Hunger $ Billionaires

[ahinton]

ahinton, You will continue to intellectualise the matter.

Please don't try to elevate what I've written beyond where it belongs!

What might work arithmetically on paper does not necessarily work in the real world.

Of course that's true; indeed, I implied as much earlier when writing that if certain procedures could be implemented properly (and then said what a big "if" that would be).

Unless I hear from you to the contrary, it seems to me that you would be quite prepared in principle to step over large numbers of the ill and the homeless on the streets.

You hear from me to the contrary.

How do you propose that such people are protected, and your health and safety are not compromised by their condition

Partly by the prudent, efficient and appropriate use of tax revenue, if that can be achieved (and, again, it's a big "if") - and I did not and do not advocate that people pay no tax - but only partly; I think that it's a grave misconception to assume that taxes are some kind of universal panacea for the poorer and more vulnerable members of society; of course it helps when distributed sensibly and sensitively but it can never be a cure-all for everything, especially poverty.

is rural France and then a demise before it happens, all that concerns you?

I won't dignify that with an answer.

Governments are not at the mercy of taxpayers. They are accountable to voters. When I read your comments, it is as if the electoral process is a bloody nuisance and you would prefer that it didn't exist.

That's nonsense! I accept that it might seem like something of an overstatement of the case to suggest that governments are "at the mercy" of taxpayers but they are dependent upon taxpayers; as you also rightly say, they are accountable to voters, as indeed they should be, so your assumption of what I think of the electoral process runs entirely counter not only to the facts but also to remarks that I have made before on that subject.

The roads you use in France will have been paid for by French taxpayers. Why should they not say that they are theirs and that you have no right to use them?

Some of the road in France are also paid for by toll-payers. Why should the French tell me that I have no right to use their roads when I become a French taxpayer?

Of course, if Marine Le Pen is ever elected, she might have a negative view on the British owning homes in France. How ironic that would be!

That would do wonders for the French economy, wouldn't it?! The trouble right now, however, is that Hollande, despite being of a very different political hue, it trying to enact some taxation policies that will drive away the Brits and discourage new ones from settling there, which will likely have a similar disadvantageous effect if he gets away with it! I think, however, that things would have to get an awful lot worse there for le Pen to get elected!

And actually, I don't accept that all investment carries a meaningful risk. There is a level of investment in, say, basic education from a starting point of an absence of education which is guaranteed to lead to dividends, other than in a complete wiping out of the population. That minimal risk of devastation is minimised further not through narrow applicability but breadth. The greyer areas are high levels of investment, the possibility only of marginal returns, and the numbers, range and severity of potential risks, all of which might or might not arise with greater complexity. Similar arguments apply to most, if not all, policy areas.

I wouldn't argue with that, of course; however, I was referring solely and specifically to financial investments such as pensions, savings plans, insurance bonds and the like (as I thought that I'd made clear and indeed should have done).

[Lateralthinking1]

Thank you for these further points ahinton. I have decided to make a dignified exit from this discussion.

Hey, we should all be enjoying the sunshine. I am not sure why we aren't doing so!