Journal Entries
Why I want to pay more tax
Posted Mar 12, 2004
People have always hated paying taxes. Even in The Bible, the tax collector was hated and despised, and when Jesus took one for a disciple, eyebrows were raised. These days, the mantra of the right wing politician, and increasingly of the left wing too, is 'No more taxes', 'No new taxes', 'Lower the taxes we already have'. You don't need a degree in maths to realise that sooner or later irresistable force (ever-lower taxes) is going to meet immovable object (in the shape of demands for government funded services), and there's going to be one hell of a collision. This is already happening in many US states, where the demand for services has so far outstripped the cash available that these states are now effectively bankrupt, and essential services are being cut to the bone and beyond. The same kind of thing happened in Britain during the 1980s, when the Tory government of Mrs Thatcher drastically cut many welfare services in order to give people lower taxes. So why do I (and I'm not alone) want to pay more taxes?
A few years ago President Bush ordered the US Treasury to send out a $300 cheque to each and every American worker who qualified - in other words, those who had paid a full year's tax the previous year. The President's rationalisation for this largesse was (and continues to be) that people should be free to spend their own money how they want, and that it will inject some life into the economy. Both of those are good and arguable points. Let's look at it another way though.
I want to live in a country where there is a good healthcare service. I want to live in a country where the weakest members of society are cared for and given the best possible quality of life. I want a good public transport system and a good education system. I realise that life is not all about the mundane things, so I'd like to be able to indulge my passion for things like classical music and art. These things all cost a great deal of money. A new school, a new hospital, a new railway, a new university, a new concert hall - these are projects which run into millions of pounds or dollars-worth of investment. How on earth is my little $300 cheque going to help that?
No. I'd much rather the government kept my $300 and everyone else's, and used it to make a better world for its citizens. But that's the trouble with governments - they only think in the short term. My plans are for the long term. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, a better funded education system is going to produce better educated citizens who will pay back the investment put into them many times over by getting better jobs and paying more tax themselves, and by being less likely to need government assistance in the way of welfare or social security payments. Those same people are going to be less of a burden on the healthcare system if they are better looked after in their early years, and encouraged to practice a healthier lifestyle.
Lowering taxes beyond what is reasonable, and giving people tax refunds for no good reason is little more than a bribe. It appeals to the greed and the narrow-mindedness in people and suggests to them that the government is someone worth voting for. In the long run it simply perpetuates the system of greed and iniquity.
Investing public money now will pay back enormous dividends in the future. The capitalists will argue that private, not public money should be invested. Well, I don't want corporations running the schools my children go to or the hospitals we all may have to go to. I don't want them to be run be unaccountable, unelected businessmen. If there's any money to be made in the future I want my government - and therefore the people - to be the benefactor.
And do you know what this will all do in the long term? It will result in lower taxes. How's that for irony!
Discuss this Journal entry [47]
Latest reply: Mar 12, 2004
What becomes of all the little boys who never say their prayers...
Posted Mar 9, 2004
In an hour or two the cable channel Trio is showing the autopsy which caused so much controversy when it was shown on British TV last year... Channel Four wasn't it?
I'll be watching it, although it's not the first telvised autopsy I've seen - there was one on late night HBO last year, and I don't think it was the first they've shown. It was very matter-of-fact and was shown with a black background outside of the immediate area - a bit like... Face to Face, or Charlie Rose.
From the trailer I've seen for this one, it looks as if it was filmed very differently.
Discuss this Journal entry [3]
Latest reply: Mar 9, 2004
The mid-morning lull
Posted Mar 8, 2004
For five years I lived 300 yards from one of London's most traffic-choked roads - Turnpike Lane. All day long (from the beginning of the morning rush hour until around 8pm) that road is a half mile long car park... except between 9am and 10.00pm when it's virtually empty.
I've noticed the same phenomenon here. I enjoy walking to the food store each morning at about this time because there's virtually no traffic on the usually busy road on which GoshoTowers stands.
I'm at a loss to understand why the traffic should be so light for that one hour or so each weekday. The rush hour is usually over by 9am, so quite obviously that accounts for part of it, but if that were the only factor, then the roads would be clear for most of the day except during the rush hours and at lunchtime when people are using their cars to do mid-day shopping, and when part-time morning workers are going home and part-time afternoon workers are going to work.
I can't think why working drivers should be off the road at the time. Take for instance, the people who have to deliver car parts to mechanics. Most mechanics open at 8am (or earlier) and expect people to bring in their cars for repair around that time. The mechanic then takes a look at the car, decides what parts are needed, and phones in his order. So I reckon that by 9-9.30am the parts distributors would have their vans out on the road delivering spark plugs, crank cases, timing belts, and brake pads.
When I had a furniture workshop, between 9am and 10am was the time when we'd head off to the timberyard so that we could get a start on the day's work, and judging by the number of other people there so did most of the other local carpenters/furniture makers/joiners, etc.
And when I was a removal man, I usually started the first job of my day at 9.30 or 10am, so I was always on the road during this quiet hour.
Then there's the mini-rush hour - the people who work in shops and businesses which open at 10am, and there are quite a lot of those.
I can't think of one good reason why the roads should be so utterly empty for that one hour a day, and not at other times, such as between 1 and 2pm for instance - the hour immediately after lunch.
Discuss this Journal entry [26]
Latest reply: Mar 8, 2004
Operator, number please, it's been so many years
Posted Mar 6, 2004
This afternoon on NPR, I heard an interesting view on the Martha Stewart verdict.
Whilst she's been dragged through the courts for a relatively minor infringement, the people behind the massive corporate scandals which rocked the US business news over the past few years - Enron, etc - are largely still free. How come?
Is it that conclusive evidence against the heads of Enron et al is proving very complex and hard to prove? Is it that they have friends in high places (places beginning with the letter 'W')? Is it that she's a woman?
Her offence was pretty much a personal one - all she did was unload some shares, allegedly (I say allegedly because although she's been found guilty, she does plan to appeal, and I reckon that a case isn't concluded until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted) on a tipoff that their value was going to fall. The only benefactor would have been herself, the only people to lose would be the poor saps who bought her shares. Not that I'm trying to excuse what she did, mind you.
The people who ran Enron, Worldcom, etc however, ruined massive companies, put thousands upon thousands of people out of work, and messed up the investment portfolios of far too many pension funds and the like.
And they're mostly all still walking free.
Discuss this Journal entry [8]
Latest reply: Mar 6, 2004
It fair brings a tear to your eye
Posted Mar 5, 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/3534773.stm
Ok, he's soured the idea somewhat by revealing that they were originally negotiating for a six figure sum with another magazine and that this deal with Big Issue may not have come about if negotiations hadn't broken down with the other publication, but more power to his elbow anyway 
I bet his agent must be a bit dischuffed at getting 10p instead of a possible 15 grand though 
Discuss this Journal entry [16]
Latest reply: Mar 5, 2004
There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho
Researcher U147203
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."