General News Discussion

[eFestivals]

Some of the stuff you just posted is laughable...

Taxes never came along without a sense of you being entitled to something. Taxes are a contract between the people and the state. You pay x amount and then the state perform a,b and c services for you and others.

It's that bit I've bolded where you get it so very very wrong.

The state do things with the money. The end.

It's not about whether the state do things with that money for you, it's about the state doing things with money because it's right for the state to do that (as decided by the people of that state).

If what the state does happens to benefit you, that's merely an aside, a lucky consequence. It's not the reason for why the state should do it in the first place.

The decision for whether it happens or not should not be anything about how you benefit, it should be abouty how the country benefits. It's a govt of the country, not a govt to fulfil what you personally might want for yourself.

Labour, Libs and the Tories all believe you have some level of entitlement when contributing taxes.

100% wrong. No wonder your views are so fucked up. Even the tories don't get as right wing as you've just managed.

There is not a single govt service which is provided on the basis of whether you've contributed or not (tho there is one thing, pensions, where how much you get back is dependent to some extent on what has been contributed).

They are govt services, provided free of any contribution-based entitlement.

Your base understanding of why we pay tax is clearly up there with the birds.

says the man who has just got the reasons so wildly wrong.

ALL of us have some feeling of entitlement and I don't believe you don't either.

there's a big difference between a sense of entitlement and a belief that if i'm paying taxes that I have the same right as anyone else to be entitled.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I don't see how you can put the blame on just one side when things get expensive. Companies can't demand money that isn't contractually due.

[eFestivals]

More generic bollocks with no evidence to support it. You are good at that.

Fort fucks sake Barry, how bad are you at joining up the dots?

You'd just said that the govt waste billions on IT contracts - and they do. And the reasons why is because the private companies who do those contracts rip the govt off.

How could it not be that?

The govt are not the ones who say the work will cost £x and then come back and say "actually, it'll cost you two times £x, and if you don't pay twice you'll get nothing for paying once".

Its usually a failure of government to properly spec projects

So is there no responsibility of the company taking the contract to say "you've spec'd that badly?"

If it's all the govts fault for bad specs, is it right that private companies take advantage of their ineptitude? Or is it no different to mugging a granny on her doorstep by taking advantage of her confusion?

You see robbing the govt as a business opportunity. And then you complain about paying the taxes that fund the robbery. Cannot you not see your own intellectual failure with that view?

[pink_triangle]

I love the idea of universal healthcare, free at the point of access

but I cant stand the NHS - it's inefficient, massively expensive, bureaucratic and impersonal

anyway, as you were

[eFestivals]

I said you pay taxes and you get service for you AND others. The others can be people who for whatever reason can no contribute. But someone has to contribute at some point or there is no state.

people have to contribute, yes - and they are (rightly) FORCED to do so.

But as I keep trying to get thru to you, nothing about having to contribute is about getting anything back. The govt provides services, you might get none of those services. Your contributions do not give you any right to get any of those services (tho the govt might choose to give you a right to them).

So when I work, and I then get asked to pay tax, it is for the reasoning of supporting us all.

not it's not - not when you say "if I had to pay more in tax I'd work less" - which you have done.

And that is standard tory bollocks too. The tories believe that people only do things for money; as you say you do.

If you got no support.... or other people got no support... Well that is when the people kick back because you would be paying for no reason.

yeah, stopping others dying is no reason at all is it Barry. To tory thinking scum it's not a reason to contribute. It's only a reason to contribute if you get something back personally.

Unbelievable.

And you think you're not a tory.

[lost]

Theres no doubt the NHS (as any organisation) could be improved. However the reality is that with an aging population, resources are extremely stretched.

[eFestivals]

None at all...

As long as any spec / contract is right from the private companies point of view why should they worry about the governments side of thing. That is their job and their fuck up if they get it wrong.

Its business not some communist utopia dream

So it's the govt's job to be perfection and the job of business to rip off the feckless.

Got to go, there's a bit of a confused grannie round the corner who I know I can talk into paying £1000 for a loaf of bread. It would be rude of me not to have that £1000, as business is only ever a good thing for the country. And think of the tax money the govt will get from that £1000. It's a national priority that I sell that grannie a loaf of bread for a grand.

[eFestivals]

What do you think happens when the private sector supplier isn't perfect ? Do you think the government lets them off the hook or exploits the contractual failure ?

We both know the answer.

They let them off the hook.

As proven constantly by Crapita, EDS, and countless others.

[eFestivals]

So where is the problem ?

Soft weak useless government...

and thieving scumbag businesses. There's not only one side to this. The businesses take knowing advantage no less than the govt fucks up.

But anyway Barry, thanks for the tip. That grannie coughed up her pension and savings for that loaf of bread and I'm a grand richer. I couldn't haver done it without you, and my conscience is clear cos that grannie should have been on the ball.

I'm now off to the coke dealers with that grannies money. The coke dealer doesn't pay tax on his profits of course, but as there's no tax rules for coke dealing he's doing nothing wrong.

Edited February 1, 2013 by eFestivals

[Chimps in Balaclavas]

So it's the govt's job to be perfection and the job of business to rip off the feckless.

Got to go, there's a bit of a confused grannie round the corner who I know I can talk into paying £1000 for a loaf of bread. It would be rude of me not to have that £1000, as business is only ever a good thing for the country. And think of the tax money the govt will get from that £1000. It's a national priority that I sell that grannie a loaf of bread for a grand.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

How can you do that without a contractual reason ?

In the case of IT projects, any payments should be based on key deliverables. So if a company does for any reason go pop during the course of a project then you are either not left without anything but millions spent, or you always have the option to seek alternative suppliers.

This is all simple contractual B2B stuff the government clearly can't do. No point moaning about the private sector.

[eFestivals]

Ask her if she needs any milk too.

A business expansion programme. Great idea!

[eFestivals]

Not sure there is a responsibility not to do that.

if it's wrong to con the granny by asking a grand for a loaf of bread then it's wrong to con anyone.

Is it wrong to con that granny Barry? Even if it's your own granny?

[eFestivals]

Sorry you lost me when you started to compare grannies and enterprise.... I don't do crazy.

You do - you've been recommending it here, today.

You can charge a grannie £1k for a loaf of bread if you're able to con that granny. Is it OK to con that granny?

It's a very simple question. Is it OK to con a grannie?

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

If its over a barrel its only due to bad government practices in the past.

Not sure there is a responsibility not to do that. You say taxpayer but really its just a "customer".

[lost]

Because the private sector has govt over a barrel. I'm speaking from experience of Defence logistics and defence on a wider level.

As much as I understand that the private sector has to make a profit, is it not the responsibility to not screw over the taxpayer?

[eFestivals]

i wonder why Barry is avoiding the granny question?

Might it be that some of his brain cells have actually woken up today, so he's realised where it's going and that he'll end up having to justify the morally reprehensible as right (seeing as he's already said that the morally reprehensible is a good thing)?

Nah, it can't be that. Barry's too thick normally to join up the dots. It must be something else.

Edited February 1, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I wonder why...

It's nothing to do with it revealing you as working double-standards, or alternatively, you being exposed as a c**t. Oh no.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I think they look to maximise profits... which is kind of why they are there... They have to work in the interest of the share holders.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

You say fuck over a tax payer... Its emotive language... The reality is the are maximising the profits for the company in an engagement with the govement. Is it ok when its another business but not ok if its the government ?

If so then the government should not engage private business or change the laws on that type of engagement to dictate how those companies should behave. Which of course isn't really feasible.

G4S is an example of how the private sector get fucked over sometimes. What happened with G4S isn't all their own fault. It involved bad handling by the government as well from what I understand but G4S had to swallow the pill.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

A responsibility dictated where ? There isn't any morality in business...

Its just contracts, agreements and payments...

There needs to be a growing up of attitudes in both business and the public mindset with this stuff. Then maybe the government will actually start to perform better.

You are only highlighting failures of governments here. Its not the private sectors job to baby the government.

It would be best for the public sector to not deal wh the private sector if it can't do it in a grown up way.

[eFestivals]

Im a c**t but I won't engage with someone comparing big business with grannies...

I know you won't. You won't engage with anything which exposes your double-standards and c**tishness for what they are.

You're stupid, very very stupid, but not quite that stupid.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

No they got short changed because the government can't do business properly...

[eFestivals]

Yeah you have hit the nail on the head, there is no morality in business, and that's why the taxpayer ends up getting shortchanged.

and it's exactly why if there's nothing wrong with businesses doing that to govt, there's also nothing wrong with anyone taking advantage of a confused grannie.

They're both perfectly able to get better advice, so it's their fault they've been conned, and there's no responsibility for the con on the businesses.

[eFestivals]

So Barry, can I have your grannie's address?

I can go round there and happily say to her that you endorse my business practices.