Vehicle tracking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

So, we should pay income-dependent rates for the same services? Should I perhaps be paying more for the goods I buy, purely because I can? If so, then what's the point in earning any money? Branson doesn't get better tv just because he's a millionaire - he gets exactly the same as everyone else, for the same price. Oh, and he probably doesn't use it so much as the average council peon either, because he actually does some work once in a while, instead of numbing his mind in front of the tripe that gets piped into living rooms throughout the country.

*addendum*

Bread, a fairly basic provision. Granted, you can pay more for 'better' bread if you so wish. But are you suggesting I should pay more for the same loaf just so some loafer who doesn't have so much money can pay less? That smacks of communism that does.

---

Well, to begin with I don't agree with your apparent premise that all people on low incomes are loafers. I happen to earn a very decent living and inherited a great deal of my wealth - though I also built some through business - I would be ashamed to claim that I worked as hard as say, a labourer on a building site, or a nurse. The world is thus, and my "labour" per hour is valued more by society, but that does not mean society isn't rather perverse. :beam:

Second, we are talking about a tax here. The tax is levied to fund the BBC. There are plenty of commercial channels that pay for themselves, and could be provided free through utilising advertising - yet one has no choice but to pay for the BBC.

In taxation terms, your argument is flawed. Fair taxes are best graduated to ability to pay, not flat-rate. Of course, the best solution would be to abolish the TV tax altogether and let the market provide.

Am I sounding sufficiently communist now? :bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Well, to begin with I don't agree with your apparent premise that all people on low incomes are loafers. I happen to earn a very decent living and inherited a great deal of my wealth - though I also built some through business - I would be ashamed to claim that I worked as hard as say, a labourer on a building site, or a nurse. The world is thus, and my "labour" per hour is valued more by society, but that does not mean society isn't rather perverse. :beam:

Second, we are talking about a tax here. The tax is levied to fund the BBC. There are plenty of commercial channels that pay for themselves, and could be provided free through utilising advertising - yet one has no choice but to pay for the BBC.

In taxation terms, your argument is flawed. Fair taxes are best graduated to ability to pay, not flat-rate. Of course, the best solution would be to abolish the TV tax altogether and let the market provide.

Am I sounding sufficiently communist now? :bounce:

---

I suppose the crucial difference is whether we see having a tv as a necessity, or a luxury. If it were a necessity, which I don't believe is so then yes - it would be a tax, and therefore should be income dependent. If it's a luxury, as I do believe, then it is someone's choice to pay for the BBC. If they didn't want to pay, they don't have to watch tv. Simple.

As for the question of loafers... they're very comfortable on the feet.

Otherwise though, what's the minimum wage in this country? 5.35 an hour or something. With an average of 40 hours a week, that makes 214 pounds a week; over 800 pounds a month. Now, personally, my lifestyle isn't particularly thrifty, but including my rent and a fair quantity of frivolous pursuits (which I have plenty of time for, being a loafing student), I'd be hard pressed to spend that much a month. Ergo, if someone is somehow incapable of supporting themselves, they must have done something foolish.

If you're saying there aren't enough jobs available for people, there's always the army - we have a recruitment crisis at the moment, according to the papers. And in the army there's free food and board, travel oppurtunities too. Bonus!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

I suppose the crucial difference is whether we see having a tv as a necessity, or a luxury. If it were a necessity, which I don't believe is so then yes - it would be a tax, and therefore should be income dependent. If it's a luxury, as I do believe, then it is someone's choice to pay for the BBC. If they didn't want to pay, they don't have to watch tv. Simple.

---

Yes, life is extremely simple. (So you believe that even if someone wishes to watch TV, but doesn't want to watch the BBC, they should nonetheless pay for it, for the greater good?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

Otherwise though, what's the minimum wage in this country? 5.35 an hour or something. With an average of 40 hours a week, that makes 214 pounds a week; over 800 pounds a month. Now, personally, my lifestyle isn't particularly thrifty, but including my rent and a fair quantity of frivolous pursuits (which I have plenty of time for, being a loafing student), I'd be hard pressed to spend that much a month. Ergo, if someone is somehow incapable of supporting themselves, they must have done something foolish.

---

Try bringing up a family. Ah but of course, life is simple, I forgot. One should not be so disparaging of working people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

If you're saying there aren't enough jobs available for people, there's always the army - we have a recruitment crisis at the moment, according to the papers. And in the army there's free food and board, travel oppurtunities too. Bonus!

---

There are plenty of jobs in the UK, but your educational system turns out rather too many people who are unable to read and write.

In my day, the British Army tended to recruit good quality soldiers rather than anyone off the streets. I wouldn't disagree that a form of national service (not affecting the professional armed forces but as a form of education) would solve some problems - but that is another thread entirely. :beam:

I am however, confused. You note in this post that you are a "loafing student" yet in other posts and later in this one, you seem to identify with being a soldier. May I ask which it is? (None of my business of course, so feel free to ignore. Just curious).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Yes, life is extremely simple. (So you believe that even if someone wishes to watch TV, but doesn't want to watch the BBC, they should nonetheless pay for it, for the greater good?)

---

TV's all much the same, isn't it? And one can have a TV without paying for a license, just so long as you can prove that you don't actually watch the stuff that's piped at you. Can't say I know every little detail about it - television doesn't interest me all that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Try bringing up a family. Ah but of course, life is simple, I forgot. One should not be so disparaging of working people.

---

I personally would never consider trying to bring up a family unless I felt my self able to sustain one. Brining a child into a disadvantaged world is somewhat irresponsible, especially in a country where there's free 'family planning' available. And I'm not being disparaging of working people, I'm being disparaging of people who aren't working enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

There are plenty of jobs in the UK, but your educational system turns out rather too many people who are unable to read and write.

---

True enough, saw something written by someone the other day - from the writing, I would have guessed 4 or 5 years old. Actually 13. This is something I definitely don't approve of, though - not all teaching is the responsibility of the schools - I learned a lot of my 'letters' at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

In my day, the British Army tended to recruit good quality soldiers rather than anyone off the streets. I wouldn't disagree that a form of national service (not affecting the professional armed forces but as a form of education) would solve some problems - but that is another thread entirely. :beam:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Arthur Wellesley

Ours is composed of the scum of the earth

---

I do agree about national service, would be a rather good thing to have. (But take the guns back off them at the end - we aren't quite so sensible as the Swiss)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I am however, confused. You note in this post that you are a "loafing student" yet in other posts and later in this one, you seem to identify with being a soldier. May I ask which it is? (None of my business of course, so feel free to ignore. Just curious).

---

Ah... Student, and sort of member of the TA. Also planning on commissioning (If I get through all the hoops)