On 03/02/2016 10:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/02/16 09:58, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message

Of course sanity just prevailed in Scotland, but is leaving the EU,
the saner choice?

IMO the voters will decide that it isn't. Not for any well thought
out reason, just because they dont see any urgent need to leave.

Well those that see their towns being flooded with immigrants, most
certainly do.


What other member state has set a date for a referendum on staying or
leaving?


The issue that I would never have thought would be that important, is
now the key one in many peoples minds, due largely to the utter
incompetence of the EU bureaucracy.


Yet France's far-right National Front failed to win a single region in
the second round of polls last December, despite what 'immigrants' did
over there. Like Farage did here and Donald Trump recently did in
America, threw their toys out the pram, cried foul and blamed everyone
else for their failing.

"Dex" wrote in message ...
On 03/02/2016 10:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/02/16 09:58, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message

Of course sanity just prevailed in Scotland, but is leaving the EU,
the saner choice?

IMO the voters will decide that it isn't. Not for any well thought
out reason, just because they dont see any urgent need to leave.

Well those that see their towns being flooded with immigrants, most
certainly do.


What other member state has set a date for a referendum on staying or
leaving?


The issue that I would never have thought would be that important, is
now the key one in many peoples minds, due largely to the utter
incompetence of the EU bureaucracy.


Yet France's far-right National Front failed to win a single region in the
second round of polls last December, despite what 'immigrants' did over
there. Like Farage did here and Donald Trump recently did in America,
threw their toys out the pram, cried foul and blamed everyone else for
their failing.

Adolf did too. At least he had the decency to top himself.

On 06/02/16 10:05, Hilo Black wrote:


"Dex" wrote in message ...
On 03/02/2016 10:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/02/16 09:58, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message

Of course sanity just prevailed in Scotland, but is leaving the EU,
the saner choice?

IMO the voters will decide that it isn't. Not for any well thought
out reason, just because they dont see any urgent need to leave.

Well those that see their towns being flooded with immigrants, most
certainly do.


What other member state has set a date for a referendum on staying or
leaving?


The issue that I would never have thought would be that important, is
now the key one in many peoples minds, due largely to the utter
incompetence of the EU bureaucracy.


Yet France's far-right National Front failed to win a single region in
the second round of polls last December, despite what 'immigrants' did
over there. Like Farage did here and Donald Trump recently did in
America, threw their toys out the pram, cried foul and blamed everyone
else for their failing.

Adolf did too. At least he had the decency to top himself.

Well Rod, when are you going to?


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/02/16 10:05, Hilo Black wrote:


"Dex" wrote in message ...
On 03/02/2016 10:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/02/16 09:58, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message

Of course sanity just prevailed in Scotland, but is leaving the EU,
the saner choice?

IMO the voters will decide that it isn't. Not for any well thought
out reason, just because they dont see any urgent need to leave.

Well those that see their towns being flooded with immigrants, most
certainly do.


What other member state has set a date for a referendum on staying or
leaving?


The issue that I would never have thought would be that important, is
now the key one in many peoples minds, due largely to the utter
incompetence of the EU bureaucracy.


Yet France's far-right National Front failed to win a single region in
the second round of polls last December, despite what 'immigrants' did
over there. Like Farage did here and Donald Trump recently did in
America, threw their toys out the pram, cried foul and blamed everyone
else for their failing.

Adolf did too. At least he had the decency to top himself.

Well Rod, when are you going to?

Won't need to. I couldnt careless what the voters decide
to do and personally think that the way Norway has chosen
to do its relations with the EU is a much better approach
than what Britain chose to do, mainly because they get
to do what they like policy wise and dont have unelected
bureaucrats deciding anything at all policy wise.

So I wont be crying foul, blaming anyone, or doing any
dummy spit or throwing anything out of any pram or
lying about what I would do if the vote didnt go the
way I wanted it to go and pretend that I had to be
dragged kicking and screaming against my will into
doing the opposite of what I said I would do either.

The most I will do is have confirmed what I have known
for well over half a century now, that the absolute vast
bulk of the voters vote on the most superficial basis
if they even bother to vote at all and that its hardly
surprising that you get some pretty silly results.

On 06/02/2016 19:33, Hilo Black wrote:

Norway has chosen
to do its relations with the EU is a much better approach
than what Britain chose to do, mainly because they get
to do what they like policy wise and dont have unelected
bureaucrats deciding anything at all policy wise.

The main problem that I see with EU policy that it is usually drafted in
such a way that most of the members countries can ignore it, or just pay
lip service to it, whereas in the the UK politicians and civil servants
gold plate and add their own addenda items making it much more onerous.


So I wont be crying foul, blaming anyone, or doing any
dummy spit or throwing anything out of any pram or
lying about what I would do if the vote didnt go the
way I wanted it to go and pretend that I had to be
dragged kicking and screaming against my will into
doing the opposite of what I said I would do either.

The most I will do is have confirmed what I have known
for well over half a century now, that the absolute vast
bulk of the voters vote on the most superficial basis
if they even bother to vote at all and that its hardly
surprising that you get some pretty silly results.

+1


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 06/02/2016 19:33, Hilo Black wrote:

Norway has chosen
to do its relations with the EU is a much better approach
than what Britain chose to do, mainly because they get
to do what they like policy wise and dont have unelected
bureaucrats deciding anything at all policy wise.

The main problem that I see with EU policy that it is usually drafted in
such a way that most of the members countries can ignore it, or just pay
lip service to it, whereas in the the UK politicians and civil servants
gold plate and add their own addenda items making it much more onerous.

Sure, but it makes a lot more sense to do things the way
Norway does it and decide what to do policy wise than to
let some unelected bureaucrat have any say what so ever on
anything at all. That's not what a real democracy is about.

And Norway has had their votes decide a number of times
that they prefer to keep doing it that way instead of joining
the EU.

So I wont be crying foul, blaming anyone, or doing any
dummy spit or throwing anything out of any pram or
lying about what I would do if the vote didnt go the
way I wanted it to go and pretend that I had to be
dragged kicking and screaming against my will into
doing the opposite of what I said I would do either.

The most I will do is have confirmed what I have known
for well over half a century now, that the absolute vast
bulk of the voters vote on the most superficial basis
if they even bother to vote at all and that its hardly
surprising that you get some pretty silly results.

+1

They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended. And when they gave Blair
and the Brown one the bums rush when
they had so obviously ****ed up so badly.

On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it wrong tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

...and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to recover
from Labour..

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it wrong tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

You've flagrantly dishonestly changed my original from right to wrong.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted

That was due to the war.

and took ten years to recover from Labour..

Sure.

On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it wrong tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to recover
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it wrong tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to recover
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing out
cash....

--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

In article ,
Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it wrong tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to recover
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

or because of the nationalisation programme. Coal, steel, railways,
medical services

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to recover
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing out
cash....

BULL****.

On 07/02/16 18:01, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to recover
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing out
cash....

BULL****.

Did Maggie eat your hamster wodders?


--
Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time the quo has lost
its status.

Laurence Peter

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 18:01, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to recover
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing out
cash....

BULL****.

Did Maggie eat your hamster wodders?

Unlikely given that I think most of what she did
was the right thing to do. It was only really the
final poll tax that didnt make any real sense.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 18:01, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to recover
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing out
cash....

BULL****.

Did Maggie eat your hamster wodders?

Unlikely given that I think most of what she did
was the right thing to do. It was only really the
final poll tax that didnt make any real sense.

In article , Hilo Black
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 18:01, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to recover
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing out
cash....

BULL****.

Did Maggie eat your hamster wodders?

Unlikely given that I think most of what she did
was the right thing to do. It was only really the
final poll tax that didnt make any real sense.
It made quite a lot of sense, except the bit that refused to recognise
the need to take some account of ability to pay.
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 18:01, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to recover
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the rebuilding
of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing out
cash....

BULL****.

Did Maggie eat your hamster wodders?

Unlikely given that I think most of what she did
was the right thing to do. It was only really the
final poll tax that didnt make any real sense.

It made quite a lot of sense,

No it did not. A house with say 4 adults living
in it doesnt cost the govt more 4 times as
much to provide services to and to defend
etc than a house with just 1 adult in it.

except the bit that refused to recognise the need to take some account of
ability to pay.

And that is the other massive problem with it.

And the other is that it makes no sense for those
entirely on benefits to be paying it because its
just shovelling some of the amount they are
getting out the door, into their pockets and
then straight back to the same operation that
paid it in the first place. Mindlessly silly.

In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 18:01, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to recover
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the
rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing out
cash....

BULL****.

Did Maggie eat your hamster wodders?

Unlikely given that I think most of what she did
was the right thing to do. It was only really the
final poll tax that didnt make any real sense.

It made quite a lot of sense,

No it did not. A house with say 4 adults living
in it doesnt cost the govt more 4 times as
much to provide services to and to defend
etc than a house with just 1 adult in it.

If you look at what local councils spend very little is property
related. The majority is people related - social services, education
except the bit that refused to recognise the need to take some
account of ability to pay.

And that is the other massive problem with it.

And the other is that it makes no sense for those
entirely on benefits to be paying it because its
just shovelling some of the amount they are
getting out the door, into their pockets and
then straight back to the same operation that
paid it in the first place. Mindlessly silly.

Which bit of "ability to pay" did you not understand?
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 18:01, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to
recover
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the
rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing out
cash....

BULL****.

Did Maggie eat your hamster wodders?

Unlikely given that I think most of what she did
was the right thing to do. It was only really the
final poll tax that didnt make any real sense.

It made quite a lot of sense,

No it did not. A house with say 4 adults living
in it doesnt cost the govt more 4 times as
much to provide services to and to defend
etc than a house with just 1 adult in it.

If you look at what local councils spend very little is property related.

That's bull**** with the roads and local infrastructure.

The majority is people related - social services, education

But that doesnt mostly get spent on those you can
collect the poll tax from, its from the others who dont
get anything in that regard from the local council.

except the bit that refused to recognise the need to take some account
of ability to pay.

And that is the other massive problem with it.

And the other is that it makes no sense for those
entirely on benefits to be paying it because its
just shovelling some of the amount they are
getting out the door, into their pockets and
then straight back to the same operation that
paid it in the first place. Mindlessly silly.

Which bit of "ability to pay" did you not understand?

There are plenty of others who aren't on benefits
that dont have the ability to pay the poll tax.

In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 18:01, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to

from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the
rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing out
cash....

BULL****.

Did Maggie eat your hamster wodders?

Unlikely given that I think most of what she did
was the right thing to do. It was only really the
final poll tax that didnt make any real sense.

It made quite a lot of sense,

No it did not. A house with say 4 adults living
in it doesnt cost the govt more 4 times as
much to provide services to and to defend
etc than a house with just 1 adult in it.

If you look at what local councils spend very little is property related.

That's bull**** with the roads and local infrastructure.

Doesn't your council send you details of their budgets every year?
Suggest you read it next time.
The majority is people related - social services, education

But that doesnt mostly get spent on those you can
collect the poll tax from, its from the others who dont
get anything in that regard from the local council.

True of most taxes.
except the bit that refused to recognise the need to take some
account of ability to pay.

And that is the other massive problem with it.

And the other is that it makes no sense for those
entirely on benefits to be paying it because its
just shovelling some of the amount they are
getting out the door, into their pockets and
then straight back to the same operation that
paid it in the first place. Mindlessly silly.

Which bit of "ability to pay" did you not understand?

There are plenty of others who aren't on benefits
that dont have the ability to pay the poll tax.
There are equally many others who can't really afford to pay the current
council tax - but they have to. There are many others who can afford to
but don't pay any council tax at all.

--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 18:01, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the
rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing
out
cash....

BULL****.

Did Maggie eat your hamster wodders?

Unlikely given that I think most of what she did
was the right thing to do. It was only really the
final poll tax that didnt make any real sense.

It made quite a lot of sense,

No it did not. A house with say 4 adults living
in it doesnt cost the govt more 4 times as
much to provide services to and to defend
etc than a house with just 1 adult in it.

If you look at what local councils spend very little is property
related.

That's bull**** with the roads and local infrastructure.

Doesn't your council send you details of their budgets every year? Suggest
you read it next time.

Dont need to, I know what they spend their money on.

The majority is people related - social services, education

But that doesnt mostly get spent on those you can
collect the poll tax from, its from the others who dont
get anything in that regard from the local council.

True of most taxes.

Most taxes get spent on what most
of us use government services wise.

except the bit that refused to recognise the need to take some account
of ability to pay.

And that is the other massive problem with it.

And the other is that it makes no sense for those
entirely on benefits to be paying it because its
just shovelling some of the amount they are
getting out the door, into their pockets and
then straight back to the same operation that
paid it in the first place. Mindlessly silly.

Which bit of "ability to pay" did you not understand?

There are plenty of others who aren't on benefits
that dont have the ability to pay the poll tax.
There are equally many others who can't really afford to pay the current
council tax - but they have to. There are many others who can afford to
but don't pay any council tax at all.

Irrelevant to that question of yours.

A poll tax doesnt even get more paying for what
they get from the council, in fact tho who live alone
end up paying much less than they would without
a poll tax and those with multiple adults in the
household end up paying a lot more.

In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 18:01, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the
rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and
handing out
cash....

BULL****.

Did Maggie eat your hamster wodders?

Unlikely given that I think most of what she did
was the right thing to do. It was only really the
final poll tax that didnt make any real sense.

It made quite a lot of sense,

No it did not. A house with say 4 adults living
in it doesnt cost the govt more 4 times as
much to provide services to and to defend
etc than a house with just 1 adult in it.

If you look at what local councils spend very little is property
related.

That's bull**** with the roads and local infrastructure.

Doesn't your council send you details of their budgets every year?
Suggest you read it next time.

Dont need to, I know what they spend their money on.

The majority is people related - social services, education

But that doesnt mostly get spent on those you can
collect the poll tax from, its from the others who dont
get anything in that regard from the local council.

True of most taxes.

Most taxes get spent on what most
of us use government services wise.

Which in the case of local government is mostly social services and
education.
except the bit that refused to recognise the need to take some
account of ability to pay.

And that is the other massive problem with it.

And the other is that it makes no sense for those
entirely on benefits to be paying it because its
just shovelling some of the amount they are
getting out the door, into their pockets and
then straight back to the same operation that
paid it in the first place. Mindlessly silly.

Which bit of "ability to pay" did you not understand?

There are plenty of others who aren't on benefits
that dont have the ability to pay the poll tax.
There are equally many others who can't really afford to pay the
current council tax - but they have to. There are many others who can
afford to but don't pay any council tax at all.

Irrelevant to that question of yours.

A poll tax doesnt even get more paying for what
they get from the council, in fact tho who live alone
end up paying much less than they would without
a poll tax and those with multiple adults in the
household end up paying a lot more.
Which makes it a lot fairer given that most local government spending is
not property related.
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hilo Black
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 18:01, Hilo Black wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/16 11:24, Dex wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/16 22:23, Hilo Black wrote:
They do sometimes get it right tho like they did
when they gave Churchill the bums rush at the
ballot box very unceremoniously indeed just after
the war had ended.

..and the nation was nearly bankrupted and took ten years to
from Labour..


Because of paying the loans we had during the war and the
rebuilding of
the country after perchance?

well rather the labour government ignoring the above and handing
out
cash....

BULL****.

Did Maggie eat your hamster wodders?

Unlikely given that I think most of what she did
was the right thing to do. It was only really the
final poll tax that didnt make any real sense.

It made quite a lot of sense,

No it did not. A house with say 4 adults living
in it doesnt cost the govt more 4 times as
much to provide services to and to defend
etc than a house with just 1 adult in it.

If you look at what local councils spend very little is property
related.

That's bull**** with the roads and local infrastructure.

Doesn't your council send you details of their budgets every year?
Suggest you read it next time.

Dont need to, I know what they spend their money on.

The majority is people related - social services, education

But that doesnt mostly get spent on those you can
collect the poll tax from, its from the others who dont
get anything in that regard from the local council.

True of most taxes.

Most taxes get spent on what most
of us use government services wise.

Which in the case of local government is mostly social services and
education.

Most dont actually use the first and many dont use the
second and your claim is wrong with local roads too.

except the bit that refused to recognise the need to take some
account of ability to pay.

And that is the other massive problem with it.

And the other is that it makes no sense for those
entirely on benefits to be paying it because its
just shovelling some of the amount they are
getting out the door, into their pockets and
then straight back to the same operation that
paid it in the first place. Mindlessly silly.

Which bit of "ability to pay" did you not understand?

There are plenty of others who aren't on benefits
that dont have the ability to pay the poll tax.
There are equally many others who can't really afford to pay the current
council tax - but they have to. There are many others who can afford to
but don't pay any council tax at all.

Irrelevant to that question of yours.

A poll tax doesnt even get more paying for what
they get from the council, in fact tho who live alone
end up paying much less than they would without
a poll tax and those with multiple adults in the
household end up paying a lot more.

Which makes it a lot fairer given that most local government spending is
not property related.

Not when most dont receive any of the social services
and plenty dont use the education system either. They
nearly all do use the local roads and footpaths etc tho.

No reason why a household with two adults should be
paying twice as much as a household with just one.

On Thursday, 11 February 2016 22:05:34 UTC, Hilo Black wrote:


No reason why a household with two adults should be
paying twice as much as a household with just one.

Is that because two people can live as cheqaply as one ?
The easterm european couple next to me have 3 kids their cat is on it's 3rd litter of 5 this time. They seem to have 2 cars at the monent, and seem to be buying lots of stuff as their recyling bin is always over flowing with cardboard from all sorts of producst 3 weeks ago it was a 46 inch TV.
the 32" I assume was for the kids room.
They seem like a nice enough couple and I think the 'husband' has a job of some sort so I'm not saying that are scrounging off me, it's just that I can't understand why my council tax is only 25% cheaper than there's.

So the cost of runbbish collection, water rates, and all the other bills are the same whether there are 5 people + 8 cats in the house or just 1 and 1 cat
just doesn;t seem to add up.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 22:05:34 UTC, Hilo Black wrote:


No reason why a household with two adults should be
paying twice as much as a household with just one.

Is that because two people can live as cheqaply as one ?

No, we are talking about what it costs the local
council to provide what they are there to provide.

And even with social welfare, it makes no sense to be
collecting twice as much from the two adult household
and giving much of that back to the two adult household.

The easterm european couple next to me have 3 kids
their cat is on it's 3rd litter of 5 this time. They seem
to have 2 cars at the monent, and seem to be buying
lots of stuff as their recyling bin is always over flowing
with cardboard from all sorts of producst 3 weeks ago it
was a 46 inch TV. the 32" I assume was for the kids room.

All irrelevant to what it costs the local council.

They seem like a nice enough couple and I think the
'husband' has a job of some sort so I'm not saying that
are scrounging off me, it's just that I can't understand
why my council tax is only 25% cheaper than there's.

That isnt what was being discussed either,
whether the poll tax Maggie proposed is a
better approach than the current council tax.

So the cost of runbbish collection, water rates,

Many places charge for water quite separately to
the council tax and that does make a lot of sense.

and all the other bills are the same whether
there are 5 people + 8 cats in the house or
just 1 and 1 cat just doesn;t seem to add up.

What the council spends had very little to do with cats.