On 11/02/2017 18:57, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:36:10 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 10/02/2017 22:38, T i m wrote:

Are you out in the sticks or stuck on the end of some extra long mains?

Nope?

If so why should anyone else pay the extra costs of getting power,
water, sewage, phones to you?

Because it's not 'your fault' where you live (you may be born there)
and the supply of basic services is the right of everyone (within
reason) and therefore the costs of the more difficult sites would be
covered by the easy ones.

It may not be your fault but you could pay the amount it costs to
provide those service rather than stealing other peoples cash that don't
have such high costs.

But that's not how 'social' systems work is it? Don't you (happily)
pay towards say the local public library, swimming pool or park, even
though you may not use any of them? The point is there is an *offset*
where the ease of say installing electricity to a row of houses
offsets the difficulty of supplying the less straightforward ones. The
'norm' is the average cost of supplying said service, not the
cheapest.

I pay quite happily, however you appear to resent paying for some of the
services the government has decided should exist.


Same with the cost of mail ... it costs the same to send a letter to
the extremes of (say) the UK as it does to send something next door
but the *actual* cost of doing both is obviously very different.

Something else you think shouldn't be so?


Doesn't your council offer 'aids' for the elderly or disabled, often
completely FOC? Don't you agree with that either? Might you think
different if you were in need of such?

Its you that appears to describe some of the things the government does
as theft, not I.


Do you see where your argument leads?

Yes, common sense. ;-)

I would say it leads to losses for the poor.
Maybe you are far right?


BTW who decides what is "within reason" and why should *they* get to do it?

Common (social) sense mate.

Now, of they were living in the sticks and expected 'us' to pay for
their drive ... or pay them for the energy they generate but still use
themselves, then yes, that would be wrong / immoral / unethical. ;-)

Cheers, T i m