graham wagdin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Haywood" <stevephaywood@ googlemail. com> >wrote in message >news:130f90930702151747u 710ebcf3v68d2279 5b5ffdf55@ mail.gmail. com... >> >> >> Only if we do the same for roads. Make drivers pay not just for the cost >> of >> the road, but the cost maintaining it, policing it, lighting it and >> otherwise keeping it open. Then we should factor in costs for the road >> infrastructure caused by traffic damage........snipped > > Oh great! Can we apply the same principal to the NHS and Education and > Police? In fact could it not apply to all services supplied by local and > national government to keep the country running?
Of course! Great idea. It is called "privatisation". The private operators will charge the market price, and there could even be competition which would keep that price down. The services will be run, and investments in them made, on economic principles instead of political ones, so they might actually be efficient. If the government feels poorer folk can't afford services they need, it could give them money to pay for them. A much more sensible use of tax money than giving the operators subsidies and telling them to lower their prices for everyone, including the majority who can afford to pay. The more essential a service is, the farther government should be kept from it IMHO. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
