Educating People About Taxes

 General, Politics  No Responses »
Jan 182007
 

Everyone hates paying taxes. To be honest nothing is going to change that at all, but there are a few things that could be done to improve the situation. At present people want to pay as little tax as possible, whilst having well funded public services. Which is kind of foolish and impossible to achieve; of course there are ways in which to make public services more efficient but that is a whole other rant.

I should point out at this point, that I’m somewhat partial here as my own salary comes indirectly from taxation (and pretty stingy the tax-payers are too), but that is also a whole other rant.

The funny thing is that when you start working, you get a nasty shock when you get your first payslip about how much disappears in the direction of the government and nobody is there to explain what you get for your money. Why not include classes in school about what taxation gets us ?

All that taxation does provide us with useful services which include :-

  • A public health service that anyone can use at no cost or vastly reduced cost.
  • A police service intended to protect us from criminals.
  • Armed forced to defend us from external threats.
  • A social security system to provide us with a safety net in case we cannot earn an income.
  • An education system that educates everyone.

And I dare say I’ve left loads out … I nearly forgot education where I work! But we don’t get told about what we get for our money, we are expected to “just know”. Of course it some ways it is obvious, but why not make it clearer ?

In fact why not make the yearly pay slip (the P60) larger and include rough figures for how much we paid for each service ? If you get something that says you paid £10,000 in tax, of which £1,500 went to pay for Health, etc., we are more likely to be less critical of taxation.

Honours For Cash ? Why Not ?

 Politics  No Responses »
Dec 142006
 

We have a long running issue in the UK with honours allegedly being exchanged for cash contributions to certain political parties. This is hardly a new thing, and has been regularly repeated throughout history. And the original “Lords” certainly needed plenty of cash to maintain their position … it is rarely mentioned, but honours have been removed when a Lord lost too much money.

Personally I suspect that it has always been the case that if you were careful and ‘helpful’ to the party in power, it has always been possible to exchange your surplus cash for an honour.

So why not make it official ? Making honours something you can buy will stop all the backdoor deals that probably go on in exchange for honours.

Make someone who wants to sit in the House of Lords, pay up £5 million. Of that, £3 million goes either to the political party of their choice, or into the general tax funds; £1 million goes towards the cost of maintaining the Lords.

The final £1 million goes to a random person selected from the electoral register, gets a title, and must sit in the House of Lords. They could probably do with a salary as well (which is where the ‘maintenance’ comes in).

This kills two birds with one stone … takes the sleaze out of the honours system, and helps counter-balance the tendency of the Lords to be weighed down with establishment cronies. It tastes better to me than the idea of making the House of Lords just another house full of politicians … whilst the old Lords packed full of establishment cronies is a pretty bad thing, one thing that is good about it, is the relative freedom from party politics. And adding some good old common sense from the common people to keep the excesses of the politicians in check is worth trying.

Slavery

 History, Politics  No Responses »
Nov 272006
 

The UK prime minister has just released a ‘statement of regret’ for Britain’s participation in the slave trade which is fair enough … after all slavery was and continues to be a crime against humanity. Some are calling for him to go further and issue a full apology and hand out reparations, which is where things get a little tricky.

The history of slavery is a little more complicated than just excessively greedy British merchants sailing to Africa, seizing millions of Africans and dragging them across the Atlantic to live and die in atrocious conditions. For a start, many of those merchants bought their slaves from native slave traders who had been in business for many years already.

In Africa it was common for African tribes or nations to enslave prisoners of war (a common practice in many other parts of the world) and sell those slaves on to slave traders who would them take them East or later West for resale. As many if not more slaves were sold East to Arab slave traders as were sold West to European slave traders.

In addition, the pirates of North Africa had their own slave trade by seizing Europeans from sea or land and selling them into slavery in their own markets. Whilst not of the same scale as the outgoing trade from Africa, it still counts as a crime against humanity for each of the estimated 1.5 million victims. Including a number of US citizens … the Barbary Pirate attacks on US ships was the chief reason why the US Navy was started.

In fact slavery or similar states (serfdom, enforced contractual slavery, etc) has been so widespread that there are very few parts of the world that did not have slavery at some point in the past, and probably very few of us who do not have slaves as ancestors.

So when we talk of reparations for the crime of slavery, who should pay ? And who should be paid ? It is not an easy question to answer. Of course Britain is included amongst the group of debtors, but do we get credit for the amount of efforts Britain made to abolish the slave trade ? And what about the other slave traders … other Europeans, Arabs, and Africans ?

Jack Straw and The Niqab

 Politics, Religion  1 Response »
Oct 062006
 

Jack Straw (the UK politician) has recently written an article on Muslim women wearing the Niqab (the full face veil) which has drawn a certain amount of attention. I don’t think he meant any more than to start a discussion and point out certain effects that the Niqab has on conventional British society. I am certainly not going to say that Muslim woman cannot wear anything they want … that’s a personal decision for them to make. I have no more right to decide that for them, than they do to decide I should wear something other than jeans.

However there are a few things that come to mind on this subject …

Wearing The Niqab In Public

Before going on to discuss the real issue here, I will mention something else … the Niqab is widely perceived as being a symbol of the Islamic tendency to repress women’s rights. Now I know that isn’t the case, but it is perhaps something that needs to be emphasised more — that it is a freely made choice made by the women who wear it. Perhaps Muslim men could consider wearing it ? After all if modesty is a worthy trait in Muslim women, surely it is also worthwhile for Muslim men ?

Now for the real issue here, and I’d like to emphasise that it is a minor thing.

Historically in UK society, nobody conceals their face (except in extreme weather) unless they are intentionally hiding their identity with some nefarious purpose in mind. The groups of people who conceal their face include medieval outlaws, highwaymen, thieves, bank robbers, the KKK, and Muslim women!! Now of course it is ridiculous to say that Muslim women conceal their faces because they’ve got some evil inclination, but at an unconscious level it does come across as just a little sinister.

Of course if a Muslim woman is deeply convinced that the Niqab is essential, she should carry on wearing it. But if a Muslim woman is not quite so sure and undecided, it may be worth considering this when making her decision.

Wearing The Niqab For A Face-To-Face Meeting

When we communicate, part of the communication is the spoken language and part is body language … mostly found in the face. If you doubt this, just dip into any book on basic psychology and check … it will be there. Anyone who has communicated online in the same manner as they would do when speaking to someone will have encountered situations where their communication has been mis-interpreted because of the lack of body language.

In a society where people are not used to people choosing to cover their face, conversing with someone who does is off-putting. Covering the face comes across to the rest of us as “I don’t want to communicate with you” and could be considered to be impolite … as impolite in fact as asking someone to to remove the Niqab.

Muslim women who wear the Niqab in public should at least consider removing it to talk to someone who may not be a Muslim. Wearing the Niqab is about maintaining a certain level of modesty in the presence of strange men; removing it to talk to a Muslim man could be considered to be immodest, but nobody who is not a Muslim would consider it so … look around you at what other women in our society wear!

After all there are many Muslim women who don’t consider wearing the Niqab to be necessary, and suggesting to them that by not doing so makes them less a Muslim, and perhaps immodest to boot could be a little dangerous! For a multi-cultural society to function smoothly, we need to be considerate of each other’s cultural backgrounds and patterns of behaviour, and that goes both ways.

This is not saying Muslim women should remove the Niqab when talking face to face with someone, just that they should consider it and perhaps explain why they wear it (after all not everybody knows).

Hysterical Reactions

Judging by the way that some leaders of Muslim society react, anyone would think that Jack Straw had suggested that women wearing the Niqab should be stoned in the streets, or fined! Jumping up and down, screaming “Islamophobia” at someone suggesting that one aspect of Islam may not be helpful in the UK is hardly a moderate reaction. In fact it is a very unBritish reaction and grates on the nerves.

Something more like “I don’t think Jack Straw understands how deeply we feel about the Niqab” or “That’s interesting, we should think about that” come across much better to the British people.

Fundamentalists Are The Enemy

 Politics, Religion  No Responses »
Sep 092006
 

There are many people today are worried about what fundamentalist moslems are up to with their suicide bombers, insistence on sharia law, and general intolerance. They are half right.

We don’t have to worry about muslims any more than we have to worry about christians, hindus, or buddhists. It is the fundamentalists that we should be worried about. Whatever religion they claim as their own, their real religion is fundamentalism. It is not enough for them to worship their god, but they want to impose their god on everyone else without regard to how impractical that is.

And the more extreme fundamentalists are prepared to go to almost any lengths to get to their goal … a world that only tolerates the worship of one god and has no tolerance for any diversity. They don’t recognise and are not capable of recognising that people of a different religeon can be worthy in any way or even have any right to exist.

Whether it is desireable or not, such a world cannot and will never exist because there are more than one kind of fundamentalist in the world, and some of us will not tolerate being told what god to worship. The only result a fundamentalist is capable of producing is ferrocious conflict between like-minded “nutters of god” who just happen to worship different gods.

 Newer Entries