Monarchy or Republic

[GommeInc]

Isn't the current outlook on Britain that of scarying away new businesses with their over-taxism? It's no longer attractive to businesses was the last thing I heard about Britain and businesses.

Back to monarchies... I love the Dutch royal family

[alexxxxx]

I believe in low taxes all across the board, I believe no government has any right to take over 45% of someones earnings, regardless of what they earn. I also believe in low taxes for middle class and working class as that is what fuels tourism and growth.

The gap will widen as enterprenialism has made so many more people millionares and billionares and that is fantastic, that is why it is widening. I read that in the 1970's less than half the population had a telephone, by the end of the 1980's most of the population had a phone. Her low tax regime benefitted everyone and that is why we have seen an explosion in jobs since the early 1980's, just look at the London Skyline or the Liverpool Skyline - it is all a product of Thatcherism, not perfect but works best.

Both of my parents get taxed 40%+ in their highest bracket. (But remember, it's not like that when you just reach a certain amount, that WHOLE amount is taxed at 40%, you get certain amounts of money taxed at different rates. I think the first few thousand is tax-free.).

But unfortunately, taxes need to be high if we are to fund our healthcare system. We constantly complain about the state of it, but that's because we attempt to do it on the cheap. Other nations with care such as ours have to pay a lot more in taxes for better service. Low taxes doesn't mean that you save money, it just means you have to fork out more for non-subsidised services. I wouldn't mind paying 45% tax if I can use the train to get to london fom nottingham for £15 return. If I can get a return ticket on the bus for £1.50. If I can get my house powered at a reasonable rate. If I don't have to pay for university fees. If I don't have to pay as much in fuel duty, if the government have free/better training facilities for people who have lost their jobs (and therefore won't be needing to leech of the state) to find new jobs. Remember the money spent on these services by the government does find itself back into the economy and does help fuel economic growth in the private sector.

That's a poor example. For example, over a period of time people do generally purchase the latest advancements. You could probably use that example with mobile phones in the mid-90s until now. It's general progression. Uneven spread of resources is a problem economically and socially.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Isn't the current outlook on Britain that of scarying away new businesses with their over-taxism? It's no longer attractive to businesses was the last thing I heard about Britain and businesses.

Back to monarchies... I love the Dutch royal family

It is indeed true, in the 1970's taxes on the rich were upto 80% and that is why, combined with governments crippled by unions and the country sliding into debt thanks to public services that were not used by the majority drove business away. At one point it looked as if the military would have to intervene as the country was on its knees.

Both of my parents get taxed 40%+ in their highest bracket. (But remember, it's not like that when you just reach a certain amount, that WHOLE amount is taxed at 40%, you get certain amounts of money taxed at different rates. I think the first few thousand is tax-free.).

But unfortunately, taxes need to be high if we are to fund our healthcare system. We constantly complain about the state of it, but that's because we attempt to do it on the cheap. Other nations with care such as ours have to pay a lot more in taxes for better service. Low taxes doesn't mean that you save money, it just means you have to fork out more for non-subsidised services. I wouldn't mind paying 45% tax if I can use the train to get to london fom nottingham for £15 return. If I can get a return ticket on the bus for £1.50. If I can get my house powered at a reasonable rate. If I don't have to pay for university fees. If I don't have to pay as much in fuel duty, if the government have free/better training facilities for people who have lost their jobs (and therefore won't be needing to leech of the state) to find new jobs. Remember the money spent on these services by the government does find itself back into the economy and does help fuel economic growth in the private sector.

That's a poor example. For example, over a period of time people do generally purchase the latest advancements. You could probably use that example with mobile phones in the mid-90s until now. It's general progression. Uneven spread of resources is a problem economically and socially.

Then if all your money is spent on services that you occasionally use/many people do not use that means you then have little money to spend elsewhere in the economy, which means business shuts and jobs are lost, that in turn then means that those people then rely on the state and your already high taxes to live, which means your taxes then rise, which then means you have even less money to spend which means more business then shuts.

My dad and others don't need to be trained, they are already trained in their jobs very well. As shown on Sky News after the budget a group of people who had lost their jobs said "we don't need training we need a job." - my dad has been working in computers since he left school, he doesn't need to be told by a government that he needs to be re-trained with his tax money. That, was and is a waste of money and everybody knows it.

Its not the fact that the NHS needs funding, the NHS needs proper management as highlighted by a program on BBC last year (I forget the name of it). Our country has so much money that is waste on red tape from whitehall, the government and the EU, we also give money to states like India and China when we are in ever growing debt. All that is needed is a simple re-look at the United Kingdoms finances and a good cutdown just as Barak Obama is preparing to do in the United States.

Its an excellent example, the United States and Europe were ahead of us at that time and simple items such as that show progress in a nation, not to mention when you have morgues with rotting bodies waiting to be buried and rubbish piled high on the streets.

[alexxxxx]

Then if all your money is spent on services that you occasionally use/many people do not use that means you then have little money to spend elsewhere in the economy, which means business shuts and jobs are lost, that in turn then means that those people then rely on the state and your already high taxes to live, which means your taxes then rise, which then means you have even less money to spend which means more business then shuts.

The money still gets spent. The money is just moved to workers employed by the government (or its contractors), who then use the money to spend in the economy in private and public sectors. The money goes somewhere.

My dad and others don't need to be trained, they are already trained in their jobs very well. As shown on Sky News after the budget a group of people who had lost their jobs said "we don't need training we need a job." - my dad has been working in computers since he left school, he doesn't need to be told by a government that he needs to be re-trained with his tax money. That, was and is a waste of money and everybody knows it.

The fact is, not everyone is skilled. Your father sounds skilled. Maybe those who lost their jobs are not skilled in the areas that are blossoming and their sector is in decline. You wonder why there aren't enough doctors in this country, not enough nurses? It's because they aren't enough trained. We wouldn't need as many immigrants if we had enough skilled workers to fill certain posts. It's about creating a skilled workforce and an environment where people can train for free for jobs if they find themselves unemployed. It's not a waste of money, as it means these people are not burdens on the state and are contributing and not leeching.

Its not the fact that the NHS needs funding, the NHS needs proper management as highlighted by a program on BBC last year (I forget the name of it). Our country has so much money that is waste on red tape from whitehall, the government and the EU, we also give money to states like India and China when we are in ever growing debt. All that is needed is a simple re-look at the United Kingdoms finances and a good cutdown just as Barak Obama is preparing to do in the United States.

Of course it's better to trim down and remove things/people that aren't effective. But the fact is also that we can't provide the service that everyone deserves with the money that we put in. Many countries spend more on health care and have better systems in place.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The money still gets spent. The money is just moved to workers employed by the government (or its contractors), who then use the money to spend in the economy in private and public sectors. The money goes somewhere.


The fact is, not everyone is skilled. Your father sounds skilled. Maybe those who lost their jobs are not skilled in the areas that are blossoming and their sector is in decline. You wonder why there aren't enough doctors in this country, not enough nurses? It's because they aren't enough trained. We wouldn't need as many immigrants if we had enough skilled workers to fill certain posts. It's about creating a skilled workforce and an environment where people can train for free for jobs if they find themselves unemployed. It's not a waste of money, as it means these people are not burdens on the state and are contributing and not leeching.

Of course it's better to trim down and remove things/people that aren't effective. But the fact is also that we can't provide the service that everyone deserves with the money that we put in. Many countries spend more on health care and have better systems in place.

The money does get spent, but the money is not creating new wealth. In the socialist way of spending the money just gets spent and nothing comes back, yes a service is held up at a huge which few use. You only have to compare the economics of the Soviet Union to the United States of America and its a shining example. The cycle I wrote out is correct and is an example of what was occuring in Britain in the 1970's and throughout the Soviet Union leading to its demise.

Not everyone is skilled no, but no matter how many chances/oppertunities you give certain sponges they will not accept them/will find another way (criminal) to fund their lifestyles, attempting to force people who are just out of work to do community service/go to training is an absolute disgrace, how dare this government even suggest hard working people re-train when they are already trained.

The NHS is different to the railways, mines and so forth. The NHS is used by nearly everyone and is vital to peoples lives. I'm for keeping the NHS public but it needs to be re-organised completly and the red tape needs rolling back, then I think it could start to function properly.

She did it for a reason, i've said before I believe the old victorian United Kingdom was amazing, I wish we still made all our own steel, I wish our chimleys still poured our black smoke and I wish Liverpools docks were still full of ships loading and unloading goods from around the world.

We're in the modern world now though, and economics are everything.

[alexxxxx]

The money does get spent, but the money is not creating new wealth. In the socialist way of spending the money just gets spent and nothing comes back, yes a service is held up at a huge which few use. You only have to compare the economics of the Soviet Union to the United States of America and its a shining example. The cycle I wrote out is correct and is an example of what was occuring in Britain in the 1970's and throughout the Soviet Union leading to its demise.

20 000 000 nation spend £1 on taxes --> £20 000 000 spent by the government on bus services --> money to the builders to build buses --> spend in shops --> creates jobs --> economic growth (short term), people can travel further to find jobs, remove geographical labour problems- workers become more mobile, greater mobility of labour (long run growth)

people can find jobs further away, earn money--> get loan to buy a big house --> money to builders --> spend in shops --> create jobs --> consume more etc.

It's called the multiplier effect. If money is invested wisely, GDP can rise.

Not everyone is skilled no, but no matter how many chances/oppertunities you give certain sponges they will not accept them/will find another way (criminal) to fund their lifestyles, attempting to force people who are just out of work to do community service/go to training is an absolute disgrace, how dare this government even suggest hard working people re-train when they are already trained.

It's not about forcing, it's about giving it for free, incentives. This is why we have problems today. People often need to be retrained. If you know your simple economics, you'd understand that the inflexibility of labour is an imperfection in a market economy, and therefore steps need to be taken to help those get back into jobs. Miners for example were skilled for mining and not much else, they were promised retraining and new jobs, which hasn't always happened. Some haven't found any new jobs because of their Geographical location (another market imperfection), most mining towns relied on the mines entirely, once they were removed, jobs were a premium. A better transport system can help, but not remove this imperfection. Retraining to skill them in another sector helps the economy again, as labour isn't flexible always. It's about improving the productive potential of the economy by removing imperfections.

The NHS is different to the railways, mines and so forth. The NHS is used by nearly everyone and is vital to peoples lives. I'm for keeping the NHS public but it needs to be re-organised completly and the red tape needs rolling back, then I think it could start to function properly.

There's only so much streamlining you can do before you start degrading the service altogether. Of course removing useless positions is a good idea, but cost reductions have to be made carefully.

She did it for a reason, i've said before I believe the old victorian United Kingdom was amazing, I wish we still made all our own steel, I wish our chimleys still poured our black smoke and I wish Liverpools docks were still full of ships loading and unloading goods from around the world.

We're in the modern world now though, and economics are everything.

The problem with that is that then we could get our raw materials and other goods and services for cheap because of our colonies, which i think most people now have a morale objection to. Economics isn't everything. You have to think about people's general wellbeing, health and happiness. It's alright being rich, but you can't enrich yourself with just money.

[UKIP]

20 000 000 nation spend £1 on taxes --> £20 000 000 spent by the government on bus services --> money to the builders to build buses --> spend in shops --> creates jobs --> economic growth (short term), people can travel further to find jobs, remove geographical labour problems- workers become more mobile, greater mobility of labour (long run growth)

people can find jobs further away, earn money--> get loan to buy a big house --> money to builders --> spend in shops --> create jobs --> consume more etc.

It's called the multiplier effect. If money is invested wisely, GDP can rise.



It's not about forcing, it's about giving it for free, incentives. This is why we have problems today. People often need to be retrained. If you know your simple economics, you'd understand that the inflexibility of labour is an imperfection in a market economy, and therefore steps need to be taken to help those get back into jobs. Miners for example were skilled for mining and not much else, they were promised retraining and new jobs, which hasn't always happened. Some haven't found any new jobs because of their Geographical location (another market imperfection), most mining towns relied on the mines entirely, once they were removed, jobs were a premium. A better transport system can help, but not remove this imperfection. Retraining to skill them in another sector helps the economy again, as labour isn't flexible always. It's about improving the productive potential of the economy by removing imperfections.


There's only so much streamlining you can do before you start degrading the service altogether. Of course removing useless positions is a good idea, but cost reductions have to be made carefully.


The problem with that is that then we could get our raw materials and other goods and services for cheap because of our colonies, which i think most people now have a morale objection to. Economics isn't everything. You have to think about people's general wellbeing, health and happiness. It's alright being rich, but you can't enrich yourself with just money.

People may be able to travel futher to jobs, except that you miss two vital and important facts.

1. Most people do not want to travel far to work.
2. Due to the high taxes there is no business located in the United Kingdom for them to go to, just look at the 1970's its a standing example.

If its such a great way of investment then why does the west not follow this example, because other countries such as North Korea and the Soviet Union did/are and look at them, just look at North Korea compared to South Korea.

People losing their jobs is terrible yes, but as I said if its the country itself at stake then them industries have to go. There is no two ways about it, it is wrong and does not work when you have industries which are not making money and are infact making a loss that ordinary people have to pay to keep these industries open. If my dad for example was fired from his job because the company was losing money and was in debt/his position is no longer needed, is is right that the taxpayer continue to fund his wages even though he is not needed? - no it simply isn't.

You talk about the economy as if it should be controlled like a command economy, central command economics do not work, again i'll point to the Soviet Union and North Korea compared to the United States and South Korea.

The NHS needs a goos streamlining, once its cut down it then has more cash and is more independant. The staff themselves say there is too much red tape and targets to meet.

You try telling the people of East Germany that, i'm sure you'd get a very different idea of the power of money and how it ties in with happiness.

[Barmi]

OP, your topic/poll is greatly misguided. The poll as it stands is virtually moot, and would be better phrased "Do you want to see the abolition of the monarchy?", unless we had an absolute monarchy. The system of government in a constitutional monarchy is not that far removed from a republican system. If you were wanting to ask "should the Prime Minister be the Head of State?", then you should have been explicit.

Seems like none of you know what a presidential democracy is.
The president cannot just pass laws as they please. Because than they could change the whole consitution and become a dictatorship. To prevent this we have checks and balances. What this does is the 3 branches of the government (legislative, judicial, executive) have to all make sure that each of them isnt making too many decisions so that they all have equal power. If the president wants to pass a law, the law must be approved by the supreme court first.

It is even more embarrassing that you don't know your own system of government. A president's bill goes to Congress, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not directly involved in the law-making process, but rather looks at legislation with a view to checking compliance with your Constitution. It's ironic that every American can churn the words "checks and balances" out like a phrase they were born with, and yet so few actually care how their federal government operates.

As twisted fate has it, my exam on Constitutional Law is in less than three weeks... meaning I've recently gone over my material on a hell of a lot, including sovereignty and the EU. This thread gives me the giggles. -:Undertaker:-, I am not going to entertain your ridiculous UKIP ideas. It is clear you have gleaned comments from a UKIP manifesto like it is a Bible. If you want an informed discussion, keep politics out. And yes, that is possible.

Oh, and in the hope you don't throw any more comments around you can't justify, I'd just like to add: your general comment about "the people want to leave the EU" does not apply to me. I'm not exactly pro-EU, but I'm not against it. I am not going to re-read such a bloated thread at this time in the evening, but I do not recall you providing any evidence so support the suggestions that (a) the majority of the UK want to leave the EU; and (b) other member states wish to leave.

[alexxxxx]

People may be able to travel futher to jobs, except that you miss two vital and important facts.

1. Most people do not want to travel far to work.
2. Due to the high taxes there is no business located in the United Kingdom for them to go to, just look at the 1970's its a standing example.

That's not true, I have friends who parents work in London (1.75 hour train) and someone who commutes to Amsterdam or Denmark every Tuesday and comes back on a Friday night. My parents used to commute 45minutes to their jobs (but we had to buy a house which cost almost double of our house's cost) and ended up living in a smaller house to.

If its such a great way of investment then why does the west not follow this example, because other countries such as North Korea and the Soviet Union did/are and look at them, just look at North Korea compared to South Korea.

Western governments do it all the time!

People losing their jobs is terrible yes, but as I said if its the country itself at stake then them industries have to go. There is no two ways about it, it is wrong and does not work when you have industries which are not making money and are infact making a loss that ordinary people have to pay to keep these industries open. If my dad for example was fired from his job because the company was losing money and was in debt/his position is no longer needed, is is right that the taxpayer continue to fund his wages even though he is not needed? - no it simply isn't.

How is this relevant to my argument? I said that they should pay for retraining!

You talk about the economy as if it should be controlled like a command economy, central command economics do not work, again i'll point to the Soviet Union and North Korea compared to the United States and South Korea.

I talk about the economy and free markets having imperfections... which the government can try to even out.

The NHS needs a goos streamlining, once its cut down it then has more cash and is more independant. The staff themselves say there is too much red tape and targets to meet.

You try telling the people of East Germany that, i'm sure you'd get a very different idea of the power of money and how it ties in with happiness.

Yeah... but you can't expect the NHS to perform well for peanuts by cutting corners.

Money isn't everything at all. I'm sure there were some in east germany who lived a better, more enjoyable life than those living in the west.

[UKIP]

OP, your topic/poll is greatly misguided. The poll as it stands is virtually moot, and would be better phrased "Do you want to see the abolition of the monarchy?", unless we had an absolute monarchy. The system of government in a constitutional monarchy is not that far removed from a republican system. If you were wanting to ask "should the Prime Minister be the Head of State?", then you should have been explicit.


It is even more embarrassing that you don't know your own system of government. A president's bill goes to Congress, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not directly involved in the law-making process, but rather looks at legislation with a view to checking compliance with your Constitution. It's ironic that every American can churn the words "checks and balances" out like a phrase they were born with, and yet so few actually care how their federal government operates.

As twisted fate has it, my exam on Constitutional Law is in less than three weeks... meaning I've recently gone over my material on a hell of a lot, including sovereignty and the EU. This thread gives me the giggles. -:Undertaker:-, I am not going to entertain your ridiculous UKIP ideas. It is clear you have gleaned comments from a UKIP manifesto like it is a Bible. If you want an informed discussion, keep politics out. And yes, that is possible.

Oh, and in the hope you don't throw any more comments around you can't justify, I'd just like to add: your general comment about "the people want to leave the EU" does not apply to me. I'm not exactly pro-EU, but I'm not against it. I am not going to re-read such a bloated thread at this time in the evening, but I do not recall you providing any evidence so support the suggestions that (a) the majority of the UK want to leave the EU; and (b) other member states wish to leave.

The topic is fine, don't try nit picking at small things. The question is simple, do you want the monarchy to continue or do you want it abolished which would mean we would become a republic. Very simple.

Yet again another person who jumps in the discussion who doesn't tackle my claims and facts about the European Union but yet can't justify or defend its existance. I know most people don't want to be the union, thats exactly why France, Republic of Ireland and others turned it down. That is why we are not being given a vote, it is so simple, if the EU knew it would win referendums on its existence or even evolution then it would gives us a referendum but it won't and you and others simply refuse to accept this simple, common sense fact.

If our government knew they could settle the EU issue once and for all with a 'yes' vote from the public then it would hold a referendum, but it won't because it knows the answer is; no, no, no!

That's not true, I have friends who parents work in London (1.75 hour train) and someone who commutes to Amsterdam or Denmark every Tuesday and comes back on a Friday night. My parents used to commute 45minutes to their jobs (but we had to buy a house which cost almost double of our house's cost) and ended up living in a smaller house to.

Western governments do it all the time!

How is this relevant to my argument? I said that they should pay for retraining!

I talk about the economy and free markets having imperfections... which the government can try to even out.

Yeah... but you can't expect the NHS to perform well for peanuts by cutting corners.

Money isn't everything at all. I'm sure there were some in east germany who lived a better, more enjoyable life than those living in the west.

The fact and issue still remains, why should my family and most others pay more taxes for a bloated service they do not use. It simply isn't fair, why should the state take money from people to support a service the minority use. Tax hurts customers, which in turn hurts business, then business if driven away from the United Kingdom, then less tax is being paid so taxes then rise even more making the survining business suffer.

It is not the governments job to infringe on peoples right to buy, sell and so on. That is exactly why Margaret Thatcher swept to power in 1979 because people had simply had enough of a government which had too much power, was being controlled by unions and nearly destroyed our country.

You can't expect the NHS to perform well on peanuts, however you can't expect to solve its problems by throwing endless cash at it, as if that did solve the problems of the NHS then Labour would of fixed it within the last 11 years. The NHS has far too much red tape, it needs to be cut down and given more independance from government. Then we will have a national health service which works for everyone.

That is a poor example, history and the world know for a fact East Germany was poor and a total mess, that is exactly why a concreate wall along with mines and soldiers were built around Soviet Berlin to stop people leaving. East Germany and the Soviet Union were command economies, along with North Korea and Mao's China which have/did leave their people starving due to their glorious 'socialist/communist revolutions'. Socialism is dead, people do not want a return to 1970's Britain.