What does our UK contingent...

[che]

At the moment this couldn't happen in uk. We are the middle of a Gov. spending review, (Massive Cutbacks!) this includes all large scale ICT projects. Therefore maybe when we've balanced our deficit they'll try it again.

[Squeamous]

I think this boils down to a few salient questions:

Do you feel you, as a free individual, should be subservient a "system"?

A system formulated and operated by those we generously refer to as "politicians"?

I, for one, do not.

All I see is the slippery slope of outright socialism.

I don't see what this has at all to do with socialism, although as a socialist I wish it did.

What I see here is HMRC attempting to redistribute money from business to the country's coffers in a more streamlined and accurate way. If I were being cynical I might mention that by getting its hands on the cash up to 12 months in advance it is also getting its hands on the interest it will accrue if say, the money was still not classed as 'available' until the end of the tax year. I can see why businesses would be pissed off, because they have less virtual money hanging around to play with. It seems similar to the way the banks hold our cheques in transit before crediting them to our accounts to squeeze a bit more out of us. The Student Loans company already does a similar thing by not crediting accounts until the end of the tax year, meaning the student is still being charged interest throughout the year on parts of a loan they paid off in April.

As for the 'don't make me part of the system man....!' stuff, as has already been said, we are all part of a system. As Doug Stanhope says, the only time you're not part of a system is the split second you come screaming out of your mother's womb. It's best to just get over it and accept it.

[j2k4]

All I see is the slippery slope of outright socialism.

I don't see what this has at all to do with socialism, although as a socialist I wish it did.

What I see here is HMRC attempting to redistribute money from business to the country's coffers in a more streamlined and accurate way. If I were being cynical I might mention that by getting its hands on the cash up to 12 months in advance it is also getting its hands on the interest it will accrue if say, the money was still not classed as 'available' until the end of the tax year. I can see why businesses would be pissed off, because they have less virtual money hanging around to play with. It seems similar to the way the banks hold our cheques in transit before crediting them to our accounts to squeeze a bit more out of us. The Student Loans company already does a similar thing by not crediting accounts until the end of the tax year, meaning the student is still being charged interest throughout the year on parts of a loan they paid off in April.

As for the 'don't make me part of the system man....!' stuff, as has already been said, we are all part of a system. As Doug Stanhope says, the only time you're not part of a system is the split second you come screaming out of your mother's womb. It's best to just get over it and accept it.

Good God, um, (I-can't remember-your-name-and-I-feel-horrible-about-it).

You know, I recall you (no, not you, but Sonja) recently made a case somewhere on this board about your bottom-line distaste for anal sex.

Some others of us agree on that particular point, and wish our fiscal-anal orifices to remain unsullied.

Is it too much to ask.




















Oh, ffs.

[bigboab]

All I see is the slippery slope of outright socialism.

The unfortunate should not have to depend on good samaritans. Not too many of those around at the moment.

[j2k4]

All I see is the slippery slope of outright socialism.

The unfortunate should not have to depend on good samaritans. Not too many of those around at the moment.

I will settle for saying, then, that federal samaritanism is inefficient and inadequate, and I'd rather see it handled at the state level.

[clocker]

The unfortunate should not have to depend on good samaritans. Not too many of those around at the moment.

I will settle for saying, then, that federal samaritanism is inefficient and inadequate, and I'd rather see it handled at the state level.

Is your state solvent enough to handle the load?

[j2k4]

I will settle for saying, then, that federal samaritanism is inefficient and inadequate, and I'd rather see it handled at the state level.

Is your state solvent enough to handle the load?

If the feds would cooperate, absolutely.

[clocker]

What sort of "cooperation" did you have in mind?

Your state has one of the nation's highest unemployment rates, your school system ranks in the bottom third and your infrastructure (roads, waterways and pollution control) is dismal.

How does a state cope with these sorts of issues without federal aid?
Especially while lowering taxes.

Just curious.

[j2k4]

Let us keep our own money without feeding the D.C. bureaucracy.

Just out of curiosity, where does "federal" money come, from, mon frere?

[clocker]

From federal taxes, silly person.
I'm not sure what your ratio is but I know that Alaska gets $6 back for every $1 they submit.
Love to see how Sarah would work with just the money produced instate without the federal subsidies she claims to hate so much.

I would suspect that your state also gets back more than it sends in.

So, let's get that damned federal bureaucracy off your humble back...how do you fund a crumbling infrastructure with a highly unemployed populace and corporations fleeing the state to go overseas?