what do you expect for free?

IveSeenTheLight

what do you expect for free?

nothing, sure some things in life are free, like the smile I get from my son each day.
I don't expect it though.
It's simply a reward for the bond I've created.

If you expect things for free or to be handed on a plate to you, then your only setting yourself up for a gauranteed dissapointment.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

and things that we used to expect / get for free but that have since been charged for? why have we accepted these charges and would we accept charges on other currently free things (e.g. footpaths).
- driving into london
- parking
- prescriptions
- fishing
- firewood
- grazing land for animals
- being buried after you died
i'm sure there are others. for example, when did we start paying for water?

Driving into London was only free for a brief period, it has been paid for since London got walls.
Again, stabling was paid for so 'free' parking can be see as an aberration rather than the norm
Prescriptions were 'free' for a matter of a couple of decades or so
Common land rights still exist. Plenty of people collected firewood when I was a kid.
Burial was never free except in a paupers grave if you died with no assets at all. If you held any assets at all they would be sold to pay for your burial.

Apart from common rights it probably isn't very helpful to think of things as free as they aren't. 'Paid for by someone else or the community as a whole' is both more accurate and conceptually better. British people would be able to have a much more honest conversation about the NHS for example if they stopped pretending that healthcare is 'free'. Healthcare isn't free it's bloody expensive.

diable

The_White_Horse wrote: »

anyone on benefits should be forced to donate their kidneys, livers and other usable body parts. scum.

fixed............ lol

Loughton_Monkey

N1AK wrote: »

How on earth can you consider it 'free' if it is paid for by taxation? You could perhaps say that it is free to those who don't pay tax, as a universal benefit.

Trying to imply that someone is being hypocritical by (for example) expecting the government to control the level of carcinogens a company can emit into the atmosphere, while at the same time they wouldn't support a scheme to give free BMWs to JSA claimants is facetious.

When people take umbrage with 'a sense of entitlement' they almost certainly are referring to peoples beliefs that they individually are entitled to benefits/items etc that fall well outside of a reasonable definition of necessities.

Agreed.

Apart from the air, virtually nothing is 'free'. It is all paid for by somebody.

The debate should be (and generally is) about what is paid out of taxation, as opposed to what we pay as individuals.

The trouble is that if we wanted to design a proper robust Government Spending plan, we certainly would not start from here. The huge complexity (and therefore management cost) of the myriad and maze of the Benefits system staggers imagination - only perhaps exceeded by the even more complex taxation system.

If we all drew up our 'shopping list' there would be enormous variation. There would (I imagine) be some things universally welcomed, such as 'free' defense, police, and education. But what we really mean by that is that we are happy for these to be taken out of taxation - but we are not happy for the money to be wasted.

Most of it is, though. Anybody who thinks our Ministry of Defense spends every penny wisely is a goon. Anybody who is 'happy' that the bulk of fully trained experienced police officers sit in the station deciding whether or not crimes are 'racially motivated' or not while actual 'policing' is performed by lower paid uniformed individuals who do not even have as much power as traffic wardens, must also be a bit weird.

We also need a 'free' healthcare system. But to my mind, I don't see that as totally free treatment. Those countries with the best healthcare are not 'free'. There are very modest charges per visit or per stay. This brings in a bit more revenue (from those who can afford it) and saves huge costs in managing a waiting list. How many people know that a 'waiting list' is very rare in modern countries?

There are huge costs and inefficiencies in our so-called 'free' Health Service, and yet the irony is that it is everything but free. Dentists have been charging huge sums for years. Most cannot even get an NHS dentist and so pay 'full' private rates. Most people pay for prescriptions. And worst of all, when we get old, frail, or riddled with dementia, and therefore when we want free care, many people are forced to pay the full cost. Let's even it out a bit. Let's all chip in £15 standard charge to visit the GP the same as any other country?

And we used to have free speech, too. Really 'free'. But not any more.

Ilya_Ilyich

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

And we used to have free speech, too. Really 'free'. But not any more.

This wasn't something I was aware of; do you have any links where I could read about it?

misskool

I don't expect anything for free, but it's nice when I don't have to pay for something.





Then I realise I pay tax, so I do sorta pay for it

blueboy43

Generali wrote: »

Prescriptions were 'free' for a matter of a couple of decades or so
Common land rights still exist. Plenty of people collected firewood when I was a kid.

pretty sure that prescriptions were 'free' for only 4 years or so after NHS was created.

blueboy43

ninky wrote: »

what is the difference?

something that is owned and maintained by the public for the public good and free at the point of use is a highly socialist concept.

you just don't want to admit it because you like the idea of free public green spaces but don't like the idea of anything that smacks of socialism.

Paternalism - A leader gives you whats good for you as he knows best.

Socialism - A self appointed group take everything off you, then give you back whats good for you as they know best.

I don't have a problem with Socialism that actually works in the form of the co-operative movement, mutual societies and credit unions (or public subscription).

I do have a problem with State Socialism that has been proved time and time again not to work.

>see Soviet Collectivisation and Mao's great leap forward for particularly stunning examples.<

ninky_2

N1AK wrote: »

Trying to imply that someone is being hypocritical by (for example) expecting the government to control the level of carcinogens a company can emit into the atmosphere, while at the same time they wouldn't support a scheme to give free BMWs to JSA claimants is facetious.

i didn't actually say that. i was merely hoping to provoke thought about what we expect / take for granted from taxation and how those goalposts can shift over time.

i dont' think anyone has suggested those who don't work should get free bmws. however, maybe free prescriptions would be a good idea and we could save a bit by spending less on cruise missiles?

there's also the consideration of who benefits from an educated and trained workforce and therefore who should pay. certainly with some degrees (e.g. engineering) there is a great social benefit to the person obtaining them. so is it right that that person should take on a large amount of personal debt to get that degree?

ninky_2

blueboy43 wrote: »

Paternalism - A leader gives you whats good for you as he knows best.

Socialism - A self appointed group take everything off you, then give you back whats good for you as they know best.

okay then by your own (dubious) definitions how is a public park paternalistic? surely it is more socialist?