On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:46:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
A better solution would be to make it people's responsibility and if
they choose not to behave responsibly to levy a fine.

Regular collections paid for out of the rates (or whatever) are by far the
best - and most cost effective - method.

It would be if it dealt with the *whole* problem. It doesn't.

If I want to get rid of garden materials, scraps of wood or larger
things I have to take it to the tip or get a skip.

If I don't deal with these, then it makes a mess and inconveniences
the neighbours.


--

..andy

wrote:

I have no sympathy with those in large houses who winge about council
tax/rates, They have the capital of the house, If it is too large for them
then they should sell up and move somewhere smaller.

But the current issue is not with size or particularly location, but one
of "view" where councils refuse to acknowledge anyone has a right to a
view and that removal of such view is not detrimental to the value of
the property, they are now suggesting that view is indicative of house
value/worth and as such, as relevant as size/space etc.

I doubt many folks will be bothered, but me me me we have a stunning
view (all be it over the Bristol chanell to llanwern steel works /
Newport) but all the same, it is just another way of screwing a random
selection of the community who place no more of a burden on the
resources than those with more "traditional" views.

And it all comes from those bloody Americans too !!

grumble grumble

--
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://trade-price-supplements.co.uk - TRADE PRICED SUPPLEMENTS for ALL!
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.
http://gymratz.co.uk/hot-seat.htm - Live web-cam! (sometimes)

""Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)"" wrote in message
k...
wrote:

I doubt many folks will be bothered, but me me me we have a stunning
view (all be it over the Bristol chanell to llanwern steel works /
Newport) but all the same, it is just another way of screwing a random
selection of the community who place no more of a burden on the resources
than those with more "traditional" views.

Here here! (Hear Hear??)

And does anyone forget we've been here before? It was called window tax.
What next - extra taxes for those with watches costing more than £5 from
Argos, because yes, there was even a clock tax.
Which we look back on as being archaic and ridiculous. After all, charging
for a view????
Labour - thinking the unthinkable!

In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
""Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)"" wrote in message
k...
wrote:

I doubt many folks will be bothered, but me me me we have a stunning
view (all be it over the Bristol chanell to llanwern steel works /
Newport) but all the same, it is just another way of screwing a random
selection of the community who place no more of a burden on the resources
than those with more "traditional" views.

Here here! (Hear Hear??)

And does anyone forget we've been here before? It was called window tax.
What next - extra taxes for those with watches costing more than £5 from
Argos, because yes, there was even a clock tax.
Which we look back on as being archaic and ridiculous. After all, charging
for a view????
Labour - thinking the unthinkable!

*You're* thinking the unbelievable. I know why the Mail and the Telegraph are
printing such outrageous twaddle - but why are you repeating it?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

Why? Does a single person living in a tiny house in the "right" area
use 10
times as many amenities as a family of 5 in a council estate?
Again, no-one's been able to clearly explain that one to me either!

It has always been based on an assumed ability to pay derived from the
property value rather than amenity use. Everyone has appreciated that those
using most amenties - eg elderly, sick & those with children - aren't
the ones
who can afford most. property values are a good option and redress the
balance
a bit for those not paying enough income tax (by fiddling their income) but
living in big houses.

The previous poster was positing a tiny house, not a big one. Size
doesn't appear to have much relevance to Council Tax banding and even
OMV is not the whole story.

Council tax is unjust on many levels a few of which I have listed below.

It is of no consequence whether the tax payer is the owner or the tenant
or whether the owners equity in the property is 100% or some negative
figure.

It is of no consequence whether the tax payer has modest savings or
millions in the bank. There is no relief however low the income unless
the savings are minimal.

It is of no consequence that old properties cost their occupiers far
more to run and maintain than new properties and there is a double
whammy in that the council tax band is based not on the open market
value of the property (which in any case is inflated by a foolish desire
of many prospective buyers to own old property) but on what it would be
worth if it were in first class condition.

There is no connection between the level of services the council
provides to your immediate locality and the tax paid.

--
Roger Chapman

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
"Alan" wrote in message
ups.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's not the poll tax. Thatcher made sure no one could use that option
again.

The problem with the present system is that it is too 'lumpy' (big steps)
and
stops far too low. The old rateable value was far fairer - and there
should
not be a cut-off point; someone with a 10 million GBP house should pay 10
times what someone with a 1 million house should pay.

Sorry I don't agree. I believe you should pay only for the services you use,
it should not be related to the value of the house. For example if you have
a huge garden and want your garden waste collected then pay for this service
based on the size of the collection. Why should one person in a 10 million
pound house inherited from the family be forced out of it because they
cannot afford the council tax? In my view everything should be metered that
way you only get what you can afford and you can prioritise your spending.


--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Regular collections paid for out of the rates (or whatever) are by far the
best - and most cost effective - method.

It would be if it dealt with the *whole* problem. It doesn't.

If I want to get rid of garden materials,

Garden materials are best composted. Better for the environment in every
way - and for the garden.

scraps of wood

Must be large scraps if they won't fit in a dustbin. Which then come under
the heading of commercial waste. After all, you object to paying a flat
rate for rubbish collection?

or larger things I have to take it to the tip or get a skip.

Well, yes. Domestic rubbish collection is normally restricted to the day
to day domestic rubbish, strangely. Think of the size of a dustcart that
would be needed to take away the contents of the average skip. ;-)

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

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

"Jonathan" wrote:

And does anyone forget we've been here before? It was called window tax.
What next - extra taxes for those with watches costing more than £5 from
Argos, because yes, there was even a clock tax.
Which we look back on as being archaic and ridiculous. After all, charging
for a view????
Labour - thinking the unthinkable!

Tax the politicians, that will stop them in their tracks.


--

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:00:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
So you'd be assessed on the number of bags of rubbish that had to be
taken away? How often you walked and wore out the pavement? ;-)

Well no... I was thinking more about the high ticket items like
education and those that can easily be handled individually.

So you believe only the children of the well off should be educated?

No. But I do believe in choice without penalty.

Have
you thought this one through?

Of course. In my original comment, I did say that I thought that it
was reasonable for those with the ability to pay to effectively
subsidise those with less ability to pay.

Like healthcare, I think that it should be handled through a voucher
system whereby the state or local authority provides vouchers to all
users of services that are adequate to fund it.

However, those who wish to supplement via cash, insurance or other
financial vehicles should be able to do so in educational or
healthcare facilities of their choice.

As it is today, there are choice limitations and tax hits for such
choices. I don't think that that is reasonable.


--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Like healthcare, I think that it should be handled through a voucher
system whereby the state or local authority provides vouchers to all
users of services that are adequate to fund it.

Are you willing to pay the additional costs of such a system and do you
appreciate that it will demolish the very best of the system we have at the
moment?

Healthcare?
Best go socialist. Cuba has a far lower infant mortality rate than the USA.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:12:07 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:46:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
A better solution would be to make it people's responsibility and if
they choose not to behave responsibly to levy a fine.

Regular collections paid for out of the rates (or whatever) are by far the
best - and most cost effective - method.

It would be if it dealt with the *whole* problem. It doesn't.

If I want to get rid of garden materials, scraps of wood or larger
things I have to take it to the tip or get a skip.

If I don't deal with these, then it makes a mess and inconveniences
the neighbours.

My local authority provides (and empties!) a separate wheely-bin for
garden waste. For any bulky stuff I just phone them and they collect
within a few days (usually the day after 'normal' bin day).

--
Frank Erskine

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:23:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Regular collections paid for out of the rates (or whatever) are by far the
best - and most cost effective - method.

It would be if it dealt with the *whole* problem. It doesn't.

If I want to get rid of garden materials,

Garden materials are best composted. Better for the environment in every
way - and for the garden.

Generally true, although not all material is suitable for that. My
options are to deliver to the tip, get a skip or buy special sacks at
the council offices. None of these are convenient.


scraps of wood

Must be large scraps if they won't fit in a dustbin. Which then come under
the heading of commercial waste.

Why? I haven't obtained them through commercial endeavour.

After all, you object to paying a flat
rate for rubbish collection?

or larger things I have to take it to the tip or get a skip.

Well, yes. Domestic rubbish collection is normally restricted to the day
to day domestic rubbish, strangely. Think of the size of a dustcart that
would be needed to take away the contents of the average skip. ;-)

Understood. What I'd like to have is a single, convenient solution
for all rubbish that I can pay for as I use it. The annoyance is one
bit here, one bit there and so on, and largely at the discretion of
whether the bin men decide they want to take something away or not.

Either the local authority should provide a solution for all of the
problem or none of it.



--

..andy

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
So you'd be assessed on the number of bags of rubbish that had to be
taken away?

Why be assessed? Why not just charge for each bag, like many places do?
Pay at point of use - but if an idea is simple, it's probably not going
to work.

So you'd always have someone at home when the dustman called? Or would you
expect to be billed? Doesn't sound that efficient to me...

You pay for the bags when you buy them, is how all the schemes I've seen
work.

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan wrote:

And does anyone forget we've been here before? It was called window tax.
What next - extra taxes for those with watches costing more than £5 from
Argos, because yes, there was even a clock tax.
Which we look back on as being archaic and ridiculous. After all,
charging
for a view????
Labour - thinking the unthinkable!

*You're* thinking the unbelievable. I know why the Mail and the Telegraph
are
printing such outrageous twaddle - but why are you repeating it?

Oh dear. Brief history lesson, old boy:

----------------------
"31 December 1695
The window tax was imposed in Britain, which resulted in many windows being
bricked up, some of which survive to this day. It was not the only wealth
tax to be attempted in Britain. Others were the Chimney Tax, the Clock Tax,
and (everyone's favorite) the Stamp Act."
----------------------

I have no idea what "twaddle" you are referring to, as I read neither.
Please enlighten (but don't be slapping an enlightenment tax on me now!)

Jonathan wrote:

I have no idea what "twaddle" you are referring to, as I read neither.
Please enlighten (but don't be slapping an enlightenment tax on me now!)

I am presuming it is the political bias of the papers in question
attempting to cause more outrage against the current government which
possibly said papers are not wholly devoted to.

but I may be wrong as I don't have a clue about politics or papers.

:¬)


--
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://trade-price-supplements.co.uk - TRADE PRICED SUPPLEMENTS for ALL!
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.
http://gymratz.co.uk/hot-seat.htm - Live web-cam! (sometimes)

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:12:07 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:46:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
A better solution would be to make it people's responsibility and if
they choose not to behave responsibly to levy a fine.

Regular collections paid for out of the rates (or whatever) are by far the
best - and most cost effective - method.

It would be if it dealt with the *whole* problem. It doesn't.

If I want to get rid of garden materials, scraps of wood or larger
things I have to take it to the tip or get a skip.

If I don't deal with these, then it makes a mess and inconveniences
the neighbours.

My local authority provides (and empties!) a separate wheely-bin for
garden waste. For any bulky stuff I just phone them and they collect
within a few days (usually the day after 'normal' bin day).


That's reasonably joined up and I wouldn't have a problem with it.


--

..andy

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:22:52 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Like healthcare, I think that it should be handled through a voucher
system whereby the state or local authority provides vouchers to all
users of services that are adequate to fund it.

Are you willing to pay the additional costs of such a system and do you
appreciate that it will demolish the very best of the system we have at the
moment?

Healthcare?
Best go socialist. Cuba has a far lower infant mortality rate than the USA.

This what you mean?

http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm


Plenty more on the home page, linked from that page..

Compare and contrast:

http://www.csmc.edu/


DG

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:22:52 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Like healthcare, I think that it should be handled through a voucher
system whereby the state or local authority provides vouchers to all
users of services that are adequate to fund it.

Are you willing to pay the additional costs of such a system and do you
appreciate that it will demolish the very best of the system we have at the
moment?

I did and do.

I pay money to the local authority based in some way loosely on
property value. That has little or nothing to do with usage of the
education and not a lot more to do with ability to pay.

I paid for private primary and secondary education out of income at
highest marginal rate because state education has become woefully
inadequate. I received nothing back from the local authority for
that.

There should be something at least as a tax break or as a contribution
from the local authority for education. I'm perfectly happy to pay
into the pot for those who wish to use the state system, but I do
think that the state should at least recompense the equivalent amount
spent in the state system to educate a child to those wishing to
choose an alternative.


Healthcare?

Healthcare is even worse. The same bad principles apply, the state
service is a mess and should have been shut down years ago. All of
the above taxes apply, plus additional ones if an employer provides
health insurance as a benefit.

Best go socialist. Cuba has a far lower infant mortality rate than the USA.

There's never a good reason to go socialist. It is against the
natural order of things.


--

..andy

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:34:19 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:00:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
So you'd be assessed on the number of bags of rubbish that had to be
taken away? How often you walked and wore out the pavement? ;-)

Well no... I was thinking more about the high ticket items like
education and those that can easily be handled individually.

So you believe only the children of the well off should be educated?

No. But I do believe in choice without penalty.


No such thing. Your choice penalises many others. Not that those who
espouse the madness of "choice" in education give a damn about that.



--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:57:38 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:34:19 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:00:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
So you'd be assessed on the number of bags of rubbish that had to be
taken away? How often you walked and wore out the pavement? ;-)

Well no... I was thinking more about the high ticket items like
education and those that can easily be handled individually.

So you believe only the children of the well off should be educated?

No. But I do believe in choice without penalty.


No such thing.
Your choice penalises many others.

No it doesn't. It simply means that funding can go in the direction
of a wider choice of education. I explicitly said that funding to
the same level that would be spent to educate a child in the public
sector could be directed to a private sector school and the parents
could top it up.

That simply re-establishes a financial equality. As it is, the system
is very restrictive and inappropriate. Parents who are willing to
additionally fund their children's education have to pay for a state
education that they don't use and then pay again out of taxed income
to achieve what they believe is right.

Not that those who
espouse the madness of "choice" in education give a damn about that.

There is no madness in choice, unless you believe that education
should be restricted and dumbed down to the least common denominator.

Do you really think that people who fund their kids education out of
marginal rate taxed income do so for fun or because they have money to
throw away? Almost all the parents that I know who have done this
have sacrificed hugely to do so because they simply don't trust the
state to do a proper job.




--

..andy

John Cartmell wrote:
It's not the poll tax. Thatcher made sure no one could use that option again.

The problem with the present system is that it is too 'lumpy' (big steps) and
stops far too low. The old rateable value was far fairer - and there should
not be a cut-off point; someone with a 10 million GBP house should pay 10
times what someone with a 1 million house should pay.


This sound to me like 60's Socialist dogma. Tax the people with big
houses, big cars, big incomes, until they are as poor as an unemployed
tenant. Poll tax was a much better system, with people paying for the
services they use, with income taxes taking up the slack. Yes, it
needed some refinement, but was much better than the previous and
presently abused by central government systems.

If you want property taxes, then they should be set locally and without
any central government imposed limits. Democracy is rarely practiced in
the UK however.

Regards
Capitol

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So you'd be assessed on the number of bags of rubbish that had to be taken
away? How often you walked and wore out the pavement? ;-)

It works very well in the US.

Regards
Capitol

John Cartmell wrote:
Regular collections paid for out of the rates (or whatever) are by far the
best - and most cost effective - method.

Agreed within limits, but when the local contractors employees decide
that you have too many bags of recyclable rubbish and they simply leave
them behind, then the system fails. If the contractor gets paid by the
bag, he gets much keener!

Regards
Capitol

John Cartmell wrote:

There would be no rubbish collection and no pavement. You need co-operation
for those and people willing to give their time freely for the benefit of
others.


No, you need residents with standards, which, I agree, is getting
harder and harder to find, in many areas, these days.

Regards
Capitol

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:31:24 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

There should be something at least as a tax break or as a contribution
from the local authority for education. I'm perfectly happy to pay
into the pot for those who wish to use the state system, but I do
think that the state should at least recompense the equivalent amount
spent in the state system to educate a child to those wishing to
choose an alternative.

This makes 2 assumptions; that payment of taxes is for services
rendered to the individual, and also that taxes paid are equal to the
service received.

In reality taxes paid by the individual pay for others education and
healthcare and vice versa.

So IMHO the approval of a voucher system need to come about through
democratic means.

I really don't like to see my taxes spent on NHS care for people's
self inflicted health problems. However under a voucher system they
would ALSO be subsidising the similar treatment of people who could
otherwise wholly afford their own health care.

cheers,
Pete.

Andy Hall wrote:
[snip]

A better solution would be to make it people's responsibility and if
they choose not to behave responsibly to levy a fine.

And how do you propose to fine the right person when you find half of their
kitchen lying against your backyard wall?
--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

Andy Hall wrote:
[snip]

Either the local authority should provide a solution for all of the
problem or none of it.

Don't they have community skips by you?
--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:12:07 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:46:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
A better solution would be to make it people's responsibility and
if they choose not to behave responsibly to levy a fine.

Regular collections paid for out of the rates (or whatever) are by
far the best - and most cost effective - method.

It would be if it dealt with the *whole* problem. It doesn't.

If I want to get rid of garden materials, scraps of wood or larger
things I have to take it to the tip or get a skip.

If I don't deal with these, then it makes a mess and inconveniences
the neighbours.

My local authority provides (and empties!) a separate wheely-bin for
garden waste. For any bulky stuff I just phone them and they collect
within a few days (usually the day after 'normal' bin day).

Bet you £1 to a penny they won't take non recyclable items.
--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

John Cartmell wrote:

Healthcare?
Best go socialist. Cuba has a far lower infant mortality rate than the USA.

Hmm. So this explains why the Cuban residents are so desperate to leave
Miami and return to Cuba. I'd suggest a bit more homework on this one!

The interesting point on healthcare is that we in the UK, now have the
same excessive paperwork(and administrator) levels as the US(if not
higher), pretty close to the same operating costs and are much less
effective in efficiency and response time(even whilst under a Labour
government).

Regards
Capitol

Matt wrote:

Tax the politicians, that will stop them in their tracks.


Best suggestion I've read so far! However, that should only be after
we have reduced the salaries of all of them to the national average wage.

Regards
Capitol

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:17:10 GMT, "The3rd Earl Of Derby"
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
[snip]

Either the local authority should provide a solution for all of the
problem or none of it.

Don't they have community skips by you?

No they don't, and I wouldn't want to encourage them to do so.


--

..andy

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:15:03 GMT, "The3rd Earl Of Derby"
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
[snip]

A better solution would be to make it people's responsibility and if
they choose not to behave responsibly to levy a fine.

And how do you propose to fine the right person when you find half of their
kitchen lying against your backyard wall?


People are unlikely to take rubbish for a significant distance. If
it became a regular thing, the culprits would soon become known.




--

..andy

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:19:48 GMT, "The3rd Earl Of Derby"
wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:12:07 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:46:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
A better solution would be to make it people's responsibility and
if they choose not to behave responsibly to levy a fine.

Regular collections paid for out of the rates (or whatever) are by
far the best - and most cost effective - method.

It would be if it dealt with the *whole* problem. It doesn't.

If I want to get rid of garden materials, scraps of wood or larger
things I have to take it to the tip or get a skip.

If I don't deal with these, then it makes a mess and inconveniences
the neighbours.

My local authority provides (and empties!) a separate wheely-bin for
garden waste. For any bulky stuff I just phone them and they collect
within a few days (usually the day after 'normal' bin day).

Bet you £1 to a penny they won't take non recyclable items.

They'll certainly take fridges, freezers etc, and even scrapped cars
by special arrangement.

--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland

In article ,
says...

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

It was immediately available when the poll tax was pulled. That doesn't
make it better

It's not the poll tax. Thatcher made sure no one could use that option again.

Id cards are a new variety of poll tax. And I predict that they are
doomed to fail just as catistropically (sp). Prisons will be full of non
payers like me

Anna

--
~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England
|""""| ~ Lime plaster repairs
/ ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc
|____| www.kettlenet.co.uk 01359 230642

Are you saying that I and my (now deceased) uncle are lying?

I'd ask you to either prove us wrong or retract that statement.

in 465252 20051107 182307 "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Well, yes. Domestic rubbish collection is normally restricted to the day
to day domestic rubbish, strangely. Think of the size of a dustcart that
would be needed to take away the contents of the average skip. ;-)

In Germany (at least, when I was living there in the early 80s) they had a
monthly "big rubbish day" when people put out beds, fridges, etc.
A key feature of the scheme was that people would wander round and take
whatever they fancied. The council picked up the rest.

(thinks, why does the UK never take up bright ideas from elsewhere?)

Andy Hall wrote:

I paid for private primary and secondary education out of income at
highest marginal rate because state education has become woefully
inadequate. I received nothing back from the local authority for
that.

Nor should you.

There should be something at least as a tax break or as a contribution
from the local authority for education. I'm perfectly happy to pay
into the pot for those who wish to use the state system, but I do
think that the state should at least recompense the equivalent amount
spent in the state system to educate a child to those wishing to
choose an alternative.

Just because you choose to not take up the offer of free state
education does not mean that the costs of state provision can be
totally ignored or just "transferred". A state provided
classroom/teacher lying idle or half full because a number of
similarly misguided parents sent their little Jane's and Johnny's to a
private school still carries costs. In the extreme this could lead to
closure of the state school and bussing of pupils considerable
distances to alternatives. Closure of a school can have a huge impact
on life in a small village (and elsewhere)

Healthcare is even worse. The same bad principles apply, the state
service is a mess and should have been shut down years ago. All of
the above taxes apply, plus additional ones if an employer provides
health insurance as a benefit.

If you are stupid or greedy or selfish enough to consider private
healthcare then your choice must be for everything and that includes
accident and emergency services. No piggy backing AT ALL on the state
system. If you sustain an injury and there is evidence that you are
in a private healthcare scheme then there should be measures put in
place so you have to wait until the private ambulance turns up. If
you die in the meantime then tough, you made an "informed choice" and
the brochure looked good.

A private room with Sky TV, gourmet food and a nymphomaniac nurse?
............ or proper state healthcare for all with the best
facilities and best treatment regardless of the ability of the
individual to pay?

Private education stinks and so does private healthcare. The sooner
they were *totally* eliminated from British society the better.


--

Bob Martin wrote:


(thinks, why does the UK never take up bright ideas from elsewhere?)

Because like just about everything it was invented here first.


--

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Tax the politicians, that will stop them in their tracks.


Best suggestion I've read so far! However, that should only be after
we have reduced the salaries of all of them to the national average wage.

Yup. And base their pensions on the national average too. And their
various allowances.

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few.

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

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:02:31 GMT, "Brian Sharrock"
wrote:


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

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.


I think there was a valid point. Most of local government funding
comes from central government. Why do you think that your council tax
has gone up so much recently? Because less money is coming from
westminster.

Mark.