self-isolate

Photo by Polina Zimmerman on Pexels.com

Imaging a DALEK going round spurting out ‘self-isolate’ self-isolate all day long.

Indeed Hygiene is the big preventer on infections and of course-self-isolation helps spread the virus but doesn’t make others more resiliant to it.

Just as we are told to wash our hands for 2 minutes with soap, swimmers actualy spend prolonged time in the magic liquid called water, enhanced with the cleaning agent chlorine. Perhaps more people should take a regular sheep-dip in water to cleanse the whole body.

I won’t blog much about Covid-19, as there is a hunt on bloggers who may spread false information. A 10k fine for failure to self-isolate is a lot of money, perhaps mirrored in the fact that the UK government has borrowed record sums to make up for economic and tax losses. The fines reflect that. Why do taxes always depend on wrong-doing?

You get taxed for eating lots of sugar, smoking, drinking, having cars, fined for breaking rules. Government would be stuffed if nobody had unhealthy livestyles nor broke the rules.

too complicated

Spending time watching parliamentary debate. They are talking about a new digital services tax. Why do we need a special tax bill for individual services?

Just tax anybody for anything they sell for profit in any particular country. That makes things much easier. There is one principle to get part of the profits.

We need two taxes for every company, a proft of sale tax to replace VAT and a corporation tax.

Every sale that goes into a sales spreadsheet, has the buyer’s address on it, so from that record, the profit of sales taxes will be declared in the country of the customer.

All that argument whether online services damage local business are not relevant. As we all have seen the current Covid-19 crisis made local shops close whilst online services like Amazon could deliver those goods.

On the other hand should a global technical crisis shut digital services down, then we’ll rely on local shops more.

What it needs is full flexibility to manage any eventuality.

Paying profit of sales taxes directly to the country of the customer will resolve a lot of problems like import or export tariffs.

Any corporation tax will have to be paid to the country of residence.

We need to get away from trying to establish principles that force governments to keep local high streets open as a matter of first priority.

I could not get the same selection in a local shopt as I can get it on Amazon. Also from environmental consideration, any business storing stock centrally will have less environmental carbon footprint than a company who has to shop goods to a local display location and then back to the customer.

The footfall in any locality attracts less buyers than an online sales outlet can. I reckon we need to produce much more goods to display them in every corner of the world than we need to produce to display them online and sell them to any location on the globe.

If we produce just to display in any geographical location we produce much more carbon than if we produce to display online and then sell to all who want.

That way, with only 2 taxes levied, and profits being paid directly to the country of the consumer and country of business host, we enable business to settle production anywhere, where they can get the best corporation tax rate and the best transport and storage conditions for their goods.

contract holds the key

Whilst we continue to hear horror stories how tax payer’s money is wasted on either useless projects or bad management, it is always the poorest and most vulnerable who are made to pay for misdemeanors under this system.

Why can’t tax payers bring class-actions against those who wasted their money? Nobody is ever held responsible for money wasted.

The recent case of the Tower Hamlets school debacle, whereby Tower Hamlets council subsidised a Church of England school to the tune of £18 Million and can’t get the cash back shows there must be a serious problem with contracts.

They rather close the new school and build another one instead of using the one they got and make something of it.

Why can’t public bodies who finance projects protect themselves against loss and why can’t they make beneficiaries liable for losses incurred.

In this case the school governor system is not working well. School governors don’t have a personal liability, so nobody can in fact be held to account.

We have started to deal with excessive salaries some company bosses pay themselves whilst the companies go broke by trying to cap salaries. But in the case of public money wasted on bad decisions there is only one group of people losing out, the homeless, the poor, the vulnerable and the children who get less services.

It is just not good enough, that our laws are not protecting the people but only those who own property.

Governments change more and more frequently so that decisionmakers hardly ever have to take the brunt of incompetences.

Yet whilst on the private basis individuals can trash out contracts to deal with potential losses and/or insure themselves against it, why can’t councils or governments do the same?

It seems that public services is a big melting pot for a distribution of tax payers money that ends up not in the hands of those who don’t need it most.

We do get performance contracts for football club managers or other employees in companies and those not shaping up loose posts and get sacked but in public services a job is a job.

 

The tax payers corp

Does anybody else play the game Criminal Case? I have been playing it from the start and it is about solving crimes and finding the culprit. As the game develops – and I am now on level 472 – one of the judges, develops a Justice corps, which starts to kill those which are not complying with ever stricter legal requirements.

That reminds me of how the Tax Payers becoming more and more a law onto themselves. Many posts on Facebook are about how undeserving those are who do not pay a lot of taxes and that only those paying a lot of taxes are acceptable human beings. It’s really frightening.

A huge thank you for all the publishers who push the plight of poor families this Christmas. Metro is one paper who published about a family with 7 kids having had benefits reduced. thanks also to MSN.

At the beginning of our civilisation, all families owned a house and had three plots of land on which they grew crops in rotation and fed themselves. (see a study about this) That was an equal standing but since then society has developed away from direct dependance onto the land and society has industrialised and people have become dependant on centrally run systems. We now have huge wealth gaps and some can earn Billions whilst others work all day for a handfull of pasta.

Don’t vote Tory

Boris Johnson yet again hints at further tax cuts. Tax cuts mean cuts in services. Tax cuts mean subsidising business on the expense of the poor working people.

The different principle of Tory v. Labour is simply that Labour would nationalise key industries and services. The Tories would privatise everything.

Privatisation is people running a business that has to make a profit. The more people run our services the more profit they need to make to create a living from it. The more profit has to be made, the more expensive anything becomes.

To make a profit, the business pays as little wage as possible to its employees. Or to say it in better words, the business employs as few people as possible. This then forces those not in work to create their own business to do something.

We see the creation of the working poor, people who got jobs but can’t afford to buy food. People get enslave to work for those who create profits for themselves, from which they pay less taxes to provide services for those who need them.

Overall a government collects taxes to run services for the nation. The less taxes they collect, the less services they provide.

Of course those who make a lot of money from their companies, they couldn’t care less about services provided from the state. They simply buy their own services. Hence we see private health care, private schools, private homes. etc.

The poor and ever increasing poorer masses have to do with the small amount of services the state provides and share the spills of the rich, that they can get hold of. Because Tories reduce taxes, the services the poor masses get, become worst and worst.

On the other hand if Labour wins, we get nationalisation of services and utilities and that will make everything cheaper for all of us. Because if now 100 companies run a service, 100 companies will need to make a profit; we all have to pay for those profits.

But if a state runs the services, we just need to pay as much as it costs to run that service, the material and the wages of those running it, which is of course less than if private businesses run it.

 

 

Tories spreading rumours

How Andrew Neil ran that Corbyn interview was more than manipulative, but now that rumour that the Conservatives are due to get a 68-seat majority and how the media further now influences voters to report that Domic Cummings is reported worried about the Lib Dems is clearly aimed at getting voters to switch to Lib Dems because the Tories know that the Lib Dems are the only party likely to support them.

How a YouGov poll works already determins that the poor and those working people who have not gotten much time are very unlikely to even take part in them.

YouGov polls are conducted via e-mail request from YouGov to registered voters, they are urged to do a survey. It takes internet access, a device capable of going onto the internet for the purpose of the survey and then it takes around 15 minutes to do the survey.

A lot of people don’t even have internet access or at limited times and then a lot of working people hardly have time to cope with their daily grind rather than do YouGov polls.

Those YouGov polls only attract a certain type of people who have the equipment and time to take part, that is hardly the typical Labour voter who enmass probably is more engaged in community activities. So the poll is not representative. It just shows that the participants are mainly Conservative voters or right-wing.

Unfortunately because Labour announced that they will tax the online providers more, they will find now that every Internet company will be as unfriendly as possible towards Labour and not support them and report favourably for the Conservatives.

Yet if you look at the Labour policies, they are extremely friendly towards the community and even though Labour is accused of being anti-semitic, nobody can argue against the fact that the many Jewish children who grow up in Britain will benefit immensely from the Free University policy that Labour has announced.

legalising Cannabis

man smoking a cigarette

Photo by Brandon Nickerson on Pexels.com

Unfortunately the Liberals stand for the legalisation of Cannabis for recreational use. The Washinton Post published research showing that the number of car accidents has risen in areas where cannabis was legalised. ““The combined-state analysis shows that the first three states to legalize recreational marijuana have experienced more crashes,” said Matt Moore, senior vice president of  the IIHS’s Highway Loss Data Institute, in a statement.”

So do we really add to the risk of car crashes in the UK?

adult alcohol bar bartender

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

We are just about able to cope with alcohol consumption and mobile phone use. Adding cannabis consumption will significantly add to the pressure the police is under, which will wipe out any benefits that will be created from the planned Cannabis tax.

Whilst a new law will require the installation of alcohol brathalisers in cars to stop it from starting when the driver had a drink, was reported by the Express.

Yet the alcohol breathaliser will not work with Cannabis.

That is one reason why I won’t be voting Liberal.

Don’t make us rely on charity

abundance bank banking banknotes

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

I was amazed that Simon Cowell could just donate £25.000 for the BBC Children in Need appeal. Wonderful, some needy children will benefit from that.

What bothers me is that the amount of requests for charity donation has spiralled to immense proportions.

Now, since Facebook has jumped onto the bandwagon and lets people collect donations on their birthday, I am really in a jiffy because I have in excess of 800 friends.

Multiply the donations x 850 and I would find myself broke by Easter.

With the creation of the Big Society and the reducation in Taxes, essential services having to rely on donation rather than guaranteed support through the Funding Formula from Central government.

Yet people constantly fall into that trap, the lower taxes will get votes but in fact, our lives are much better when all those who need it get support all year round, which will reduce the crime rate, problems with care for people and maintenance of local areas and food banks and crowd funding.

tin can on gravel surface

Photo by Nico Brüggeboes on Pexels.com

When we have a higher employment rate in the UK but most working get less money, then the tax income will fall lower because they won’t even meet the lowest tax thresholds for income tax. But they also do not earn enough to afford food.

Now we get so used to demands for money that it has become normal.

  • The beggar outside of supermarkets
  • The demand for Foodband donations inside the supermarkets
  • Constant demands for donations from online charities
  • Constant demands for donations in voluntary clubs and organisations.

Our incomes are vastly diminished through voluntary contributions, which are far higher than a regulated amount of higher tax.

Setting international standards

What humanity needs is an international set of professional standards, that enables all communities of the world to set rules of human interaction.

Even the smallest indigenous communities have standards that are set to enable the community to thrive.

Depending on location and environment, the more primitive societies made the most of what they had but set moral standards to prevent sexual exploitation or unhealthy live styles.

Most major religions are centred around the unquestionable servititude towards a divine being – a God –  and the rulers in charge identified themselves as being a direct descendant of that God. Of course that developed through from ancient times via the Greeks, Romans, then Christians in the west and Muslims in the East.

Through international communications it becomes clear that a lot of such communities exist world-wide, communities who teach their children, that their God is the only true one.

Conflicts are created when one community teaches their followers that they can exploit anybody who is not part of their religion as for example Daesh or Isis did. They said it was OK to exploit anybody sexually who was not a strict Muslim.

This principle leads to tribal conflicts on smaller area disputes as they can happen in African tribes for example, who roam wild areas and conflict with each other over territorial disputes.

Modern gangs, even in western societies use the rape of another gang’s members as a tool of control and stamping on authority. The rape of the women in other tribes is also an ancient method of destroying other cultures.

Religion started off as a moral code to regulate personal and family life to restrict behaviour to acceptable standards to avoid disease transmitted by sexual activity for  the members of any particular community.  Where later on science came in was when ‘doctors’ found  cures for common illness through scientific research, developing medications that could be administered and also by finding hygiene rules to avoid water contamination for example.

Setting a commonly accepted code of standards is important to avoid local and wider conflicts and to enable humanity to develop.

Whilst primitive cultures enslave their followers by simple dicatatorial rule, e.g. everybody must follow the laws of the leader, modern society exploits the poor by having rules, which create dependency. Universal Credit is a nodern example of that because it drove recipients into prostitution or they could not afford to live.

Other countries developed away from religious Gods and became Communist, again using strict dictatorial rules to regulate society.

A lot of states now have nuclear power and use that as a threat to keep foreign influence away.

I really do not think it matters what type of rule a society has, it just matters that each member of any society can live with a freedom of choice and without having to loose dignity.

Yes, the ability to choose aslo depends on intellect and brain function. This can vary from individual to individual. Yet professional standards should regulate good standards of living and enable everybody to contribute to the best of their ability.

Unfortunately much of modern society is determined by venture capitalism, a form of control over people, by making those with the most money privileged. Whilst it doesn’t matter how people gotten rich, they do not loose their wealth, even after they have been found to supply humanity with dangerous products.

Using advertising and mass-media, any producer of any goods can use streaming to attract people to buy their products and get rich, may that be cigarettes or e-cigarettes, alcohol or petrol cars.

Modern societies life-styles have been driven by a desire to have comfort in the home and use less physical activity.

People are required to use their energy to work for an employer and then have little time for their personal lifes. Laws force any person to work for any employer who will give them a job, not allowing the individual to choose.

This produces a downward social spiral. Dismantles family life and the ability of the individual to choose a healthy profession over an unhealthy one.

Earth warming has now become the biggest threat to humanity but the mechanisms that drive international trade, which is mainly responsible for earth warming, are not being dismantled.

When I say international trade I also mean the goods that are being traded and the production of which causes a big carbon foot print.

Wars and conflicts have an enormous carbon foot print. The use of fossil fuels, which also produce petrol, diesel and plastics is a major source of carbon.

Unfortunately many societies cannot exist unless they engage in trade because all services and labour are distributed due to a GDP calculation that is established. GDP stands for General Domestic Product.

Societies, countries rely on tax collections to provide services for the inhabitants.

Unless governments make a stand and refuse to accept taxes from bad companies, we cannot progress.

We need to exercise control over venture capitalism and control goods and services for their beneficial impact on society before we produce, advertise and sell them.

Tax cuts are not cheaper

Just watched Boris Johnson’s first Prime Ministerial speech to the Conservative Conference. He is an excellent and enthusing speaker but what he said was fairly empty propaganda.

I have not heard anything reliefing the pain of those who suffer through increasing homelessness.

He just promoted higher productivity, but said almost nothing about environmental improvements.

The biggest mantra is always the tax cuts and I would say tax cuts increase the costs for all of us on a constant basis.

The requests for charitable donations have trebled in all our daily lives. We are also providing considerably more voluntary services since the Conservatives introduced the Big Society.

Housing costs have increased significantly for those who bought their dwellings through improvement costs, may that be because of cladding or repairs.

At the supermarket are the requests to donate to the local food bank and constant request to donate to charitable deeds either through sporting or social events makes significantly more dents in all of our pockets rather than having a higher but regular tax contribution.

Crowd funding is another indirect taxation on us all.

I ask all of you to work out how much you have actually spent on donations since tax cuts have been introduced.

The speech was very emotionally satisfying to listeners but contained little proper politics. A lot of empty spin nevertheless.

In contrast Diane Abbott, the first Member of Parliament of colour, at least made reference to a real person of achievement, Dina Asher-Smith who is winning medals at Doha at the moment.

It’s not about installing women prime ministers who make the typically male policies, to be progressive. It is about making life good for all of us.

 

 

 

 

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,940 hits