Oh, I cannot take credit, it was your inspiration wot started me. In
general, things should be free to individual comrades, but the feelthy
capitalist pigs should pay 90% tax.
On 22 March 2011 17:11, Sandra Pickering <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yes - I like your idea of extending payment for state education to all
> private companies. For a start, we could keep the "requirements" of private
> companies out of education policy.
So true, far better that education stands proudly apart from
employment considerations.
> Sandra
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Saul Galloway
> Sent: 22 March 2011 15:23
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: NHS reforms mean GPs could double their income to £300,000 a
> year
>
> On 21 March 2011 19:00, Sandra Pickering <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>> My definition would include the moral standing and ethical values of the
>> provider.
>
> There should probably be a committee to ensure that high moral and
> ethical standings are properly enforced, staffed by people who are
> able to recognise them, and who are fearless in pointing out where
> they are deficient.
>
>> I want to know if they willingly pay or try to avoid paying taxes.
>
> A signed affadavit from their accountant that they were willing payers
> would be most helpful, and any propensity to overpay tax would
> probably be a good indicator of social responsibility.
>
>>
>> I want to know if they are employing people who have been educated at a
> cost
>> to the taxpayer and what they are doing to refund in full the cost of that
>> education to the taxpayer – or, alternatively, whether they are prepared
> to
>> set up their own schools, universities and colleges at their own cost.
>
> I don't think such an idea should be confined to healthcare. Why not
> make *every* company refund the taxpayer when employ someone educated
> in the state education system, or as you say get them to set up their
> own schools instead of freeloading.
>
>>
>> In short, I want quality defined properly.
>
> Reassuringly rigorous :-)
>
|