of the free service would suffer significantly and we'd end up with the quality of peoples healthcare being soley dependent on how much they earn, and frankly, that is not acceptable in modern Britain. Even Margaret Thatcher didn't dare privatise the NHS. It is another one of our not-so-good-but-we'll-kill-you-if-you-try-to-take-it-away services. Unlike the BBC, it has a lot of work to do before it can be on par or supersede its commericial cousins. But I'm confident, that with the appropriate management and funding, it can be respected world wide. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: the ABC is funded out of normal tax revenue | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:51:48 11/20/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:10:12 11/20/04 Sat So would many of our public services be, if were were honest about taxation. "Tax is at 20%," says the government; but that is just income tax, and if you add things like VAT, the BBC license fee, presrcription surcharges, capital gains tax, council tax, inheritance tax (the most iniquitous of our taxes), and all the rest of it, it actually amounts to 42%. And given that many of us pay this and then PAY FOR OUR OWN services in the form of healthcare, school fees, and whatnot, even the figure of 42% is a bit small. Frankly, either the government should adopt the Norwegian policy of charging 50% tax and everything being both free and of good quality, or charging vitually none and letting people pay for services themselves. But I'm a Tory, so you can imagine that I'd go for the latter! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Public Services | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:33:50 11/20/04 Sat I think you have to achieve a balance with public services that ensures quality and fairness. In my view, the government should provide a safety-net for those who are less well-off in society but not pay for public services for those who are better off and encourage those people to provide for themselves. This would allow the government to substantially reduce taxes and give more people choice in their services, it would also help to eliminate the culture of dependency that can often be created. My school education at a government school was completely paid for by the government, despite the fact my family could quite easily have paid for my education privately. The same is the case with my university degree (for which the government pays approximately 75%), it is ludicrous for the government to be contributing so heavily to university education when these people go on to earn more than others. the government providing free (or substantially free) services to everyone does not necessarily constitute fairness. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Paying for TV | |
|
Author: JIm (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:28:57 11/20/04 Sat In Canada, I don't need a TV licence, but I do have to pay a monthly subscription fee for cable channels. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: How is CBC funded? | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:17:25 11/20/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: General tax revenue and commercials... | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:23:49 11/21/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: TV | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:04:03 11/21/04 Sun The situation in Canada seems similar to that in Australia, although the ABC is banned from screening advertisments. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: tax | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:41:38 11/20/04 Sat There isn't a simple answer to the real or appropriate level of taxation. For example, the UK's official tax take as a % of GDP is still below 40%. This isn't as good as the mid 30s level that it fell to under the Major government, but it is significantly lower than most European and other developed countries. Only the US and Ireland trash us on that measure, most OECD countries paying 40-50% (Canada is at the top end of that range), and everyone has to pay for some things that are free elsewhere. And let's face it, what do the US and Ireland have in common? A low level of public health provision. I personally think a two tier NHS might work - but it could be inefficient and disastrous. A bit like 'privatising' education, while giving the wealthy the chance to opt out and giving them tax incentives to do so might appear to be at the expense of the poor, the rationed public service would undoubtedly benefit from having less work to do, and you don't have to give the rich ALL their money, back, do you? On the other hand the UK currently spends about HALF what the US spends on health as a % of GDP (8% vs 16%), and frankly the two services aren't THAT different. Americans have plenty of complaints about their HMOs, prescription costs etc. so the NHS must be doing something right - and the main things it's doing right are getting massive purchasing economies and screwing healthcare workers by telling them they should work for love rather than money. I believe in public services, I think income tax is the most fair and efficient form of taxation, and I think services should be funded by a blend of public and private money, and be as flexible and open to choice and competition as possible. I also think the tax system should be compartmentalised, so we know how much we're paying for what service, and can opt out of services if practical. I think we should invest in transport - high speed trains and better roads. I think we should adopt a voucher system for schools and experiment with regulated private insurance policies for health which allow people to largely opt out of the NHS. But I doubt many people really care very much what I think, and I might have changed my mind in a few years' time. Any new idea can look good on paper until it's tried - then all those external factors you couldn't accurately predict decide whether it's going to work or not. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: health and education | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:47:37 11/20/04 Sat I don’t think I could be comfortable with either a fully private or a fully public system. My ideal is that everyone should have access to good public health and education services, and that these should be funded through a taxation system where people who earn more pay a higher percentage. The level of these services should be as high as possible, based on the society’s ability to pay. Like everything, they should be as efficient as is humanly possible. People who want more specialised services should have the opportunity to buy them, but that should not excuse them from paying taxes to maintain the public services. The benefit of living in a society where people don't die in large numbers in the streets comes at the cost of helping fund services for our neighbours. I think infrastructure should be developed through public-private partnerships, where risks and responsibilities, as well as profits, are assumed by both partners. I don’t go for compartmentalised taxation, though. It works that way in Brazil, with certain taxes introduced specifically to pay for certain services. The problem is, some shift occurs in the economy one year and a given tax doesn’t bring in as much revenue as was expected, so the associated service suffers. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: But.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:47:07 11/20/04 Sat *I don’t go for compartmentalised taxation, though. It works that way in Brazil, with certain taxes introduced specifically to pay for certain services. The problem is, some shift occurs in the economy one year and a given tax doesn’t bring in as much revenue as was expected, so the associated service suffers.* Surely this happens everywhere as departmental budgets are set out in advance? I don't think taxes should be allocated for one thing like a window tax or a bread tax. I'm referring predominantly to the three main direct taxes in the UK - income tax, national insurance and council tax. Council taxes generally are compartmentalised to a certain extent - the bill comes with a breakdown of how much of the budget is going on the police or education, or in Scotland how much on water and sewerage. National Insurance was set up to pay for pensions - but it is now simply co-opted into general taxation, so is a farce. I think Council bills should go further and show the percentage of your bill that is spent on each department of the council. And I think one's pay slip should detail a number of 'income taxes' and 'national insurances' which represent a certain percentage of one's income and tell you exactly what % is going where - eg Salary 7680 Income Tax 1670 Police Levy (381) Education Levy (643) Defence Levy (48) Iraq War Tax (7) Transport Tax (72) Other (519) Health Insurance 210 Employment Insurance 62 That doesn't necessarily mean that's the only funding those departments receive, and of course it would be reviewed twice a year anyway. But it tells you instantly that there are too many soppy schoolchildren getting textbooks and not enough bombs falling on Iraq, and it might allow one to make additional donations to causes one cared about, or opt out of things like Health Insurance or Employment Insurance, provided a government approved private scheme was adopted in their place. No politican would ever really want to give people that level of disclosure, but that's exactly why it's a good idea. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: But.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:11:56 11/20/04 Sat *I don’t go for compartmentalised taxation, though. It works that way in Brazil, with certain taxes introduced specifically to pay for certain services. The problem is, some shift occurs in the economy one year and a given tax doesn’t bring in as much revenue as was expected, so the associated service suffers.* But surely that can happen anywhere, as budgets are usually set annually? I wouldn't propose a one tax one department solution, but rather a detailed breakdown in everyone's pay packet of where the tax goes. At the moment of the 3 main direct taxes in the UK, income tax, national insurance and council tax, only council tax issuers occasionally give a brief breakdown as to where some of the money goes. NI was originally set up as a pension contribution, but is now co-opted into general taxation so is a farce. There's no government pension fund to pay retirees, which is why the future of pension provision will be every man for himself. I think a British pay slip in future should like this: Salary 7280 Income Tax 1810 Police Levy (219) Social Security (423) Education Levy (638) Transport Levy (204) Defence Levy (48) Iraq War Tax (7) Civil List (2) Other (215) Health Insurance 218 Health Supplement 0 HMD Gold Plan 168 Employment Insurance 77 There needn't be any problems with funding, since all the money is collected the same way and these departments would doubtless receive funds from elsewhere too, plus the budgets would be reviewed annually or even twice annually anyway. But the point is that a simple glance at one's pay slip reveals instantly that there are too many soppy school children getting exercise books, and not enough bombs falling on Iraq. It also might give the option for people to make extra donations to causes they cared about, or opt out of some payments, like health supplements, if they signed up to a government approved private offering instead. Of course no politician would want to give out that level of disclosure, but it's our money, and they should be required to by law. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ah, I see | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:19:17 11/20/04 Sat I thought you were wanting to link specific taxes to specific services. I'm all in favour of a breakdown of where our money goes to. Something like: Income tax: 1810 President's family: 280 President's friends: 140 Bribes to get opposition members to support government legislation: 750 Programs to reduce to an acceptable level the numbers of people starving to death in the northeast: 2 etc [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Excellent idea | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:29:21 11/20/04 Sat IN 2001, the break down might have been something like: Income tax: 1810 Bribes to get opposition members to support government legislation: 750 Bribes to get backbench Labour party members to support government legislation: 850 Programmes to reduce to an acceptable level the numbers of people starving to death in the northeast: 2 Scottish Parliament extra spending to counter delays: 200 Queen: -650 That sort of thing? (Yes, the Queen actually brought in a massive profit that year.) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |