Saturday 15 November 2008

Were they the eight in ten?

More than 80% of children who are killed or seriously injured as a result of abuse or neglect are missed by the national child protection register, the Guardian can reveal.


So what we're saying is that despite all the hundreds of millions chucked at looking after kiddies, it's not fucking working?

Despite all the handwringing from cunts like the NSPCC and all the hectoring interference into the lives of people who aren't fucking child abusers, despite all the database spying on kids, despite all the irritation and upset, it's not working?

Here's an idea: why don't we shitcan the whole fucking lot of it? A bunch of useless fucking paper-pushing bureaucrats and quangocrats will be out of jobs, boo-hoo. A whole lot of people who like to stick their noses into everyone else's lives can fuck right off.

The next thing is to stop funding people who pop out progeny as a means of building an income. Fuck 'em. Let them start starving until they get a job. Take the kids into care until the fucking parents can afford to feed them. Kids can go into military barracks and be subject to a little bit of military discipline. No Wiis, no Xboxes, no fucking PSPs, no mobile phones. Aggressive schooling. Bring back the cane. Put some backbone into them. No social workers allowed.

Stream the kids. Bring back appyships. Teach them something useful.

Parents who get back on their feet can "buy" their kids back. Parents who don't care enough to make the effort don't deserve their kids and the kids will be better off under disciplined care.

It will hurt like fuck for a decade, but when those kids go out and there's no dole and no child benefit, they'll go out and make something of their lives. Their kids will be loved and wanted, and properly cared for.

Enough of this shit. I'm tired of paying for feckless fuckwits to ruin lives.


Hacked Off said...

You'd get my vote with this as policy - provided you also took back the UK from the EUSSR

The Penguin
Penguinus Voteforobnoxio

Obnoxio The Clown said...

First step would be to leave the EU.

Second step would be to repeal every law based on EU directives. We can always re-implement later. Mass repeal of every law introduced by Labour since 1997. (Probably a lot of overlap!)

Third step would be to shit-can every consultancy contract with the government and renegotiate.

Every single drop of government funding for quangoes and charities stopped dead.

Massive tax simplification: flat tax of 25% on everything above £12000 per annum. Dividends untaxed. Corporate tax abolished. All duties abolished. VAT abolished. National Insurance either abolished or replace the current Ponzi scheme with actual insurance.

Sell off the NHS.

Renationalise the trains and resell them in such a way that you don't have oligopolies on routes. Same thing for buses.

Deregulate schools and introduce vouchers.

Introduce citizens income, end ALL welfare programs. Implement program to gradually phase out citizen's encome.

Sack the entire civil service, district and town councils. Review the entire governance requirement.

Go to the market to get us out of the bank ownership business.

Mark Wadsworth said...

I wouldn't have expressed it quite like that, but all in all that seems sensible enough.

The first step towards any sensible policy is 'Leave the EU ...".

Having read your outline manifesto in the comments, that's all good stuff, but you should keep corporation tax at the same rate as income tax. It is better to have the same rate on all income (personal or corporate) than to have a higher rate on one and a lower rate on the other, but that's another topic.

Anonymous said...

All sensible policies, although I think Mark is right about keeping the tax rates the same. It makes life much simpler.

You forgot about the BBC though. It should be made a matter of priority to break it up and sell off the assets. (Selling the staff into slavery in one of the less enlightened Gulf states is optional).

RobW said...

Yeah this whole Baby P thing just proves what a waste of time and money big government is.

As if anybody could ever protect every child. The very concept is mental.

Leg-iron said...

Two things stand out in the whole child care fiasco. One is the insistence that 'we need more money' which is universal for any government organisation that's screwed up. Throwing money at problems never fixes them but they can't seem to grasp that.

The other is accountability. In every case where any government office ruins someone's life, there's never anyone to blame. Having got away with it, they then have free rein to do what they please. And they do. Over and over and over. And when they screw up, they ask for even more money so they can employ even more unaccountable little wastes of space who will soon realise they are untouchable too.

If it's going to blow, it'll be one of these untouchable officials that'll start it off.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

It is better to have the same rate on all income (personal or corporate) than to have a higher rate on one and a lower rate on the other, but that's another topic.

I disagree, because companies will always pass their tax costs on to consumers or their staff wherever possible.

I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong.

Null said...

However money is taken from a business, there should be a single level of taxation. Otherwise, before you know it, my business will be buying me a house and a car and all of my holidays...

Perhaps I could be the first tax "advisor" in Obo's new world order?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Obo, the UK ran an experiment a few years back of exempting the first £10,000 of company profits from corporation tax. We tax advisers abused this to the hilt and it was withdrawn again (and rightly so).

The distinction between self-employed and corporate income is largely a legal one; there is no real difference in economic terms. You could turn the logic on its head and say that corporations should pay a higher rate than individuals (as some countries do), that doesn't work either.

If it is true that businesses pass on some of the tax cost to employees or consumers (quite clearly they do - altho' the bulk is borne by shareholders and investors) then the same argument applies to every business (whether sole trader, partnership or company) and to every employee or investor.

But the damaging/distortionary effects of taxes on personal or corporate incomes is minimised if the rate is as flat as possible across all sources of income - i.e. the employer gets tax relief equal and opposite to the employee's income tax burden.

Fidothedog said...

Kids need to be toughened up, in the words of Chopper "Toughen the fuck up"

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Paul P and Mark W, I think I've figured out the deficiency in your argument: if someone is allowed to claim holidays and cars and houses as a valid business expense, then it doesn't really matter what the business tax rate is. If you have a zero tax rate on business expenses it will not increase or decrease the chances of someone running dodgy expenses through there books.

Since there is zero tax on profits, there is an incentive to produce dividends for shareholders and that is done by minimising expenses.

I think. :os

Mark Wadsworth said...

Obo, it is beyond dispute that taxes on income or profits dampen economic activity, let's agree to agree on that.

But it is futile to try and distinguish between a 'business' (which provides goods and services to the end-user for profit) or a worker or investor (who provides services or capital to the 'business' for profit). And even if you could so distinguish, why should a shop that is run via a limited company pay zero tax but a sole trader or partnership next door pay flat income tax on the same profits?

As I was saying, there is no need to pontificate on this. The UK ran the experiment with exempting the first £10,000 of company profits from corporation tax, and all that happened was that everybody rushed to incorporate, as a result of which the total tax take fell, as a result of which everybody who could not channel their income via a limited company had to pay a slightly higher tax rate.

Anonymous said...

The fact that 80% of children are missed will be the Govt's argument for registration at birth.

Then they can claim 100%...

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a great idea for some serious civil unrest.
Lets do it !

John Pickworth said...

You guys are doing my head in...

That jolly nice woman on TV said "Tax doesn't need to be taxing". Now you're making it all complicated again :-(

Actually, I like flat taxes... not as much as I like no taxes but I guess unless we want the Trident program registering as a charity we have to pay something?

Yeah, out of the EU... anything with a Union in the name is BAD! Don't mind free travel across European borders, free trade or economic cooperation when it suits us. I can live with metric... can you see today's school leavers getting their heads around the Imperial System?

You know, if we had any sense at all, we'd give China a 99 year lease on the British Isles.

Everything else on Obnoxio's list I can sign up to... no sweat.

Oh no wait... I'd also legalise* fox hunting, child porn, Robinson's Gollywog and indentured working. Anyone not falling down dead with an instant heart attack after that lot is definitely not a lefty.

PS, can I be the new Minister for Comedy?

* Ignore me, I'm having a silly Sunday