Huguenot

I'm not contesting that all people are in it for themselves Smiler, I'm saying that if legalisation opens the door for even one person to exploit the system, for one victim, that's one person too many. I'm also observing that many people may not realise the pressure they're imposing, nor the consequences that it may have. They'll believe themselves innocent even if creating dreadful moral mistakes. That figure of 53% merely demonstrates that a very large proportion of people are poor judges of the righteousness of their actions - particularly when it comes to the elderly or near-death issues. In summary, the OP was a question regarding euthaniasia - I'm against it two-fold: firstly that one mistake is too many, and secondly that a large proportion of people demonstrate errors in judgement in this high-stress environment, suggesting it won't be one mistake, but very many.

There's no such thing as a bank that didn't receive support either directly or indirectly from the taxpayer. The taxpayer kept afloat an entire system that would otherwise have folded. That this manifested itself in major shareholdings in a couple of banks is irrelevant, they were merely the first dominos to fall. The rest would have followed as night follows day. Every bank is making profits now on the back of that investment, because it kept the entire market artificially solvent. It would take a myopic, mighty smug and arrogant individual to deny that truth - almost like (dare I say it) a banker...

Well this one's got me... "By chance we have gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force all required for the earth to have carbon, oxygen and iron - elements vital to life. If the electromagnetism was weaker atoms could not combine to form molecules; if stronger electrons would be trapped preventing chemical reactions needed for life - so just be chance it's the right strength. If the strong nuclear force was weaker 2% ......" So it's not that you believe in Adam and Eve then, it's that you think that God created the physical attributes that allowed evolution to flourish? That's an entirely different position, and in that sense the God you describe (rather than the Biblical one), is quite in lines with current options under discussion by empirical scientists the world over.

That's it *Bob*, I think Acid Casual's got the wrong end of the stick on this one. Nobody is suggesting debate is a good alternative when a burglar is in the house. A good hiding may well be in order. This burglar was not in the house, it was a cold blooded lynch mob. It doesn't benefit a reasonable society that our security rests on lynch mobs. I'm sure Acid Casual is not arguing a return to this feudal system?

Well you can negotiate any way you want, it doesn't alter the outcome: The tax comes from the net pool available to the employer to fund salaries. Hence HMG's suggestion is that if you reduce this pool through increased taxation the bonuses go down. As SMG pointed out, the greed of footballers or bankers is nothing to do with HMG. In the case of football, since HMG is not funding footballers' salaries, it has no moral high ground to intercede. However, since bankers (and brokers) bonuses are generated due to tax payer funding keeping commodities or shares artificially high, HMG does have the moral high ground to intercede. Whether it makes practical sense is another matter entirely.

What were they broking?

Betting shops underwritten on 'White Christmas' by taxpayer scandal.

Brokers were negotiating on the price of financial commodities that were underwritten on taxpayer pledges. Brokers were earning bonuses on dead commodities. They deserve no bonus and they can blame the bankers, not HMG.

I like the use of 'comrade' ;-)

In hindsight Curly I'm entralled with this one... "So if I leave a pile of bricks, sand and cement in my garden, one day there is a chance it might turn into a house - all on it's own. Or if I get a stick of dynamite and blow it up (like the big bang) there's a chance I might get a new shed." Is that then to assume that the "house' or 'shed' was created by God too? My recollection of Genesis maybe poor, but I don't remember the creation of 'house' or 'shed'. Was it the fourth or fifth day? Of course you may allow that apple from 'tree' became 'bivouac' and hence it progressed. And likewise 'log' may have become 'wheel' and so on to Audi. But at which point did 'seedling' become 'shrub' and 'shrub' become 'tree'. Of for that matter 'algae' become 'fungus' and 'fungus' become 'lichen' and 'lichen' become 'plant'. All plausibly may have been the creation of the Lord Almighty - but if you admit that progress was established at some point (no VW in Leviticus), then why the arbitrary start point? Come on kooky, start rolling the clock? Or does the clock not exist, because of some random superannuated medieval text? Woooooo freeeky.

Crazy stuff. In my experience the parents of victims always think clearly.

Well.....

To clarify, the bankers only got their commission on their last transaction because the price was inflated by a taxpayer underwriter.

Good point Jremey, and I'm probably disagreeing with myself, but the wages in football aren't kept artificially high because every time a club overbids, the taxpayer foots the bill and everyone else still gets their commission of 35 million for a latin american.

Not at all Curly. As I pointed out, if you roll a dice 100 times, the probability of obtaining the string of digits you end up with is around 1 in 10 to the power 50. If you'd like worse odds, roll it 200 times. The probability is even less. Significantly. You choose the number of times. It still happened. I'm still not God. QED. It would take an odd mathematician to deny it (and as a retired mathematician I'm familiar with the odds).

I'm not sure it's about tax so much as freedom. Large earners are already taxed more heavily than lower earners - losing as much as 60p in the pound to the government. If you're increasing that burden (to say 80p in the pound) then essentially you're saying that it doesn't matter how successful you are beyond a certain point, you won't get to meaningfully benefit. This is essentially a curtailment of freedom, and probably too onerous for the entrepreneurs that allow our country to flourish to be sufficiently rewarded for their ingenuity. They'll just piss of elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with 'fair'.

Red Devil, are you quite getting this? It's supposed to be sequential ;-)

Assuming you'd drive up the east coast, and a tunnel went from Newfie through Ireland to Wales and London (as the shortest route as the pig flies), you'd clock up some 4,300 miles. Although arguably across the Atlantic you could achieve motorway speeds, they always seem to disallow regular rates of progress, so let's assume you could average 40 mph (including urban and road works on the M4 etc.) across the distance. That'd give you some 108 hours non-stop, but bearing in mind comfort breaks, a bit of shut eye and some sort of european law against each individual driving more than 56 hours each in a week, then I think your 7 day estimate is remarkably prescient for a couple of jingle writers on a visit to the Bible belt.

Trade regulations tend to work because of mutual benefits. The challenge with finance is that it's both mobile and unevenly distributed. There are plenty of countries for whom NOT signing up to a global trading tax would have no downside, whereas attracting the finance industry has an upside. Hence you'd struggle to get a treaty that was adhered to by all.

How does the smoke get in your flat?

He clearly never played Spore ;-) Assuming that figure to be reasonable (which is quite a leap of faith), if you rolled a dice 100 times you'd achieve a string of numbers that was even less likely to happen than life on earth being generated. Yet you still did it. That exact sequence. It doesn't make you God, simply because the alternative was "too unlikely". The anthropic principle notes that this coincidence must have taken place, because if it hadn't you wouldn't be here to observe it! It requires no supernatural creature with a strangely human-centric approach to the universe.

Prove it.

Valid point. Mind you, they'd be daft to do passenger counts from tickets sales - as it would miss all the season ticket holders too.

Lytham St. Annes Worcester Broadway Exeter Cirencester Autignac Fontes Karpathos Coventry Leamington Spa Kennington Harlesden Balham East Dulwich Beijing Singapore

On the subject of improbabilities, I dropped my cigarette the other day and it fell on its end. Right on the end, on the filter tip and stood there erect, like the Burj Dubai. That's the honest truth. As I stood there looking at it I reflected that it was never going to happen again in my life, and for some people it never would happen. I also reflected that there are people in the world with such mental disorders that they would insist it didn't happen, because it's unlikely. But it did, there you go. And it's not because I'm the messiah, it's not because the universe revolves around me. It's not because someone was watching over me, and it doesn't prove the existence of an omnipotent moral presence who was sending me a message. It just happened. I may write a book, or a collection of books. Or I may simply relate the story to some literary enthusiasts who can write a book themselves, using the series of events to draw greater political metaphors or moral fables. It wouldn't negate the fact that if anyone read such words and concluded I was God, that they would be an idiot.