dogs

[JohnD]

Then you already do (unless you're a tax-dodger ) and so do I.

But write to your MP if you think the balance should be changed.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Scott - I think you should look up the definition of the word "flawed", for your understanding of it appears to be less than accurate.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
The same as a gun license helps police guns and gun owners.
The same as a Gorgi license helps police safely installed gas appliances

I didn't say that your proposal is without merit, or is of no use whatsoever, I said it is flawed.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
You have not yet giving a better proposal.

I didn't say that your proposal is without merit, or is of no use whatsoever, I said it is flawed.
I do not have to have a better proposal, or indeed any proposal at all, in order to be able to see flaws in yours, or to ask you to clarify, or explain, or consider ways in which your proposal might be improved.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
The proposal is fair

I didn't say that your proposal is without merit, or is of no use whatsoever, I said it is flawed.
Do you honestly believe that it is as fair as it can possibly be?

Do you honestly believe, for example, that there is no case for a rebate for pensioners, or that such an idea should not even be considered?

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
But if you want to suggest different costs go ahead

I didn't say that your proposal is without merit, or is of no use whatsoever, I said it is flawed.
I could suggest different costs, but that would not get us any nearer to trying to find out why you will not discuss yours, and why you steadfastly refuse to answer my questions about your policy.

It's your idea - you must surely have given it some thought, you must surely be able to explain why it is the way it is?

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
Dogs carry a risk to other people so dog owners should have third party insurance.

I didn't say that your proposal is without merit, or is of no use whatsoever, I said it is flawed.
I also agreed with you that insurance is a good idea.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
You asked what the £50 - £100 should cover and one of my suggestions was third party insurance.

I didn't say that your proposal is without merit, or is of no use whatsoever, I said it is flawed.
So would the Government underwrite this insurance? That's not usually the sort of thing they do.

Do you think that Government underwritten insurance is a desirable or workable scheme?

Do you think that Government underwritten insurance is as efficient or cost-effective, more efficient or cost-effective or less efficient or cost effective than private sector provision?

If you think that the Government should not underwrite this insurance, what are your proposals for transferring the risk, and therefore some of the licence fee, to the private sector? How should the insurance companies be chosen? How should their performance be measured?
Do any insurance companies offer third-party only cover?

Do you think that the otherwise universal notion that premiums should be related to risk should apply to dog insurance? If so, why are you proposing a flat rate fee? Or if I have misunderstood your "£50 - £100", and that includes a risk-related variable component, is the amount, and the range you have estimated realistic?

Please note that these are all genuine questions that you ought to be able to answer, as you have made this proposal, they are not necessarily areas where your proposal is flawed.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
I can say that “If it saves one child’s live then it’s a benefit”

I didn't say that your proposal is without merit, or is of no use whatsoever, I said it is flawed.
And I know you can say what you did. My point is that you ought not to say it without a cost-benefit analysis, as it is not a cost-free proposal.

The proposal is not flawed – the license would help police all dogs and dog owners.
The £50 - £ 100 would also cover the DNA database.

I didn't say that your proposal is without merit, or is of no use whatsoever, I said it is flawed.
I'm glad that you have accounted for the cost of setting up, maintaining and using a DNA database.
I note that you didn't mention, until prompted, that this was one of the things that the licence fee would pay for - first it was just a fee, and even when I asked you what it would pay for, you didn't immediately say insurance.

But then you did.

And now you say it will also pay for a DNA database.

Why is getting the details of what you think people will get for the money that you think they should pay like pulling teeth?

This is your proposal, you must have thought about it, so it would be useful if you could give us a list of all the things the fee would fund.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not sure that "keep" describes the relationship with cats.

OK - I would prefer it if people did not allow themselves to be kept by cats.

Balanced against the cost of people who get mauled or killed? No one said it would be easy, the question is is people feeling sad or lonely better that people getting bitten, mauled or killed??

It's not an easy balance to strike, particularly as we have no reliable data on dog attacks.

But IIRC we do have statistically sound evidence to show that elderly people who live alone live longer if they have a dog than if they don't. Or maybe it's any pet - I don't know, but it is a possible factor to consider. And even if it is any pet, if a person hates cats and has always been a dog-lover, why should they be expected to change just because they are a pensioner? For a lot of pensioners, £50-£100 a year would be a lot to find (and yes I know that's not your proposal), but any fee-regime, if it's more than a nominal amount, needs, for reasons of social acceptability, to take account of those with a lower ability to pay.

If "sad and lonely" translates to "dying sooner" then we do have to consider that as a cost to be paid to avoid or reduce the currently unquantifiable level of attacks.

If "sad and lonely" translates to a greater sense of alienation from society, and a greater level of antisocial or criminal behaviour later in life, then we have to consider that cost too.

I'm fascinated to hear what you think the value of a childs life is?

That is a question that people instinctively shy away from, because it seems so callous, but it has to be done.

I don't know what value I would put on it, but I recognise the concept and I accept the need for cost-benefit analyses to be done.

Suppose a medical treatment was discovered that cured some very rare disorder, and would save the life of 10 children per year in this country. If it cost £1000 per life, who would argue against it?

What about £10,000 per life?

£1,000,000?

£10 million?

£1 billion?

Do you see the point? At some stage (and that will be at different places for different people) we have to say "I'm very sorry, but it just isn't worth it. We have finite resources, and to raise a further £x per year in taxation to save 10 lives is unsustainable". And as soon as you do that, you are into the realm of cost-benefit analyses.

As I say, on the face of it terribly callous, but sadly there is no other way to work.

Here's another example. We could totally ban the private ownership and operation of motor vehicles. That would save lives. We don't need to argue about how many, unless you want to seriously claim that it would save none.

So if it would save at least one life, it would be a benefit. The question is, would you support such a ban?

 

[scott1968]

Scott - I think you should look up the definition of the word "flawed", for your understanding of it appears to be less than accurate.

I know the definition of flawed (Faulty, Defective, Damaged), maybe you did not know the definition of flawed as you are now back tracking you flawed statement, maybe you were looking for words like – modify, tweak, alter, tuned.

It was only a proposal – A one liner “You have to be a registered dog owner and pay a yearly license” (cover admin cost for one)

Maybe you do not know the definition of proposal

I still say there should be a license for dogs and dog owners.
“And you having not suggested anything better”

_____________________________________________________
Is your glass half full or half empty?

 

[baldy01]

£1 billion?

Thats 10Billion for 10 kids. For the population of the UK thats £165 quid each OK I'm happy to pay 165 quid more tax to save 10 kids lives yes.

But I also take the point that there is a boundary where the resources required are simply not available. I personally would be willing to push that boundary a long way.

 

[scott1968]

zzzzz

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I know the definition of flawed (Faulty, Defective, Damaged), maybe you did not know the definition of flawed as you are now back tracking you flawed statement, maybe you were looking for words like – modify, tweak, alter, tuned.

Yes, that's right - if a design is flawed, you modify it to remove the flaw.

It was only a proposal – A one liner “You have to be a registered dog owner and pay a yearly license” (cover admin cost for one)

Maybe you do not know the definition of proposal

Yes, I know what a proposal is.

I also know what a half-baked idea is, and I know what a complete guess is.

But whatever word you wish to use, I am happy with. Do you believe that your proposal needs no modifications, tweaks or tuning?

Your refusal to countenance any suggestion that your proposal had flaws stemmed from a simple question from me about whether your proposal included a reduced fee for pensioners and benefit claimants, and you said no. Now - I consider that a flaw, and I have explained why. You may not consider it a flaw, but it seems to me that every time I ask for clarification of any aspects of your proposed policy you just say it's not flawed, or "you do better".

The reason that I asked you if you had any suggestions was because you are a dog owner, and therefore, I thought, better placed than someone like me, who is not a dog owner or a dog lover, to have useful ideas about what should be done to address the problem of dangerous and/or out-of-control dogs.

Well - I apologise if I was wrong to assume that you had put some thought into your proposal, and had considered some of the fairly obvious areas I was asking about.

And I apologise for being interested in your proposal, and for wanting to find out more about how it would work.

I still say there should be a license for dogs and dog owners.

I'm sure you do, but I am now unconvinced that you have any concrete ideas whatsoever about how it should be charged, what it would pay for, and how, or that you are willing to think about those things.

But since workable proposals are needed, I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

“And you having not suggested anything better”

I don't have the expertise to suggest anything better. I don't know what breeds of dogs merit closer control than others. I don't know how many dog wardens would be needed. I don't know what insurance costs. I don't know what chipping costs, or how that technology can be usefully exploited. I don't know what a DNA database would cost to set up and run.

But returning one last time to flaws - I don't need to know how to design a car to know that one that disintegrates in a crash is flawed, and that its design needs to be modified.

 

[baldy01]

Is your glass half full or half empty?

Its empty, I'll have a pint thanks!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Thats 10Billion for 10 kids. For the population of the UK thats £165 quid each OK I'm happy to pay 165 quid more tax to save 10 kids lives yes.

Good on you. Except of course it would be more, since your calculation assumes a payment from everybody. If we consider just income tax payers, it would be £338 each. Maybe to make it fairer, and for rich people to pay proportionately more, you might pay less, or you might pay more than that. I don't know what it equates to in terms of an increase in the various tax rates, but it's a 7.7% increase in the overall income tax take, or it could be done by a 3% rise in NI contributions, or 3% rise in VAT. All figures approximate.

But I also take the point that there is a boundary where the resources required are simply not available. I personally would be willing to push that boundary a long way.

And others would stop pushing well before you, I expect

But that was the only principle I wanted to establish - that we have to have a concept of looking at the costs of things compared to the benefits, which means we do have to have a concept of placing a value on a life.