Total Motorcycle Community Forums

i'd assume because that wasnt part of the deal when they signed up, and they theoretically should have known what they were getting into.

What about people who were drafted and had no choice? Should they get paid for injuries?

Serving your country is one thing, but should they be allowed to just chew you up and spit you out?

-Holiday wrote:i'd assume because that wasnt part of the deal when they signed up, and they theoretically should have known what they were getting into.

What about people who were drafted and had no choice? Should they get paid for injuries?

Serving your country is one thing, but should they be allowed to just chew you up and spit you out?

No, of course not. But when we DID have the draft, thats exactly what uncle Sam did.

I'm not saying these people don't need compensation...I'm saying they don't need a check for a million dollars. They need the govt to take care of them long-term, and help them recover from whatever injuries they sustained in order to lead a productive life and reintegrate into society. They need access to cheap or free health-care, reasonable-living pensions and retirement, perhaps free education and job placement assistance.

I don't see how a million dollars does that. Not to go kick a dead horse or anything, but when FEMA starting sending out checks to people for their misfortunes, a great percentage of people didn't exactly spend it responsibly.

I'm a firm believer that to help someone, you need to give them the means to help themselves. Just suddenly giving them a wad of cash hurts them more than it helps. Look at all the instant lottery millionaires...and then look at how many of them filed for bankruptcy within a few years.

How about instead of giving them money, pay for them to go to school if they haven't already. That way they can support themselves and earn a living.

They already will get their disability and other forms of support, but I definetly don't agree with a cash compensation. At least not too big of one.

As the way the state chooses to spend its money is of no concern whatsoever to me or mine, I guess I'd say to any serviceman who is made an offer of this kind that they should grab the cash and good luck.

What is more interesting is why the government is doing this right now and how the scheme has been legally structured and presented. Do the Labour Cabinet see it as a way of winning back votes from the military at a time when Blair's Iraq adventure has managed to upset every serviceman from general to private?

And why have they chosen to tie compensation to a notion of criminality. Why is it that a serviceman who has had an arm blown off in an insurgent attack is worth up to £500,000, while one who has had his arm blown off in a pre-planned military mission is only worth the usual meagre benefits. Is the first more deserving than the second? What's going on here?

Is there a legal and political nicety hovering over this definition? According to reports from the Non-Governmental agencies in Iraq rather than those that get filtered through the conventional press, it seems that the majority of attacks on soldiers of the invading armies are made by insurgents (ie those fighting for independence from a foreign invader) rather than from sectarian militias. Under international law any nation has the right to defend itself against an external invasion force. And that remains the case even when it is being governed by a non-independent puppet government such as now exists in Iraq.

Who knows what the thinking is. But a convenient implication of framing the new legislation in this way is that insurgent groups are now being rebranded as 'criminals' in English Law. Insurgents are already frequently defined in the press and by politicians as 'terrorists'. Clearly, in pursuing this little verbal nicety, the government cannot compensate those who fall victims of pre-planned attacks, as that would mean redefining all military action as 'criminal' also. The Iraq war? A criminal act? Who would have thought it.

What's in a word?

Kal, I agree with a good part of your post, but you're leaving out something important - and that's dodgy employers. There are plenty of employers here that do do shady things or tell you "do this X way or you're fired" when X way can get you injured or all sorts of other things. It's all well and good for you or I to say "then quit and get a new job" but that isn't always possible for folks. When that occurs, I'd say the employee does get to sue and deserves the payout.

Kal wrote:Not sure about in the States but here we have the Health & Safety at Work Act - which spells out employers responsibilities to employees and also employees responsibilities to employers.

If an employer is will to put you at risk then the chances are that sooner or later something will happen to you and the employer has already demonstrated a blatent disregard for your well being. The only bright thing to do, the only responsible thing to do is to walk.

We also have the industrial tribunial process which decides if someone has been construcitvely dismissed, been the target of harrassement and any number of other employer/employee conflicts.

Personally, I see no reason for loyalty to an employer whose sole purpose in employing you is to exploit you as effectively as he can, so I have no problem with someone going for every ounce of compensation he can get. Though if you are saying that when you can't get what you need out of the system then you should cut and run, I can't much argue with that. Sounds like self-preservation to me. I'd do the same.

The Health and Safety at Work Act is a pretty tough piece of legislation (though I've known unscrupulous employers to get around it.) In the U.S. employment protection is much weaker than here. What little legislation there is was introduced in the 30s and 40s as a result of very militant action by the workforce. But whatever power American employment legislation once had to protect workers, it was comprehensively shredded by the Reagan administration. You have to fight harder for your rights in the States - So I'm not surprised Nalian feels that way.

Kal wrote:As for yourself Wolf, I disagree (:)) with the first line of your post. It isnt the States money, it is our money and it is our place to decide how it should be spent.

Well, that's a matter for debate, Kal. ( ) There is good evidence to suggest that all taxation, including income tax, is ultimately borne by the employer. It's a complicated argument but briefly: a broad increase or decrease in income tax is generally followed, over time, by a corresponding increase or decrease in the level of wages and salaries. Studies show this to be so. That is, there is a mechanism that maintains the general level of disposable income.

That's not so hard to understand since wages are really just prices (the price the employer pays for the labour of the worker.) Like other prices, wages are subject to market forces. If anything like an increase in income tax affects the cost of maintaining the worker at the conventional level then market forces come into play. That means that all taxation is ultimately a tax on profit. The bigger an employer's wage bill the more tax he pays. (Putting a 'tax' on wages is actually a very recent phenomenon, and historically it was always assumed that taxation had to be borne by the propertied classes who collectively own the entire productive machinery of society.)

The idea that, in the long term, income tax doesn't actually come out of your wage or salary is counterintuitive, but there seems to be a lot of evidence to support it. Studies have been done in a number of western countries. Governments like people to think they have a financial stake in their society so it's not a piece of information that gets noised around much.

Kal wrote:That kind of leads to the idea that average citizens are disenfranchised and not beholden to the rules of society. After all if I am not a stakeholder in the society why should I conform to it - it isn't mine...

Surely the abour which I won and barter for wages is as much a part of the infrastructure as the machine that I use to do my job, which is owned by the company I work for?

I'm working my way through this but wouldn't the logical end to your arguement be that the burdan of taxation is bourne by the banking system as its generally a bank that owns most things in the country?

I amy not be making too much sense here as I am attempting to find my way through this idea.

Wow Kal! People generally refuse even to engage in this one. I just can't understand why.

I absolutely agree in every possible way, ordinary people who do not own capital are totally disenfranchised from their society. They have no stake and no say in it at all. You ask, what reason is there for you to conform? Well there is the force the state will bring to bear on you if you don't and your own need to respect other people around you, and the futility of unfocused rebellion. And apart from those things... no reason at all that I can see. But these are big reasons - enough to keep me roughly in line. Thought is free, though!

The idea that governments represent the interests of society as a whole is, in my view, all smoke and mirrors. I can't see any evidence for it.

Sorry. Shouldn't have started this. I'm now on a rant. Too late! It's like trying to control the throttle hand when the horns are out.

Yes your labour is part of the productive mechanism of society - but even that isn't yours. Remember - you've just sold it to an employer in return for the means of surviving. He owns the plant and machinery, the raw materials, the end products AND your labour - the lot. He'll sell some of what you have produced for him back to you of course - at a profit.

I was trying to keep things simple above, but yes the burden of taxation is borne by the owners of capital in general, and of course that ,in part, includes the owners of financial capital and the banks, anyone, that is, whose income depends on the generation of profit, interest or rent.


%£%£%£^$£ Just noticed it is way past my bed-time again. And I was going to have an early night!

Nalian wrote: When that occurs, I'd say the employee does get to sue and deserves the payout.

The Workers Compensation Act in Canada came about for far different reasons than most people think. It had nothing to do with employees getting injured and needing support. In fact, it's just the opposite...

When employees were getting injured, the were suing the companies and getting sizable rewards paid out to them. The employers banned together and lobbied the government to help them with these lawsuits. The WCB Act was introduced and became law, a part of that law says, if you're covered by WCB, them you forfiet your right to third party litigation...

Not in those words but hell, who asked the employee if he wanted this right removed. Now, with that said, you can waive your WCB claim and pursue the litigation, but any possible WCB claim has gone down the drain... can't be double dipping now can we???