On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:41:44 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:04:40 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:25:28 -0000, "Jonathan"
wrote:

"Alan" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we
have now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?


It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That seems to
me to be the fairest way.

It depends whether you want a society or just individuals.

"Society" is a nebulous thing. The idea of an individual is much more
tangible.

That is not to say that those individuals with need should not, in
some way be supported by those with the ability to pay. However, I
don't think that this needs to entail the massive involvement by
central and local government in the affairs of the individual that has
increasingly happened in recent years.

I would far rather make my own arrangements for healthcare, education
and other things that don't need to have state or local government
involvement; and then to pay towards the needs of those unable to do
so for themselves as a separate thing. There are a few things such as
policing and security which probably do need to have central/local
government involvement, but really that's about it.

So only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education?
Does anyone really want as system like in the USA?

Mark.