"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Champ
wrote:
On 08/04/2013 16:18, Mark wrote:
I can see why the Poll Tax was popular in some circles though since it
shifted taxation from the rich to the poor.

It shifted taxation away from property owners, and spread it evenly.

Evenly meaning regardless of the ability to pay it?

Property owners are not always rich, in the sense of having an income to
pay tax with.

Not many poor people live in an expensive house. And of those that did,
most were old still living in the family home, and a rate rebate could
take care of that, as it did.

There's a case for taxation according to ability to pay;

Which the poll tax in essence didn't.

and there's a case for taxation according to the use made of the
services.

Really? So those with no children shouldn't pay for education of other's
kids? etc?

Poll tax missed the former, and hit the latter; rates and council tax
hit neither. Perhaps the lib-dems are right about local income tax.

It would be a fairer way. But for some reason indirect taxation seems to
be preferred to direct.

Because some can choose to have no taxable income
and its desirable that they do pay at least some tax.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
Rick Hughes wrote

Best Post WW2 PM this country has had ... like Churchill,

He was a ****, too.
A ruthless and cunning *******, who was
instrumental in winning a war, but still a ****.

But we didn't see anything like as many celebrating when he died.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
news

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:17:06 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

You're embarrassing yourself. Put the bottle down and go to bed.

Well seen who the closet toerags are around here.

Define 'closet toerag'

You have your opinions, I have mine. Seems that in your tiny mind, only
yours are allowed. Oh silly me... left wing does not permit that.

On 08/04/2013 16:40 Mark wrote:

IIRC Labour introduced the 50% Tax band.

For the last three weeks they were in power after 13 years of having the
opportunity to do so.

--
F

On Tuesday 09 April 2013 01:07 Dave Plowman (News) wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
SteveW wrote:
Then, without even noticing the hypocrisy, he told me that when he was
an apprentice, almost everyone was in the union, that everyone was
entitled to 13 weeks off ill on full pay and they were encouraged by
the union to take it, to the extent that anyone actually taking time
off ill was blamed for upsetting the rota!

Any employer who allowed that deserved to go out of business. Of course
stories like that abound, but are more often than not proved false.


It was certainly true in British Rail that sick days were viewed as additial
leave entitlement.

And sickness would spike on Derby Day at Epsom in the area and other similar
events.

That from an ex BR driver I know personally... He was the complete opposite
and rather looked down on that sort of activity.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Monday 08 April 2013 22:19 Rick Hughes wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 08/04/2013 14:56, RayL12 wrote:
On 08/04/2013 1:21 PM, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:05:31 +0100, tony
wrote:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22067155

Evil auld **** - may she roast.


She may have upset people but, boy, did she put a rotting, continually
union striking Britain back on its feet.


Best Post WW2 PM this country has had ... like Churchill, once the hard
work was done people turned on her.

Not many British PM's are even known outside the country, everyone knew
Margaret Thatcher.

Good point.

Who's the PM of New Zealand.

Ah - thought so...


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 08/04/2013 17:15, Andy Cap wrote:
On 08/04/13 17:05, Mark wrote:

Why shouldn't all earners in a household, contribute to local services?

They do. The vast majority of the money spent by local government is
provided by central government which is extracted from all the earners
via income tax.


Yep. Daft. The local taxation (income tax, NI, VAT etc) goes up to
central govt, then handed out to local govt.

That still doesn't escape the fact, that some people are subsidising
other's local services. Perhaps if they paid, some wouldn't feel so keen
to go out an wreak havoc at every opportunity.

Not sure what you mean. Havoc - you mean things like vandalism? Some - many?

How bout we settle for a
local income tax then ?

Probably a good idea, and it's been touted in Scotland (and Wales more
recently) for some time. But central government would then lose control
of the money, and that's not happening soon.

Rob

On 08/04/2013 13:38 harry wrote:

Best Prime Minister since Churchill.

Head and shoulders above every PM that we have had since.

Those who are whinging are incapable of understanding when someone has
done them a favour. If she was so wrong then the pygmies by the name of
Bliar and Brown had 13 years to change things but they did nothing.

--
F

On 08/04/2013 17:32, Steve Firth wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:49:31 +0100, Andy Cap
wrote:

On 08/04/13 13:41, bm wrote:


Dead right, lets have more poll tax.
YMBFJ


Nothing wrong with the Poll tax, it was just that it dragged in a lot of
young earners who get their services for free and had loud voices. The
Council tax is really unfair to people living on their own.

The Poll Tax was unfair on larger households.

I can see why the Poll Tax was popular in some circles though since it
shifted taxation from the rich to the poor.

Err no it didn't. It put the tax onto the middle classes in the main. The
greater part of the protestors seemed to be the Tarquins, Jessicas and
Annabelles who used to pay nothing because daddy paid the rates who
suddenly had to pay a (fairly minor) tax.


I like this notion of a 'new' middle class who will tend to vote against
their own interests, for a common good. Obviously, exceptions exist:

At the time I was hoping for local income tax as I used to pay in
Switzerland, even though this would have affected me more than the poll tax
did. My payments quadrupled under the poll tax because wife & kids refused
to pay "on principle[1]". So I had to pay as "head of household".


Brilliant!

[1] I think the principle was that they were too mean to pay it. It was the
idea of going after the "head of household" that got me. I can't afford to
get a criminal record so I had to pay. If they had made the individual
responsible I would have left the kids to make their own decision.


Gets better!!

Rob

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:25:48 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Rick Hughes" wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2013 14:56, RayL12 wrote:
On 08/04/2013 1:21 PM, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:05:31 +0100, tony
wrote:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22067155

Evil auld **** - may she roast.


She may have upset people but, boy, did she put a rotting, continually
union striking Britain back on its feet.


Best Post WW2 PM this country has had ... like Churchill, once the hard
work was done people turned on her.

Not many British PM's are even known outside the country, everyone knew
Margaret Thatcher.

Everyone knew Hitler and Stalin too.

I feel we are approaching Godwin's law again ;-)
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 22:35:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
SteveW wrote:

I was chatting to one of the guys at work today, he hates her and was
glad she was dead, blaming her for the demise of British industry. Then,
without even noticing the hypocrisy, he told me that when he was an
apprentice, almost everyone was in the union, that everyone was entitled
to 13 weeks off ill on full pay and they were encouraged by the union to
take it, to the extent that anyone actually taking time off ill was
blamed for upsetting the rota!

One of the ******s then. Perhaps you'd like to pass that on to the
tosser.

However they're nothing like as harmful and the ******s we have
nowadays such as Fred Goodwin, Lord Stevenson, James Crosby, Andy
Hornby etc.......
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

So, everyone's gotta die sometime.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22067155
--
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:54:16 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

My opinion is that those who can afford it contribute more than those
who cannot. Poll Tax achieved the opposite.

Should the same apply if I go down the shops and buy a loaf of bread,
then? Sir Costly Cashbag pays twice as much as me and I pay twice as
much the old dear from across the road?

The last time I checked buying food is not taxation. ;-)

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 09/04/2013 08:43, RJH wrote:
On 08/04/2013 17:15, Andy Cap wrote:
On 08/04/13 17:05, Mark wrote:

Why shouldn't all earners in a household, contribute to local services?

They do. The vast majority of the money spent by local government is
provided by central government which is extracted from all the earners
via income tax.


Yep. Daft. The local taxation (income tax, NI, VAT etc) goes up to
central govt, then handed out to local govt.

That still doesn't escape the fact, that some people are subsidising
other's local services. Perhaps if they paid, some wouldn't feel so keen
to go out an wreak havoc at every opportunity.

Not sure what you mean. Havoc - you mean things like vandalism? Some -
many?

How bout we settle for a
local income tax then ?

Probably a good idea, and it's been touted in Scotland (and Wales more
recently) for some time. But central government would then lose control
of the money, and that's not happening soon.

Rob


How do you allocate income to location? E.g. EIIR has several homes.
Seems Windsor is the one she most often uses, but spends a while in
Scotland each year, etc.

Does all her income get considered in relation to each and every home?
Or something else?

--
Rod

On 09/04/2013 09:07, Brian Gaff wrote:
So, everyone's gotta die sometime.

Brian

At least this should mean the end of "What will happen when Thatcher dies?"

(Except the lunatic fringe who will insist she is alive in a cryogenic
tank somewhere. Dark Star anyone?)

--
Rod

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:04:19 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article , Andy Champ
wrote:
On 08/04/2013 16:18, Mark wrote:
I can see why the Poll Tax was popular in some circles though since it
shifted taxation from the rich to the poor.

It shifted taxation away from property owners, and spread it evenly.

Evenly meaning regardless of the ability to pay it?

Property owners are not always rich, in the sense of having an income to
pay tax with.

Not many poor people live in an expensive house. And of those that did,
most were old still living in the family home, and a rate rebate could
take care of that, as it did.

There's a case for taxation according to ability to pay;

Which the poll tax in essence didn't.

To be fair any tax has to take account of the ability to pay. After
the Poll Tax many more people refused or did not pay and I don't think
the payment levels have ever recovered to the levels they were under
the old rating system.

and there's a case for taxation according to the use made of the
services.

Really? So those with no children shouldn't pay for education of other's
kids? etc?

A lot of people do seem to believe that because they don't understand
that education benefits the whole society - a fact that seems to
escape the current Tory government and the last Labour one.

And also it's completely impractical to measure everything so that
people pay for only the things they use.

Poll tax missed the former, and hit the latter; rates and council tax
hit neither. Perhaps the lib-dems are right about local income tax.

It would be a fairer way. But for some reason indirect taxation seems to
be preferred to direct.

It's less politically sensitive. Local income tax might be fairer but
any change would be used to sneak in an overall increase.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 09/04/2013 09:03, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:25:48 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Rick Hughes" wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2013 14:56, RayL12 wrote:
On 08/04/2013 1:21 PM, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:05:31 +0100, tony
wrote:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22067155

Evil auld **** - may she roast.


She may have upset people but, boy, did she put a rotting, continually
union striking Britain back on its feet.


Best Post WW2 PM this country has had ... like Churchill, once the hard
work was done people turned on her.

Not many British PM's are even known outside the country, everyone knew
Margaret Thatcher.

Everyone knew Hitler and Stalin too.

I feel we are approaching Godwin's law again ;-)

I purposely chose examples of people who had probably become far better
known than their countries. My view is that possibly does not apply to
these two. (Plus self-conscious avoidance of Godwin.)

--
Rod

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:28:10 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

I have mine. Seems that in your tiny mind, only
yours are allowed. Oh silly me... left wing does not permit that.

You really are a stupid man if you believe that the bitch did nothing
but good.

RJH wrote:
My payments quadrupled under the poll tax because wife & kids refused
to pay "on principle[1]". So I had to pay as "head of household".

I thought the Married Women's Property Act removed a husbands legal
cupability for a wife's debts?

JGH

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:28:10 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

I have mine. Seems that in your tiny mind, only
yours are allowed. Oh silly me... left wing does not permit that.

You really are a stupid man if you believe that the bitch did nothing
but good.

And you are an absolute idiot to believe that a great leader did nothing but
harm.

Tim Streater wrote:
Collected how?

By HMRC. They already have the information for all but 0.3% of income
tax payers of what local authority area they live in.

And allocated how? If I live in London and work in Brighton who gets the local income tax?

The London Borough that you live in. Local Government taxation is a
residency taxation.

All the details of local income tax has already been worked out. If
there was the political will to implement it, it could be implemented.

JGH

On 08/04/2013 13:24, Tim Watts wrote:
On Monday 08 April 2013 13:05 tony sayer wrote in uk.d-i-y:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22067155

Had more balls than any PM since.

I hate the tories, labour and liberal parties with similar amounts of
loathing, but that does not mean I don't respect her. I liked some of her
policies and hated others, but she did have conviction unlike most of the
wobbling gutless corn stalks we have now...



I liked the idea of the poll tax.
It would have been OK if the councils hadn't been allowed to put up
their spending until it was established.
Or local council increased the bills by ~25% with various claims that it
was going to be expensive to collect, they wouldn't get more than 80% of
it, etc. They didn't reduce it when the poll tax was scrapped or when
they were collecting 97% of it.

The best bit was that even people on benefits had to pay some so if they
wanted more spending they could vote for it but would have to
contribute. Unlike now where they can vote for high spending knowing it
will come from other peoples pockets.

The benefits were increased by enough to cover the average payments.
They were not reduced when poll tax was scrapped, maybe its time they
recovered the extra?

In article ,
F news@nowhere wrote:
Those who are whinging are incapable of understanding when someone has
done them a favour. If she was so wrong then the pygmies by the name of
Bliar and Brown had 13 years to change things but they did nothing.

So they were excellent PMs in your opinion?

--
*When did my wild oats turn to prunes and all bran?

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

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:57:29 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

You really are a stupid man if you believe that the bitch did nothing
but good.

And you are an absolute idiot to believe that a great leader did nothing but
harm.

Get this through your thick Tory head - the woman was a ****ing
sociopath.

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:07:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Then, without even noticing the hypocrisy, he told me that when he was
an apprentice, almost everyone was in the union, that everyone was
entitled to 13 weeks off ill on full pay and they were encouraged by
the union to take it, to the extent that anyone actually taking time
off ill was blamed for upsetting the rota!

Any employer who allowed that deserved to go out of business.

The unions would have twisted the employers into it over time. The big
industry unions were too powerful and the membership sheep behind the
leadership.

Of course stories like that abound, but are more often than not proved
false.

But often based on fact, 13 weeks is stupid 13 days more likely...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 08/04/2013 15:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Cap wrote:
Nothing wrong with the Poll tax, it was just that it dragged in a lot of
young earners who get their services for free and had loud voices. The
Council tax is really unfair to people living on their own.


You've got no idea, have you? The purpose of the poll tax - like just
about every other piece of Tory legislation - was to move taxation from
the rich to the poorer. No matter how they dress it up.

My widowed mother lived alone in her own modest house that she'd lived in
and owned since the '30s. Only had the old age pension and a tiny annuity
as income.

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.



But that was probably the council bumping up their spending.
Mine did exactly that, a 25% increase under the pretence that they
wouldn't be able to collect the poll tax and they would only get 80% of
what was due to them.
They were actually collecting 97% and didn't give it back, they just
wasted it on gay groups or something.


BTW pensions and benefits were increased by enough to cover the
25%(IIRC) that people on low incomes had to pay. So with an average
spending council they would have paid *nothing* extra.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
and there's a case for taxation according to the use made of the
services.

Really? So those with no children shouldn't pay for education of other's
kids? etc?

A lot of people do seem to believe that because they don't understand
that education benefits the whole society - a fact that seems to
escape the current Tory government and the last Labour one.

Lots of services may not be used by an individual at any point in time, so
is given as a reason that they shouldn't have to pay for them. Or that
they're paying an unfair proportion of them.

And also it's completely impractical to measure everything so that
people pay for only the things they use.

Quite.

Poll tax missed the former, and hit the latter; rates and council tax
hit neither. Perhaps the lib-dems are right about local income tax.

It would be a fairer way. But for some reason indirect taxation seems to
be preferred to direct.

It's less politically sensitive. Local income tax might be fairer but
any change would be used to sneak in an overall increase.

Which is, of course, what happened with the poll tax. The average family
in the average house paid more than before - in many cases a lot more. And
the poorer the family, the larger the increase.

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Collected how? And allocated how? If I live in London and work in
Brighton who gets the local income tax?

Same as now. If you have accommodation in both Brighton and London, you
pay council charge in both.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

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

On 08/04/2013 16:18, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:49:31 +0100, Andy Cap
wrote:

On 08/04/13 13:41, bm wrote:


Dead right, lets have more poll tax.
YMBFJ


Nothing wrong with the Poll tax, it was just that it dragged in a lot of
young earners who get their services for free and had loud voices. The
Council tax is really unfair to people living on their own.

The Poll Tax was unfair on larger households.

Don't larger households use more services?
More rubbish, more use of libraries, etc.

Its obviously unfair if they pay the same as an single person who makes
no use of most of the services.

The only fair way to do it is to charge for the services as used, lets
call it privatisation.


I can see why the Poll Tax was popular in some circles though since it
shifted taxation from the rich to the poor.



So what's fair about taking £1M pounds in tax off one person and taking
£10 off another?
Tax is always unfair to someone.

On 08/04/2013 16:19, Andy Cap wrote:
On 08/04/13 15:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You've got no idea, have you? The purpose of the poll tax - like just
about every other piece of Tory legislation - was to move taxation from
the rich to the poorer. No matter how they dress it up.

What like the recent increased basic tax-band and yes I know they
reduced the 50% band but it's still higher than during Labour's tenure.

But don't forget that when TB put the tax up to 50% the revenue
generated dropped.
It might sound good to tax the rich unfairly but it doesn't do any good
if you get less tax to spend as a result.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
Any employer who allowed that deserved to go out of business.

The unions would have twisted the employers into it over time. The big
industry unions were too powerful and the membership sheep behind the
leadership.

Were you a sheep when you were/are in the ACTT/BECTUE? Or did this only
apply to others?

I keep on hearing all these stories about the sheep in unions blindly
following a handful of militants, but that is so far from my own personal
experience of unions to make it laughable.

And that was proved when secret and postal ballots became the norm.

The 'winter of discontent', etc was at least partially caused by the
government of the day setting pay rates etc in state owned industries
while having no control over prices and the pay rates in others. Which was
seen as an unfair way of attempting to control inflation, by those it
directly effected.

The union legislation was brought in about the same time as industry was
left to decide such things for themselves. Thus removing perhaps the main
cause of major industrial disputes.

Of course stories like that abound, but are more often than not proved
false.

But often based on fact, 13 weeks is stupid 13 days more likely...

But 13 weeks sounds sooo much better.

--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*

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

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:57:29 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

You really are a stupid man if you believe that the bitch did nothing
but good.

And you are an absolute idiot to believe that a great leader did nothing
but
harm.

Get this through your thick Tory head - the woman was a ****ing
sociopath.


In your opinion.
In my opinion, Margaret Thatcher was one of the finest prime ministers and
world leader in recent times.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
The only fair way to do it is to charge for the services as used, lets
call it privatisation.

Sounds great. I'd not have to pay for education, since I don't have kids.
Nor the fire service or police - I never use them. Don't need libraries
either since the internet. As for social housing - I own my own outright.
And I'd happily take my own rubbish to the (private) tip. My VED and fuel
tax already more than pays for any road repairs.

--
*If you remember the '60s, you weren't really there

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

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:04:19 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article , Andy Champ
wrote:
On 08/04/2013 16:18, Mark wrote:
I can see why the Poll Tax was popular in some circles though since it
shifted taxation from the rich to the poor.

It shifted taxation away from property owners, and spread it evenly.

Evenly meaning regardless of the ability to pay it?

Property owners are not always rich, in the sense of having an income to
pay tax with.

Not many poor people live in an expensive house. And of those that did,
most were old still living in the family home, and a rate rebate could
take care of that, as it did.

There's a case for taxation according to ability to pay;

Which the poll tax in essence didn't.

To be fair any tax has to take account of the ability to pay. After
the Poll Tax many more people refused or did not pay and I don't think
the payment levels have ever recovered to the levels they were under
the old rating system.

and there's a case for taxation according to the use made of the
services.

Really? So those with no children shouldn't pay for education of other's
kids? etc?

A lot of people do seem to believe that

Yes.

because they don't understand that education benefits the whole society

Or they believe that if you choose to have kids, you
should be paying more for the education of them
than those who choose to not have any kids.

- a fact that seems to escape the current
Tory government and the last Labour one.

Nope, they just believe that those who choose
to have kids should be paying more than those
who choose to not have any kids.

And also it's completely impractical to measure everything
so that people pay for only the things they use.

Yes, with some stuff. But not with other stuff like education.

Poll tax missed the former, and hit the latter; rates and council tax
hit neither. Perhaps the lib-dems are right about local income tax.

It would be a fairer way. But for some reason
indirect taxation seems to be preferred to direct.

It's less politically sensitive. Local income tax might be fairer
but any change would be used to sneak in an overall increase.

That line can be used to justify no change at all.

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2013 09:03, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:25:48 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Rick Hughes" wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2013 14:56, RayL12 wrote:
On 08/04/2013 1:21 PM, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:05:31 +0100, tony
wrote:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22067155

Evil auld **** - may she roast.


She may have upset people but, boy, did she put a rotting, continually
union striking Britain back on its feet.


Best Post WW2 PM this country has had ... like Churchill, once the hard
work was done people turned on her.

Not many British PM's are even known outside the country, everyone knew
Margaret Thatcher.

Everyone knew Hitler and Stalin too.

I feel we are approaching Godwin's law again ;-)

I purposely chose examples of people who had probably become far better
known than their countries.

But who were essentially irrelevant to the world as a whole.

Maggy, Adolf and Joe were not.

My view is that possibly does not apply to these two.

Sure, but that's not really relevant to whats being discussed.

(Plus self-conscious avoidance of Godwin.)

**** Godwin.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:57:29 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

You really are a stupid man if you believe that the bitch did nothing
but good.

And you are an absolute idiot to believe that a great leader did nothing
but
harm.

Get this through your thick Tory head - the woman was a ****ing
sociopath.

Sure, but so were heaps of others that did something useful too.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 08/04/2013 16:18, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:49:31 +0100, Andy Cap
wrote:

On 08/04/13 13:41, bm wrote:


Dead right, lets have more poll tax.
YMBFJ


Nothing wrong with the Poll tax, it was just that it dragged in a lot of
young earners who get their services for free and had loud voices. The
Council tax is really unfair to people living on their own.

The Poll Tax was unfair on larger households.

Don't larger households use more services?

Certainly with some services like education and the roads etc.

More rubbish, more use of libraries, etc.

Not necessarily with the librarys.

Its obviously unfair if they pay the same as an single person who makes no
use of most of the services.

Everyone makes some use of the services, if only the roads etc.

The only fair way to do it is to charge for the services as used, lets
call it privatisation.

That's not necessarily fair, most obviously with those who
cant afford a decent education for their kids when a lousy
education for their kids sees them on welfare for 'life' etc.

I can see why the Poll Tax was popular in some circles though since it
shifted taxation from the rich to the poor.

So what's fair about taking £1M pounds in tax off one person and taking
£10 off another?

All modern tax systems have some basis on capacity to pay/soak the rich.

Tax is always unfair to someone.

Really only those who choose not to engage in tax minimisation.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:57:29 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

You really are a stupid man if you believe that the bitch did nothing
but good.

And you are an absolute idiot to believe that a great leader did nothing
but
harm.

Get this through your thick Tory head - the woman was a ****ing
sociopath.

In your opinion.

Its more of a fact than an opinion.

But more of a commentary on what some of the
most successful leaders are than anything else.

In my opinion, Margaret Thatcher was one of the finest prime ministers

Yes, she certainly made much more of a difference
than most have done in modern times.

and world leader in recent times.

Dunno that she actually led the world much tho.

On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:14:49 AM UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:04:19 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

wrote:



In article , Andy Champ

wrote:

On 08/04/2013 16:18, Mark wrote:

I can see why the Poll Tax was popular in some circles though since it

shifted taxation from the rich to the poor.



It shifted taxation away from property owners, and spread it evenly.



Evenly meaning regardless of the ability to pay it?



Property owners are not always rich, in the sense of having an income to

pay tax with.



Not many poor people live in an expensive house. And of those that did,

most were old still living in the family home, and a rate rebate could

take care of that, as it did.



There's a case for taxation according to ability to pay;



Which the poll tax in essence didn't.



To be fair any tax has to take account of the ability to pay. After

the Poll Tax many more people refused or did not pay and I don't think

the payment levels have ever recovered to the levels they were under

the old rating system.



and there's a case for taxation according to the use made of the

services.



Really? So those with no children shouldn't pay for education of other's

kids? etc?



A lot of people do seem to believe that



Yes.



because they don't understand that education benefits the whole society



Or they believe that if you choose to have kids, you

should be paying more for the education of them

than those who choose to not have any kids.



- a fact that seems to escape the current

Tory government and the last Labour one.



Nope, they just believe that those who choose

to have kids should be paying more than those

who choose to not have any kids.

Who pays to train doctors and nurses oily those that use them ?
Who pays to train those that make DIY prodicts such as drills etc.....
education is a difficult one I don't have kids.
Buit if I let those that have kids pay for their training will the training be good enough ?, is it enough to know the doctor presecibing your medicine to save money or to save lives ?.



And also it's completely impractical to measure everything

so that people pay for only the things they use.



Yes, with some stuff. But not with other stuff like education.

education is one of the most difficult, because without basic education no one will be able to read the voting forms so only the very rich will get to vote.

What was the original reason kids (and adults) were taught to read and write ?

On 09/04/13 11:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
The only fair way to do it is to charge for the services as used, lets
call it privatisation.
Sounds great. I'd not have to pay for education, since I don't have kids.
Nor the fire service or police - I never use them. Don't need libraries
either since the internet. As for social housing - I own my own outright.
And I'd happily take my own rubbish to the (private) tip. My VED and fuel
tax already more than pays for any road repairs.

Not sure that I believe you, bastion of the Left, believe that.

But it does raise an interesting point. For services which almost
everyone can now afford, and which could be delivered more efficiently
without the bureaucracies, should they be funded centrally at all?

I am not arguing one way or the other, I just think its a worthwhile
debate to have, stripped of ideology. If that is possible.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.