Hi Cevilia sorry to delay getting back to you, I was “putting out the garbage”.

My point your point, we understand.

Now my point expanded,

Question: What merit does you “view” possess, which gives it the right to curtail someone else’s discretionary choices, when the range of those choices are afforded them by previous decisions and risks which they have made or taken?

“Nice idea, but I’d like to add that children should be given the opportunity to develop to their full potential.”

That is what Margaret said. She certainly did not suggest otherwise.

Trees and people, a flawed comparison until you can establish that trees have freedom of choice, to where they grow or have some cognitive control on in which direction they will grow.

I am not an agronomist. I have little concern for the commercial development of trees. I care and tend to the ones in my garden. They attract a wide range of parrots and other birds, who, whilst noisy, enhance the quality of my life by sharing time with me. Strange what I find delight in.

I am not all about money but taxation is.

Regarding your quotation of Carol Bellamy, Margaret Thatcher was Science and Education Secretary (Aussie = Minister) in the Edward Heath government. She improved the nature of the UK education system and made a massive and ongoing contribution to improving the education of children in UK.

I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher#Education_Secretary_.281970_-_1974.29

You will find she was a brave and courageous woman from the start of her political career and would have done many things which you agree with.

I hope, I can claim to be, like her, more avowed and true to my values than to any political label others may stick upon me.

Col and Fractelle

Col

I also went to my blog and received the message:

“This blog is in violation of Blogger's Terms of Service and is open to authors only”

I thought about your comment “ Reads like that blog is full of crap and your “credibility”, is damned by association”.

There is another possibility – the message might simply indicate that the Blogging service is not up to scratch. Perhaps they would not know quality piece of literature if they fell over one. You never know -

Anyway, I gave up on that blog. Thanks for advising the service was shonky.

Fractelle

Good posts, you seem to have the interests of the wider community at heart.

For your reading leisure:

http://feudaloptionsparty.googlepages.com/investorsruleok

The last time I checked it was working.

Happy Labour Day you both

mr nobody

Thank you for your kind words - if you understood the points that I had made then others will too. Your link was interesting, but have never heard of the F.O. Party. Heheh - 'Feudal' sounds like something that Col would favour. But I digress, will study at my leisure - I too am concerned that a secure roof over one's head is becoming unachievable as disparity increases between the majority of people and a powerful minority. (Now that's feudal). All the environmental programs in the world will not work if people cannot afford housing.

I would also like to thank CELIVIA; your persistence and cogent arguments on this thread deserve praise. Also you were able to provide evidence of actual working solutions that are occurring now in the Netherlands. Not something that is easily dismissed.

One last item before I totally bail on this thread.

COL

ROFL

You sure expend a lot of time and energy responding to people you have described as “dismissable”. What would the ratio be of your posts to mine? About 4:1? Happy to keep you so occupied.

BTW. Yes, we get it that you favour low tax and love Maggie Thatcher, anyone reading these pages knows that.

What you haven’t done is offer much at all (if anything) about sustainable living. About transferring tax from profits and income across to polluting industry and excess (by excess, a true luxury tax on items that are both not necessary AND costly to the environment to manufacture). A quick example, hybrid cars are costly but will prove to be beneficial in the long term. Whereas, SUV’s are costly but are detrimental to environment (think petrol, size, safety factors).

All you continue to do is justify a system that benefits Col Rouge at the expense of the majority of people. Nothing new there.

You love demeaning people with whom you disagree rather than offer cogent debate and remember no-one is 100% wrong all the time. Not even you :-D

Choice is what it IS all about – I totally agree.

You have the choice to remain mired with Maggie in the 80’s

Or

Catch up to the 21st Century and join the rest of us humans.

THE CHOICE IS YOURS.

We can all come up with examples of waste. A simple tax system mindful of low income earners and one that ensures a contribution by the wealthy while retaining incentives for business within a social democratic system is a worthy goal.

- Get rid of GST, reduce waste in government and concentrate on a true "public service" where our most essential needs are given priority. One of the problems with GST is that it is a burden on business to adminster.

- I am not suggesting that government become small (only smaller) and see a need to eliminate waste so that resources are redirected to areas of priority (hospital waiting lists, environmental sustainability, education). We are a small population by world standards yet we have three tiers of government which is rich fodder for a 'Yes Minister' script.

- Don't involve ourselves in unnecessary wars and the money saved could ensure pensioners are not living below the poverty line.

- Not everyone will agree on what could be classified as wasteful but some examples have already been given by other posters and include just to start with taxes spent on religion, sport and the arts. These are personal life choices and can better sponsored by the private sector or by parishioners (in the case of churches).

- There are other areas within government where there is overlap such as national security and senior levels of law enforcement where more people are needed on the ground not up in the ivory towers of decision making.

- Anyone who has worked in government over the last 20 years since the advent of economic rationalism knows too well that when cuts are made to government it is always in the service areas while numbers at the senior level continue to grow with no tangible benefit to the taxpayer. Taxpayers in the main would rather get their call answered more quickly by Centrelink, not wait in queues for inordinate lengths of time, have their operation performed to alleviate pain or know that there are enough police and fire personnel on the beat.

Continued...

continued from above...

- Get rid of fees for higher education. Education is not a commodity to be exploited and dumbed down in the process, it is the foundation of a skilled and innovative workforce. Make it merit based and provide more funding for scientific research and development.