|
ahinton
|
 |
« Reply #120 on: 12:27:11, 27-09-2007 » |
|
one of Richard's finer qualities I never thought of myself as a euphuist before. Cool! Ah! Euphemism and euphuism are not the same thing! Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #121 on: 12:29:45, 27-09-2007 » |
|
Provision of wireless internet by the government out of taxpayers' money could very well generate massive profits; That is totally at odds with what I was proposing, which was that wireless internet might be provided free, and not for profit! I understand what you were proposing - but surely if it were possible to provide it free (i.e. not actually "free", of course, but subsidised by the taxpayer), such provision would in practice give rise to the generation of massive profits - that's all I meant, not that it would be provided in this way for the sake of doing so. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #122 on: 12:32:04, 27-09-2007 » |
|
Alistair seems to be so unaware of his own beliefs' status as beliefs that he consistently misreads others in place of realising that they might have a coherent but different position to his own.
Not correct in either case. As I said before, what I have presented are opinions rather than beliefs and I am all too well aware that others do not share my thoughts as presented - and why should I expect them to? Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #123 on: 12:32:31, 27-09-2007 » |
|
I understand what you were proposing - but surely if it were possible to provide it free (i.e. not actually "free", of course, but subsidised by the taxpayer), such provision would in practice give rise to the generation of massive profits Eh? How do you generate massive profits if you don't generate revenue (unless you're meaning indirectly in terms of how other businesses would profit from it through the savings they would make)? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #124 on: 12:35:20, 27-09-2007 » |
|
HMRC taxes me as a "business" and has done before, during and after Thatcher, so I'm not entirely convinced that Thatcher's lot really did fundamentally move the definitional goalposts here I think Richard was talking about services like the NHS or the public transport network, not the Sorabji Archive. Yes, I know he was, of course - and so was I when I referred to healthcare and public transport; all that I'm saying here is that these are treated as businesses and so is my infinitesimally tiny one. I'm not even saying that it's necessarily appropriate to treat an tiny, one-person organisation such as mine as a "business", but that's how it is regarded by the taxation authorities. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #125 on: 12:48:19, 27-09-2007 » |
|
I didn't say that "businesses are services" - or at least I didn't mean to; what I meant is that businesses OUGHT to be services... The appropriate definition of 'business' in the OED in this context is 'trade, commercial transactions; commercial house, firm', and Collins gives it as 'a commercial or industrial establishment; commercial activity, dealings'. I'd argue that it is incompatible for something to be run primarily as a commercial operation, and still be a 'service'. The two things are entirely different. OK, so I accept, of course that this definition exists, but I still don't find that it has to be so inflexible; why a profit-generating organisation cannot provide a service I do not know - after all, if that organisation doesn't make a profit, it will be unable to invest any profit in order to continue to provide anything. I don't think that we disagree here as much as you may think, actually. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #126 on: 12:50:57, 27-09-2007 » |
|
I'm not so sure if that could be made to work with public transport It depends on what you mean by "made to work". Does the present system "work"? Not really. Train fares, for example, are so expensive that people are more or less forced into taking a car (if they have one) or even a plane, since, as you say, our country is crisscrossed by completely unnecessary flightpaths. Which means train fares become even more expensive, which means even fewer people use them, which means the system gets even more run down until the only way to get anywhere is the most wasteful and destructive way. Brilliant! Sadly, that's all too true. What I meant in this context about it being "made to work" was, however, in the specific context of whether the provision of all public transport (including air transport) free at the point of use could be made to work. It's an intriguing idea and one that's never been tried and tested anywhere, as far as I know... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #127 on: 12:53:13, 27-09-2007 » |
|
I'm not so sure if that could be made to work with public transport It depends on what you mean by "made to work". Does the present system "work"? Not really. Train fares, for example, are so expensive that people are more or less forced into taking a car (if they have one) or even a plane, since, as you say, our country is crisscrossed by completely unnecessary flightpaths. Which means train fares become even more expensive, which means even fewer people use them, which means the system gets even more run down until the only way to get anywhere is the most wasteful and destructive way. Brilliant! While it's not perfect, when I've used the Paris Metro there have been trains arriving every few minutes, going very quickly, enabling one to travel to practically any destination one wishes, and at considerably cheaper fares than in London. If they can do it, so can we. Well, we should be able to, I imagine. But why is that true of Paris, do you think? Is is purely because of higher levels of taxpayer subsidy being invested into the system, or just that it's a more efficiently run system, or a combination of the two, or something else altogether? I don't know, myself - so I'm merely asking you what your thoughts are on this. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #128 on: 12:54:32, 27-09-2007 » |
|
I understand what you were proposing - but surely if it were possible to provide it free (i.e. not actually "free", of course, but subsidised by the taxpayer), such provision would in practice give rise to the generation of massive profits Eh? How do you generate massive profits if you don't generate revenue (unless you're meaning indirectly in terms of how other businesses would profit from it through the savings they would make)? That's exactly what I do mean! Anyway, I realise that I've said far too much and that the thread ought to get back to its topic prontissimo, so apologies all round, folks! I've already got me coat (on the purchase of which I'd like to assure one and all I neither received nor claimed tax relief)... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12:56:41, 27-09-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #129 on: 12:55:56, 27-09-2007 » |
|
whether the provision of all public transport (including air transport) free at the point of use Yet another thing that no one else had actually said. Is air transport even a form of public transport, anyway? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
perfect wagnerite
|
|
« Reply #130 on: 12:57:00, 27-09-2007 » |
|
No, of course I wouldn't, any more than I can find in in my heart to appreciate your somewhat gratuitous use of the word "even" here! That said, however, "majority taxpayers" do have something of an advantage (albeit not identical or on the same scale, of coruse) in that they have it within their power to withhold (by skilful avoidance) tax if disgruntled with the ways in which it is being spent and to move entities offshore to avoid even more; not only that, they are in better positions to decide to move entire taxpaying commencial operations offshore to avoid UK tax while still taking personal advantage of what this country offers. Not a nice situation, to be sure, but it is nevertheless a real one. That was exactly the argument that Nigel Lawson used to justify cutting the top rate of income tax from 60% to 40% in the 1988 budget. And unless you believe (which perhaps you do - and I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't) that sufficient numbers of those subject to that 60% would not in fact have taken their businesses and investments elsewhere, was that change so bad a thing? After all, there's no point in levying any tax at any rate at all unless you can be reasonably certain of success in collecting enough of it! Incidentally, I am no expert on taxation anywhere and certainly not in Finland, for example, yet a Finn I know who pays a far greater proportion of his income in direct income tax than would be the case here doesn't mind doing so because he can perceive the value for money that he gets for it (OK, maybe his overall tax liability is not so different to what it might be here, since we have more and more complex taxes here than they do in Finland, I think). Best, Alistair what it would be Best, Alistair There is a lot of literature arguing that tax cuts do not increase revenue - such as http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htmand. interestingly, a Congressional Budget Office report from 2005 which argues that a 10% tax cut would produce no more than a 0.5% - 0.8% increase in GDP, and crucially, that only a maximum of 22% of the tax cut would be recouped in additional revenue: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdfWhat does appear to be the case is that tax cuts for the better-off do produce a "feel-good" effect among the commentariat, who tend to be drawn from the better-off in society; but this is of course ideology rather than analysis |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
At every one of these [classical] concerts in England you will find rows of weary people who are there, not because they really like classical music, but because they think they ought to like it. (Shaw, Don Juan in Hell)
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #131 on: 12:58:25, 27-09-2007 » |
|
whether the provision of all public transport (including air transport) free at the point of use Yet another thing that no one else had actually said. I'd thought that Ian had considered the idea earlier; perhaps I made a mistake here... Is air transport even a form of public transport, anyway?
Yes - at least when it is so. When it's private jets and the like, it is of course nothing of the sort. Taxis are a similar borderline case, I think. (sorry - I'd not actually got me coat on at that point)... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 13:00:24, 27-09-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #132 on: 13:08:16, 27-09-2007 » |
|
What I meant in this context about it being "made to work" was, however, in the specific context of whether the provision of all public transport (including air transport) free at the point of use could be made to work. It's an intriguing idea and one that's never been tried and tested anywhere, as far as I know... I wasn't including air transport as public transport, in fact. As for making it work, what's to make work? At the moment there's a huge (and, in the case of trains, hypertrophied and virtually incomprehensible) apparatus around selling tickets, making sure travellers are in possession of them when they travel, and so on. All that would need to be done is for all that to be taken away, and there you have it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #133 on: 13:51:10, 27-09-2007 » |
|
What I meant in this context about it being "made to work" was, however, in the specific context of whether the provision of all public transport (including air transport) free at the point of use could be made to work. It's an intriguing idea and one that's never been tried and tested anywhere, as far as I know... I wasn't including air transport as public transport, in fact. As for making it work, what's to make work? At the moment there's a huge (and, in the case of trains, hypertrophied and virtually incomprehensible) apparatus around selling tickets, making sure travellers are in possession of them when they travel, and so on. All that would need to be done is for all that to be taken away, and there you have it. There is indeed such a thing and it is undoubtedly a most appallingly complex mess that is more often than not misunderstood (unsurprisingly, perhaps) by call centre personnel charged with attempting to sell such tickets; I couldn't agree more that the removal of this absurd apparatus would indeed be immensely beneficial. It's abit like one aspect of the taxation system - far too much farepayers' money being spent on administration (not to say maladministration) and far too little on the trains, the rail system, etc. themselves. Much of the French rail system puts ours to shame in terms of efficiency and is not so expensive to the user as ours (except in cases where someone manages to find a real bargain overe here, but we all know just how difficult that can be!); that said, however, there are far fewer trains running, for example, from Paris to Bordeaux than from London to Bath each day and one can, for example, attend a concert in London and get back the same day, which is not possible on that French route (but then that's only one particular example - I don't know how commonly it might apply elsewhere). We also have many more miles of passenger rail route per square kilometre than France does, I believe. Right - must dash now - I've got some public transport to catch! (yes, a train it is, too...). Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #134 on: 16:22:43, 27-09-2007 » |
|
...which means even fewer people use them... Weeell, on that specific point and not the argument in general... "In 2006, the railways saw growth in passenger numbers accelerating to 6.7%, up from 3.1% in 2005. This takes the number of passenger journeys to well over a billion, their highest level for 60 years." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
