"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Sharrock wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Alan wrote:
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

The tabloids and Tory right-wingers had campaigns comparing the rates
paid
by
families with 3 or 4 working members and retired widows. To put this
anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element
into
the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as
this
would go down well with the Tory faithful. When everyone realised that
ths
would be even more unfair than the rates which only had anomalies at
the
edges
it was too late as Thatcher had then made up her mind and wouldn't
change
it
even if the coutry burnt.


At the time, I was a single-working parent with wife and two
ankle-snappers to feed, clothe and most expensively shod.
One income, one Rates bill.

Me too.

My next-door arriviste neighbours had two working parents plus three
adult children ... they had loadsamoney ... used to say 'Oh you must
go on holiday to Spain with us .... we love it there!'
Five Incomes, one {identical] Rates bill!

I hope they correctly got hit with Income Tax. Perhaps we should increase
Income tax rates?


The topic under discussion is _Local Government funding_ .
Stick to the topic and don't try your usual diversion tactics.
Income tax rates are _not_ being addressed here.


Don't regurgitate your 'millbank briefs' about widows and
'only effected the margins' ...
what about the working-man that the fat-cat, directorship-grabbing,
left-wing-spouting Labour politicians ignored.

Did you get that from the Mail or the Telegraph?

No, but did you get your response of Millbank^WOld Queen St^S
or your pager ? How many directorships have Mandelson and
Blunkett grabbed?. Once again; Stick to the topic and don't try your
usual diversion tactics

--

Brian