General News/Current Affairs Thread

Mutsumi said:
The idea that the number of people in a property should be a factor was fair. Of course the principle of the current system is also a sensible one. Something that combines both principles would be ideal.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. How do you even get to that idea?

It was such a bad idea that her own party stabbed her in the back and chased her out of office because of it.

So you really need to come up with a very good explanation if you want to claim that the Poll Tax was in any way fair.
 
Mutsumi said:
The idea that the number of people in a property should be a factor was fair. Of course the principle of the current system is also a sensible one. Something that combines both principles would be ideal.
Click to expand...
How about we accept that the crimean war has ended and simply scrap it altogether and fund councils centrally based on population.
Giving rich areas better services s a bad thing.
Naturally you'd need to increase VAT or income tax to compensate, but they're at least tied to your means to pay (which property value isn't). Or simply charge property owners, not tenants.
 
Mutsumi has a valid point in that many of the services which the taxes pay for are more expensive if more people are using them, so population should be a factor in the cost (which it is in a very limited way at the moment with the sole occupancy discount). This also means that poorer areas would, in theory, have better services to cater for their populations. With the current system there are some areas with a lot more wealth to throw around for relatively few people, which isn't fair (it's noticeable how much more councils get to invest in vanity projects and luxuries in different areas while others scrape).

Unfortunately, households with more members are not coincidentally the ones which tend to have the most trouble paying higher rates, so that's not fair either. People living in crowded homes also have a lower quality of life in many respects.

I'm not overly keen on the way it's calculated now; per person for people of working age would feel more logical from an administrative point of view, but I couldn't begin to say how a system might be created which was genuinely fair for people from all walks of life.

Personally, I won't want to move everything to VAT/Income Tax as that will harm the people in the middle even more; both taxes are already manipulated readily by the wealthier members of society and it could well end up penalising the population further by making it harder to justify working instead of relying on benefits, even if it's calculated properly and the effect is mostly psychological. Demoralising the working (and spending) populations further is bad for the country as a whole in the long run.

Going off topic a little, I was only a kid when the poll tax and Thatcher's repeated erosion of UK institutions was going on in the news so I didn't understand it at all. It was sort of cool though, to a stupid and impressionable child, that I could be born into a country with a female monarch and a female PM even if day-to-day life was often very male-dominated. Of course, simply being a female is nothing to be proud of at all, but in a world where we still seem to struggle with basic concepts of equality I'm a little pleased that many countries overseas remember us setting a (European) record by electing a woman.

R
 
One must also not forget that the cost of services does not simply multiply per additional members of the household. Economies of scale also come into play. For example, now my brother and I have both moved out of my parents' house, the cost to Northumberland County Council of emptying their rubbish bins will not suddenly halve just because there are now 2 people living in the house instead of 4. The lorry which empties the bin will still use the same amount of diesel to get there etc etc. So whilst I think that a larger household should pay more tax than a smaller house, that happens to a large degree under Council Tax anyway, because larger properties tend to be valued higher than smaller ones.

Not that Council Tax is a perfect system by any means.
 
Mutsumi said:
How is the principle that a household of six should pay more than a household of two an unfair principle?
Click to expand...

A household of six living in a property that costs £140,000 vs a household of two living in a property that costs £2 million.

The two principles that matter are absolute ability to pay and relative ability to pay. It should be apparent the people living in the £2 million house have better means on both measures.

Now bear in mind that the Poll Tax was to replace entirely a system based on property value. Can you understand why people who owned nothing were quite annoyed at suddenly being asked to pay a higher total for their household than people who lived in very expensive houses who would effectively be getting a tax cut? Can you understand why people got annoyed at being expected to pay a new tax just for being alive and over the age of 18?

We don't have anything to be proud of with Thatcher being PM Rui. Britain has a poor record on women's suffrage for a start. It should be to our eternal shame that tiny (population) countries like New Zealand and even Finland were more advanced than us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_ ... ew_Zealand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage

Thatcher didn't do anything to advance women's rights either. I have far more respect for women like Clare Short and Bessie Braddock than I ever will for Thatcher.
 
Muu_pu, stop pulling words out of thin air and answer the bloody question without changing it. I made no mention of property values in my question.


How is the principle that a household of six in a £160000 property should pay more than a household of two in a £160000 property an unfair principle?


Do you need it any plainer than that?


A fairer system would take into account BOTH property value and household size.
 
Mutsumi said:
Muu_pu, stop pulling words out of thin air and answer the bloody question without changing it. I made no mention of property values in my question.


How is the principle that a household of six in a £160000 propertyy/b] should pay more than a household of two in a £160000 propertyy/b] an unfair principle?


Do you need it any plainer than that?


A fairer system would take into account BOTH property value and household size.
Click to expand...


I've already answered you more than adequately Muttsushi.

But since you still aren't catching on or reading between the lines...

Six people sharing a house that is identical to another house with two people in it. Why should the six who are living in relatively overcrowded conditions pay more than the two who are not?

Absolute and relative ability to pay.

In practical terms for what actually happened with the introduction of the Poll Tax we had situations where poor (and quite often immigrant) families with quite large numbers of people sharing a normal sized family home were faced with Poll Tax bills far higher than millionaires living alone in mansions. You don't have to be a genius to work out that it caused some friction, and a fair amount of racism got thrown around during the 'debates' back then. So you've had it spelled out to you. Now leave it be.
 
Muu_Puklip said:
I've already answered you more than adequately Muttsushi.

But since you still aren't catching on or reading between the lines...

Six people sharing a house that is identical to another house with two people in it. Why should the six who are living in relatively overcrowded conditions pay more than the two who are not?

Absolute and relative ability to pay.

In practical terms for what actually happened with the introduction of the Poll Tax we had situations where poor (and quite often immigrant) families with quite large numbers of people sharing a normal sized family home were faced with Poll Tax bills far higher than millionaires living alone in mansions. You don't have to be a genius to work out that it caused some friction, and a fair amount of racism got thrown around during the 'debates' back then. So you've had it spelled out to you. Now leave it be.
Click to expand...

1. "Muttsushi"? Seriously? What is this, a primary school playground? Grow up.

2. Six people is more people than two people. Two people should not have to pay the same tax as six people in the same value house. The benefits system will balance out what they cannot afford, as it already does at present.

3. I am not attempting to say that Poll Tax as it was proposed by Archdemoness Thatcher is a good thing, just that one of the core principles of it was entirely fair.

A fairer system would take into account BOTH property value and household size.
 
::deftly side-steps poll tax debate::

I'm no longer the red-flag waving socialist I once was (indeed I'm really more of a Clint Eastwood "Everybody should just leave each other the Hell alone" libertarian now, though I'm not sure if Clint still subscribes to that after his shilling for Romney) but I still cheered. Thatcher (along with Reagan) brought back greed is good, profits before people government and the result is a society comprised of a working class with no work, a middle class in useless non-jobs who seem rich but aren't because it's mostly debt and a wealthy elite who now own nearly everything the public used to and rent/sell it back to them at a higher price.

Thatcher was strong, ruthless, uncompromising and nobody's fool (all positive attributes for a woman in my book) but her policies were detestable.
 
I'm sure this is totally coincidental and in no way whatsoever related to the death of of the Iron Lady, but the song "Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead" is now topping the music download charts on Amazon.
 
I can't believe the government are going with a Falklands theme for her funeral...come on, especially after the recent tensions with Argentina...
 
Lawrence said:
I thought it was worse that it required security on par with the Olympics and that the the PM would only announce the cost after the funeral? I can't help but think that they're staying mum on the whole issue because it would be boycotted if it was revealed?
Click to expand...
I didn't read much of the papers but I did scan the headlines at the concourse of where I work. I thought the security alone is going to be £3m?

In her life, Thatcher was for the privatising everything. Why not privatise this too?
 
You know anime series where the government has it conspiracies and acts like there like nobles and looks down on people.

Well our government feels like that.

If I was priminister the first thing I woild do Is-

Make sure old people have a happy remainder life
Kids going to school and off the streets
The poor gets better chance in life

The people in parliament are looking out for them selfs and wanting more money.

People like thatcher was only looking out for her self and didn't care about anyone other then her self.

I welcome anyone who's lives was ruined thanks to her to ruin her funeral.
 
She wouldn't care if her funeral was ruined though. She is dead. Funerals are for the benefit of the living; a tool to bring closure and comfort. The dead don't care, but it'd sure rile the living.
 
Mutsumi said:
She wouldn't care if her funeral was ruined though. She is dead. Funerals are for the benefit of the living; a tool to bring closure and comfort. The dead don't care, but it'd sure rile the living.
Click to expand...

your right im sorry i forgot that a funeral is closure for the people who knew her not for her persa.
 
how can we have a falkland theme? we can't afford to run the ships, we have no aircraft carriers or harriers and all our troops are still dying in Afganistan for a country than in 12 months won't exist thanks to another civil war :D
 
The people in parliament are looking out for them selfs and wanting more money
Click to expand...

Until a year before the election to 1 day after the election where they care about others in an attempt to remain in seat after the votes.
 
Back
Top