The rainforest fund

top view photo of forest

Photo by Tom Fisk on Pexels.com

Woke up this morning thinking that all the nations who have a foreign aid budget should also have a rainforest fund. Our efforts to reduce deforestation must increase and it has to become a lawfully required activity to save nature.

I searched the Internet and such organisations do exist, predominantly trying to help save the rainforest. Yet whilst countries, around rainforests make illegal logging a criminal offence, it is impossible to police and enforce the laws.

Programs like ‘‘I bought a rainforest’‘, Planet Earth, highlighted the problems, which make poor inhabitants of the rainforest regions fell trees to sell, just to be able to survive. Large swathes of rainforest get chopped down for wood to make furniture, planting of Palmoil, farming fruits for sale etc.

Higher earnings and a world-wide decreasing of poverty doesn’t ensure that people earn that money with environmentally friendly activities.

There is no environmental value how GDP is achieved, it is just GDP. As our governments are proud to provide full employment, they also do not care 100 % what products those workers make, whether they help destroy natural and vitally important resources or not. Capitalism is not valued by earth friendliness, it is valued by profits achieved, whatever it is they sell.

photography of factory

Photo by Chris LeBoutillier on Pexels.com

When we reduce our carbon footprint inland, we still deal with other countries who have a huge one. OK, we no longer strive to produce polluting goods in Britain, but we have them imported from China. Pollution is a world-wide problem, not a local one.

We need to start giving each product and service a carbon footprint value just as we give foods a calorific value.

I don’t support Esther McVey’s call to reduce the Foreign Aid, that Britain gives, instead this Foreign Aid could be diverted to Rainforest preservation. Each time foreign aid gets reduced, we increase the chance of troubles brewing up abroad, which then will need to be solved by wars. Wars have a huge carbon footprint.

Neither do I support Boris Johnson’s promise of further tax cuts for the rich as people simply do not want to invest in Britain because of Brexit. Tax cuts do not prevent Brexit. It just proofs how poorly configured Conservative Brains are, all they can think of is ‘less tax will solve all problems’.

I’ll make another post about Brexit.

 

Advertisements

No point in Labour

As usual, the Labour Party is already busy, thinking of ways, of selling the ordinary working folks, the latest Conservative policy changes, if and when they get into power next. Its’ always the same these days, Conservatives bring in new rules, laws, etc and when people are really upset, Labour puts them into better practise.

Labour has never reversed any Conservative policies. The latest remarks by Miliband proof completely that Labour has no plans to reverse caps or decrease taxes for the rich. Mr Blair urged against “tacking left on tax and spending”

If Labour has any guts whatsoever, then they would reverse the Trust policy of the NHS, re-nationalise the NHS and just privatise health care completely, so that each and every working and/or contributing person would pay their contributions via private health care insurance companies, who would share and finance the national resources via private contributions.

Yet Labour has not even hinted on abolishing health care trusts,which do not work and never will work, as no local area, can actually generate enough income to care for the patients in their catchment area from their own local resources.

There is no point in Labour who want to get people care in their homes, like health care by mailorder perhaps? There is nothing innovative about Labour, as home care is a by now very old concept, that was introduced by commercial retail companies and already exists in care for the elderly, disabled and dying.

Labour has not and never will revolutionise our society but always limp behind and besides Conservative inventions. It does need wealth to innovate and only wealthy people will want to protect wealth and society that revolves around it.

There is also nothing that hints on using new technology to revolutionise our lives and make production of goods more environmentally friendly.

There is this big myth of Free NHS services when nothing of the sort ever existed. Just because we do not have to pay at the point of treatment doesn’t mean that it is for free. NHS services can be paid for in either contributions from the employed, less benefits for those on handouts. A privatised NHS would merely mean that private insurance companies collect all contributions and pay for services instead of the state distributing services and taking payments of salaries. A privatised NHS that would collect payments from private insurance companies could deliver a truly equal service because all would pay contributions to private insurance companies who would collect contributions from the state for those on benefits and the rest through company collection. Currently stamp duty is paid to Inland Revenue but that could be paid directly to insurance companies instead.

Currently health services are too splintered to be effective, that is what makes it expensive.

More hypocrisy from current UK government

Owen Tudor from the Robin Hood Tax Campaign has found out that the UK cashes in £3 Billion worth of tax from the trading of UK shares wherever they are sold but at the same time the UK has now launched a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights against the Financial Transaction Tax because Osborne fears that this tax infringes on UK sovereignty.

Big hype about nothing

It is really very disappointing that we have been put and continue to be put under very much stress, with all sorts of policies, from housing to benefits, for measures, which are measurably useless.

The Welfare to Work program, simply does not work. There is anyhow very little point in bringing in a Welfare to Work Program if the economy is down. There would be a point in such a program if the economy was booming but it isn’t. We are in a triple dip recession and it is more than cruel to tell people to get jobs, when there are no jobs. Even the housing system has been put upside down, people are told to move homes or keep flats, that are deemed too big but work harder to pay the rent.

People are laid off, have problems getting enough overtime or any hours as it is.

The uselessness of the scheme is particularly concerning when I read that Margaret Hodge said: “It is shocking that, of the 9,500 former incapacity benefit claimants referred to providers, only 20 people have been placed in a job that has lasted three months, while the poorest-performing provider did not manage to place a single person in the under-25 category into a job lasting six months,” she said.

I think it is abuse on a giant scale to tell people they are fit to work but that less than 1% of those being thrown off Incapacity Benefits actually got work. This means in very simple words that this government rips people off, takes away their safety nets and makes them more vulnerable than previously.

There are at least 18 providers paid to move people into work but I read that they simply tell a lot of people to declare themselves self-employed, whether they are doing any work or not. People are just told to register with HMRC as self-employed but they actually do not have to do any work, but they can be moved off the unemployment register. Government actually pays scheme providers good money if they tell people how to register as self-employed so that they then do not have to sign on any more.

I think people are plainly being robbed of their income by the state. There should be some statutory clause that says that people could not be moved off their benefits unless there is a realistic chance of them finding work. Where there are no jobs there is no realistic chance of them finding work. Sadistic at best, this Welfare to Work Program. Furthermore statutory rules should set a framework that any state intervention in benefits must be coupled with the state of the economy. The state has a duty to look after its citizens. I do not agree with Iain Duncan Smith that people have no right to benefits. They do have rights to benefits as they do not have the chance to make a living for themselves any longer; people do depend on the economic conditions around them.

profit shifting

I am definitely with George Osborne on this one. George wants to take it up with the multi-nationals who use a tactic called profit shifting to make as much money as possible. But it means regions like Britain can suffer from high unemployment because our companies decide to set up business elsewhere; usually in a region with low labour costs.

The result is our locals end up unemployed and that then leads governments to introduce rules, which require the unemployed to work for free, as to make it viable for a company to even stay in a region like ours. Also it keeps our unemployed busy. But I am also glad that this practise has been repelled by a recent high-court ruling; the unemployed cannot be forced to work for free in Britain by the DWP.

Unemployment in any region has become a global problem and the G20 better tackle it quickly as otherwise we have law and order problems popping up here and there.

A burning issue

The Mayor will have to take legal action against the Fire Brigade because the LFB refuses to comply to a requirement, set by the Mayor Boris Johnson, to carry out a consultation with the aim of closing fire stations in various London boroughs. The thought behind this is to cut 7p of council tax and also statistics show that the LFB attended less fires recently. LFB argues that a freezing of council tax will pay for the stations to stay open.

Yet it is quite clear that the fires they attend are often in multi-storey buildings, especially in London. Fires nowadays often need more than one engine because of our density of buildings and the high-rise nature of them. There is nowadays better fire prevention in wiring and most appliances and fittings are safer, but once something does happen, it tends to be enormous rather than little.

It is in a way good that the whole problem will come before a judge because both sides are heavily biased. The Mayor is obsessed with cutting council tax and the Fire Brigade of course doesn’t want to close stations or loose fire fighters. A court will put a very objective viewing on the problem.

The amount you need to live on

Currently it says on benefit letters for Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance ‘The amount the law says you need to live on’. That amount has been calculated on the basis that means tested benefits assume that recipients of such benefits do not pay rent or council tax.

From April of this year, benefits change. We will see universal benefits caps and those stop benefits at a ceiling regardless how many children you have. But that does not assume that single claimants or small families that would fall under the benefits cap would have an amount to live on that the law says they need.

Also the universal benefit will not be paid to old claimants straightaway. Normal benefits will still be paid the old-fashioned way to people.

If Haringey council wins their bid to charge benefit recipients 20% of the council tax then that means that the law will assume that these people need that amount less to live on; yet not all councils charge that minimum payment of 20% of the council tax to all.

As I understand from this article severely disabled residents will be exempt from the council tax. overall though disabled residents get far more benefits than Jobseekers or income support pays.

Nowadays people on Jobseekers or Income Support are pretty much on the bread line already,  so how much does the government say we can be squeezed. Irwin Mitchell lawyers have taken the brave step to represent the disadvantaged before the courts to sort out the dilemma.

There would be no limit as to what a minimum living standard should be if councils can charge council tax to the already destitute. Living standards will fall well below the poverty line even further as they have fallen already.

Considering the government also wants to get rid of tax credits, that will also severely affect the workers on low wages because their standard of living will also erode considerably because the law will no longer assume a minimum standard as a safety net.

But it is probably of significance that the council that gave us Baby P, also are the first to introduce 20% council tax for the destitute to pay.

Knowledge doesn’t spark off sensibility

The fact that people get told again and again that smoking is bad for them and gives them cancer, that too much eating is bad for them and gives them secondary diabetes at the least, the fact that too much drinking leads to liver failure and death, that unsafe sex leads to aids and other diseases, all that doesn’t matter to seemingly educated people who continue their bad practises but ask doctors to find better remedies, so that they can continue what we know now as deadly sins.

God has given us clear rules on what we can do to live safely on this earth but people just want to ignore his laws and think science will help to eradicate sin and make it a thing of the past; they think if we find medical remedies then it doesn’t matter any more if we live in sin. There then would be no more sin because science can solve all problems.

That is the work of the devil and that devilish thinking has crept into people’s minds and into the highest ranks of society these days.

Despite continued health campaign HIV in gay men has not become less but rises at a steady pace.

Buying cigarettes is made as least enjoyable and expensive as possible but what do I see every day? Yesterday I saw even a vicar smoking around a school when talking to parents. I see teachers standing outside their school to smoke in their breaks, I see severely obese doctors and health professionals all the time, the list is endless.

I ask myself why do people do not want to live? The answer can only be they are deeply unhappy with themselves, their marriage, their jobs. Yet society pays for this unhappiness.

Yet when our relationships are about to break up we have a trial separation to get a breather. But in jobs for example people who continue to smoke do not get relieved of their duties, people who are very obese, do not get suspended until their body is back to shape. The Community Secretary Mr Pickles would be my first contender for a suspension and diet plan, so that he fits into his Porsche better.

Leaders must ask themselves why are there more and more who break the law, why are there many who do not want to live healthy? They must ask themselves whether society requires some kind of re-organisation so that people can live fulfilling lives.

God shows no mercy to those who do not want to follow his rules, that has been shown in history, we cannot turn around what has been made without severely affecting the chain of creation.

Of course unhealthy lifestyles cause cancer but paying more for cancer research doesn’t help those living unhealthy lifestyles to change their habits, it encourages them to carry on.  Yet threatening people’s jobs will help them to give up or end up where they perhaps subconsciously ought to be on the dole, street, wherever rotten habits lead them.

There are plenty of health conscious people on the dole these days.

I would go as far as to say that its those with unhealthy lifestyles who are in the important jobs, that are the ones who repress the rest of us into sinful and wasteful lifestyles, those are the ones that demand more taxes so that the results of their sick lifestyles can be healed, they are the ones that cause our society to creek under the burden of too much taxes.

Yet our current laws only punish those who fail the worldly legalities to do with administrative processes and robbing possessions or murder, those who fail to adhere to laws of decency and healthy living, those are the ones that never get punished, they get preferential health treatment instead.

Next the Tax Payer’s Alliance emigrate to Russia

I never knew that Russia has a flat income tax rate of only 13%. I only found out about this when I read that a French actor, Gerard Departieu, whom I always loved to watch, on the few occasions when I watched films, changed his French nationality to Russian over tax issues in France,where the new tax rate for the rich is 75%.

Now suddenly a penny seems to drop and a curtain literally lifts from my mind, (not to say an iron curtain), in that it seems that the 13% tax rate is something the Tax Payer’s Alliance would be happy with. They always argue for less tax, the Conservative government always calls for less government and more freedom. Russia seems to be the place that is the model for it all.

I just do not understand why they always condemn the place?

Because if we really think about it, the Russian model is what we would get if we continued to vote Conservative in the UK.

Denmark abolishes newly introduced FAT tax

I was really glad to read that Denmark is going to abolish a recently introduced fat tax. I was one of the first to protest about it, the BBC subsequently invited me to come onto a live radio discussion about the subject and I again, vehemently refused to agree to any tax on basic foods. I regard all natural fats as basic food and it is the right of any person to use the luxury of using natural fats to supplement their diet.

As every chef knows it is the fine balancing of ingredients that makes a meal and many top chefs prefer to use butter before any other fat in cooking.  Butter is a basic food that is mainly churned cream, but nothing else is added into it. Cream is made from milk.

It is not the presence of high fat natural fats, it is the greed of over-eating humans that is to blame for obesity.

Processed foods have become one of the main industries that employ people these days; restaurants spring up all over the place too. So Denmark’s argument that the Fat tax increases unemployment is just one reason to stop the tax.

Yet the butter tax is a tax on a good and healthy food that is only unhealthy if taken together in excess with other foods. People do not overeat on butter alone.

My arguments against a butter tax are not at all based on employment reasons but merely based on the fact that each individual must have the right to use natural foods in their purest form without being punished for this with extra charges for doing so.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits