Hate On Me For Believing In A Minimalist Government

[lynx]

there's a situation in the UK now where they're planning to put congestion charges on trains. i always thought one major reason we paid so much road tax and fuel duty was to fund (subsidise?) public transport. shouldn't they spend that money on longer trains rather than force them off/charge people more?

hmm, maybe i should have started a new topic

On trains?????????????

I thought the congestion charge in cities was to get people onto trains

You better believe it.

Now the train companies are saying they won't be able to cope, so they will have to put in some sort of congestion charge too.

Just an excuse for a price hike really.

[GepperRankins]

i don't really think it's a case of "how much do we need" as "how much will these suckas pay"


does stelios whatsisname do trains? he should, show those barstewards up

[vidcc]

so is it the private companies or government doing the train charge?

[GepperRankins]

i don't really know enough about it. i know the train companies are private, and i think they might even be subsidised by the government. i think this thing about congestion charging is private companies approaching the government or something along those lines


just make longer trains i say, but i'm not incompetent or greedy

[Rat Faced]

JPaul,

believe it or not.. out of the 7.25% GDP spent on Health in this country in 2000 (according to National Audit Office)...

5.25% was through Taxation

0.5% was through Social Insurance (NI)

0.25% was through Private Insurance

1% was through out of pocket patient expenses

0.25% was through "Other Private Payments" (I assume that this is when you go private but dont have insurance and pay cash)


These figures are approximate, as i've translated them by eye from a bar chart in this document.


This comparison shows that the USA pays more from Government, per head of population, to cover 33% of the population than we do to cover everyone.

The "benefits" i cant see... we have more hospital beds per 1000 population and the length of stay in hospital for acute illness is longer, hence our life expectancy is longer.

Out of the 10 countries compared, and the UK was not the best by far... The USA appears to have the highest child mortality and the least life expectancy.



I've said it before and i'll say it again... the only thing wrong with the US system is the backhanders to politicians from the drug companies and other medical institutions to ensure they make big profits.

As i said before, the government money per head spent is higher in USA..and they spend the same amount in Private Insurance which means they have almost double the amount per head of funding... for what?

They are getting ripped off.

This is even more relevant when you look at the cost of Private insurance here and there... its twice as expensive for similar cover in the USA on average.

[Busyman]

JPaul,

believe it or not.. out of the 7.25% GDP spent on Health in this country in 2000 (according to National Audit Office)...

5.25% was through Taxation

0.5% was through Social Insurance (NI)

0.25% was through Private Insurance

1% was through out of pocket patient expenses

0.25% was through "Other Private Payments" (I assume that this is when you go private but dont have insurance and pay cash)


These figures are approximate, as i've translated them by eye from a bar chart in this document.


This comparison shows that the USA pays more from Government, per head of population, to cover 33% of the population than we do to cover everyone.

The "benefits" i cant see... we have more hospital beds per 1000 population and the length of stay in hospital for acute illness is longer, hence our life expectancy is longer.

Out of the 10 countries compared, and the UK was not the best by far... The USA appears to have the highest child mortality and the least life expectancy.



I've said it before and i'll say it again... the only thing wrong with the US system is the backhanders to politicians from the drug companies and other medical institutions to ensure they make big profits.

As i said before, the government money per head spent is higher in USA..and they spend the same amount in Private Insurance which means they have almost double the amount per head of funding... for what?

They are getting ripped off.

This is even more relevant when you look at the cost of Private insurance here and there... its twice as expensive for similar cover in the USA on average.

There are many ways of getting ripped off. America has (as most do) government bloat but...

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Details of the British royal family's travel budget -- including a £300,000 ($550,000) trip by Prince Charles -- have been revealed, prompting critics to demand the monarchy trim its spending.

Buckingham Palace said Wednesday that the figures, which showed the royal family cost each taxpayer just 61 pence ($1.12) a year, proved Queen Elizabeth and her household were providing good value for money.

But critics seized on details of the £5 million transport costs.

The most expensive was a trip to Sri Lanka, Australia and Fiji by heir-to-the-throne Charles which involved chartering a plane costing more than £292,000.

It also showed the queen's second son Andrew, who was criticized last year for expenses incurred on his golf trips, spent £125,000 chartering a flight to the Far East to promote British interests.

Lawmaker Ian Davidson, a member of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party, said the monarchy provided "reasonable value" but called the expenditure of the junior members of the royal family "indefensible".

He also described the royal train, used just 19 times over the year, as "a gross extravagance".

"We ought to have more of the royals using normal trains then perhaps they would put pressure on the powers that be to make sure the train service was improved for everyone," he told the BBC.

The death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash in 1997 marked a turning point in public opinion and led to attacks on the monarchy's wealth and demands that it become more open and accountable.

Shortly afterwards, the queen agreed to scrap her beloved royal yacht Britannia rather than ask the public to pay £60 million for a replacement.

The Royal Public Finances annual report said the queen's family cost the taxpayer £36.7 million in 2004-5, a £100,000 saving from the previous year, with the vast bulk of the money going towards the upkeep of the royal palaces.

It was also 60 percent less than in 1991-2 when the expenditure amounted to £87.3 million.

"We believe this represents a value-for-money monarchy," said Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, who looks after the queen's finances.

"We're not looking to provide the cheapest monarchy. We're looking at one of good value and good quality."

You guys pay for upkeep of the Royal Family?
Why? Parliament already gets paid and they are your legislature, right?

[MCHeshPants420]

You guys pay for upkeep of the Royal Family?
Why? Parliament already gets paid and they are your legislature, right?

Apparently they are good as a tourist attraction, so we get our moneys worth out of them. Only £36.7 million? I thought it would have been much more.

[Busyman]

You guys pay for upkeep of the Royal Family?
Why? Parliament already gets paid and they are your legislature, right?

Apparently they are good as a tourist attraction, so we get our moneys worth out of them. Only £36.7 million? I thought it would have been much more.

I can understand the assets just not the people.

$67.1 million in the last financial year.

[MCHeshPants420]

Apparently they are good as a tourist attraction, so we get our moneys worth out of them. Only £36.7 million? I thought it would have been much more.

I can understand the assets just not the people.

$67.1 million in the last financial year.

It does look like their free-loading days are coming to an end if you see the drop in what they got over 10 years ago.

Personally I think we should sack the lot of them and get impersonators to do the job for minimum wage.

[vidcc]

Apparently they are good as a tourist attraction, so we get our moneys worth out of them. Only £36.7 million? I thought it would have been much more.

I can understand the assets just not the people.

$67.1 million in the last financial year.

the money you talk of is spent on official duties as well as for official (supposedly heritage and owned by the country) assets.

Under the Civil List Acts, The Duke of Edinburgh receives an annual parliamentary allowance to enable him to carry out public duties. Since 1993, The Queen has repaid to the Treasury the annual parliamentary allowances received by other members of the Royal Family.

In 2000 the annual amounts payable to members of the Royal Family (which are set every ten years) were reset at their 1990 levels for the next ten years, until December 2010. Apart from an increase of £45,000 on the occasion of The Earl of Wessex's marriage, these amounts remain as follows:

Parliamentary annuity (not repaid by The Queen)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh £359,000

Parliamentary annuities (repaid by The Queen)
HRH The Duke of York £249,000
HRH The Earl of Wessex £141,000
HRH The Princess Royal £228,000
TRH The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, TRH The Duke
and Duchess of Kent and HRH Princess Alexandra
*£636,000

* Of the £636,000, £175,000 is provided by The Queen to The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, £236,000 to The Duke and Duchess of Kent and £225,000 to Princess Alexandra.

As with the Civil List itself, most of these sums are spent on staff who support public engagements and correspondence.

source

the money isn't just handed out as a freebie, it is to perform duties and pay for employment of those that support those duties..... It does not go to the royal family pockets

Our president (one man) probably costs us more in one year in personal flights/security when he heads to his Crawford ranch than the entire household bill of all the UK royal family costs for official duties.