The US government had been planning to topple the Egyptian President for the past three years – that is according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. The files show Washington had secretly been backing leading figures behind the uprising.

Earlier on Saturday, in a televised address to the nation, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has dismissed his government and promised formation of a new Cabinet would be announced soon.

“I have requested the government to step down today, and I will designate a new government as of tomorrow to carry out new duties and to account for the priorities of the coming era,” Mubarak said in his speech, which is the first time he has appeared in public since protests broke out Tuesday in Egypt.

Tens of thousands have taken to the streets across Egypt in protest of Mubarak's regime and calling for his ouster. Troops have been trying to enforce a curfew in the capital, Cairo, where the ruling party's headquarters has been set afire by demonstrators.

Analysts have pointed fingers at the US, accusing them of trying to change the politics of this regime. Webster Tarpley, an investigative journalist, thinks that the CIA is fuelling “mob rule” across the Arab world to change the power structure.

http://rt.com/news/egyptian-president-dismisses-cabinet/

Artful Dodger: ... what a MIRV...multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle.

... that's been around for years and the USA has had (such as the peacekeeper MX W87 missile) them just as long about as the former USSR, if not a bit earlier.

Just the USSR got a bit better at it than the USA.

SL-Mark:

"): The 60% (actually I think it is nearer 65%) includes all those who are funded from the public purse. So yes, it includes many other services, all of whom consume wealth."

Well.. the office for national statistics says the figure of public v private employment is 20% working in the public sector and 80% working in the private.

... ie at the moment your whole argument seems to based bad data and therefore your whole point is pointless.

Sorry I took time to check your data.. saved you alot of pointless defending of untrue statements.

As to "No, you can only include tax from the private sector in the determination"

Are you God personified??

Justaminute: I'd say about 95% of the time you'd be right. In some cases it might start as a libel act and through such as perjury goto to a criminal case.

It's a bit like trespassing, you cannot be prosecuted for it unless other factors come into play, but they are the likes of criminal damage and maybe loss of earnings. Then it gets to get complicated.

(V): "40%+60%+ how much do the infirm and unemployed working age people account for?"

I might have missed a class or two as well
The current unemployment rate is about 8% (we'll assume it includes the infirm), so we now have a worse situation where 32% of the working population provide for the 60% in public sector and services + 8% unemployed.

In other words, only about 11% of the total population are wealth creators!

(V): The 60% (actually I think it is nearer 65%) includes all those who are funded from the public purse. So yes, it includes many other services, all of whom consume wealth.

Oh dear, you are trying to find some fault, which is irrelevant to the point, just for some cheap point scoring. Let me spell it out, as I guess you missed that class in primary school.
40% of the UK working population is not 40% of the total population.
Indeed the total working population is about 62% of the total population, which leaves 38% for the rest.

No, you can only include tax from the private sector in the determination. Tax generated from the public sector is simply money being recycled back to government, its original source being the private sector. In your example of a company providing artificial joints, only tax on export revenues can be considered as wealth creation.

(V): Libel would be a civil offence not a criminal offence.

Pedro Martínez: Whose? Many here!!

SL-Mark: Is that like essential services such as road maintenance, bin collections (both often tendered out to private companies) ... or straight forward council and government workers.

"It is your beloved socialist leaders that got us in to this mess. The health service is overflowing with bureaucrats, making these life saving services unaffordable"

I think you'll find that the current bureaucratic mess dates back to the Thatcher years. I hardly call her socialist

"40% of the UK working population are wealth creators (private sector) who provide for the other 60% (public sector) as well as the infirm, elderly, unemployed and young."

40%+60%+ how much do the infirm and unemployed working age people account for?

"Ah tax (and only tax from the private sector can be counted),"

Nope. Taxes come from many sources... even your council workers pay taxes as do all government workers. Plus in the case of the NHS much of the budget goes on buying equipment from private companies. I know... I've worked for a company providing hospitals with artificial joint kits.

Pedro Martínez: My dad once told me when I had a headache as a child, that I should bang my head against a wall. He added, that when you stop, you will then feel much better!

I'm sure he was trying to tell me something too

SL-Mark: It seems you like talking to a brick wall…

(V): They save lives, true, but so do doctors, nurses, paramedics, firemen etc, etc. Are you suggesting they should all be paid the same because they save lives?

It is your beloved socialist leaders that got us in to this mess. The health service is overflowing with bureaucrats, making these life saving services unafforable. Idea, what about raising taxes even more?

You are no doubt aware, that only 40% of the UK working population are wealth creators (private sector) who provide for the other 60% (public sector) as well as the infirm, elderly, unemployed and young. How is this funded? Ah tax (and only tax from the private sector can be counted), and our budget deficit, increasing to the trillions we already owe. This at the expense of future generations, just so you can live up to your socialist ideals today.

And when those #10 beer drinkers leave, then what are you going to do? Borrow more, well the bond yield curve is already rising. The BoE will no longer have control over interest rates, the market is already adjusting the rates.

SL-Mark: And as such then you'll know it's not just about dirty hospitals re MRSA, the overuse of antibiotics is part to blame, the lack of investment and research into new antibiotics for decades has a part in the problem. There maybe a link to a certain stomach worm that was eradicated (it was harmless) that may have had given for it's food certain health benefits linking to the overuse of antibiotics nowadays.

You'll also know that rates of deaths from the likes of MRSA are dropping. That simple things like visitors using alcohol cleaner on their hands...

... and yes.. the cuts to fully employed long term cleaning staff... "unskilled" workers who's work saves lives.

Now do you think they don't deserve a decent pay?

(V): >"They'd have to prove they are all squeaky clean first."
That will be pretty hard to do! Guess you are safe from a libel charge then

Yes, like Einstein, I believe it leads to a deeper understanding to "make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

"Bureaucrats grant contracts according to friendships, campaign donations, political affiliations, sometimes even religious affiliations. That means that pricing is often inefficient. Large companies with more capital can use that capital to influence the outcome of the contract tendering process."

In a recent example of this most if not all of the companies doing public sector builds were found to be fixing prices.. unfortunately the police and courts were only allowed to investigate and prosecute a few of the defrauding companies. Something those prosecuted objected to as those just as guilty got away with it.

I think the time of investigating thousands of companies accounts would have impacted on investigations into other crimes.

SL-Mark: Yeah right... They'd have to prove they are all squeaky clean first.

The beer explains some of how our system of taxation works, but not all. Or how some wealth creators are not rich but just have a good idea.

"Hopefully the “death squad” that we have in the UK will be able to provide you with the most effective prescriptions."

Your not that MEP working for Fox are you?
No system is perfect, yet the claims of "death squads" is more descriptive of USA health companies. As to MRSA.. I'll let you into a little secret... The NHS trusts cut down on cleaning staff on wards, they were (well in the instances I know of) having 2 cleaners per ward and cut to one. That loss of one 'unskilled worker' led to less time to do the job properly with shortfalls in staffing (as the remaining staff went elsewhere) leaving the jobs being filled by agency staff who often were recent immigrants and could not half the time communicate let alone have the passion to do the job properly. In the end any organisation is reliant on efficient and good quality staffing. ..... plus how a private company hired by the NHS to prepare surgery kits kept making mistakes causing the cancellation of operations. Costing the NHS time and money.

If you wanna concentrate on the 0.1% then by all means. But over simplification of problems seems to be a thing of yours. Be careful you don't miss the rest of the wood in the process!!

rod03801:

> I'm just disgusted by the waste. That infuriates me. If I waste my own money, I pay
> for it dearly. But that's just it. I personally wasted it. Someone else wasting my
> money? No thanks.

I entirely agree with this. All governments, big and small, are inefficient and wasteful. I chose two examples at the extremes because in both casers there is inefficiency and waste. Guatemlans pay little taxes, and they get little for it. Austrians pay a lot, and get a lot for it. Both cases at the extremes work inefficiently. In a perfect world governments would operate in balance but in reality petty corruption and poor management lead to either money being wasted or in worst cases simply stolen or given to private companies run by friends.

> Personally, I'm fine with how healthcare always has been, for the most part. There
> are things that need looking at, of course! But for the government to basically take it > over? No no! It's going to become a mess. And DEFINITELY if it means gourmet
> menus in hospitals, free room and board for relatives in there, and 3 day stays for
> relatively minor procedures!

Again, my examples are extremes. My cousin in Guatemala is a doctor. He gave me a tour of a publicly run hospital there. They had no disinfectant, and they couldn't afford to repair the windows. So the operating theater had an open window and I could see plain old house flies flying around the room. Outside there were natives mostly, peasants who were too poor to go anywhere else. Then when my brother had his twin boys they ended up in a private hospital for 5 weeks. My brother paid about US$10,000 per week so they could stay in the intensive care unit. They were born prematurely. The clinic was the best money could buy, even better than you would see here in Canada. If you have the money, private is the way to go. If you are poor, you get insects flying around you as you get operated. That is what you get with next to no state involvement in healthcare.

Austrians of course sit on the opposite side. The state absorbed the cost and paid for it with high taxes. Austrians can also pay for private insurance. However, why would anyone? You already pay taxes, so why give even more hard-earned money to a private company.


> And you say historically, privatization has not always been the best solution. Well,
> I'd say government bureaucracy has been the best solution even less.

I think the worst thing is this. Privatization does not eliminate bureacracy. It merely transfers it from the public to the private sector. Privatization does not really save money to the state. It merely transfers tax dollars from the state into the hands of a private (or publicly traded) company. There is no guarantee that having a private company do things for the government will necessarily lead to tax savings.

The theory has always been like this. The state is bureacratic and inefficient at running things. If the state instead tenders contracts to private companies, then those companies have to compete for the contracts and only those that can do things at a better price will get the contracts. That leads to savings because the government has to pay less as companies compete by offering lower prices.

In reality things are completely different. Contracts are no always granted according to price efficiency, but rather based on other factors such as lobbying and other relationships between government and company employees.

Bureaucrats grant contracts according to friendships, campaign donations, political affiliations, sometimes even religious affiliations. That means that pricing is often inefficient. Large companies with more capital can use that capital to influence the outcome of the contract tendering process. More often than not, large companies will win over smaller companies. The state then becomes a sustainer of monopolies and large corporations.

So bureacracy and petty corruption mean that privatization is not always the best solution to state inefficiency, and very often it can exhacerbate the problem. Privatization would work in a system free of corruption, influence meddling, lobbying and special interest groups. There is also no guarantee that a private company can do things at a lower price. A company would if it could lower employee salaries and use cheaper materials and resources. However, that is not necessarily the case. Now we just took tax dollars, and made somebody rich with them, with no guarantee of savings for the state. As always, theory and practice don't always go together.

SL-Mark:
> Austria is not like Germany as you claim. Germany has perhaps the best health care in the world. It is privately run

There is one aspect of the health care system in Germany thqt is different from Austria:

"All salaried employees must have a public health insurance. Only public officers, self-employed people and employees with a large income above c. €50,000 (adjusted yearly) may join the private system."

"A person that opts out of the public health insurance system and gets private health insurance can not go back later to the public system, even if income drops below the level required for private selection. Since private health insurance is usually more expensive than public health insurance one will be required to pay the higher premiums with less income."

The Germans have done it right. If you think you are rich enough to pay for private insurance, then there is no going back later. If you are rich and you lose your money, you are screwed because you cannot go back to the public system. If you are rich, you better stay rich!

Please explain to me what rabbits and the "5 Pillars of Islam" have to do with the state of the union address last night.

(V): OMG are you saying our MPs are corrupt? That is libel and happens to be a criminal offence in this country, unless of course, you have evidence “beyond reasonable doubt.”

On the beer, I'm not going to spell it out for you. I think the point of capital flight was very clear.

Regarding your "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz," I didn't realise you suffered from somnipathy. Hopefully you don't also experience the related disorders of nocturia or worse still enuresis. Hopefully the “death squad” that we have in the UK will be able to provide you with the most effective prescriptions. Sadly, for many, the “death squad” leaves many little alternative, other than just dying. And you want to defend this!

SL-Mark: So says the Daily Mail so it must be true. zzzzzzzzzzzz

SL-Mark: Not really, businesses and rich folk keep bribing and blackmailing MP's for it to be a true democracy.. but most know that so why spend 1000 words saying it.

Again.. on the beer... But seeing as that is not the only tax.... zzzzzz

Are you above explanation?

(V): Life saving op? You are more likely to die from a life saving op in the UK than actually be saved. Either that or you catch MRSA on your way out!

(V): A few minutes ago we lived in a democracy. Now we live in a "kinda democracy."
Not really a democracy then!

Fortunately you don't live in Scotland and face lunacy such as this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/25/ignorance_of_scottish_pr0n_law_no_defence/

As to capital flight, the tax system explained in beer is a perfect example of this. Surprising you did not follow that!

SL-Mark: Not as expensive as the USA system and that leaves 40 million uncovered. It costs, but no-one has to worry about paying for a life saving op or waking upto a big bill that the health company has rejected due to small print.

SL-Mark: No.. we live in a kinda democracy.. We have the right to protest, march and demonstrate which some countries don't allow. They also help keep big business from ripping off regular folk. More so if they stopped being wimpy under certain governments.

Please.. explain yourself about capital flight, as all I hear is prattle.

As to foreign investment.. I've seen how much we fight for it. Something the government has given subsidies and much help in encouraging. I've also seen trade embargo's, price fixing and other activities it seems are part and parcel of the mixed economy we live in.

... what is your point???

Übergeek 바둑이: Interesting choice of countries to use to demonstrate your point!

In Guatemala, if they raised the tax rate, do you think things would be any better. See Tax System Explained In Beer for the answer. You are also mixing corruption and taxation in you arguement. So is corruption to blame or taxation for the country's poverty?

Austria is not like Germany as you claim. Germany has perhaps the best health care in the world. It is privately run. The UK has one of the worst health care systems in the world. It is state run. It is expensive. It is wasteful. It is the single biggest employer in the world and consumes about 10% of the UK working population!!!

(V): You really believe you live in a democracy? Funniest thing I have heard all day

The point of capital flight is way above your head otherwise you would not have answered with some trifling prattle about business rates. You clearly have no understanding of the importance of FDI and the efforts of the nation in competing for this!

Übergeek 바둑이: Yes! All of it! It is all done so inefficiently! I could deal with compromise!
I don't expect to not pay any taxes. I work hard (as do most people) and I don't want my money squandered.
There are SO many things that the US govt has their hands in, where it just doesn't belong. Some things could certainly be done on a more local level. (State/County/City)

Obviously that wouldn't include military. That NEEDS to be federal. It's one of the parts that bothers me least, personally.

I'm just disgusted by the waste. That infuriates me. If I waste my own money, I pay for it dearly. But that's just it. I personally wasted it. Someone else wasting my money? No thanks.

Personally, I'm fine with how healthcare always has been, for the most part. There are things that need looking at, of course! But for the government to basically take it over? No no! It's going to become a mess. And DEFINITELY if it means gourmet menus in hospitals, free room and board for relatives in there, and 3 day stays for relatively minor procedures!

And you say historically, privatization has not always been the best solution. Well, I'd say government bureaucracy has been the best solution even less. (Hmm, really bad sentence)

rod03801:

> Less Govt!

What exactly does that mean? Less people employed by the government? If so, in what areas? Where is it more important to cut?

What would you rather have? Less health care? Less education? Less military? Less intelligence? Less of everything?

One thing is certain? Given the choice between less health care and less military, what is more important? Should tax dollars be used to build hospitals or military bases? Schools? Roads and railways?

I suppose perception is a big thing too. Propaganda and fear play a big factor in what people see as more or less important.

If the government is bad at running things, who should do it? The private sector? What guarantee is there that somebody running things for profit will do it better, or more cheaply? Historically, privatization has not always been the best solution. Sometimes privatization has only made running things more expensive, because those who do it for profit want more money rather than more efficiency.

Übergeek 바둑이: I must say that I would not be happy with Case #2 either! There is no reason for government to pay for a hotel like hospital stay with gourmet menus! And a 3 day stay sounds a bit extensive. Of course being pushed out too soon, is not appealing either. But that sounds a bit wasteful.

If someone can personally afford that sort of care, fine! Let them pay for it. But no, I would not like my tax money being wasted to that extent.

Less Govt. Less Govt. Less Govt!!!

I find it interesting to see people go on about income and corporate taxes. Having visited and lived in a few countries I can say that when it comes to taxes, people get what they pay for. If you pay little, you get little. If you pay a lot, you get a lot more.

Case 1: Guatemala
This is where I was born and lived during my childhood. Guatemala is considerd a "tax shelter" meaning that the taxation rate is so low that opening bank accounts and businesses in that country is an "advantage" against the higher taxation rates paid in North America and Europe. The average Guatemalan citizen pays about 6% income tax. Of course, the rich and powerful can exploit local corruption to avoid paying taxes at all. That is the case with most large foreign coprorations in the country. In exchange for the 6% income tax, people get next to no helath care and next to no education. As a result, about 70% of the population is illiterate (although the literacy rate has improved in recent years.) Publicly run hospitals are understaffed, underequipped and they don't have the money or medicines to take care of their patients. In Guatemala is you are rich you can pay for private schools and private universities. You can pay for private clinics and get top of the line health care. If you are poor you are desined to be illeterate and to die of some torpical disease that could have been prevented or cured with adequate medicines or vaccines.

Case 2: Austria
Not so differnt from Germany and other European countries. My ex and my son live there. Most Austrian citizens pay between 21% and 50% income tax. On the average, the rate runs about 41%. That means that 41 cents of every Euro people make is going into the government's hands. What do people get as a result? Free healthcare. I was there when my son had this minor nose operation. In most places he would have gone in and out of the hospital for a few hours. Instead they kept him 3 days. The hospital nurse came with a menu like in a restaurant. My ex had a bed assigned to her because they did not want my son to stay alone at night. The place was like a hotel more than a hospital, and this was the "shabby, old hospital" rather than the newer, more modern one. Education is free through gymnasium (roughly high school), and university is heavily subsidized, with people paying on the average 366 Euros per term (about US $500). Not only that, but if a student completes a degree on the alloted time, the fees are waived and university becomes free. Compare that with the thousands it costs to get an education in North America.

We can say that Austria and Guatemala sit in opposite sides of the coin. High and low taxes. A lot of services versus no services. People get what they pay for.

The interesting thing is perception. Many Austrians dislike the high taxes, and government and business are contantly at odds over taxation. Guatemalans hate having to pay even the 6%. Guatemalans also complain constantly about taxes. Very often it is not what people pay, but the perception they have of how the government spends taxes.

Guatemalans would be only too happy to get free education and free healthcare, but they would never accept reforming the taxation system and raising taxes steeply. Austrians would love to have their taxes reduced to 6%, but they would never accept losing the services they get.

Ultimately, who lives better? Austrians certainly do. So what is better? A more "socialist" or a more "capitalist" government? Up to a point, countries with low taxation rates seem generally worse off than those countries with higher taxation rates. Taxes have to be high enough to allow the government to operate and to invest in the economy, but not so high that the business sector get choked to death. It is a difficult balance to maintain.

SL-Mark: Maybe in such a situation that we all pay tax there is NO point. Especially considering certain wealthy people avoid paying tax using off shore accounts.

"2. Business certainly lives up to its side of the bargain, it is called salary and corporation tax.

Like Kraft?

"Government, they have no use as far as I am concerned and is simply a pointless and very expensive cost for little value."

So, how would you replace democracy and as such overthrow the result of a civil war we had a way back?

"3. Your 'real events' are prattle and trifling.
As to Next, clearly you don't understand the significance."

That's not an explanation just "this is my stance" dribble.. explain yourself!!

SL-Mark: I like very much this story !

(V):
1. Yes we all pay tax, the wealthy more than the less well off. So we agree on this point, but I don't think this invalidates the prof's point, rather that you missed the point.

2. Business certainly lives up to its side of the bargain, it is called salary and corporation tax. Government, they have no use as far as I am concerned and is simply a pointless and very expensive cost for little value.

3. Your 'real events' are prattle and trifling.
As to Next, clearly you don't understand the significance.

SL-Mark: No I wasn't. It was quite clear he was going on about Income Tax.. but considering how our economy works, to say the poor pay nothing is false.

VAT may not be applied to "food and childrens clothing" but even poor people buy other things such as clothes for themselves, maybe a magazine or two. Perhaps pens!!

"but it is not the reponsibility of government or the rich to ensure this, but the individual."

True.. But it is the responsibility of the government and businesses to live upto their side of the bargain of this economy and reward those workers who are part of the rich getting rich and the government being in power.

"Your last point and examples are nothing but prattle and is ignorant of economic realities."

My "prattle" are examples of REAL events. Not some prof's schoolroom anecdotes. As to Next... So what? Their stores are not moving that is 95% of the firm . Business rates will not be lost there.

(V): You are confusing income tax, which is what the prof is talking about, from other types of taxes. VAT is not applied to essential items such as food and childrens clothing and reduced for things like heating oil. It is a consumption tax, the more you consume the more you pay.

"People need to live happily" Agreed, but it is not the reponsibility of government or the rich to ensure this, but the individual.

Your last point and examples are nothing but prattle and is ignorant of economic realities.
Organisations are already moving their HQs out of the UK. Next is a very topical example.

Tax for the mega rich in the 50's in the USA was 91% above $400,000 .. now today after years of dropping.. under Bush's tax cut's it dropped to 35%. 2/3 of USA corporations didn't pay any federal income tax from 1995 to 2008. How.... greasing the government.

Where is the Tea Party on this?

SL-Mark: So.. in this prof's world VAT and Duty don't exist. Everyone here in the UK pays tax in some shape or form... As I imagine in most countries.

"Revolutions!? Again, what is your point?"

Basic sociology .. people need to live happily.

"Wealth creators do not need resort to blackmail, they just move as they please."

But they do. That's why we have rules regarding MP's and their business contacts. Intel got a big fine for bribing. A CEO I use to work for blackmailed 2 people to avoid being booted from being a bad decision maker.. the two people had an office affair.

Wealth creators are human.

(V): >"In cash.. but in the difference between having enough and not to live on"
Not really clear on what your point is. The analogy to the beer tax example is that someone on the lowest wage would not be affected by a tax reduction, as they are not being taxed anyway!

Revolutions!? Again, what is your point?

No, the creators of wealth are not bankers. Wealth creators do not need resort to blackmail, they just move as they please.

SL-Mark: In cash.. but in the difference between having enough and not to live on...

Revolutions have been started by people not having enough whilst the rich "eat cake".

"In fact, they might start drinking overseas, as many are considering where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

Like the Bankers are threatening... that's blackmail!!

Übergeek 바둑이: Sorry to take so long to reply to your extensive answer. Much of what you say I can agree on, but much I disagree with too.

You also seem to be implying that my arguement is similar to that old chesnut, "take half the cars off the road and you will cut carbon emissions in half." We know that is not true, and that is not what I am saying here either. It is simply another inefficient tax, applied to gain some social equality, but only ends up making a nation poorer. But I'm repeating myself!

Here is a nice story I came across, explaining the tax system quite nicely :)

"THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?


They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, as many are considering where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."
By David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

On the news last night was how a NHS trust was getting rid of any staff over 65 it could before new laws came in giving more rights, making them having to pay redundancy to the staff as the retirement age laws change.

150+ staff purely from the Community Mental Health Care Team who received the princely sum of £10 for each years service... One lady psychiatric nurse has been there for 23 years.. ie £230 'golden handshake'

The irony... The NHS trust has just hired a new chief exec.. he's 66... but he's 'experienced' so we are told.

(V): OMG! NOT Robot chicken! LMBO!

There is a thing called scaring away!! Chickens usually respond to it very well.

..... Unless it's RoBoT cHiCkEn!!

Artful Dodger:It is a bit silly arguing all over a chicken in the first place. It was prolly only looking for somewhere to lay its eggs so no one could take them.

Ferris Bueller:That is the trouble with our health system nowadays. The onus is on curing rather than preventing. In which case some illnesses are left until it is too late to cure or prevent it going any worse.

Ferris Bueller: True... but the old health industry doesn't seem to quantify that a person's whole life can be destroyed by a mental illness, or the possible consequences of such to others apart from nearest and dearest.