Council tax and new ways to make you wish you lived somewhere else
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...860008,00.html

;-(

-

Mark wrote:
Council tax and new ways to make you wish you lived somewhere else
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...860008,00.html

Rupert Murcoded I somehow think yessss my precious?

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?

My uncle's house at the time of rates backed onto a park, so he paid
more than the person over the road. He used to fill around 15 sacks a
year with leaves that fell off the trees in the park, and had beer and
whisky bottles thrown over his fence regularly by the local 'yoofs'.
And he had to pay extra for this pleasure!

"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?

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.

My uncle's house at the time of rates backed onto a park, so he paid
more than the person over the road. He used to fill around 15 sacks a
year with leaves that fell off the trees in the park, and had beer and
whisky bottles thrown over his fence regularly by the local 'yoofs'.
And he had to pay extra for this pleasure!

Very unlikely. The rateable value took size and amenities into account but
hardly 'backing onto a park'. How much was the difference?

--
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 ,
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.

--
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

"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.

What's not the poll tax? I was just asking WHY people say the complex and
archaic rates system is better than the idea of poll tax.

Thatcher made sure no one could use that option again.

*me confused *

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.

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!

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.




--

..andy

"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.
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!

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.

The Labour party coordinated a 'Poll Tax' revolt -deliberately
forcing amendments into the Bill which ensured that non-payment
of 'Community Charge' would not affect delivery of Community
services. In fact a totally separate data-base of payers was required;
unconnected to electoral roll, library-membership, leisure-facility
membership. then fomenting the rent-a-mob of trots. students and
others they incited to riot in Parliament Square, until the Government
backed down and abolished the poll-tax, replacing a 'personal'
charge with a property charge.

Now that they are in power - inter alia;-
Labour has outlawed all (non-authorised) protest
outside Parliament [from Trafalgar Square to Lambeth
Bridge] and are introducing a mandatory ID - which
will assure(?) the delivery of Community services!
And the latest wheeze is to revalue all property
-anybody want to bet that a 'value code' won't be assigned
for 'number of adults resident'-? A poll-tax by stealth?

But; hey! 'I'm a pretty straight forward kind of guy,
trust me !"
It worked for Robinson, Mandelson, Blunkett, Fields,
Mowlam ... they trusted 'im!



--

Brian

In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
"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.

What's not the poll tax? I was just asking WHY people say the complex and
archaic rates system is better than the idea of poll tax.

Because it's not the Poll Tax! Thatcher poisoned that option and anything is
better.

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.

--
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 ,
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?

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?

[Snip]

--
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:
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.

--
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

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

Did you get that from the Mail or the Telegraph?

Interesting - so when someone holds a different opinion, it can't be their
own?

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

Are we talking about a society that encourages individuals to smoke £150 of
fags a week so that they can claim extra benefits for their childrens poor
health?
(yes, I'm thinking about the Bardsley "Wife Swap", and if you really have
lived where you claim to, then you'll know that type of family is by no
means unique)

Individuals make a society - when those individuals become so dependent on
the state that they know no other way, then that state ensures it's own
survival...for a time.

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

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.

Still don't see how that works out. Sounds like one of those "Communism
works in principle" type of arguments.

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.

I see your well made and clearly thought out argument - anyone with a nice
house must be fiddling their income, therefore penalise them even more,
therefore encourage those that aren't fiddling to think "what's the point"
and fiddle anyway?

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.

With public sector spending spiralling out of control, it is certainly
time for radical surgery.


--

..andy

"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

In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
I see your well made and clearly thought out argument - anyone with a nice
house must be fiddling their income, therefore penalise them even more,
therefore encourage those that aren't fiddling to think "what's the point"
and fiddle anyway?

Please go and buy yourself a course in basic logic. The links that you have
described are entirely yours and have no connection whatsoever with what I
wrote.

--
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

John Cartmell wrote:
The problem with the present system is that it is too 'lumpy' (big steps) and
stops far too low.

The problem is that it's too expensive in many ways, and divisive
withing the government system.


The old rateable value was far fairer

Rubbish. Council tax was far fairer, and ought to be brought back
as soon as possible.


- 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.

Pshaw.

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

Did you get that from the Mail or the Telegraph?

Interesting - so when someone holds a different opinion, it can't be their
own?

Try reading what I replied to and see why I made the comment above.

--
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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

"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.
[...]
With public sector spending spiralling out of control, it is certainly
time for radical surgery.

I know it's not good form to have "me too" types of replies, but...damn good
points, succinctly made!

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
"Society" is a nebulous thing. The idea of an individual is much more
tangible.

I appreciate that some people find it dificult to think beyond their own
personal needs and it takes time and patience to appreciate anything more -
but the reality of anarchy is so nasty that you do need to make the effort.

--
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 ,
Brian Sharrock wrote:
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 the LibDems would disagree with your reasoning there.

--
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

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Sharrock wrote:
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 the LibDems would disagree with your reasoning there.

Yet another diversion tactic. You're the self-identified
advocate for the Government's position not the LibDem's
position.

--

Brian

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:16:42 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
"Society" is a nebulous thing. The idea of an individual is much more
tangible.

I appreciate that some people find it dificult to think beyond their own
personal needs and it takes time and patience to appreciate anything more -
but the reality of anarchy is so nasty that you do need to make the effort.

Who said anything about anarchy?

Of course it takes time and patience to think beyond individual needs.
That is why the individual should be encouraged to do so rather than
the state doing his thinking for him.

This extrapolates very obviously into policing and crime as well. The
more that individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for
themselves in as many aspects as possible - i.e. they own the
consequences and the outcome - the less the need for the involvement
of the state and the money wasted on its mechanisms.



--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

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? ;-)

--
*Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) *

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Of course it takes time and patience to think beyond individual needs.
That is why the individual should be encouraged to do so rather than
the state doing his thinking for him.

This extrapolates very obviously into policing and crime as well. The
more that individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for
themselves in as many aspects as possible - i.e. they own the
consequences and the outcome - the less the need for the involvement
of the state and the money wasted on its mechanisms.

A point; when I was doing my "round the world" thing, I would often work in
hostels/backpackers when staying for any length of time, and almost without
exception, the people who left the most mess, who ignored the kitchens rules
about cleaning and putting away pans and stuff in the communal kitchens,
were the Chinese.
I hasten to add, it wasn't ALL Chinese doing it, but when it happened, it
was usually them.
And the reason was that "the state provides" - it's a mindset of dependancy
that says that outside your home, your life is micro-managed by big
government.
(These are the observances of other travellers who have spent time in China)

In article , Brian Sharrock
wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Brian Sharrock
wrote:
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 the LibDems would disagree with your reasoning there.

Yet another diversion tactic. You're the self-identified advocate for the
Government's position not the LibDem's position.

You need to be rather selective about Government policies to call me their
advocate! ;-)

--
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, 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?



IIRC, it was something to do with Crispin & Pamela St John Regis
living in the 3 bed penthouse in Belgravia Daddy bought them as a
wedding gift paying pretty much the same as Darran and Tracey Butcher
living in their 2 bed council penthouse in Tower Hamlets.

I could be wrong though - I often am.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

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.
How much fairer could it be than to scrap the complex idea of banded road
tax discs, and just stick it on the price of petrol?
The more you use, the more you pay.

I've just realised something - how on earth did we get onto this in a DIY
group?!?

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

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? ;-)

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.

--
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 , Geoffrey
wrote:
IIRC, it was something to do with Crispin & Pamela St John Regis
living in the 3 bed penthouse in Belgravia Daddy bought them as a
wedding gift paying pretty much the same as Darran and Tracey Butcher
living in their 2 bed council penthouse in Tower Hamlets.

There was also the slightly more philosophical argument - not without
merit - that if you paid very little or nothing in rates then you would
be inclined to vote for a high spending Council as you wouldn't be
picking up the cost, whilst if everyone had to pay something everyone
would be interested in value for money and cutting out waste. Of course
in reality people see their councils (of all parties) wasting money and
shrug their shoulders.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:01:06 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

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.


--

..andy

Geoffrey wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote:
no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we have
now is better than the poll tax.

IIRC, it was something to do with Crispin & Pamela St John Regis
living in the 3 bed penthouse in Belgravia Daddy bought them as a
wedding gift

They've already been subjected to huge tax bills....


paying pretty much the same as Darran and Tracey Butcher
living in their 2 bed council penthouse in Tower Hamlets.

....who didn't have to pay the full amount - possible anything
at all.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:47:54 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

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? ;-)

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.

You mean that pavement laying and street cleaning needs to be a
voluntary social project?


--

..andy

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.

One reason is that some people wouldn't want to pay the cost an would leave
rubbish lying around. That's not good news for the neighbours - for the smell
or their health. Getting it done as a community is the best way for the
community.

--
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 15:43:36 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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.

One reason is that some people wouldn't want to pay the cost an would leave
rubbish lying around. That's not good news for the neighbours - for the smell
or their health. Getting it done as a community is the best way for the
community.

As it is, the so-called "community" idea doesn't work properly. In
many areas collection of garden waste and large items is charged
separately to regular collection and can be a problem in itself.

It is dealt with when individual people take responsibility for their
immediate environment and that of their neighbours.

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


--

..andy

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.

--
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 ,
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...

How much fairer could it be than to scrap the complex idea of banded
road tax discs, and just stick it on the price of petrol? The more you
use, the more you pay.

That's a reasonable idea, but then the excise duty arrangement also helps
keep track of a car's ownership and that there is up to date insurance and
MOT. Of course both these are now on a central computer so perhaps we'll
see the duty reduced to purely an administration fee. But then people moan
enough about the tax on petrol. Would they be happy to see it go up?

--
*You! Off my planet!

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

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? Have
you thought this one through?

--
*Income tax service - We‘ve got what it takes to take what you've got.

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