Margaret Thatcher Dies at 87

[Ardemax]

Why are we paying for the Arts? I can understand people being against state funerals in these conditions, but in no conditions would I ever want to fund the arts where prats stand around looking at some god awful art. Art should be the last thing funded by the state.

Somebody made the point about funeral costs on Facebook though, and I can understand - and I put forwards a deal, let's cut the £113m a year that goes from the state into funding the Unions and we'll agree to not pay for the funeral. That's a deal I think Mrs. Thatcher would approve of.

Replace the Arts with anything else that is being forced into a cut.

What really annoys me (and this is going off topic) is tax avoidance by major companies. Vodafone in particular. Something to the tune of £7bn I believe?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Replace the Arts with anything else that is being forced into a cut.

I don't understand the point.

What really annoys me (and this is going off topic) is tax avoidance by major companies. Vodafone in particular. Something to the tune of £7bn I believe?

In a way yes, as small businesses have to pay higher rates and this gives companies an advantage. I'd rather have all companies pay less and less tax, rather than focusing on making a select group (who do provide investment and jobs) to pay even more so the state can waste it.

"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending." - Milton Friedman

[Ardemax]

I don't understand the point.



In a way yes, as small businesses have to pay higher rates and this gives companies an advantage. I'd rather have all companies pay less and less tax, rather than focusing on making a select group (who do provide investment and jobs) to pay even more so the state can waste it.

My point being that smaller services are being cut and yet we find the money to spend £10 million to bury someone. Why not spend £10 million on building 500 football pitches in poor areas?

Whether we should lower taxes or not, avoiding billions in tax (and the money has to be found somewhere, e.g. cutting the health service) is not acceptable and should be tackled by the government.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My point being that smaller services are being cut and yet we find the money to spend £10 million to bury someone. Why not spend £10 million on building 500 football pitches in poor areas?

Well you could make the same argument with anything really, and yes it is a point I agree.

The way I see it though - why are the left complaining all of a sudden about a state funeral (something thats traditional, British and only costing so much because morons on the left plan to disrupt it) when they are the ones who refuse to contemplate cutting foreign aid etc.

Whether we should lower taxes or not, avoiding billions in tax (and the money has to be found somewhere, e.g. cutting the health service) is not acceptable and should be tackled by the government.

I'd rather the companies keep the money as opposed to our wasteful government if i'm honest.

[Ardemax]

Well you could make the same argument with anything really, and yes it is a point I agree.

The way I see it though - why are the left complaining all of a sudden about a state funeral (something thats traditional, British and only costing so much because morons on the left plan to disrupt it) when they are the ones who refuse to contemplate cutting foreign aid etc.

I'd rather the companies keep the money as opposed to our wasteful government if i'm honest.

It really wouldn't be a problem is the cuts weren't as widespread as they are (even though spending has gone up, I know, but cuts are taking place). On a side note, I wish we'd cut most of our foreign aid. Though not stop Children in Need/Comic Relief.

I'd rather them pay their taxes so people can keep their jobs. But I guess that's the governments lack of forward-thinking.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It really wouldn't be a problem is the cuts weren't as widespread as they are (even though spending has gone up, I know, but cuts are taking place). On a side note, I wish we'd cut most of our foreign aid. Though not stop Children in Need/Comic Relief.

And this is why spending is never cut properly, everyones for cuts but then if you touch their pet project ie Comic Relief - it's a no, don't cut that. How about Comic Relief being self funding via charity like its supposed to be on the tin?

I haven't the slightest interest in Comic Relief or Children in Need, and I don't want to be forced paying towards it.

I'd rather them pay their taxes so people can keep their jobs. But I guess that's the governments lack of forward-thinking.

Government jobs aren't real jobs though. Again, just check the pages of the Guardian for the ridiculous government jobs that are advertised and the ridiculously high wages they are on. The only real jobs which create wealth are those in the private sector.

Every state funded job is at the expense of one or more private sector jobs.

[Ardemax]

And this is why spending is never cut properly, everyones for cuts but then if you touch their pet project ie Comic Relief - it's a no, don't cut that. How about Comic Relief being self funding via charity like its supposed to be on the tin?

I haven't the slightest interest in Comic Relief or Children in Need, and I don't want to be forced paying towards it.

You're not forced paying towards it? It's a rather depressing opinion to have, what with the ground it has covered in the last few years.

Government jobs aren't real jobs though. Again, just check the pages of the Guardian for the ridiculous government jobs that are advertised and the ridiculously high wages they are on. The only real jobs which create wealth are those in the private sector.

Every state funded job is at the expense of one or more private sector jobs.

Are you referring to public sector jobs not being real jobs? Without them, this country would crumble.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're not forced paying towards it? It's a rather depressing opinion to have, what with the ground it has covered in the last few years.

Provided no state funds are going towards it, I don't have a problem.

Are you referring to public sector jobs not being real jobs? Without them, this country would crumble.

Wrong, as most things can be done via the private sector. The Raj after all was run by a mere 1,000 odd civil servants. For every area (health, education etc) you decide to keep under state control - its costing you in terms of the fact that the now-smaller private sector has to pick up the tab for it. The point is, the more public sector you have - the bigger the burden placed on the wealth creating private sector.

[Ardemax]

Provided no state funds are going towards it, I don't have a problem.



Wrong, as most things can be done via the private sector. The Raj after all was run by a mere 1,000 odd civil servants. For every area (health, education etc) you decide to keep under state control - its costing you in terms of the fact that the now-smaller private sector has to pick up the tab for it. The point is, the more public sector you have - the bigger the burden placed on the wealth creating private sector.

So your suggestion would be... to fire all public sector workers and employ the equivalent in the private sector?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So your suggestion would be... to fire all public sector workers and employ the equivalent in the private sector?

Begin a programme where government departments are reduced by say 20% per year which allows the private sector then to slowly take up job losses and create new jobs for those who have just lost their jobs. I'm telling you now that its going to have to happen, its just whether we do it by choice or by no choice when we've gone bankrupt.

The amount of people who are employed in the public sector isn't sustainable.