The lack of economic knowledge in the post actually pains me...
National Service
- Thread starter mlbtheshow
- Start date
The lack of economic knowledge in the post actually pains me...
You have faster fingers than me! Well said...
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
I am in favour of national service. My scheme would be something like -
1 year mandatory service at 18 with a choice between civil or military branches. A further 1 year optional service with those completing the optional year getting their higher education, apprenticeship or similar fully funded.
The underlying concept of this national service would be that it would give people much needed discipline, create greater social cohesion (shared experience) and foster a sense of responsible citizenry. They'd also learn some professional skills to help their employment opportunities.
There would be no burden on our professional armed forces, as these national service troops would be ring fenced and primarily used in a support and reserve capacity.
Those in the civil service would get involved in a range of tasks from litter picking through to track laying, social house building and cleaning hospitals.
I appreciate most people would oppose being 'forced' into doing national service. But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I resent having to be taxes, but I do.
1 year mandatory service at 18 with a choice between civil or military branches. A further 1 year optional service with those completing the optional year getting their higher education, apprenticeship or similar fully funded.
The underlying concept of this national service would be that it would give people much needed discipline, create greater social cohesion (shared experience) and foster a sense of responsible citizenry. They'd also learn some professional skills to help their employment opportunities.
There would be no burden on our professional armed forces, as these national service troops would be ring fenced and primarily used in a support and reserve capacity.
Those in the civil service would get involved in a range of tasks from litter picking through to track laying, social house building and cleaning hospitals.
I appreciate most people would oppose being 'forced' into doing national service. But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I resent having to be taxes, but I do.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Even if the MP's gave up their entire salary and we scrapped the civil list, we'd make no real dent on the deficit. You seem to be grossly ignorant about the numbers involved.
This, also in relative terms, high profile MP's earn pittance compared to comparable positions in London.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
Then what difference is taxing a percentage of tax credits away from a working house going to make? A household with workers who could potentially pay more tax in future if they can continue their career path and not have to give it up.
What difference will hammering a household with a disabled member make? £50 a month to the coffers is nothing to them, but a world to the people in the house.
Recall the speech "we're in it together"... no we are not Dave!! If we were, you would not allow a pay rise in parliament under the current circumstances.
Their pay should be performance driven, target driven in total transparency. Not touching rent boys for a bit doesn't constitute good performance or value for the taxpayer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
No they don't. They get a second property to live in within the City and often live elsewhere. Their cost of living is more than taken care of.
Their standard salary is £74,000 a year plus expenses. "Pittance" you say.
The NHS equivalent would be a band 9 job in which life and death decisions are made daily. Big difference.
Last edited:
So what does this have to do with National Service?
Or have you just used this as pedestal to gripe about benefits and the Government?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
The conversation lead here when people started on about putting the unemployed into various forms of servitude.
I'd have hoped some army style discipline would have been good for them.
It's a bad idea sending people who don't want to be there and ill prepared to the front line.
I'd say it is even worse training uneducated and unmotivated people with no values or respect how to maim/kill. Some of them won't have an 'off' switch.
£100,000 is fairly average for any top position in the big smoke, it doesn't take much Googling to figure out how much Ex Prime Ministers are on - probably millions.
Yeah, train and pay a bunch of soldiers who don't want to be there, don't give a **** about being good and probably object to whatever ridiculous war we're involved in. WHAT A GOOD IDEA, THAT WON'T END BADLY.
Never mind the rising poverty and drop in real standards of living for the vast majority of society. We must have it so easy when every day more and more people flood to foodbanks because they can't get a job or the job they have doesn't pay enough for them to survive.
Maybe you have it easy, many people do not - there are a great many people fighting for survival in the UK, fighting to keep a roof over their head and their families head after a sick conservative government abandoned anyone who wasn't wealthy. I guess it's true, they're only making plans for Nigel and guess what? Nigel doesn't pay tax or keep his money local. There's a reason this country is so ****ed.
Tit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
How about you actually support your argument with the actual figures involved?
The monarchy costs us about £40m p/a and MP's account for about £140m (the majority of which is for offices and expenses).
Now even if we scrapped the monarchy, we'd still need to pay for a head of state. In Germany, theirs costs £26m and has very little international clout. So actually, that £40m sounds pretty good to me!
Our MP's are amongst the lowest paid in the West, and I am sure you don't begrudge them having offices and staff right? So I'd struggle to see how we can cut that bill either.
Ten hours for their dole any more and we should just make it a job and pay them properly.
Indeed, even if you paid all MPs and their staff nothing at all for a parliamentary term, it amounts to a staggering 8% of the cost of the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft project.
Wouldn't that take away jobs from other people?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Potentially, yes. But it would also create a lot of jobs as we'd need people to train and manage them. Plus, it creates work for those in the supply chain: uniform and tools will need to bought etc.
The fact is there is vastly more work to be done than we'd ever have enough money to pay for, so mobilising our youth to do some of this need not compromise existing labour. It's possible to use this labour sensitively so existing jobs are not compromised.
But even if we did cause public service employment to collapse, why is that a bad thing? Public service jobs don't create any wealth, so if we can provide the same services at 10% of the cost, that is a HUGE win for the nation.
That saved 90% can go towards helping people getting skills and qualifications to do more worthwhile work that will hopefully create further wealth.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
Why do we need a head of state when we have a Parliament and elected leader? (...or not, is it might be right now)
The amount of money and property they are sat on, it's about time they paid their own way entirely. Like everyone else.
Every penny they get from the tax coffers should go into education instead.
As for National Service, they'd have no quarms sending other peoples kids to serve if they thought they could get away with it.