Charge companies for public services

There is all this talk in the press about how little tax large companies pay in the UK.

Why do Governments use such a complicated, subjective and uncertain thing as taxation to collect money from companies? Companies always have more resources to avoid tax than Governments have to enforce the rules.

Wouldn't it be so much simpler to charge companies for the public services they consume - roads, sewage, railways, education, pollution, public administration etc?

There would be no scope for evasion and no opportunity to "move" income or profits to other countries. Governments could be confident of how much income they would receive. Companies consume public services regardless of how much profit they make. Indeed a loss-making company (just like a sick person) may consume more public services than it would if it was profitable.

Think of the savings. There would be no need for the army of Revenue officials who try to police compliance with the complex company tax rules. And more importantly there would be no need for the thousands of expensive tax consultants and lawyers that companies use to figure out how to get around the rules.

If Government wants to provide incentives for new or ailing businesses it could easily give grants or soft loans - which would also be much easier to administer.

What's wrong with the Olympics

There is so much wrong with the Olympics that it's hard to know where to start.

When you think of the strife in Afghanistan and Syria, children starving in Africa (as usual) and even closer to home the tensions over the Euro in Europe and over terrorism and immigration in the UK wouldn't it be better if all the athletes held hands and all crossed the finish line at the same time?

The Olympics is a convenient political distraction to take our minds off the real world (hunger, poor housing, long working hours, under-educated children, greedy millionaires, damage to the planet, to mention just a few) and the failure of politicians and wealthy corporations and individuals to care about anything but their own well being.

Our complex brains are what separate us humans from all other species. Why then do we feast on an event that focuses only on our animal capabilities? - who can run fastest, jump highest, hit hardest! Why not physics, mathematics, chemistry or poetry?

Not only does the Olympics focus on our animal capabilities but it actually encourages the worst aspects of our animal nature - elitism, personal agression, self-obsession and tribalism all of which serve to separate people rather than unite them.

The Olympics also encourages the animal instinct to focus on now rather than the future. Give me all I need to win the race today rather than consuming judiciously and sharing for the long term benefit of all humans and all species.

These "selfish" capabilities make eminent sense for the survival of dumb animals with no control over their environment. But they must be curbed in humans because our intelligence enables us to be so destructive.

It can't be right to encourage young men and women to force their bodies to such excesses. How can we take enjoyment from other people's pain? When interviewed after the medals are awarded every athlete says they are sore from the effort (except the horses - who are never asked!).

It can't be right to provide large amounts of public money to finance athletes' training - effectively making them into professionals. The money could be much better spent developing children's brains - reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic - and providing a long-term quality of life rather than two weeks of TV every 4 years.

It can't be right to encourage children to emulate the elitism of the Olympics. It is a low trick to encourage children to imagine they could do the same when every politician in every country knows that no Government could afford the funding to give every child the financial support enjoyed by Olympic athletes. In any case very few children have the natural ability to be Olympic athletes.

The Olympics is about excessive exercise and has nothing to do with healthy exercise. Healthy exercise is free or cheap and does not need competition.

The people who benefit from the Olympics (sponsors, athletes, construction firms, journalists etc) all pretend that the Olympics is about winners. But its real purpose is to create lots of losers because that's the only way you can have a winner. And only a tiny percentage of the planet's population can even compete at the Olympics. Surely our efforts should be focused on ordinary people, not a few self-obsessed individuals whose only ambition is to beat the other guy.

When people in Africa are starving how can we justify spending so much money on a 2-week sports event? The billions spent on the Olympics by Britain alone would probably be sufficient to permanently solve hunger in Africa.

When people are being killed in places like Syria and Afghanistan how can we allow gun "sports" to be part of the Olympics? Guns were invented for one purpose only - killing!

If the Olympics is about peace and friendship how can we have "sports" that involve fighting? The only purpose of boxing, for example, is to see how much you can hurt the other person.

When we are concerned about human damage to the planet how can we condone the extravagant consumption that is part and parcel of the Olympics. Large corporations use the Olympics to enhance their profits by brainwashing us into buying expensive "sports" drinks, clothing, footwear etc. that we don't need and which provide no material benefits compared to cheaper or free (water) alternatives.

The whole ethos of the Olympics encourages those who already have more than everyone else to strive for even more - the complete antithesis of balance among humans and between humans and the planet.

Jubilee Pageant

Such a shame nobody told the BBC that the Jubilee pageant would involve a parade of boats. 

If they had been forewarned I'm sure they would have given the commentators details of each boat such as 

    - when it was made, 

    - who owns it, 

    - how old it is, 

    - where it had come from 

    - and interesting tidbits. 

The sort of information that would be normal at a horse race!

No doubt they'll do better next time!

High Pay

This argument about RBS Chief Executive Stephen Hester's bonus of £963,000 on top of his salary of £1.2m ......

Why does anyone need to be paid more than (say) £240,000 a year?

That's about 20 times the minimum wage.

I am all in favour of people being paid more for doing more. But isn't there enough room for performance-related pay between £12,000 and £240,000?

At a salary of £240,000 you can't buy anything that someone earning £24,000 can't buy. You can only buy more expensive versions of the same thing, or more copies of them. And the reality is that many things are given a high price just to make them attractive to people with more money.

Whatever about unfettered salary levels in the private sector nobody in the public sector (paid or supported by the taxpayer) should be paid more than 20 times the minimum wage. It should be a badge of honour for senior politicians and public servants to serve the public in return for a modest salary.

Euroselfish

The Europhobes in the UK who routinely complain about the Euro and and EU rules and regulations are the sort who reckon they can make more profit at the other person's expense when they they don't have to play by the other person's rules.

In contrast the Germans, French etc. think there should be a level playing field.

Toilet Doors and Architects

Why do the doors in toilet cubicles in Ireland and the UK open inwards. In all civilized countries they open outwards.

When the door opens inwards you usually have to rub the bowl with your legs to get enough space to close the door. And if you have bags with you it becomes a major contortionist act.

Perhaps architects take an oath not to travel abroad in case they get contaminated with good ideas? Especially those that cost nothing to implement!

Spend Spend Spend

Why did David Cameron drop the idea that people should reduce their credit card debt?

Isn't that excellent advice?

Isn't that exactly what his Government is doing?

Isn't excessive debt the root cause of the world's current financial problems?

I can't help feeling that some vested interest (bankers?) stepped in to make the PM change his mind.

And why is everyone fixated on economic growth? Shouldn't we design our economic policies so that we all live comfortably with zero growth?

Why is it necessary for profits to be bigger year after year?

A society with a zero-growth economy would be a lot less damaging to the environment and would probably also be free of the pressures that regularly put thousands on the dole in the name of greater efficiency.

There is an expression "never waste a crisis". Isn't the present economic situation a glorious opportunity to wean the economy from its perpetual need for growth?