UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Crysuko]

That's incredibly easy to demonstrate.

The rich in countries with public healthcare live longer than the rich in countries without it. Including the USA, where their rich are even richer than ours, and still die earlier.

In fact the rich in the USA die earlier than the poor in the UK.

You're aware, I hope, that obesity rates in the US are one of the highest in the developed world?

And? The obesity rate in the U.K. Is 63.8%, in the US it's 39.8. Not an excuse.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not immoral because it ends up providing the same opportunities to both persons in our example through penalizing corporations for providing differing opportunities. It's also not discriminatory for the same reason.

How are they providing different opportunities?

What if there are two candidates for the job and the company decides the person from Frankfurt is better suited? Is there still a fine?

If they could demonstrated the training opportunities were the same i'd be okay with waiving it.

[The New California Republic]

History is replete with examples of what happens when the wealthy push to poor too hard. The are a lot more poor than rich people and poor people tend to be good at building simple mechanisms. Like guillotines.

Eek.

[Novus America]

And who is to say that whatever marginal benefits accrue from fewer people getting sick will make up for the amount of money taken from me to pay for other people's healthcare? The way public healthcare works is you stick the bill onto the people who earn more and hence will pay more in taxes than they burden the public healthcare system with, and forcibly redistribute those resources to the people who earn less and therefore won't earn enough to pay in taxes how much they will burden the system. In other words, one demographic is disproportionately burdened with the costs of maintaining the healthcare system and sustaining the lives of the other group that doesn't earn enough. Whatever societal benefits arise from fewer people getting sick is a societal benefit shared by all. So, on the whole, when you balance the risk and benefit, what evidence do you have that for the demographic burdened with subsidizing other people's healthcare, they gain more from the societal benefits of public healthcare than they lose from having to pay for other people's healthcare?

In other words, you may be able to show public healthcare benefits society, but you can't show it benefits the wealthy taxpayers whom you are forcing to sustain your public healthcare system for everyone else's benefit, when you factor in the amount of money they are being forced to fork out for everyone else.

It's the price you pay for being rich, free, and alive all at the same time.

History is replete with examples of what happens when the wealthy push to poor too hard. The are a lot more poor than rich people and poor people tend to be good at building simple mechanisms. Like guillotines.

My father had a phrase. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
Even the sensible rich realize this.

You have to provide enough to the poor to keep a rebellion from happening. You can still be rich, but providing for the poor actually protects your wealth longer term, much better than being so greedy you start a massive, costly back lash.

[San Lumen]

How are they providing different opportunities?

What if there are two candidates for the job and the company decides the person from Frankfurt is better suited? Is there still a fine?

If they could demonstrated the training opportunities were the same i'd be okay with waiving it.

what do you mean by training opportunities? I dont see why companies should have to justify who they hire.

[Purgatio]

You're aware, I hope, that obesity rates in the US are one of the highest in the developed world?

And? The obesity rate in the U.K. Is 63.8%, in the US it's 39.8. Not an excuse.

.....63.8%???? Source????

This one says 29%

https://news.sky.com/story/seven-charts-on-the-uks-obesity-problem-11583981

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

You're aware, I hope, that obesity rates in the US are one of the highest in the developed world?

And? The obesity rate in the U.K. Is 63.8%, in the US it's 39.8. Not an excuse.

The obesity rate in the UK is 28.1%, the 63.8% figure includes people who are overweight - or have a BMI of 25 or over.

[Ostroeuropa]

If they could demonstrated the training opportunities were the same i'd be okay with waiving it.

what do you mean by training opportunities? I dont see why companies should have to justify who they hire.

I'm sure you'd be pretty suspect of "Well they're just better candidates" if white males kept getting hired all the time.

[Souseiseki]

if you're poor, you directly benefit from it through not having to live every day with the risk of immediate financial ruin if something goes wrong.

if you're rich, you benefit from having a healthy populace to draw labour from and would have probably had to pay for heathcare for your employees anyway if there was no public healthcare system.

in both cases, this is achieved through a shared system for efficiency reasons. just the same way as it is in countries like the US. at some point you're going to have to pay into the pool and pay for other people's healthcare with the proviso that they do the same for you, and not paying in is never a true choice.

so, on average, 99% of the people that say the healthcare of others has nothing to do with them are in fact totally lying. the same goes for the people who benefit from infrastructure and education. we live in a society. bottom text.

And who is to say that whatever marginal benefits accrue from fewer people getting sick will make up for the amount of money taken from me to pay for other people's healthcare? The way public healthcare works is you stick the bill onto the people who earn more and hence will pay more in taxes than they burden the public healthcare system with, and forcibly redistribute those resources to the people who earn less and therefore won't earn enough to pay in taxes how much they will burden the system. In other words, one demographic is disproportionately burdened with the costs of maintaining the healthcare system and sustaining the lives of the other group that doesn't earn enough. Whatever societal benefits arise from fewer people getting sick is a societal benefit shared by all. So, on the whole, when you balance the risk and benefit, what evidence do you have that for the demographic burdened with subsidizing other people's healthcare, they gain more from the societal benefits of public healthcare than they lose from having to pay for other people's healthcare?

In other words, you may be able to show public healthcare benefits society, but you can't show it benefits the wealthy taxpayers whom you are forcing to sustain your public healthcare system for everyone else's benefit, when you factor in the amount of money they are being forced to fork out for everyone else.

economy of scale, mainly. again i must emphasize that at some point you will be forced to pay for these people's education, healthcare and so on or be forced to incur the economic penalties incurred by them not having education, healthcare and so on. it's just magnitudes more efficient to do it this way. you absolutely are not going to come out on top by trying to skimp out. in fact this is one of the reasons the system was set up in the first place. you can't build a modern economy and strong country when most of your population are in poor health and can't read, and the government and businesses saw this.

what benefits society benefits wealthy taxpayers, since wealthy taxpayers are only able to get wealthy and maintain their wealth because of society. some of them are tempted to try screw over society so they can get a little bit more money in the short term, but this is unsustainable in the long term. which is why we tell them to take a hike when they try to do it.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Lol how are those human rights?

Because the fucking law says so?

None of those are human rights because they have to be funded with the private property of others.

You apparently have very a different definition of human rights to literally every scholar, academic and legislation on the subject.

Can I have your sources on this please?

[Novus America]

No necessarily, it depends on how high or low you set the fine. A very low fine (say $1 a year) would have no impact, whereas a $1,000,000 a day one would effectively ban immigrants from working. Pricing mechanisms are not a binary black/white thing.

The beauty of them is you can adjust them to get the outcome you want.

It’s still an immoral and discriminatory idea

Citizens of a place get benefits non citizens do not.

[San Lumen]

what do you mean by training opportunities? I dont see why companies should have to justify who they hire.

I'm sure you'd be pretty suspect of "Well they're just better candidates" if white males kept getting hired all the time.

Yes I would

[Crysuko]

And? The obesity rate in the U.K. Is 63.8%, in the US it's 39.8. Not an excuse.

The obesity rate in the UK is 28.1%, the 63.8% figure includes people who are overweight - or have a BMI of 25 or over.

Ok, I jumped the gun on that statistic but even so, it shows that it's still a cause for great concern.

[Purgatio]

And who is to say that whatever marginal benefits accrue from fewer people getting sick will make up for the amount of money taken from me to pay for other people's healthcare? The way public healthcare works is you stick the bill onto the people who earn more and hence will pay more in taxes than they burden the public healthcare system with, and forcibly redistribute those resources to the people who earn less and therefore won't earn enough to pay in taxes how much they will burden the system. In other words, one demographic is disproportionately burdened with the costs of maintaining the healthcare system and sustaining the lives of the other group that doesn't earn enough. Whatever societal benefits arise from fewer people getting sick is a societal benefit shared by all. So, on the whole, when you balance the risk and benefit, what evidence do you have that for the demographic burdened with subsidizing other people's healthcare, they gain more from the societal benefits of public healthcare than they lose from having to pay for other people's healthcare?

In other words, you may be able to show public healthcare benefits society, but you can't show it benefits the wealthy taxpayers whom you are forcing to sustain your public healthcare system for everyone else's benefit, when you factor in the amount of money they are being forced to fork out for everyone else.

It's the price you pay for being rich, free, and alive all at the same time.

History is replete with examples of what happens when the wealthy push to poor too hard. The are a lot more poor than rich people and poor people tend to be good at building simple mechanisms. Like guillotines.

It's a bad idea to decide policy based on blackmail. If the poors are incapable of acting like civilized men and women and choose to behave in a savage fashion, that's what the armed police and the army are for. I'd rather my taxes go to prisons, if need be. Giving poor people something on the implied threat that they will commit mass genocide is rewarding a demographic for their utter lack of morality and self-restraint, which in principle is something we shouldn't do. Its like negotiating with terrorists.

[Ostroeuropa]

And who is to say that whatever marginal benefits accrue from fewer people getting sick will make up for the amount of money taken from me to pay for other people's healthcare? The way public healthcare works is you stick the bill onto the people who earn more and hence will pay more in taxes than they burden the public healthcare system with, and forcibly redistribute those resources to the people who earn less and therefore won't earn enough to pay in taxes how much they will burden the system. In other words, one demographic is disproportionately burdened with the costs of maintaining the healthcare system and sustaining the lives of the other group that doesn't earn enough. Whatever societal benefits arise from fewer people getting sick is a societal benefit shared by all. So, on the whole, when you balance the risk and benefit, what evidence do you have that for the demographic burdened with subsidizing other people's healthcare, they gain more from the societal benefits of public healthcare than they lose from having to pay for other people's healthcare?

In other words, you may be able to show public healthcare benefits society, but you can't show it benefits the wealthy taxpayers whom you are forcing to sustain your public healthcare system for everyone else's benefit, when you factor in the amount of money they are being forced to fork out for everyone else.

economy of scale, mainly. again i must emphasize that at some point you will be forced to pay for these people's education, healthcare and so on or be forced to incur the economic penalties incurred by them not having education, healthcare and so on. it's just magnitudes more efficient to do this way. you absolutely are not going to come out on top by trying to skimp out. in fact this is one of the reasons the system was set up in the first place. you can't build a modern economy and strong country when most of your population are in poor health and can't read, and the government and businesses saw this.

what benefits society benefits wealthy taxpayers, since wealthy taxpayers are only able to get wealthy and maintain their wealth because of society. some of them are tempted to try screw over society so they can get a little bit more money in the short term, but this is unsustainable in the long term. which is why we tell them to take a hike when they try to do it.

Also consider;

The US military has now, for around two decades in a row, submitted reports in gradually escalating number of underlines, exclamation marks, and capital letters, saying that Americans are too stupid and poorly educated to use the complex modern weaponry properly and that the state of the education system is a national security risk that will only grow over time as technology improves.

You cannot simply go full hog "I'll be an absolute right wing fuck the poor type and just expect the police to handle it.". That might work on the native poor.

Good luck convincing foreign governments of that when your failed state slides into being a backwater that cannot stand up to foreign interference.

So you think okay we'll fund the army too then, simple enough. Well... as the US example shows, not that easy mate.

The reason the poor were educated in the first place is that factory owners needed them to read instruction manuals. Not much has changed on that front.

[Crysuko]

And? The obesity rate in the U.K. Is 63.8%, in the US it's 39.8. Not an excuse.

.....63.8%???? Source????

This one says 29%

https://news.sky.com/story/seven-charts-on-the-uks-obesity-problem-11583981

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity ... ed_Kingdom

I got it a bit wrong, 63% overweight in general.

[Purgatio]

The obesity rate in the UK is 28.1%, the 63.8% figure includes people who are overweight - or have a BMI of 25 or over.

Ok, I jumped the gun on that statistic but even so, it shows that it's still a cause for great concern.

Its also lower than the US, which was my point.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

The enclosures were theft. We should get all common land returned to the people.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The obesity rate in the UK is 28.1%, the 63.8% figure includes people who are overweight - or have a BMI of 25 or over.

Ok, I jumped the gun on that statistic but even so, it shows that it's still a cause for great concern.

It's not good, but I don't see a way of the government solving it without limiting peoples lifestyle choices which I fundamentally disagree with.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm sure you'd be pretty suspect of "Well they're just better candidates" if white males kept getting hired all the time.

Yes I would

So you do in fact see why companies should have to justify who they hire.

[Ostroeuropa]

The enclosures were theft. We should get all common land returned to the people.

Unironically this.
This is also the moderate and compromising position.

The alternative is we demand their return with compensation for lost profits and opportunities. I.E, confiscate everything the upper classes own and stick them with a debt on top of it.

[Novus America]

How the fuck do you think any sort of ownership came about historically speaking?

It doesn't matter, because however it came about centuries ago, during that same period numerous contracts, transactions and sales have taken place, so today, if you have private property, as a proximate matter it was gained through a lawful and consensual transaction. What is it with leftists and wanting the people living today to be held hostage to the bad things people did centuries ago? Structuring an entire economic system all because you think people who are now long dead did bad things in the long long ago is....just dumb. Seriously.

It does matter. You obsess over property rights, yet claim property rights you never owned.
The government only sold off certain properties rights, not all property rights. The government has always owned certain property rights in all property and never sold them.

[Fartsniffage]

It's the price you pay for being rich, free, and alive all at the same time.

History is replete with examples of what happens when the wealthy push to poor too hard. The are a lot more poor than rich people and poor people tend to be good at building simple mechanisms. Like guillotines.

It's a bad idea to decide policy based on blackmail. If the poors are incapable of acting like civilized men and women and choose to behave in a savage fashion, that's what the armed police and the army are for. I'd rather my taxes go to prisons, if need be. Giving poor people something on the implied threat that they will commit mass genocide is rewarding a demographic for their utter lack of morality and self-restraint, which in principle is something we shouldn't do. Its like negotiating with terrorists.

The army and police are also a bunch of poors. Poors with access to tanks and machine guns. I wouldn't be counting on them in your dystopian future if I were you.

[Vassenor]

And we've already got MPs demanding the institution of insurance-based health and social care.

So much for "The NHS is not for sale".

[Purgatio]

.....63.8%???? Source????

This one says 29%

https://news.sky.com/story/seven-charts-on-the-uks-obesity-problem-11583981

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity ... ed_Kingdom

I got it a bit wrong, 63% overweight in general.

This is another reason why universal healthcare and the NHS is fundamentally immoral in my view. I don't see why people who don't smoke, don't drink, aren't overweight, and exercise, should subsidize the lifestyles of those who smoke, drink, are obese, and don't exercise.