Govt Free Stuff

[Nearly Sane]

....

Scotland's free tampon policy looks like one from a country that doesn't have to pay its own bills.

Neither does England

[jeremyp]

Neither does England

England doesn't have a blanket free tampon policy.

[Nearly Sane]

England doesn't have a blanket free tampon policy.

So what is it that makes your argument that is a policy related to not 'paying its own bills' ?

[jeremyp]

So what is it that makes your argument that is a policy related to not 'paying its own bills' ?

Because giving something away for free to everybody is only something you do if you know somebody else (i.e. the UK collectively) is paying for it.

There's absolutely no reason for a free tampons for all policy. Food is also a necessity, but we only give it away to people who can't afford it - similarly water and housing.

Anyway, this is off topic, so I'll say no more about it on this thread.

[Nearly Sane]

Because giving something away for free to everybody is only something you do if you know somebody else (i.e. the UK collectively) is paying for it.

There's absolutely no reason for a free tampons for all policy. Food is also a necessity, but we only give it away to people who can't afford it - similarly water and housing.

Anyway, this is off topic, so I'll say no more about it on this thread.

So when there used to be free eyetests and prescriptions  and indeed no student fees across the UK, someone else was paying for it?


As to means testing , it's often innefficient and discourages take up amongst those who need it most.

[jakswan]

So when there used to be free eyetests and prescriptions  and indeed no student fees across the UK, someone else was paying for it?

Can't be a serious question can it?

Either the tax payer or, if deficit, the next generation are paying for it.

[Nearly Sane]

Can't be a serious question can it?

Either the tax payer or, if deficit, the next generation are paying for it.

  It's the logic of your statement.

'Because giving something away for free to everybody is only something you do if you know somebody else (i.e. the UK collectively) is paying for it.'

ETA - My mistake, I just saw the j and assumed I was replying to jeremyp rather than jakswan. It's the logic of jeremyp's statement.

[jeremyp]

So when there used to be free eyetests and prescriptions  and indeed no student fees across the UK, someone else was paying for it?


As to means testing , it's often innefficient and discourages take up amongst those who need it most.

No. We were paying for it. We stopped doing those things because, in the opinion of the governments of the time we couldn't afford to pay for them.

If Scotland had to cover the costs of free higher education etc out of taxes that it raised rather than out of general UK taxation, there might be a bit more pressure to stop providing them for free.

Your argument about means testing is utterly facile. If it were serious, there would be no means testing.

ETA: Yes I broke my promise not to comment again. Maybe a moderator could split this line into a different thread.

[Nearly Sane]

  Moderator Topic created from posts on Brexit thread

[ProfessorDavey]

So when there used to be free eyetests and prescriptions  and indeed no student fees across the UK, someone else was paying for it?

We were all paying for it in some manner, via taxation - some more than others.

It is the choice of government how much money it wants to raise via taxation and what it chooses to spend that money on - but nonetheless public expenditure is ultimately spending money that has been raised from individuals and businesses via tax. The alternative is to borrow, but then taxation will pay for the cost of that debt in some way and at some time.

The most 'pain free' way to be able to spend more without squeezing the pips so to speak is to develop policies which generate growth in the economy, which means that greater tax can be raised without altering the tax rates or type of tax. But of course this doesn't work if a further consequence of growth is that public expenditure needs to be higher, as may occur if a larger economy is based on simply the presence of more people, rather than an increase in GDP per capita.

[Nearly Sane]

We were all paying for it in some manner, via taxation - some more than others.

It is the choice of government how much money it wants to raise via taxation and what it chooses to spend that money on - but nonetheless public expenditure is ultimately spending money that has been raised from individuals and businesses via tax. The alternative is to borrow, but then taxation will pay for the cost of that debt in some way and at some time.

The most 'pain free' way to be able to spend more without squeezing the pips so to speak is to develop policies which generate growth in the economy, which means that greater tax can be raised without altering the tax rates or type of tax. But of course this doesn't work if a further consequence of growth is that public expenditure needs to be higher, as may occur if a larger economy is based on simply the presence of more people, rather than an increase in GDP per capita.

Yes, I agree. The point is that if as jeremyp stated

'Because giving something away for free to everybody is only something you do if you know somebody else (i.e. the UK collectively) is paying for it.'

Then someone else would have to have been paying for it.

[Outrider]

Because giving something away for free to everybody is only something you do if you know somebody else (i.e. the UK collectively) is paying for it.

Free at the point of use - like the NHS - is not claiming that it's free, but that you don't need to choose between being able to pay when you need it and not having it.

There's absolutely no reason for a free tampons for all policy.

Except that it puts additional cost on half the populace for a significant portion of their lift that the other half of the population never has to worry about - it's about trying to remove one of the pernicious little bits of structural sexism in society.

Food is also a necessity, but we only give it away to people who can't afford it - similarly water and housing.

Food, water and housing are universal requirements, they don't disproportionately impact on one sex.

O.