"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| The only thing that will bring the price of houses down is to
| increase the supply of dwellings (not necessarily houses alone;
| flats both to buy and rent are a huge source of supply
| across mainland Europe).

The real thing to bring the price of houses down is to deflate the economy
in London and the South-East and rejuvenate depressed areas. There are
streets and streets of perfectly good houses being demolished in parts of
the North-East of England, plenty of rural areas suffering depopulation, and
other rural areas where a huge proprtion of houses are second homes.

The problem is not dwellings, it's land (as IMM would say) and the answer is
not (as IMM would say) to abolish planning controls, it's to even out the
population and the economy across the country. A better and cheaper mass
transport infrastructure would help by rducing businesses' "need" to be in
London and the SE and other city centres and increasing the magic "1 hour
commute" area for housing.

Owain

"Andy Hall" wrote
| "Owain" wrote:
| | What about removing residency and spousal inheritance exemptions from
| | CGT and replacing Stamp duty and allowing a tax-free gain in value
| | per annum equal to the bank base rate, compounded annually. Any gain
| | in value above tax-free gain taxed at 80%.
| IHT should be abolished. The deceased has already paid income tax,
| VAT and possibly CGT and frequently has little left to bequeath, even
| less if long term care is required in late life.
| For many of the elderly, this is a source of considerable distress
| because they would like to be to hand something to their children or
| grandchildren. For 40% of it to be ripped off by the government is
| not appropriate.

Good point, so under my suggestion remove inheritance tax and do not regard
transfer of ownership by inheritance as a sale. The children can inherit the
house with no immediate tax liability, but the gain tax will be due when the
property is next sold, if it's sold at a profit more than the tax-exempt
gain.

| Anyway, it's a marginal rate, in the example I gave it equals a tax
| of 32% on the overall growth or 16% on the curent market value,
| which compares fairly with general income tax rates or even 17.5%
| VAT. It would apply mostly to those who have a grossly-inflated
| house value through artificial market conditions,
| Well are the market conditions artificial? Prices are only based on
| what the market will stand and what people can afford. That will
| change automatically, as it always does when interest rates begin to
| rise. Those who are most over extended will have their wings
| clipped first.

Because house prices have risen so unevenly across the country and have
risen more than demand (population hasn't doubled in 5 years, neither has
the number of households).

Yes, it's a sort of windfall tax on the sort of artificial market where
people can borrow 100%+ mortgage, buy a house, live in it rent-free for a
year, pay no mortgage payments, and still make a hefty profit when it's
reposessed.

Owain

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:35:42 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| The only thing that will bring the price of houses down is to
| increase the supply of dwellings (not necessarily houses alone;
| flats both to buy and rent are a huge source of supply
| across mainland Europe).

The real thing to bring the price of houses down is to deflate the economy
in London and the South-East and rejuvenate depressed areas. There are
streets and streets of perfectly good houses being demolished in parts of
the North-East of England, plenty of rural areas suffering depopulation, and
other rural areas where a huge proprtion of houses are second homes.

The problem is not dwellings, it's land (as IMM would say) and the answer is
not (as IMM would say) to abolish planning controls, it's to even out the
population and the economy across the country. A better and cheaper mass
transport infrastructure would help by rducing businesses' "need" to be in
London and the SE and other city centres and increasing the magic "1 hour
commute" area for housing.

Owain

I see what you are saying, Owain, but I'm not sure about the
practicality of mass transportation over large geographical areas.

The time factor becomes very significant. From where I live to
where my kids work is about a 10-15 minute drive. By bus it involves
two buses and a journey of an hour or so, and connecting buses only
run at peak times. This is basically from one town to the next.
Why would I want to take the bus? It's way too inconvenient, plus I
can only take what I can carry. That's before one starts thinking
of issues like personal space.

Originally the large conurbations like London happened because of
naturally available transport. This attracts a concentration of
people who in turn attract more infrastructure.
Certain industries require people to be grouped together to make
something. Others require face to face interaction, although if you
think about home working, that was not much known 10 years ago.
Nowadays it's commonplace largely because of telecoms technology.
I think that is likely to be things that reduce the need for people to
move around that will open the way to more even population
distribution. The more obvious things like transport I don't think
will be able to do that.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Owain wrote in message ...
A better and cheaper mass
transport infrastructure would help by rducing businesses' "need" to be in
London and the SE and other city centres and increasing the magic "1 hour
commute" area for housing.
NO! We need more expensive, unsubsidised, public transport. This will force
businesses to relocate to where the people can afford to travel and live.
Building more houses in the south east is a recipe for needing even more
taxpayers money to throw down the Labour drain of subsidised public
transport. Who in his right mind travels into London ( IMM?), or Edinburgh
by public transport? The system is under invested, poorly maintained,
filthy and has no concept of customer service. Either it is a service
business which the customer is prepared to pay the market price for, or let
it go to the wall!

Regards
Capitol

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:36:36 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:07:45 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:08:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in
each country.

Ours seems to be top-heavy in the negatives.

MM

I suppose it depends on what you are looking for.

I prefer the glass to be half full. It's more optimistic than half
empty and the reality is the same.

Here's an example, hot off the press. Today we have had Oliver Letwin
explaining some of the Tories' proposals for spending should they be
elected. It looks like the public services are going to be pared back
somewhat.

However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less. Another item on the
news today was the industrial action by job centre staff and others in
that category. A public servant's starting salary mentioned earlier in
the day was just over £9,000, so it's no wonder they're out on strike.
How can the fourth richest country (so called) allow this to continue?
And then wonder why we can't get the staff and increasingly have to
rely on people from countries far worse than ours but who are willing
to work for a pittance.

Adam Crozier, Royal Mail boss on the other hand gets a basic (basic!)
salary of half a million quid! The top people in many other industries
receive similar huge sums of dosh. I'd say, a couple of hundred grand
should be enough for anybody.

So while managers everywhere are getting paid what I believe to be
excessive remunerations, plus perks, share options, and golden
goodbyes, we do not have enough staff to run a vital part of the NHS!
Neither Gordon's nor Olive's sums add up at all.

MM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:34:10 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes

A sad case of brainwashing here. The economy is the best it has been in
living memory.


Thanks to Maggie ....

snip drivel

That the best you can do? It wasn't drivel. It was right on the money.
Shame you cannot add some useful comments.

MM

In article ,
says...
However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

For which they get more money than other people in similar professions.

So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

Why not just introduce better tax breaks for people wishing to take
private medical care...?

Another item on the
news today was the industrial action by job centre staff and others in
that category. A public servant's starting salary mentioned earlier in
the day was just over £9,000, so it's no wonder they're out on strike.
How can the fourth richest country (so called) allow this to continue?

Life has winners and losers. Sounds terribly harsh but should they
strike simply because they are low paid? Whilst I believe in freedom I
also believe that those people went into those low paid jobs on low pay.
If they had all gone in at £30k then had their money cut to £9k I could
understand.

And then wonder why we can't get the staff and increasingly have to
rely on people from countries far worse than ours but who are willing
to work for a pittance.

This has always been the way since slavery...

Adam Crozier, Royal Mail boss on the other hand gets a basic (basic!)
salary of half a million quid! The top people in many other industries
receive similar huge sums of dosh. I'd say, a couple of hundred grand
should be enough for anybody.

Why though? Typical left view (not that I am saying that that is wrong
in itself if you can back it up). Adam's salary should be set at a
level which he would earn in the next best employment (opportunity cost)
for this is the way of the free market.

Are you the communist who would cap earnings at a couple of hundred
grand?

So while managers everywhere are getting paid what I believe to be
excessive remunerations, plus perks, share options, and golden
goodbyes, we do not have enough staff to run a vital part of the NHS!

A third of my family are employed by the NHS and I can only agree.
However, nothing will be done on the back of strikes.

Neither Gordon's nor Olive's sums add up at all.

But do people care?

If that many people were bothered about our friend Brown he would be out
tomorrow.
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return. It is greed, pure and simple. A few very highly paid
managers are obtaining vast salaries and perks, while the citizens are
enticed by beautifully made adverts to get ever deeper into debt. If
the chancellor levies another windfall tax on such avaricious
behaviour, I for one will cheer loudly. Maybe once day the shysters
will realise that if they play fair with the public, there won't be a
need to levy windfall taxes.

MM

In article ,
says...
But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return. It is greed, pure and simple. A few very highly paid
managers are obtaining vast salaries and perks, while the citizens are
enticed by beautifully made adverts to get ever deeper into debt. If
the chancellor levies another windfall tax on such avaricious
behaviour, I for one will cheer loudly. Maybe once day the shysters
will realise that if they play fair with the public, there won't be a
need to levy windfall taxes.

So should hard work not bring it's own rewards?
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:48:19 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:36:36 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:07:45 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:08:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in
each country.

Ours seems to be top-heavy in the negatives.

MM

I suppose it depends on what you are looking for.

I prefer the glass to be half full. It's more optimistic than half
empty and the reality is the same.

Here's an example, hot off the press. Today we have had Oliver Letwin
explaining some of the Tories' proposals for spending should they be
elected. It looks like the public services are going to be pared back
somewhat.

Administration in the public services as opposed to the "sharp end"
should be pared back. Severely. I would do so much more agressively
than Letwin is suggesting,.


However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

Investment should be related to the service being delivered, (as it
were) not the administration of it.


So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

It should be shut down and replaced with a system appropriate for the
21st century, not one suited to the idealism of the mid 20th.

Another item on the
news today was the industrial action by job centre staff and others in
that category. A public servant's starting salary mentioned earlier in
the day was just over £9,000, so it's no wonder they're out on strike.
How can the fourth richest country (so called) allow this to continue?
And then wonder why we can't get the staff and increasingly have to
rely on people from countries far worse than ours but who are willing
to work for a pittance.

In effect the taxpayer is the customer of all of this. The question
becomes one of do we want to spend more money protecting jobs which
can be automated or outsourced to other countries more cheaply or do
we want to pay more in tax towards propping up or even increasing the
public share of GDP to fund what is ultimately untenable?

To me the answer to that is abundantly clear.



Adam Crozier, Royal Mail boss on the other hand gets a basic (basic!)
salary of half a million quid! The top people in many other industries
receive similar huge sums of dosh.

If Royal Mail were working properly then that would be justified. In
general I see no reason why senior executives should not receive
remuneration at the level that they do. If the shareholders
disagree then they can vote accordingly. It really isn't anybody's
business what people earn anyway except in so far that director's
remuneration goes into annual reports and so forth anyway.


I'd say, a couple of hundred grand
should be enough for anybody.

Why? This is a matter between employer, employee and shareholders.
It isn't anybody else's business.


So while managers everywhere are getting paid what I believe to be
excessive remunerations, plus perks, share options, and golden
goodbyes, we do not have enough staff to run a vital part of the NHS!

The NHS isn't vital at all. It's outmoded and should be replaced by a
mixed system of public and private provision. People should
contribute to a state fund via tax of some sort and receive healthcare
vouchers in return. These could then be spent at state run
facilities or topped up with private insurance or payment if the
patient wishes private care or earlier treatment.


Neither Gordon's nor Olive's sums add up at all.

That's almost certainly true.




MM

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Why?

It is greed, pure and simple.

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

A few very highly paid
managers are obtaining vast salaries and perks, while the citizens are
enticed by beautifully made adverts to get ever deeper into debt.

You don't have to invest your money with them.



If
the chancellor levies another windfall tax on such avaricious
behaviour, I for one will cheer loudly. Maybe once day the shysters
will realise that if they play fair with the public, there won't be a
need to levy windfall taxes.

MM

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:35:42 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| The only thing that will bring the price of houses down is to
| increase the supply of dwellings (not necessarily houses alone;
| flats both to buy and rent are a huge source of supply
| across mainland Europe).

The real thing to bring the price of houses down is to deflate the economy
in London and the South-East and rejuvenate depressed areas. There are
streets and streets of perfectly good houses being demolished in parts of
the North-East of England, plenty of rural areas suffering depopulation, and
other rural areas where a huge proprtion of houses are second homes.

That is indeed very true and it's a crying shame that so much good
property is being scrapped. However, it still fits in with the supply
and demand equation, as down south there is the demand but reduced
supply, whereas oop north there are no jobs to pay for mortgages.

The problem is not dwellings, it's land (as IMM would say) and the answer is
not (as IMM would say) to abolish planning controls, it's to even out the
population and the economy across the country. A better and cheaper mass
transport infrastructure would help by rducing businesses' "need" to be in
London and the SE and other city centres and increasing the magic "1 hour
commute" area for housing.

I agree that an evening out would be a good thing (mine's a pint!).
But it's a lot quicker, certainly in the interim, to build more
housing wherever possible. You can have new housing available within a
few months of planning decisions having been made. But it's much more
difficult to persuade thousands of families to move, with all the
concommitant issues of work, relatives, roots, schooling, friends to
take account of.

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...


But it's much more
difficult to persuade thousands of families to move, with all the
concommitant issues of work, relatives, roots, schooling, friends to
take account of.


Not difficult at all. It was done in the 1950's, they were called "new
Towns" and moved many thousands of mainly young people from overcrowded
urban conditions to rural areas where work was made available. Then we were
stupid enough to build more council houses in the urban areas and provide
cheap taxpayer funded transport, surprise, surprise, you get the overcrowded
urban living conditions of today.

Regards
Capitol

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:36:36 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:07:45 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:08:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in
each country.

Ours seems to be top-heavy in the negatives.

MM

I suppose it depends on what you are looking for.

I prefer the glass to be half full. It's more optimistic than half
empty and the reality is the same.

Here's an example, hot off the press.
Today we have had Oliver Letwin
explaining some of the Tories' proposals
for spending should they be
elected. It looks like the public services
are going to be pared back somewhat.

They said they are going to save billions and services the same. This is
amazing! they must have invented a new way of adding up.

However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less. Another item on the
news today was the industrial action by job centre staff and others in
that category. A public servant's starting salary mentioned earlier in
the day was just over £9,000, so it's no wonder they're out on strike.
How can the fourth richest country (so called) allow this to continue?
And then wonder why we can't get the staff and increasingly have to
rely on people from countries far worse than ours but who are willing
to work for a pittance.

Adam Crozier, Royal Mail boss on the other hand gets a basic (basic!)
salary of half a million quid! The top people in many other industries
receive similar huge sums of dosh. I'd say, a couple of hundred grand
should be enough for anybody.

So while managers everywhere are getting paid what I believe to be
excessive remunerations, plus perks, share options, and golden
goodbyes, we do not have enough staff to run a vital part of the NHS!
Neither Gordon's nor Olive's sums add up at all.

MM

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

For which they get more money than other people in similar professions.

So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

Why not just introduce better tax breaks for people wishing to take
private medical care...?

Some people have no logic or reasoning. The country is short of certain
medical people. Shifting millions over to private will only starve the NHS
of valuable staff.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:48:19 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:36:36 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:07:45 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:08:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in
each country.

Ours seems to be top-heavy in the negatives.

MM

I suppose it depends on what you are looking for.

I prefer the glass to be half full. It's more optimistic than half
empty and the reality is the same.

Here's an example, hot off the press. Today we have had Oliver Letwin
explaining some of the Tories' proposals for spending should they be
elected. It looks like the public services are going to be pared back
somewhat.

Administration in the public services as opposed to the "sharp end"
should be pared back. Severely. I would do so much more agressively
than Letwin is suggesting,.


However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

Investment should be related to the service being delivered, (as it
were) not the administration of it.


So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

It should be shut down and replaced with a system appropriate for the
21st century, not one suited to the idealism of the mid 20th.

And replaced with what? Loons like this always criticise yet never come up
with a real solution. They see life from a narrow middle classy
perspective.

Another item on the
news today was the industrial action by job centre staff and others in
that category. A public servant's starting salary mentioned earlier in
the day was just over £9,000, so it's no wonder they're out on strike.
How can the fourth richest country (so called) allow this to continue?
And then wonder why we can't get the staff and increasingly have to
rely on people from countries far worse than ours but who are willing
to work for a pittance.

In effect the taxpayer is the customer of all of this. The question
becomes one of do we want to spend more money protecting jobs which
can be automated or outsourced to other countries more cheaply or do
we want to pay more in tax towards propping up or even increasing the
public share of GDP to fund what is ultimately untenable?

To me the answer to that is abundantly clear.

We could farm everything out to India, and then the cost would be even more
to the country in social payments, crime, broken homes etc. No one ever
looks at the big picture.

I'd say, a couple of hundred grand
should be enough for anybody.

Why? This is a matter between employer, employee and shareholders.
It isn't anybody else's business.

Golden parachutes should be outlawed. They are just despicable.

So while managers everywhere are getting paid what I believe to be
excessive remunerations, plus perks, share options, and golden
goodbyes, we do not have enough staff to run a vital part of the NHS!

The NHS isn't vital at all.

snip drivel

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:34:10 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM

writes

A sad case of brainwashing here. The economy is the best it has been
in
living memory.

Thanks to Maggie ....

snip drivel

That the best you can do? It wasn't drivel. It was right on the money.
Shame you cannot add some useful comments.

What you said was only worthy of contempt.

Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...
This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Fortunately your view is not shared by the shareholders, or they would
immediately sell their shares and invest the capital elsewhere. If you
actually look at the rate of return on capital employed, which is the real
yardstick, you will find that the actual profit per £ of turnover is very
low indeed. The customers have real choice in which bank they use, indeed
they can always use a non profit credit union if they feel so inclined. The
comments I've seen here remind me very much of my definition of a UK
motivated by envy and not motivated by the desire to succeed. A highly
profitable company can and does afford good wages to the staff and provide a
first rate pension scheme, they also pay high taxes. If the directors are
successful, then they should be well rewarded. If however they fail, then
obviously there should be a corresponding lack of reward. Companies which do
not make adequate profits do not pay either wages or taxes. You can't have
it both ways.

It is interesting to note, that the banks which were hit with windfall taxes
are now generally under new ownership. HSBC of course is now owned offshore.
Which one will be next?

Regards
Capitol

IMM wrote in message ...
They said they are going to save billions and services the same. This is
amazing! they must have invented a new way of adding up.


No, just gone back to the old system of 1nurse+1patient=2, unlike the
present Socialist system of 1nurse+3managers+ 57ticked boxes=2(maybes)

Regards
Capitol

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Why?

It is greed, pure and simple.

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

Which is wrong. It should be to conduct its business in a professional
manner, do the utmost to fulfil customer satisfaction (quality of product
and service) and keep employee welfare at the highest levels.

Fulfil the above and returns will be high. The problem is that many
companies put the cart before the horse.

A few very highly paid
managers are obtaining vast salaries and perks, while the citizens are
enticed by beautifully made adverts to get ever deeper into debt.

80% of debt is mortgages. Back to land not being re-distributed and a
planning system geared to keep stinking rich, stinking rich, as we all pay
extortionate prices for box homes.

In article ,
says...
Some people have no logic or reasoning. The country is short of certain
medical people. Shifting millions over to private will only starve the NHS
of valuable staff.

Show me one good doctor who just does private work and I'll show you ten
who are able to afford to do both private and public work because of
private work.

Of course, what would I know, I clearly lack logic or reasoning.
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| The only thing that will bring the price of houses down is to
| increase the supply of dwellings (not necessarily houses alone;
| flats both to buy and rent are a huge source of supply
| across mainland Europe).

The real thing to bring the price of houses down is to deflate the economy
in London and the South-East and rejuvenate depressed areas. There are
streets and streets of perfectly good houses being demolished in parts of
the North-East of England,

They are not perfectly good. they are insulation slums they missed the 1950s
clearances.

plenty of rural areas suffering depopulation, and
other rural areas where a huge proprtion of
houses are second homes.

Redo the planning system and allow people back into the countryside. That
is the only way. read Low Impact Development.

The problem is not dwellings, it's land (as IMM would say)
and the answer is not (as IMM would say) to abolish
planning controls,

It is to have them being realistic and not favouring large landowners and
large property and building companies.

it's to even out the population and the economy
across the country. A better and cheaper mass
transport infrastructure would help by rducing
businesses' "need" to be in London and the
SE and other city centres and increasing the magic "1 hour
commute" area for housing.

This will help, but land not being used for the benefit of the people, is
the core of the problem. The Capital should be moved to a centralised
location in the UK, not central England. An influential think tank
recommended this. The capital is in the bottom right had corner of the
country, not only that we are over centralised with far too much in one
place: government, finance, media, etc.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:35:42 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| The only thing that will bring the price of houses down is to
| increase the supply of dwellings (not necessarily houses alone;
| flats both to buy and rent are a huge source of supply
| across mainland Europe).

The real thing to bring the price of houses down is to deflate the
economy
in London and the South-East and rejuvenate depressed areas. There are
streets and streets of perfectly good houses being demolished in parts of
the North-East of England, plenty of rural areas suffering depopulation,
and
other rural areas where a huge proprtion of houses are second homes.

The problem is not dwellings, it's land (as IMM would say) and the answer
is
not (as IMM would say) to abolish planning controls, it's to even out the
population and the economy across the country. A better and cheaper mass
transport infrastructure would help by rducing businesses' "need" to be
in
London and the SE and other city centres and increasing the magic "1 hour
commute" area for housing.

Owain

I see what you are saying, Owain, but I'm not sure about the
practicality of mass transportation over large geographical areas.

The time factor becomes very significant. From where I live to
where my kids work is about a 10-15 minute drive. By bus it involves
two buses and a journey of an hour or so, and connecting buses only
run at peak times. This is basically from one town to the next.
Why would I want to take the bus? It's way too inconvenient, plus I
can only take what I can carry. That's before one starts thinking
of issues like personal space.

If you never had a car your kids would have got jobs locally, like they did
40 years ago.

Originally the large conurbations like London happened because of
naturally available transport. This attracts a concentration of
people who in turn attract more infrastructure.
Certain industries require people to be grouped together to make
something. Others require face to face interaction, although if you
think about home working, that was not much known 10 years ago.
Nowadays it's commonplace largely because of telecoms technology.
I think that is likely to be things that reduce the need for people to
move around that will open the way to more even population
distribution. The more obvious things like transport I don't think
will be able to do that.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Owain wrote in message ...
A better and cheaper mass
transport infrastructure would help by rducing businesses' "need" to be
in
London and the SE and other city centres and increasing the magic "1 hour
commute" area for housing.

NO!

snip drivel

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
Some people have no logic or reasoning. The country is short of certain
medical people. Shifting millions over to private will only starve the
NHS
of valuable staff.

Show me one good doctor who just does private work and I'll show you ten
who are able to afford to do both private and public work because of
private work.

Of course, what would I know, I clearly lack logic or reasoning.

Of couse.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...
They said they are going to save billions and services the same. This is
amazing! they must have invented a new way of adding up.


No, just gone back to the old system of 1nurse+1patient=2, unlike the
present Socialist system of 1nurse+3managers+ 57ticked boxes=2(maybes)

It was Thatcher who introduced two tiers of management into the NHS.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:50:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Sausage King" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
says...
However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

For which they get more money than other people in similar professions.

So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

Why not just introduce better tax breaks for people wishing to take
private medical care...?

Some people have no logic or reasoning. The country is short of certain
medical people. Shifting millions over to private will only starve the NHS
of valuable staff.


.... and?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:55:48 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




And replaced with what?

A system of public healthcare and a private one where users of it are
not penalised for doing so. As it is, huge sums are wasted on admin
in the public sector and people wishing to buy their own healthcare,
thus unburdening the state system are penalised for doing so, several
times over.

As you say, nobody looks at the big picture



We could farm everything out to India, and then the cost would be even more
to the country in social payments, crime, broken homes etc. No one ever
looks at the big picture.


The right thing to do would be to spend some of the money saved in
retraining and reskilling those affected by such outsourcing. There
is nothing new in the notion of jobs in certain sectors moving to
lower cost production areas. Ultimately, attempting to control that
by artificial means and props doesn't work. It would be far better to
accept that that is the way that the market is going and dealing with
it positively.



I'd say, a couple of hundred grand
should be enough for anybody.

Why? This is a matter between employer, employee and shareholders.
It isn't anybody else's business.

Golden parachutes should be outlawed. They are just despicable.

They are nobody's business apart from the parties involved.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:05:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Why?

It is greed, pure and simple.

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

Which is wrong.

No it isn't. It is the first objective of any business.

It should be to conduct its business in a professional
manner, do the utmost to fulfil customer satisfaction (quality of product
and service) and keep employee welfare at the highest levels.

That is important as well but it is not the first objective - it can't
be. You need to have fulfilled all or most of the points that you
mention, but they are not an end in and of themselves.


Fulfil the above and returns will be high. The problem is that many
companies put the cart before the horse.

This is a circular argument of course




A few very highly paid
managers are obtaining vast salaries and perks, while the citizens are
enticed by beautifully made adverts to get ever deeper into debt.

80% of debt is mortgages. Back to land not being re-distributed and a
planning system geared to keep stinking rich, stinking rich, as we all pay
extortionate prices for box homes.

Yes, dear.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:57:59 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:


Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...
This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Fortunately your view is not shared by the shareholders, or they would
immediately sell their shares and invest the capital elsewhere. If you
actually look at the rate of return on capital employed, which is the real
yardstick, you will find that the actual profit per £ of turnover is very
low indeed. The customers have real choice in which bank they use, indeed
they can always use a non profit credit union if they feel so inclined. The
comments I've seen here remind me very much of my definition of a UK
motivated by envy and not motivated by the desire to succeed. A highly
profitable company can and does afford good wages to the staff and provide a
first rate pension scheme, they also pay high taxes. If the directors are
successful, then they should be well rewarded. If however they fail, then
obviously there should be a corresponding lack of reward. Companies which do
not make adequate profits do not pay either wages or taxes. You can't have
it both ways.

It is interesting to note, that the banks which were hit with windfall taxes
are now generally under new ownership. HSBC of course is now owned offshore.
Which one will be next?

Regards
Capitol



Natwest already is :-)


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:14:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

The time factor becomes very significant. From where I live to
where my kids work is about a 10-15 minute drive. By bus it involves
two buses and a journey of an hour or so, and connecting buses only
run at peak times. This is basically from one town to the next.
Why would I want to take the bus? It's way too inconvenient, plus I
can only take what I can carry. That's before one starts thinking
of issues like personal space.

If you never had a car your kids would have got jobs locally, like they did
40 years ago.

It is local. We are talking about 7km door to door and a worthless
bus service.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:50:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Sausage King" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
says...
However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

For which they get more money than other people in similar professions.

So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

Why not just introduce better tax breaks for people wishing to take
private medical care...?

Some people have no logic or reasoning. The country is short of certain
medical people. Shifting millions over to private will only starve the
NHS
of valuable staff.


... and?

Nothing is solve at all. It is just shuffling the same furniture around the
same room. duh!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:55:48 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




And replaced with what?

A system of public healthcare and a private one where users of it are
not penalised for doing so.

snip drivel

A recent TV programme. highlighted the health service on the Spanish
Costa's. They do operations, amputate needlessly, etc, because they MAKE
MORE MONEY, doing that. Putting health into the market place is stupidity.
The standards are always lowered.

We could farm everything out to India, and then the cost would be even
more
to the country in social payments, crime, broken homes etc. No one ever
looks at the big picture.

The right thing to do would be to spend some of the money saved in
retraining and reskilling those affected by such outsourcing. There
is nothing new in the notion of jobs in certain sectors moving to
lower cost production areas. Ultimately, attempting to control that
by artificial means and props doesn't work.

It does. You have to slowly introduce outsourcing, so skills and
re-trained.

It would be far better to accept that that is
the way that the market is going and dealing with
it positively.

I'd say, a couple of hundred grand
should be enough for anybody.

Why? This is a matter between employer, employee and shareholders.
It isn't anybody else's business.

Golden parachutes should be outlawed. They are just despicable.

They are nobody's business apart from the parties involved.

They are! Through the drugs I buy, prescribed by the NHS, I pay fro SKB
parachutes.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:05:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Why?

It is greed, pure and simple.

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

Which is wrong.

No it isn't. It is the first objective of any business.

It should be to conduct its business in a professional
manner, do the utmost to fulfil customer satisfaction (quality of product
and service) and keep employee welfare at the highest levels.

That is important as well but it is not the first objective - it can't
be. You need to have fulfilled all or most of the points that you
mention, but they are not an end in and of themselves.

Fulfil the above and returns will be high. The problem is that many
companies put the cart before the horse.

This is a circular argument of course

No it is not. It just means I was right and you were wrong.

A few very highly paid
managers are obtaining vast salaries and perks, while the citizens are
enticed by beautifully made adverts to get ever deeper into debt.

80% of debt is mortgages. Back to land not being re-distributed and a
planning system geared to keep stinking rich, stinking rich, as we all
pay
extortionate prices for box homes.

Yes, dear.

By gad ! he is learning.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:02:04 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:50:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Sausage King" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
says...
However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

For which they get more money than other people in similar professions.

So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

Why not just introduce better tax breaks for people wishing to take
private medical care...?

Some people have no logic or reasoning. The country is short of certain
medical people. Shifting millions over to private will only starve the
NHS
of valuable staff.


... and?

Nothing is solve at all. It is just shuffling the same furniture around the
same room. duh!


That would assume that the number of pieces of furniture is fixed,
which it is not.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:09:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:55:48 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




And replaced with what?

A system of public healthcare and a private one where users of it are
not penalised for doing so.



A recent TV programme. highlighted the health service on the Spanish
Costa's.

So it must be right.

They do operations, amputate needlessly, etc, because they MAKE
MORE MONEY, doing that. Putting health into the market place is stupidity.

No it isn't. It's called choice.


The standards are always lowered.

Not in my personal experience.



We could farm everything out to India, and then the cost would be even
more
to the country in social payments, crime, broken homes etc. No one ever
looks at the big picture.

The right thing to do would be to spend some of the money saved in
retraining and reskilling those affected by such outsourcing. There
is nothing new in the notion of jobs in certain sectors moving to
lower cost production areas. Ultimately, attempting to control that
by artificial means and props doesn't work.

It does. You have to slowly introduce outsourcing, so skills and
re-trained.

That begins by accepting that outsourcing is going to happen rather
than wasting time trying to protect untenable situations.



It would be far better to accept that that is
the way that the market is going and dealing with
it positively.

I'd say, a couple of hundred grand
should be enough for anybody.

Why? This is a matter between employer, employee and shareholders.
It isn't anybody else's business.

Golden parachutes should be outlawed. They are just despicable.

They are nobody's business apart from the parties involved.

They are! Through the drugs I buy, prescribed by the NHS, I pay fro SKB
parachutes.


So complain to the NHS. They don't have to buy drugs from SKB.

Equally you don't have to have drugs prescribed by the NHS in the
first place.

SKB is a commercial enterprise, not a charity. If it wishes to
handle its executive remuneration in a particular way that is up to it
and its shareholders. In the context of its overall balance sheet,
this is a tiny amount anyway. its customers are at liberty to buy
elsewhere if they don't like it.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:11:37 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


This is a circular argument of course

No it is not. It just means I was right and you were wrong.

Nah. You were wrong and I was right :-)


A few very highly paid
managers are obtaining vast salaries and perks, while the citizens are
enticed by beautifully made adverts to get ever deeper into debt.

80% of debt is mortgages. Back to land not being re-distributed and a
planning system geared to keep stinking rich, stinking rich, as we all
pay
extortionate prices for box homes.

Yes, dear.

By gad ! he is learning.


I already did.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:02:04 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:50:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Sausage King" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
says...
However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this
is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000
(ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having
to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

For which they get more money than other people in similar
professions.

So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

Why not just introduce better tax breaks for people wishing to take
private medical care...?

Some people have no logic or reasoning. The country is short of
certain
medical people. Shifting millions over to private will only starve
the
NHS
of valuable staff.

... and?

Nothing is solve at all. It is just shuffling the same
furniture around the same room. duh!

That would assume that the number of pieces of furniture is fixed,
which it is not.

It is. There are only so many midwives. You don't train them overnight.
Your ridiculous notion of just going private and then all will be solved is
very silly. All it will mean is that rich people benefit over the poor.
The midwives will be tempted over to the private sector at the expensive of
the real sector.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:09:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:55:48 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




And replaced with what?

A system of public healthcare and a private one where users of it are
not penalised for doing so.

A recent TV programme. highlighted the health service on the Spanish
Costa's.

So it must be right.

It was right.

They do operations, amputate needlessly, etc, because they MAKE
MORE MONEY, doing that. Putting health into the market place is
stupidity.

No it isn't.

snip drivel

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:52:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




It is. There are only so many midwives. You don't train them overnight.

They can be recruited from overseas just as they are to an extent now.

The question is why don't people here want to train for this
profession? Working conditions perhaps?

Your ridiculous notion of just going private and then all will be solved is
very silly. All it will mean is that rich people benefit over the poor.
It simply means freedom of choice.

The midwives will be tempted over to the private sector at the expensive of
the real sector.

.... and why would they be tempted? Better pay and conditions? WHy
should they be restricted to where they can work?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl