London's Burning

[TheMercenary]

I guess I just don't see how these attempted solutions are "US solutions". If as you say they have been dealing with attempts to revamp the system countless times then the history of dealing with the issues occurred long before our current economic crisis. You socialized system of public support has been around a long time before we began to dabble in it. The attempted solutions are uniquely UK based and as we see the other EU economies unravel it is obvious that the UK is not alone in realizing that the cost of their social systems are breaking the bank and have been doing so for a long time. It is like finding a small bit of rot in a piece of wood, sticking a screwdriver in it and finding your whole house has been eaten by termites.

[DanaC]

I call them 'American' solutions because they are the product of politicians over here looking to America and borrowing ideas.

[TheMercenary]

Can you give some specific examples? Just trying to understand your point.

[DanaC]

Well, for example, in response to the riots and the 'gang problem' in London and other cities, the government has drafted in an American 'Supercop' to advise them. Seems a reasonable idea in principle, after all, he's had to deal with major gang problems in the US. But the US gang problem is not the same as the UK gang problem. The gangs are not the same, they've taken a different form. And policing here is different. The range of strategies on offer is different. The problems, though similar in some respects are different. But the Conservatives, and even the last Labour government, have such a love affair with American political solutions and philosophies that they just try and transplant it right across, ignoring calls from the police to draw from more culturally similar situations (as in with the gangs in some European cities).

They did the same with the education system. The Labour government brought in a bunch of ideas drawn from American educationalists to solve problems in our schools. Not that there's anything wrong with seeking expertise from American educationalists, or other professionals, just that they seem to be wedded to American solutions above all else, even where it is not appropriate.

Most of the attempts to bring in free market mechanics to the NHS, along with ideas like 'welfare to work' programmes and a bunch of other stuff were based on US strategies and programmes running during the 90s, often involving US firms in assisting in both devising and delivering them. Most of the prominent politicians in recent years have voiced their admiration for US economic and political philosophers.

The political elite have had a love affair with US thinking and strategy for two generations, and it's the first place they look for ideas. The problem is they don;t seem to hold those ideas to the same level of scrutiny as ideas from other places. They just take it as a good thing because it's what worked in the States. Sometimes they're right, and what they've done is adopt best practice as it appears in the US, but often they've just adopted the knee-jerk responses of the US political system as their own and the solution fails.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Well, for example, in response to the riots and the 'gang problem' in London and other cities, the government has drafted in an American 'Supercop' to advise them. Seems a reasonable idea in principle, after all, he's had to deal with major gang problems in the US. But the US gang problem is not the same as the UK gang problem. The gangs are not the same, they've taken a different form. And policing here is different. The range of strategies on offer is different. The problems, though similar in some respects are different. But the Conservatives, and even the last Labour government, have such a love affair with American political solutions and philosophies that they just try and transplant it right across, ignoring calls from the police to draw from more culturally similar situations (as in with the gangs in some European cities).

I can understand you point here, good points.

They did the same with the education system. The Labour government brought in a bunch of ideas drawn from American educationalists to solve problems in our schools. Not that there's anything wrong with seeking expertise from American educationalists, or other professionals, just that they seem to be wedded to American solutions above all else, even where it is not appropriate.

Well don't copy us, our system of public education has been failing the nation for a long time in many places of the US. Granted you can get through it and get a good education, but the costs are completely inefficient. Don't copy our system. The UK education system has a reputation, in my experience, as being one of the best in the world. Although I may be leaning to much on the Uni system in my statement.

Most of the attempts to bring in free market mechanics to the NHS, along with ideas like 'welfare to work' programmes and a bunch of other stuff were based on US strategies and programmes running during the 90s, often involving US firms in assisting in both devising and delivering them. Most of the prominent politicians in recent years have voiced their admiration for US economic and political philosophers.

But that actually did work for us, at least partially but the system has been re-bloated for lots of unforeseen reasons I think.

The political elite have had a love affair with US thinking and strategy for two generations, and it's the first place they look for ideas. The problem is they don;t seem to hold those ideas to the same level of scrutiny as ideas from other places. They just take it as a good thing because it's what worked in the States. Sometimes they're right, and what they've done is adopt best practice as it appears in the US, but often they've just adopted the knee-jerk responses of the US political system as their own and the solution fails.

Thanks. I understand better now where you are coming from.

[sexobon]

The lower class is angry with the upper class; but, the lower class can't touch the upper class so they take their hostilities out on the middle class (which being unarmed is unable to defend itself) expecting them to cry to the upper class which they do since the upper class is the middle class's only means of protection from lower class violence.

This is the system that the middle class is a willing participant in. The only thing the middle class is a victim of is its own complacency. All of the effort being put into identifying and resolving associated issues are in support of a system that's not affordable. The middle class seems to be in a state of mass delusion (diminished capacity) about being able to perpetuate it: no wonder the government considers that citizens' rights may be forfeited and seeks outside interventions.

[DanaC]

Yeah, I realise that my earlier point might have sounded anti-American. It really wasn't meant to. It's more a comment on the focus of our politicians and how that has caused as many problems as it has solved. Can't just transplant ideas from a different culture and hope they're going to magically solve our problems.

A lot of the bloat and cost of public services over the last 20 years has actually not been to do with our attempts to cater to too many people and the rocketing tax bill that brings. It's more to do with the piecemeal dismantling of some parts of the system, the ill-thought out restructuring of other parts, and the culturally inappropriate adoption of another culture's solutions. Couple that with some shameful lining of each others pockets amongst both the political elite and the corporations and quangos that sprung up from that and you have the rootcause of the massive expansion of costs within the NHS and the welfare system.

It was justified through the shortening of waiting lists and delivery of better care, but those goals could have been met for a fraction of the cost if we hadn't done such a blinding job of breaking the system up into an incoherent mess.

[DanaC]

Yes, yes and yes :p

Lot of very wealthy people use tax havens. They reckon if one major football player (Ithink it might have been Wayne Rooney) didn't use a tax haven and paid what he should by rights pay on his mega income, he could probably cover the costs of school football pitch provision for the whole country.

There's a big problem with wealthy people using tax havens. They make their money in the British economy, but then they get themselves residency in a tax haven and pay a pittance back. Seems a problem with a lot of celebs/stars in particular. Every so often there'll be some major figure done over on tax evasion, but you just know it's a drop in the ocean.

It pisses me off no end.

Lot of tax loopholes for business as well.

If you make your money here, then pay your fucking taxes here.

I also think the highest rate of income tax is too low. Not to say I want to go back to the old 'supertax' days. I don't care if you're earning billions, there is no justification for taxing 90% of any portion of it. But I think 60% on the highest portion for the highest earnings bracket is fair.

There're are all sorts of silly ways in which the poor are taxed more heavily than the wealthy. VAT settles more heavily onto lower incomes. Even the duty on tobacco and alcohol settles more heacily onto the poor, and not just because they're more likely to turn to them: the duty on fine cigars is less than that on cigarettes. The duty on cognac is less than the duty on beer. The poor are more likely to have their gas and electric on a pay per use meter, and that is a more expensive way to buy it. The poor get worse rates on loans and credit cards (obviously) so it costs them more to access finance at the lower levels.

There are a lot of things that are more expensive at the lower end of life. A higher tax bracket would offset that a little.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I also think the highest rate of income tax is too low. Not to say I want to go back to the old 'supertax' days. I don't care if you're earning billions, there is no justification for taxing 90% of any portion of it. But I think 60% on the highest portion for the highest earnings bracket is fair.

Yikes! 60% plus the VAT? That would never fly here. You will get tax evasion at rates like that. Different countries...

[DanaC]

There's tax evasion even if you have a fairly low-paying upper tax bracket.

The thing is, the lower earners pay out VAT as a much bigger percentage of their earnings than do the upper earners. Likewise council tax, road tax and tv licence.

We're all talking about citizenship and being part of society, but the businessman or high-paid footballer who has so little regard for the society they made their money in that they begrudge paying taxes to support it, doesn't get called out as lacking civic spirit. No, apparently we must set taxes at a low rate, else they'll just refuse to pay it. The rest of us don't have that option.

[Griff]

Warren Buffet wrote a piece today asking for an increased tax rate. He has famously said that he pays a lower rate than his secretary because our tax laws are so Byzantine.

[ZenGum]

The laws of thermodynamics most certainly do entail the eventual cesaation of capitalism as a natural consequence of the inevitable heat death of the universe.

[DanaC]

From the London Riots to the inevitable heat death of the universe.

That is the bestest fucking thread drift evah! Holy shit.

@ UG: I don't have a problem with 'capitalism' or even 'the free market' per se. We, as human beings, have devised and evolved a system of values and exchange that has in many ways allowed us to become so much more than the sum of our parts, driving forward technological and social development at a breakneck speed.

Globalisation has its problems, but I cannot deny that the supermarkets I visit now are a whole lot more interesting and a hell of a lot cheaper than they ever were when I was growing up. I enjoy my life and am able to follow my own path without having to grow or even prepare (mostly) my own food, or sew my own clothers, make my own shoes, or brew my own beer. I'm typing this message to you on a mass produced keyboard connected to a kickass and ridiculously cheap piece of technology, communicating with you across the ocean instantly.

Without capitalism, globalisation and the constant influx of new tchnology, driven by the market, I would be living a very different, and I suspect less enjoyable life.

But it isn't just a case of market good or bad, collectivism good or bad. We exist within multiple systems: economic, geographic, social. All need taking into account in how we approach the world, and they are neither interchangeable nor inherently attuned to each other.

The problem with you philosophy is that it reveres and makes sacrosanct only one of those systems in which we as humans exist. Above all else. Elevated beyond its status as an artificial creation and tool for human survival and progress into both the means and the end of everything.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

We, as human beings, have devised and evolved a system of values and exchange that has in many ways allowed us to become so much more than the sum of our parts, driving forward technological and social development at a breakneck speed.

He can translate it into Russian. But cannot grasp its meaning.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The problem with you[r] philosophy is that it reveres and makes sacrosanct only one of those systems in which we as humans exist. Above all else.

That innovation might exist is a dichotomy to entrenched dogma. Also defines a major difference between moderates and extremists. Innovation will never happen in an extremist world. As if a bible also has all the answers.

[Big Sarge]

Wait a minute. This thread is about London burning and now it seems the Ferengi are responsible? Geez, no wonder the Brits have so many problems.