Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
2012
unknownj
Oh good... The news is currently talking about further debate on the topic of mandatory ID cards. While it has been said that it won't be illegal not to carry one, that doesn't answer the issue of whether it will be illegal not to have one. Which is quite a bind, since I have pledged (since the start of this nonsense) to destroy any ID card I get. And here's why.....

Identity is optional, simple as that. See? But really, I mean it - what sort of information do they really want to carry on these things? Initially, according to News sources, the plans were to make them "Entitlement" cards, to keep track of benefits etc. But now lately, it's been suggest that computerised cards could store a photograph, finger prints and personal information including name and address. Furthermore, it's not only for people who want access to benefits, but will cover public services (the National Health Service and education services).

So let me get this straight - if I don't prove my identity, I won't be treated by our public healthcare system? And if I don't prove my identity, I am ineligible to receive schooling?

Let me state it again - identity is optional, it's arbitrary, it's completely irrelevant in this context. Let's start with the NHS - are they trying to tell me that unless I can prove that I'm a specific citizen of their country, I can't get healthcare from them? Who would this exclude then? For starters - anybody who enters the country illegally, or on holiday. So because they're foreign, they don't deserve to be treated medically? Shit, yeah, I forgot, those damned outsiders don't deserve to be treated like human beings. Silly me...

"But Jamie, it will cut down on the people using the NHS without being entitled to them"

Bollocks. I'm sure the hospitals are complaining like shit about the number of illegal immigrants who block up hospital beds and keep the real, British, important people out of the system.

"The people who are against it have something to hide"

Okay, well in that case... New legislation is needed to ensure people aren't doing drugs - full body cavity searches and blood tests twice daily will cut back on drug use. If you're against it, it's probably because you have something to hide......

At the end of the day, it's making a distinction between people who are entitled to being British with all that entails, and people who are not. And herein lies the point - nationality is arbitrary. What difference does it really make if somebody is from another country?

"Well they don't contribute taxes to the system, why should they benefit?"

I don't contribute taxes. Should I be stripped of my rights to public services as a result? Hey, wait, the people who contribute most to the system are those who pay the most taxes - read: people who earn massive amounts (typically for little or no work). Should they get Gold Identity Cards, which entitle them to the best service? Whatever happened to equality? Fuck who you are, fuck how much you earn, it's irrelevant to your status as a citizen, which in turn is irrelevant to your status as a human being. When will people see that?

*sigh*

Argue against me. I dare you.

  • 1
Thats totally bogus. Its like my school where you need an ID to get in or you are not taught...sad isn't it.

"Should they get Gold Identity Cards, which entitle them to the best service? Whatever happened to equality? "

a good quote from Animal Farm..."..Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others.."

Sadly this is true is some cases

Been reading 1984 again?

One has to have identity in society so society can function, propose a workable alternative. This card is nothing new. It just makes it easier for the citizens to prove who they are, so they can get the benefit and care to which they're entitled, and not more. Such a system is designed to reduce benefit fraud and other forms of fraud based on identification, so one doesn't pretend to be 62 different people. It's not an entitlement card for anything else, upon introduction of the scheme the NHS will not suddenly stop treating foreign patients or illegal immigrants. They have to treat them already even if they *know* they're illiegal immigrants, that's part of the reason the NHS costs the better part of £50 billion a year to the taxpayer. As for foreigners, I presume the NHS claims money off their travel insurance company if they have it, in much the same way as foreign countries do with us.

You bring up an interesting side point, though. With one standardised form of identification (unlike a drivers license which is as near as we come today) it makes it easy to store data about people on the card or on a system which relates to the barcode or magnetic strip on the card. This data could contain DNA information and fingerprints amongst other things, and assuming in the future they're going to take DNA samples from everyone this could be abused by the crown prosecution. It's happened with fingerprints, a single print that could have come from anywhere, and could be weeks old, has been used as the sole evidence to convict a suspected burglar. Someone who equally could have handled the goods in the shop long before it was bought and then subsequently stolen. Of course the risk of misidentification is less with DNA - if you find a pool of blood and the DNA matches yours, then it's your blood, and you must have been on the scene.


Your second point is one I meant to bring up, although with regard to fingerprints. This card would carry our fingerprints on a central database. That means that everybody's fingerprints would be known to the government - well sod that. They don't have my fingerprints, and they're not going to get them either. And not because I have something sinister to hide, but because they're mine, and I'm not giving them to anybody :o)

read: people who earn massive amounts (typically for little or no work).

I think this is an incredibly large assumption!

Whatever happened to equality?

I have no idea, but people in higher paid jobs give a higher percentage of their wages to taxes. If it was a set percentage, then it would all be relative and everyone would be entitled to the same treatment. But the fact of the matter is, people in higher paid jobs give more of their money to taxes, whichever way you look at it. I'm not saying that people who are rich are better citizens, I'm just saying that employing a system of equality to a country that doesn't have any seems a little pointless.

:o)

read: people who earn massive amounts (typically for little or no work).

I think this is an incredibly large assumption!


Not really - it's a fact that the very highest earners are the people who do very little. CEOs of large companies, that sort of thing. I didn't mean "the top 10%" or anything really general like that, I just meant those very few at the top.

You're working on a false assumption in the second part. You assume that because they give a higher percentage, that they're contributing more. You forget - people who have less to give can't possibly be expected to pay more in taxes, whereas rich people can afford it - if they were volunteering the money, perhaps one could say "Wow, they deserve thanks", but it's built into the system, and therefore they're not, as people, doing anything different.

And if we say "There is no equality so we shouldn't try to get any" isn't going to solve any problems ;o)

they give a higher percentage, that they're contributing more

Well....they are, a higher percentage of their earnings is given away. They contirbute more of their wages, which is fair. If you're going on about equality, maybe everyone should give in a standard percentage of tax? After all the director of a major company works/has worked a hell of a lot harder than your typical sainsbury's worker! Maybe he is entitled to more money?

it's a fact that the very highest earners are the people who do very little

Eh? The people who get paid the most at Lloyds (my work) don't stop running about all day! I still think that's a large assumption, even if it is true (which i'm sure it's not) think of all the work they had to do to get into that position!

If you're going on about equality, maybe everyone should give in a standard percentage of tax

You're thinking of the wrong form of equality. The important thing is equality of opportunity, not of outcome. Everybody should have equal opportunities to education, healthcare, etc., but if some people can afford more tax, then they should pay it for the good of others. They still earn more money, and they get that warm fuzzy feeling that they're helping out :o)

After all the director of a major company works/has worked a hell of a lot harder than your typical sainsbury's worker! Maybe he is entitled to more money?

And he gets it. However, do you think he's entitled to ten times as much money? And these days, directors don't work especially - they sit there, fiddling numbers in order to please the shareholders, and walk into jobs because they're mates with the other directors. Effort isn't rewarded so much any more, so it's hard to say that people deserve more when they've not done all that much.... Sure, people who build up companies from scratch with hard work deserve a lot of the money they get from that, but for the most part, the high earners are the directors who over-earn by a *lot*...

And like I said - I don't mean the top earners as a large group. I mean the, say, top 50 earners in the country. Odds are, they do a LOT less work than most. And to get into good positions, all you needed to do was meet the right people at Cambridge or Oxford...

Everybody should have equal opportunities to education, healthcare, etc

Yeah, but you could argue that everyone has chance at being a major director of a company, or one of the top people, and it's the people that want it most that get it, and then the reward for their hard work is this 'Gold card' or whatever.......

Personally I like the system at the moment, my dad is a prime example of someone who has done well for himself simply by putting his head down and working hard most of his life. Yeah, nowadays he probably does do a little less work than he did when he started but try telling him that he hasn't earnt it! Mel's dad would probably be an even better example, he's got tons......everytime I ask charly or Mel where there dad is I always get the response "working". I doubt either them got where they are today by meetind the right people, I don't think my dad has *any* qualifications, or his bosses for that matter!

I'm not saying the system is flawless, far from it, but if you want to succeed...all you need to do is to work hard, and i think that people like that deserve respect and reward (to a certain extent).......well lets just say I think they deserve more than a spotty 18 year old working in Mcdonalds. lol :o)

If hard work was all that was needed to become the managing director of a company, then the world would be a very different place :o)

Likewise, my dad has tried hard, and has managed to climb various ladders to the point where he earns a lot of money. However, he comes from a reasonably poor, socialist background, and never complains about the taxes he has to pay - he'd be willing to pay even more if it would help the country. That's the sort of attitude that we really need - people who are willing to do their part for others. I know I would be... There are rewards for those who try hard, I'm not denying that - but the top positions, the really high paying ones, are typically reserved for people who don't work hard.

The point is, they get more than said 18 year old. Sure, they pay a higher percentage in taxes, but at the end of the day, they still get a lot more money, which is all you really need out of this. If you start thinking about it as being companies being taxed on their wage payments, rather than individuals being taxed on their earnings, and treat everybody's wages as being the post-tax sum, it's perfectly fair to tax the rich at a higher percentage. They still get more money at the end of it....

the really high paying ones, are typically reserved for people who don't work hard.

I still can't understand this, my Dad's bosses work incredibly hard. To the point where they don't have lives outside of work, ever. Just to clarify these are Lloyds TSB's top men the only person above these is the managing director of the company. These guys do nothing but work, day and night.

Just to say, that i think it's prefectly fair that higher paid workers pay more on taxes, i agree with you on that. But I think today, you can be whatever you want to be you just have to work hard at it. Even getting to the top through contacts as you implied, still means you have to work hard at getting contacts! You mentioned becoming a top guy through knowing people at Oxford and Cambridge.....you still need to work extremely hard to get into these places!

I'm not denying that there are people whose parents have worked hard, and all they seem to do is 'inherit' their parents contacts, jobs etc. There are, and I hate these people. But most of the time, whether you're working hard to create good contacts, knowing the right people, or even scamming to get you're way to a top position. You're still working hard at it, at the end of the day the person who tries the hardest at this is gonna get where they wanna be.

These guys do nothing but work, day and night.

Fair enough. Those guys deserve lots of money, I won't deny that. My point is (and has always been) against the people who don't work, and still get a lot (and there are many such people).

But I think today, you can be whatever you want to be you just have to work hard at it

It's getting more like that, with entepreneurs (bad spelling I'm sure) making it big, but there's still a lot of nepotism around...

You mentioned becoming a top guy through knowing people at Oxford and Cambridge.....you still need to work extremely hard to get into these places!

True, it's not completely easy. However, it's made easier by who you know, and what sort of status you're born into. Which is fundamentally unfair.

I'm not denying that there are people whose parents have worked hard, and all they seem to do is 'inherit' their parents contacts, jobs etc

It's not even that - it's the people whose grandparents' parents' parents worked hard, etc. The people who just come from a large family where inherited wealth and contacts make life easier without the people involved having done anything to deserve that.

But I agree, to a point, the harder workers do better. But I still hate the freak examples where hard workers get nowhere, and slackers get everything they want. Of course, if you're smart enough to scam your way to the top, good luck to you - that's what I hope to do. But if you can get to the top just by knowing your father's friends, then the system is broken.

Fair enough. Those guys deserve lots of money, I won't deny that. My point is (and has always been) against the people who don't work, and still get a lot (and there are many such people).

uh-huh, agreed :o)

now stop forcing me to have an opinion, my brain can only operate so well when it's taken this much alcohol abuse :)

I'm sorry.

So, beer is nice, isn't it..... :o)

Stop scare-mongering Jamie.

While at first I thought these identity cards would be scary, when you think about it, the idea actually makes sense. They would do just that - prove ones identity and have the extra benefit of storing information to make life so much easier! Imagine being able to walk into a bank and open up an account without dragging along all the extra crap with you, on this little card it would prove who you are and what your history was! Brilliant! And would cut down on fraud and people pretending to be other people.. etc.. I see the NHS and other comments irrelevant, especially if it is not illegal to carry one.
Why on earth would the amount you earn change the card you have? A Gold card? What mindless thoughts are these? As you suggest, the amount you earn is irrelevant to your status as a citizen, so why would anyone recieve "special benefits"?

If such ID cards are made available, I will be the first in line to get one.

P.S.I pay taxes (being in a full time job) and expect to have the same rights as everyone else, and indeed I do recieve them. May I be so bold Jamie, as to sugges you get a full time job and experience your pay cheque being eaten into by taxes.. you will not recieve a warm fuzzy feeling of generousity, but irritation that so much is taken out of your hard earned cash, regardless of how much your earn.

Fuck the anarchists, long live Margaret Thatcher.

oh and I think that the head of a company would be entitled to ten times more money because they have worked hard to get there (being "mates with other directors" is called "having connections" and is vital to any important position) and would have a lot more influence over what is happening than your average sainsburies worker. In my shop, the senior sales staff earn a few thousand more.. so what? They work harder and have more responsibilities.. hence they are welcome to the extra cash! if i I worked as hard as they do, then I would feel I should be paid the same.. but I don't, so why should I get the same amount?

(being "mates with other directors" is called "having connections" and is vital to any important position)

You think that's fair? "Having Connections" is often the result of having gone to Oxbridge, or having family connections. And getting into Oxbridge is largely a result of having family connections too (comprehensive school kids predicted four A's at a-level, plus various extra awards, still getting rejected for no apparent reason, while private school kids get offered places at AAB is hardly fair...)

So what we have here is a situation where if you have money and influence, you can get to the right university, meet the right people, and get a good job. And if you're born without those advantages, you can't get those jobs. That's not really equality.....

As for working hard - if you do the best you're capable of, why is that worth any less than somebody who barely makes an effort, but does a job that might look harder? Example - my job is reasonably difficult, but I can do it standing on my head. Despite how difficult the job is, I don't think I should get paid lots, because I don't put in effort. If somebody else came to the company, and worked hard all day to manage what I do, then he'd deserve more money than me.

So, the guy who manages a company without really having to try - does he deserve more money than somebody who performs an easier job, but has to try really hard to manage it?

As for working hard - if you do the best you're capable of, why is that worth any less than somebody who barely makes an effort, but does a job that might look harder? Example - my job is reasonably difficult, but I can do it standing on my head. Despite how difficult the job is, I don't think I should get paid lots, because I don't put in effort. If somebody else came to the company, and worked hard all day to manage what I do, then he'd deserve more money than me.

Usually salaries are graded based on the level of skill required to perform that particular job. You might, as you say, be able to perform your job standing on your head, but that is because you have built up a level of experience, knowledge and skill to be able to perform that job to a satisfactory standard. If someone else came to the company to replace you, and as you say, worked hard all day to manage what you do, then from a 'Company' point of view, they wouldn't deserve any more money than you. In fact, it can be argued that they deserve less than you, and that more roles / responsibilities can be allocated to you, along with perhaps a rise in your salary. Companies pay you for what you do, not how much effort you put into it. The days of being rewarded for effort finish at School unfortunately. You're not going to hear a Salesman getting a salary increase because his overall sales reduced drastically but he 'tried really hard'.

So, the guy who manages a company without really having to try - does he deserve more money than somebody who performs an easier job, but has to try really hard to manage it?

First of all, to me this is a typical Socialist view that basically Managers are lazy robbing bastards, and the 'average man' (particularly those with 'hands-on' jobs) is the hero. I don't agree with that view. Personally, I'm on an Industrial Placement year from University with Powergen, in their IS department. I've worked here in holidays etc. for several years, so I have a good rapport with the people here, and my Dad also works here. He is a Machinist, which means that he utilises a Waldrich M40 Lathe (About the size of two average sized houses) to machine turbines which are worth upwards of 4 million pounds. He does it standing on his head. I couldn't ever do it, as I'm not mechanically minded in that way. He earns a basic salary of £25,000 a year, and through overtime he can make that up to anything he wants really, as the overtime is well paid, and there is plenty of it.

...(I have to continue this comment, as it's too big for the word limit!)

Continued... I on the other hand, earn £12,000 a year, and my primary job is to implement a plant management system called EFACs. The risks I involve in my job do not threaten my personal safety, but a serious mistake on my part could quite easily cost Powergen more than my Dad making a mistake and trashing a £4m rotor. I won't go into the technicality of what I do, but as dramatic as it sounds that's true. It's also true that there is no-one I can ask for help. I am on my own with this project, I can seek guidance, but when it comes down to it, I am the Implementer.

The shop-floor apprentices, who start at 16 with a year at college (paid at £8000 a year just to go to college) then move onto a first year apprentiship at £12,000 a year, then for their second year they earn £14,000 then as a final year apprentice they earn £16,000. They are always with a 'Mentor' who stands over their shoulder and guides them, provides and experienced view and opinion, and when the shit hits the fan, the 'Mentor' saves the day. So, these guys have spent 1 year at college, and they earn the same as me.

I've done A-Levels (2 years), a BTEC ND in Computing Studies (1 Year), and have endured 2 years of University on my course so far, which is BSc (Hons) Computing Science. So a school leaver, with 1 year at college earns the same as me after I've put in 5 years of my time, at a substantially higher level of study (the apprentices do GNVQ Intermediete at college, I think that's no different to GCSE's although I might be wrong). I also have no-one to turn to, and no-one to bail me out of the shit.

And yet, the office workers are regularly referred to as 'Non-producers', 'Parasites' and 'Desk-jockeys' because the shop floor engineers see us sitting at desks, working on computers. They do not understand that just as much, if not more, effort, knowledge and concentration is required to perform my job, as theirs. Their view is a classic 'Socialist' view of management and also white collar workers.

It's all about peoples perception of how much someone trys or how hard they seem to work. I don't think that you can ever award pay based on 'effort', because it is based on achievement.

Imagine being able to walk into a bank and open up an account without dragging along all the extra crap with you

To open up a bank account, I've never needed any more information than proof of my address and identity. Sure, an ID card would cut that down to one item instead of two, but that's hardly going to be a massive change.

And would cut down on fraud and people pretending to be other people.. etc..

Take a look at the estimates for how much the government is defrauded per year. Then look at estimates for how much a nationwide identity card scheme would cost. Then you see that it wouldn't save much money, or cut fraud. There are always ways to beat the system, no matter how hard people try. The real criminals will always be a few steps ahead of the government.

I see the NHS and other comments irrelevant, especially if it is not illegal to carry one

Irrelevant? The point is perfectly relevant - the card would be used to determine entitlement to the NHS. It will be okay not to carry one, but probably illegal not to own one. Well sod that.

Why on earth would the amount you earn change the card you have? A Gold card? What mindless thoughts are these?

I see subtle attempts at humour are lost on you. It was meant to illustrate the point that the "People who don't pay taxes don't deserve to get anything back" point of view leads to a society where money determines status. Which is largely what taxes are meant to avoid.

P.S.I pay taxes (being in a full time job) and expect to have the same rights as everyone else,

Exactly. Same rights as everyone else. Identity cards are a step away from equality. Somebody with an ID card is different to somebody without one. Why? We're all people, aren't we?

May I be so bold Jamie, as to sugges you get a full time job and experience your pay cheque being eaten into by taxes.. you will not recieve a warm fuzzy feeling of generousity, but irritation that so much is taken out of your hard earned cash, regardless of how much your earn.

May I be so bold as to say that I know it won't bother me. I've been spending the last few years of my life at university, an experience subsidised heavily by taxes. My taxes be going to subsidising students, public transport, the health service. I'm very aware of this, I've always been aware of it, and have nothing against taxes. I'd pay a lot more than 50% if I thought that it would improve the country. Provided I have enough money to eat, and live in the same degree of comfort I'm used to (which isn't that costly), I'll be happy enough. I think you underestimate some peoples' willingness to contribute to the system that supports them.

Fuck the anarchists, long live Margaret Thatcher.

Taxes don't mean anarchy. They rather mean the opposite. As for the latter comment - any argument loses a lot of credibility as soon as somebody expresses support for arguably the most destructive prime minister in recent history.

Take a look at the estimates for how much the government is defrauded per year. Then look at estimates for how much a nationwide identity card scheme would cost. Then you see that it wouldn't save much money, or cut fraud. There are always ways to beat the system, no matter how hard people try. The real criminals will always be a few steps ahead of the government.

It's not necessarily about the bottom line. The Government has a duty to prosecute those that break the law, and to attempt to discourage potential law-breakers. If you based everything on the bottom line, you'd first of all not introduce the ID Card's, as they cost more than the fraud itself. Then you might extend that philosophy to other crime deterrants, such as prosecution, where it will be too expensive to prosecute a criminal, so they are left to walk free.

There are always ways to beat the system, true, but every effort must be taken to make it as difficult as possible to beat it. Discourage the 'lazy cheats'. Personally, I despise benefit cheats, particularly when people like my Dad, your Dad and recently me pay tax for it to be given to someone who is claiming as three different people, or are feigning injury etc. Why should I pay for some lazy fuck to buy himself a new pair of trainers, or a new car. Fuck that. Benefits are there to help the needy, but there are too many cheaters out there. The net needs to be tightened, and if ID Cards are the way to do it, I agree totally.

I don't contribute taxes. Should I be stripped of my rights to public services as a result? Hey, wait, the people who contribute most to the system are those who pay the most taxes - read: people who earn massive amounts (typically for little or no work). Should they get Gold Identity Cards, which entitle them to the best service? Whatever happened to equality? Fuck who you are, fuck how much you earn, it's irrelevant to your status as a citizen, which in turn is irrelevant to your status as a human being. When will people see that?

The reason you don't contribute to taxes is that you probably do not earn above the minimum tax threshold, which I think is something like £4200 a year. Even though you're a student, like me, as soon as you earn above that threshold, you should start paying tax on what you earn above the threshold. If you do earn above the threshold in a tax year, then you should pay tax, but if they don't ask they don't get.....

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account