| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Progressive vs the Conservative | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 15 2004, 06:41 AM (414 Views) | |
| ds9074 | May 17 2004, 10:30 AM Post #16 |
|
Admiral
|
5-16 years is compulsory, so thats primary school and secondary school. You can then go onto to further education if you wish (which would be mainly A-Levels in England, although might also refer to vocational training and apprenterships). In many places you also have the option of pre-school (4-5). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | May 17 2004, 10:36 AM Post #17 |
|
Admiral
|
It is free for the poorest who's parents will pay almost nothing in taxes. Sure you could afford to send your son to school, but the system of taxation and spending means that the costs of education are shared across society. Its redistributing wealth in a positive way. It means the poor can get a better education than they would be able to afford for themselves. How do I think the boundaries should be decided? By the votes of our elected representatives. That sounds like DEMOCRACY to me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | May 17 2004, 11:36 AM Post #18 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
^^ Do you have no property tax in England? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | May 17 2004, 11:48 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I guess this is where I agree with ds9074 in part. I think that having a well educated society can only help and is well worth the tax burden. BUT, I cannot speak for the UK, but as it is implemented here, I cannot agree that we should just give them a blank check. I think that our public education system is in trouble, some might even say a disaster in progress. We have a bloated bureaucracy, a lack of standards, a screwed up sense of priorities and rampant incompetence. And on the university level there is far too much focus on political correctness and tenure and not enough focus on actual education. I would support paying public school teachers what I make (I am a professional engineer so I am talking about doubling their pay), if they were properly educated and proven to be competent. And then with raises based on performance. On the other side of the coin, we need a cultural change. We need strict laws making parents do what they should already be doing anyway. I don't believe that any teacher can be effective if the parents don't care and won't live up to their responsibilities.
We must take back the schools and it won't be done by throwing money at it. It will be done with tough action though and parental involvement. I guess I just went off on a tangent, didn't I? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 17 2004, 02:39 PM Post #20 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. It works that the party in power makes the decision, not the elected representatives. Once again, that sounds like totalitarianism. As for education, I do NOT believe it is the federal government's job to decide who gets education money and who doesn't. There is no place in our constitution that says there is. This is a 10th Amendment issue. Leave it to individual states or communities to decide. (For those who don't know the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, it states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.") I have this loathing of redistribution of wealth. While I am all for education, I don't like a government bureaucracy making decisions. Why? Because one solution does not fit all, and when they try to fix one thing they complicate others. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | May 18 2004, 11:18 AM Post #21 |
|
Admiral
|
In reply to several of the points. Firstly yes there is a property tax of sorts which is related to the value of your home. The poorest families are exempt from these taxes. The only real tax the poorest pay are duties on alcohol, fuel, cigarettes and VAT. In any case the amount of money the pay is far out weighed by the value of the service they recieve. Secondly I am not working and am recieving support to be here at university. I am on a 3 year degree course which is a full time job in itself. There are however many people who choose to work to supplement their incomes (I choose to live cheaply). The deal is that once I start earning over a certain threshold not only will I have to pay tax but I will have to pay back the amount loaned to me (on 0% real interest basis) from the Government. That is reasonably fair. I agree that money should not just be thrown at schools. There has to be some control over how the money is spent. We have a system of a national curriculum laying out broadly what schools must teach and a national inspectorate which goes into schools ever few years to make sure standards are high. If the school underperforms a plan will be put in place for improvement, if it keeps underperforming then new management may be put in. Although on the basis on spending we dont rank very highly the UK school system consistantly comes out as one of the best performing. We want to keep it that way and improve it because a country with skilled and educated people will be more prosperous in the long run. The limits of the state are decided democratically. Take this example. In the USA if a candidate was to take the line that the whole US health system was to come under Government control (ie nationalisation) and taxes would rise accordingly then would almost certainly loose - right? If a UK party was to propose that the NHS be fully privatised and taxes would fall accordingly then they would also certainly loose. Clearly the UK electorate has decided over a period of time that the extent of the state should be more than the US electorate would wish. Democracy and freedom in action. The reason we have a welfare state is because after the second world war a Labour Government was elected by a landslide to create one. The reason we no longer have such a big state sector as say France or Italy is because a in the 1980's the Conservative Governments were elected with large majorities to reduce the size of the state. The reason public spending is now increasing in the UK is not because of some Communist tyranny or because of a totalitarian Government - it is because the Labour party was elected by an overwealming majority and the tax cuts of the Conservatives were rejected by the voters. At the next election the Conservatives are talking about rapidly slowing the growth in spending while Labour and the Liberal Democrats would continue to increase public spending. It will be for the electorate to decide who forms the next Government. That shows the UK to be a liberal democracy. Both sides will argue their case and try to generate support for their position but come the General Election ist the voters who decide which course the country should follow. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | May 18 2004, 11:29 AM Post #22 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I’m sorry I don’t buy this "school is a full time job" belly aching many students use as an excuse to not work. I went to school for 4 years as an electrical engineer major (which is quite hard I might add) while working 25 30 40 hours (depending what job I had). Its hard work yes, but it as very do able. So the government actually encourages not working while you go to school, and penalizes those who wish to be responsible? Here in the States you can defer lone payments until after you are already done with school, so this does not encourage students to not work while they are in school. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | May 18 2004, 06:25 PM Post #23 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
sorry for the late reply. For some reason, Im only notified about posts on an intermittent basis. My argument is this. Marraige is an institution The state recognizes this instituion and protects it with laws. When the state recognizes an instituion and protects it with laws, it forces its citizens to support as legitimate, such an istitution. When the state extends the rights and priveleges of an institution to a group whose behevior is considered, by many, to be immoral, it forces individuals to act against their own moral compass. Rather than being an agent to protect rights, the state becomes an agant of "forced" social engineering. In effect becoming thought police by enforcing actions deemed moral by the state. If polygamy were recognized by the state it would force those who are morally opposed to the act to deal with the actors as moral equals rather then allowing one group to ostrasize the other. ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | May 19 2004, 04:59 AM Post #24 |
|
Admiral
|
I disagree, University *in the form I know it* is a full time occupation in itself. The volume of lectures, reading, assignments, exam prep etc is large. If I was working I could not put 100% into my course. Perhaps its different if you have a 4 year course but 3 years is a short time span in which to gain an honours degree. Working in holidays yes, working in terms no. I dont think you quite understood what I was saying about loans. What happens is that the Government loans me about £4000 per year on a 0% interest basis. Once I graduate, and then once I earn more than £15000 the loan becomes payable as a % of income. I effectivley pay an extra few % income tax until the loan amount is settled. Lets not start a big debate on gay marriage because that would be off topic but I would say this to you. Yes in some ways by extending marriage people are being forced to recognise something as you say many people feel is "immoral", and you claim amounts to thought police. I would put the counter argument that to deny people the right to marry, and to ostrasize them because of their sexuality is immoral and wrong and that if the state was to deny these right then it WOULD be acting as though police. It would in effect be condoning the idea that homosexuality is immoral. As a liberal I would say this, homosexuality is not doing people harm or preventing other people from getting on with their lives. In those circumstances whether we personally feel it is immoral we should not try and impose that view. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | May 19 2004, 05:33 AM Post #25 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
So so YOU think thayt YOUR moral code is the correct one and that hudnreds of years of precedence (even the Greeks didn't allow gay marraige) becuse YOU are more enlightened then those who disagree with YOU. These unenlightend people must be forced to conform with YOUR version of morality. Whereas the status quo would still allow cohabitaion, but refuse state mandated actions. Once again statism used to enforce the liberal view on the rest of the populace. ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | May 19 2004, 06:59 AM Post #26 |
|
Admiral
|
I obviously think my moral code is correct (basically, although I try to be open to argument) but I dont think it should be imposed on anyone, nor do I think I am more enlightened than anyone else. I simply say that the moral code which says homosexuality is immoral should not be imposed on anyone either. So if no-one is imposing their moral code on anyone else then we can take away that argument. Given that I cannot see any reason why gay marriage, or at least civil unions with the same legal status as marriage, should not be allowed. People should be free to act unless there is a good reason for that action to be prohibited - I dont see one. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | May 19 2004, 08:13 AM Post #27 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I think we have all been this route before. Who is to say which moral code is correct? None of us, that's for sure. However, getting away from morality and looking at the legal privledges that come with marriage changes the picture. I know we have already argued the definition of marriage in a previous thread. All I am going to say is that no matter what you call it (marriage or civil union) all people deserve the same legal rights. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | May 19 2004, 08:25 AM Post #28 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
^^^ Personal Observation I don't disagree with you, but that is not truly what is being discussed. As a single person, I am regularly discriminated at work (and arguebly in society) for not being married. Rather than bring another portion of the public into the realm of getting those benefits (and putting an even greater burden on those not included), why not simply make it so each individual person has the same legal rights? End of Personal Observation |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | May 19 2004, 08:30 AM Post #29 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
^^^Well, it's hard to give a single person things like spousal/partner insurance coverage and inheritance rights. In what ways are you discriminated against at work and in society? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | May 19 2004, 09:04 AM Post #30 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
^^ Personal Response If all employees are equal, all employees should get the same benefits. My employer subsidizes the cost of insurance for people with families. (Example), I get $50 per month - a married person get the same $50 (no complaint about that) as well as $50 X every member of the his/her family. (The actual monetary difference is much higher.) Who's going to cover an early morning meeting? Not the one with kids to get off to school. I covered meetings for people on projects I never heard of before the day before. Kids in soccer - of course, you need to be there. Wichita can do it - she doesn't have a "family". In my last job, no event with my family was free from possible cancellation unless it involved one of my parents being hospitalized. I've even been pulled away from projects to do other people's jobs because they were sitting in front of client - making them wait - while they talked on the phone with the kids or spouse. As to society - I've walked out of restaurants that I was first in line at because there no tables for one, but there are for 4, 6, 8, or 27 who are in the groups behind me. I've hired contractors to do work that neighbors have done for others for free because "they have families". I could go on ... End of Personal Observation |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




9:12 AM Jul 11