In article ,
Andy Cap wrote:
When the poll tax was introduced, she paid *more* than previously under
the rates. So exactly the sort of person so often quoted as being
penalised by the old rates was penalised more by the poll tax.


I like to look at the bigger picture. I'm afraid single situations don't
make for a good case.

Even when that single situation was so often quoted as to why the poll tax
would be fairer?

With change, there are always going to be winners
and losers

And surprise surprise, the only winners were the rich.

but generally it would have been a fairer system, with far
more earners contributing to the cost of providing the local services
they used. That's why there was so much objection.

There would have been less objection if the average family had paid the
same as before.

Incidentally, I'm no fan of Thatcher but that's for other reasons.

I wouldn't know where to start.

--
*A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.