Clegg V Farage

[Beef Oven!]

It wouldn't be a 'separate tax' - it would be included in general taxation; and it would be people with an income level above the personal allowance who paid, regardless of who 'worked for their living' and who didn't.

At the lower end of the income scale they could pay less than the current £145.50 p.a., at the higher end they would probably pay more. That's not considered an unjust system of levying tax in other areas.

A tax on income, ring-fenced to be used for funding the BBC?

[french frank]

A tax on income, ring-fenced to be used for funding the BBC?

Yes, as I would see it functioning, there would be some independent statutory review body to whom the BBC would pitch their claim for funding, justifying any increase by specifying the reason (improved programming or inflation). The review body would adjudicate on the claim and the amount the exchequer needed to raise would be calculated as a percentage of its total income. The tax goes straight to the government who would pass the agreed sum on to the BBC. Something like that - ahinton will work it out :-)

The licence fee would be fixed for so many years, so the BBC would know exactly what their budget would be over that period.

[MrGongGong]

I work in one.

OK
Care to expand on why you consider those things to be "brainwashing" ?

[Beef Oven!]

Yes, as I would see it functioning, there would be some independent statutory review body to whom the BBC would pitch their claim for funding, justifying any increase by specifying the reason (improved programming or inflation). The review body would adjudicate on the claim and the amount the exchequer needed to raise would be calculated as a percentage of its total income. The tax goes straight to the government who would pass the agreed sum on to the BBC. Something like that - ahinton will work it out :-)

The licence fee would be fixed for so many years, so the BBC would know exactly what their budget would be over that period.

It only costs around £2.79 per tv household per week anyway, so I don't know why earnings need to be considered. Can't see why people can't just pay the same amount, which is considered a just way of raising revenues in other areas.

Edit: Are there more taxpayers than households? The tax that you want, could be a flat rate. Seems that there are about 26m tv licences in force and about 26m income tax payers. So if you want working people to pay for the BBC, the need to raise 39p per day from each income tax-payer could be relatively un-painful. And with such small sums involved, we need not worry about low-pay etc.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Tell me why those things are "brainwashing" ?
and with what authority you speak on the matter.

(a serious question because so many folks who talk about what happens in schools don't really have any experience at all since they were 18)

I do agree that having schools teaching PHSE and Citizenship does contain an element of brainwashing - of whatever standards are deemed to be politically and socially acceptable to the people who compile the syllabus - something that is then delivered by people who often do so under duress. Then the school can confirm that it has ticked all the necessary boxes.

[MrGongGong]

I do agree that having schools teaching PHSE and Citizenship does contain an element of brainwashing - of whatever standards are deemed to be politically and socially acceptable to the people who compile the syllabus - something that is then delivered by people who often do so under duress. Then the school can confirm that it has ticked all the necessary boxes.

Is that "Brainwashing" more than schools teaching other things that are deemed to be socially acceptable ? (not clapping between movements, taking it in turns to speak, addressing the judge as "Oi, you in the girly tights").

In many ways its a great shame that the approach to to teaching people "how to be" that forms a large part of the curriculum in schools for children with Autism isn't part of the mainstream curriculum. Developing self awareness and an understanding of how people interact is something that needs to be taught and not assumed that people will somehow "pick it up".

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is that "Brainwashing" more than schools teaching other things that are deemed to be socially acceptable ? (not clapping between movements, taking it in turns to speak, addressing the judge as "Oi, you in the girly tights").

In many ways its a great shame that the approach to to teaching people "how to be" that forms a large part of the curriculum in schools for children with Autism isn't part of the mainstream curriculum. Developing self awareness and an understanding of how people interact is something that needs to be taught and not assumed that people will somehow "pick it up".

But it is a fine balance between the nanny state and assuming the responsibility of parents.

[MrGongGong]

But it is a fine balance between the nanny state and assuming the responsibility of parents.

Is it?

There's no point getting pupils to "succeed" by passing loads of exams if they have no understanding of themselves.
Teaching people how to learn and stimulating curiosity is much more important than learning loads of so-called "facts".
Whether it's done well or badly is another thing all together.
There have been some interesting things recently in the area of Philosophy for children, and some great things in relation to music.

[amateur51]

Is it?

There's no point getting pupils to "succeed" by passing loads of exams if they have no understanding of themselves.
Teaching people how to learn and stimulating curiosity is much more important than learning loads of so-called "facts".
Whether it's done well or badly is another thing all together.
There have been some interesting things recently in the area of Philosophy for children, and some great things in relation to music.

i agree MrGG.

Do you know www.sapere.co.uk by any chance?

[french frank]

There's no point getting pupils to "succeed" by passing loads of exams if they have no understanding of themselves.

Why should it be one or the other? Presenting yourself for a new job and announcing that your qualification is that you 'know yourself', really, really well, may not impress.

Teaching people how to learn and stimulating curiosity is much more important than learning loads of so-called "facts".

Again, only if you determine that it's got to be one or the other.

[MrGongGong]

Why should it be one or the other? Presenting yourself for a new job and announcing that your qualification is that you 'know yourself', really, really well, may not impress.

Again, only if you determine that it's got to be one or the other.

I never said it should be one or the other.
Why do people always assume that advocating one thing implies opposition to the other?

So many folks end up at Universities with little idea of who they are and why they are there.
Those who DO have an understanding of these things seem to be happier.

Without curiosity there is no learning or development.

[Serial_Apologist]

Why should it be one or the other? Presenting yourself for a new job and announcing that your qualification is that you 'know yourself', really, really well, may not impress.

When I did what passed for a "re-training course", in the mock interview sessions held towards the end we were strongly urged to stress the importance of promotion within the company concerned as being our main aim. As the putative job interviewee, asked where I aimed to be in say two years time, my answer was, "Wherever the company deems fit to put my skills". Oh no, I was told, that wouldn't do at all. The "correct" answer should have been, "I hope to be doing your job"! I told them that in my time, such a reply would have received the answer, "Well then you can sling your hook - we're looking for people who can work co-operatively with others as much as qualifications and abilities, not those whose aim in life is to trample everyone else on their way to the top". This was 16 years ago. Frankly I was disgusted with the whole thing, and concluded that this was probably a major factor behind the depressing state of the country.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is it?

There's no point getting pupils to "succeed" by passing loads of exams if they have no understanding of themselves.
Teaching people how to learn and stimulating curiosity is much more important than learning loads of so-called "facts".

Quite so, but try telling that to Mr Gove - the man without a single good idea.

Whether it's done well or badly is another thing all together.

…which is kind of - er - very important. Better not to do it than to do it badly.

[visualnickmos]

.......And we have Charlie Church as our cultural icon. Bliss to be alive.

And for fun you Have Max Boyce and his guitar! He is still alive, I assume..... guffaw, guffaw

[french frank]

I never said it should be one or the other.
Why do people always assume that advocating one thing implies opposition to the other?

In this case putting "succeed" in quotes and talking of "so-called facts" suggested a certain degree of opposition. If not meant, sorry I misinterpreted.

So many folks end up at Universities with little idea of who they are and why they are there.
Those who DO have an understanding of these things seem to be happier.

I think that last sentence is a bit of a generalisation. Universities are also places where people can find out 'who they are' and if they didn't know why they were there when they first went it leaves plenty of doors open.