Two recent controversies in the news. Firstly should alcohol abusers be denied liver transplants & a Law Lords opinion which doesn't really move us any further forward in protecting those who respect the wishes of those who have had enough of life. If we could only convert hypocrisy into GDP we wouldn't have a financial crisis.
Taking the Euthanasia ( or as we now call it Assisted Suicide) issue first,we should remember that actual suicide is desperately sad but it is not nowadays illegal. It therefore simply should be the right of anyone to decide for themselves the circumstances under which they wish to be 'put to sleep' when they can no longer do it unaided.
When you have one liver and six patients needing it, the 'playing God' argument of the anti euthanasia brigade is nonsense. Some person or group has to decide who gets the liver & the criteria ought to be based, & I believe usually is, not on punishment for past behaviour, but on prospects for clinical & post op lifetime benefit. Still a very difficult decision which is agonised over by those in the best position to take it, and not assisted by sanctimonious external busybodies laying down rules to suit their own agenda.
The next argument is that vulnerable people might be pressurised by relatives to end it all. The pro-lifers scorn for the basic decency of most of humanity is truly impressive. If our lawmakers cannot draft a workable law including adequate, but not self defeating, safeguards then they have no business to be in power. Whoops - perhaps I've just shot myself in the foot!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Sunday, 25 January 2009
BBC wrong again
I am greatly saddened by the disintegrating standards at the BBC, a unique institution that seems hell bent on self destruction. Its' latest insanity is to refuse to broadcast the appeal for aid to Gaza on the pathetic grounds of 'impartiality'. It is compounding that folly by refusing to listen to the torrent of distinguished outrage directed towards it.
Of much less import, but symptomatic of the same breakdown, was the way it handled the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand affair. It is not the function of the BBC to spend millions of the licence payers money promoting such people. There are other places they can go to display there talents. Similarly the ubiquitous Jeremy Clarkson who seems to think it OK to set fire to a rare car on television - a great example to vandals everywhere.
And we all know how 'balanced' the BBC is when it comes to giving air time to the LibDems.
Of much less import, but symptomatic of the same breakdown, was the way it handled the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand affair. It is not the function of the BBC to spend millions of the licence payers money promoting such people. There are other places they can go to display there talents. Similarly the ubiquitous Jeremy Clarkson who seems to think it OK to set fire to a rare car on television - a great example to vandals everywhere.
And we all know how 'balanced' the BBC is when it comes to giving air time to the LibDems.
Saturday, 24 January 2009
Michael Spencer of Icap, and David Ross, co-founder of Carphone Warehouse are
amongst some of the richest men in Britain and are also friends of David
Cameron .Indeed Michael Spencer is Treasurer of the Conservative Party. They
have both been engaged in controversial share dealings which, although not
illegal, hardly help us to believe David Cameron's assertion that the Tories
are the party best placed to look after the interests of ordinary people.
As far back as Dr Beeching, of railway destruction fame, but particularly
since Thatcher, we have been led to believe that putting a 'businessman' in
charge of major public services is the solution to the all problems. Hopefully
the current financial crisis, which has revealed the breathtaking stupidity &
incompetence of so many of these grotesquely overpaid individuals, will
finally bury that myth. One is reminded of the comments of that iconic
economist of the 1930's, John Maynard Keynes, who when asked why, if
businessmen were so stupid they continued to make money, replied "because they
do business with each other".
amongst some of the richest men in Britain and are also friends of David
Cameron .Indeed Michael Spencer is Treasurer of the Conservative Party. They
have both been engaged in controversial share dealings which, although not
illegal, hardly help us to believe David Cameron's assertion that the Tories
are the party best placed to look after the interests of ordinary people.
As far back as Dr Beeching, of railway destruction fame, but particularly
since Thatcher, we have been led to believe that putting a 'businessman' in
charge of major public services is the solution to the all problems. Hopefully
the current financial crisis, which has revealed the breathtaking stupidity &
incompetence of so many of these grotesquely overpaid individuals, will
finally bury that myth. One is reminded of the comments of that iconic
economist of the 1930's, John Maynard Keynes, who when asked why, if
businessmen were so stupid they continued to make money, replied "because they
do business with each other".
I've been quiet for some time but up & running again now.
According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS) three million eight
hundred thousand (3.8 million) UK pensioners have total savings of less than
£1500. Fat lot of good David Cameron's proposal to scrap tax on savings
interest is to them. A current rates they would be just over 5p a week better
off!! Sorry David. Hot air & headline grabbing will not help us get out of
this mess. Try some solid & realistic LibDem policies instead.
According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS) three million eight
hundred thousand (3.8 million) UK pensioners have total savings of less than
£1500. Fat lot of good David Cameron's proposal to scrap tax on savings
interest is to them. A current rates they would be just over 5p a week better
off!! Sorry David. Hot air & headline grabbing will not help us get out of
this mess. Try some solid & realistic LibDem policies instead.
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Fair Taxes
The absurdity of our tax structure was amply demonstrated in an analysis in
the Independent newspaper in association with PWC on 13th March. This
analysis looked at ten possible combinations of taxpayers and their families.
The results are almost impossible to sensibly summarise except that both
single pensioners & those with partners do very badly until their combined
gross pension exceeds about £35000 per year.
In the other 8 combinations those at the very bottom (gross income £ 10000
p.a. or less) gain a bit (max.£90 p.a.) but this is steadily eroded in a
random manner until gross income exceeds about £35000 p.a. after which very
modest gains typically about £30 p.a. kick in.
One has to ask what is the point of incurring the cost of administering such
trivial and inconsistent changes. The whole tax system needs root & branch
reform. It is insane that the 40% rate starts as low as £36001 of taxable
income & then remains unchanged up to whatever number of millions of pounds a
tiny minority get paid.
Politicians are terrified of income tax. Could that be because it is about the
ONLY tax that reflects a persons ability to pay & thus the better off would
wind up losing the subsidy that the poor give to the rich? If you earn
£20000 p.a. then to pay £ 175 VAT on a £1000 TV represents just under 1%
(0.875%) tax on your gross income. If you earned £100000 the VAT on the same
TV is still only £175 but now it represents just under one fifth of one
percent (0.175%) of your gross income. This is not fair taxation.
the Independent newspaper in association with PWC on 13th March. This
analysis looked at ten possible combinations of taxpayers and their families.
The results are almost impossible to sensibly summarise except that both
single pensioners & those with partners do very badly until their combined
gross pension exceeds about £35000 per year.
In the other 8 combinations those at the very bottom (gross income £ 10000
p.a. or less) gain a bit (max.£90 p.a.) but this is steadily eroded in a
random manner until gross income exceeds about £35000 p.a. after which very
modest gains typically about £30 p.a. kick in.
One has to ask what is the point of incurring the cost of administering such
trivial and inconsistent changes. The whole tax system needs root & branch
reform. It is insane that the 40% rate starts as low as £36001 of taxable
income & then remains unchanged up to whatever number of millions of pounds a
tiny minority get paid.
Politicians are terrified of income tax. Could that be because it is about the
ONLY tax that reflects a persons ability to pay & thus the better off would
wind up losing the subsidy that the poor give to the rich? If you earn
£20000 p.a. then to pay £ 175 VAT on a £1000 TV represents just under 1%
(0.875%) tax on your gross income. If you earned £100000 the VAT on the same
TV is still only £175 but now it represents just under one fifth of one
percent (0.175%) of your gross income. This is not fair taxation.
Saturday, 12 April 2008
Previous blog
This is a new blog because I had misplaced the various codes that allowed me to get into my old one. Reminds me of when the Vicar said that at my age I should be thinking of the hereafter. I said "Vicar I do. Every time I go into a room I think what the devil am I here after."
Then, of course, I found the details of how to get into the old one! It can still be read at:
www.politicswriggling.blogspot.com
But I'm only going to use this one from now on.
Then, of course, I found the details of how to get into the old one! It can still be read at:
www.politicswriggling.blogspot.com
But I'm only going to use this one from now on.
It's tough for some people
It is reported in the FT that Philip Richards, CEO of RAB Capital, had his bonus slashed by 40%. Apparently one of RAB's Hedge funds lost some £70m on its' position with Northern Rock. Poor Mr Richard's bonus was only £11.3 million. My heart bleeds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)