Who would like the Boris

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 33931, Oct 2, 2017.

  1. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    The Poll Tax. Wow, in essence it was a great idea. Practice though left a lot to be desired. They made the mistake of leaving the amount to be paid, up to individual councils. You could see exactly what was going to happen.. Labour councils up and down the country, levied unacceptable amounts, then blamed the government for introducing it. I remember Maggie saying (in it's first year) it should cost no one , more than (something like) £250 per year.. My first CT bill (Yep I had a Labour controlled council) was nearer £450) The electorate fell into the trap of blaming the government , when they should have been blaming the Labour councils at the time (perhaps the electorate should have gone to Specsavers) ;);)
  2. Blimey, JJ!

    You reckon the Poll Tax wasn't unfair? It taxed the person and not the property, regardless of the value of the home?
  3. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    If it had been applied equally across the country at the time, and the rate set by central government. As I said above, the government allowed local councils to set the amount. You could see what was going to happen. Labour councils set exorbitant amounts, then blamed the government. There's only two things certain in this life DA,,, Taxes and death.
  4. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    So what is fair then?

    Unfair to tax the person, as it bears no relation to the services used nor the cost of them
    Unfair to tax the house as its bears little relation to the cost of services used. Might not reflect ability to pay either (old cash-strapped granny living in big house).

    Should we tax people based on the value of their house irrespective of how many people are living there are hence consuming services?
    Should we tax people based on their income? If so why not have a local income tax instead.
    Should we tax people on what they spend? So a local VAT like tax like in the states.
  5. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Ha, so if I agree with you I'm balanced and if I don't I've missed the point? Sound about right?

    There's always JoT if you want someone who agrees with everything you say.
  6. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    I believe law courts make a distinction between the words fair and equitable.
    One (I forget which one) means equal/same the other takes account of contribution/circumstances.
    It sounds like a useful linguistic distinction. I should probably find out which one is which.

    But the problem with nearly all tax is: you can only get money from people who have some.

    It might be great to take an equally proportionate amount from everyone and them be able to afford it, but, some people are skint - the nerve of some people eh!

    So, we can fiddle with the tax system based on some moral principle of what's fair, but we'll always come back to the inability to get blood from a stone.
    Perhaps a local income tax is option you've offered that best corresponds to someone's ability to pay.

    I don't know much about the bedroom tax. Some people seem jolly upset about it, and they seem to be people who are already finding things difficult.
  7. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    As my best man once said to me:
    - no point taxing the poor as they have no money
    - not much point taxing the rich either, so few of them
    - so comes down to taxing the working classes. You and me. Always.

    I hate the word "equitable". We live in a world where the buzz word is now "equity" but its hard to get anyone to define what that actually means.

    Equality of opportunity? Yep I'm for that.

    Equality of outcome? Over my dead body. Horrid idea. Marxism. That didn't work out well at all.
    btiw2 likes this.
  8. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    My knee-jerk reaction to this strawman is to say "of course not" - but I'm not sure it should be completely dismissed without exploring it.

    Back in the days of the industrial revolution factories were against letting children go to school. They didn't want to lose cheap labour. But as the machines and techniques became more complex they needed more skilled workers.

    The current idea is we'll have an immigration system that allows in skilled migrants, but not the unskilled migrants.
    I suppose marketing found that "British jobs for British workers" appeals more than "Crappy jobs for crappy Brits"!

    It's interesting that the jobs you quote don't generate much in the way of exports for the country. We're going to need that foreign currency soon.

    British productivity is very low compared to the rest of Europe (we produce little value per hour worked).

    What if the bin-person[1] etc could get free training to become a computer engineer, an artisan, or a lawyer?
    So why just "young adults"? Why not all adults (that want to)?
    Middle class children take gap years, maybe we could encourage the "lorry driver, the bin man/woman, the carpenter, the self employed gas fitter" to think of themselves as on gap decades.
    Sure - someone can become a mature student at the moment, but they'll find little support from employers or tax payers if they do.
    Perhaps the Open University could be overhauled to become affordable and fit for purpose.

    A more skilled population would generate foreign currency (graduates tend to have skills that generate export income).
    Also, if binmen[2] were becoming computer engineers then supply of binmen would go down and they might be paid more.

    I can't see the system changing though. Until then, we'll just get a migrant in to do the skilled stuff eh?

    [1] Look - I can be PC too!
    [2] I've stopped being PC now - it looks weird.
  9. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    But how far do we take that? Because, let's face, opportunities are not at all equal at the moment.

    I don't think anyone here want to abolish private schools thereby taking opportunities away from some people - just to make sure all opportunities are equal. That seems spiteful.
    But nor can we afford to give students at every school the same opportunities they'd have at Harrow.

    Did my children have an equal opportunity to study medieval Celtic at Cambridge[1] as children from a school that has a dedicated classics department?

    Okay, I've picked an extreme case, but I think we're a long way from equality of opportunity. And probably always will be.
  10. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Tell me, do you think the old rates system was faultless? I remember living in a one bedroomed flat. My rates were more than the family over the road living in a 3 bed house. What the council did was assess the rateable value of the block my flat was, then instead of dividing this amount between 6 tenants, got the rateable value x 6 (most were on benefits so didn't actually pay anything, I was gainfully employed and paid what the council expected me to)
  11. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    That sounds like a problem in the execution of the idea, not the idea itself.
    Wasn't there a way to get it reassessed?
  12. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Appealed to the council, who oversaw the appeal (yep I'm sure they were not biased at all,, not even in the slightest) :D :D :D :D
  13. Isitreally

    Isitreally Super Member

    The Cancer remark was totally uncalled for.

    Belittle all you like but don't ever wish cancer on anybody.
  14. fillyboy

    fillyboy Screwfix Select

    Agreed, and there were many many cases where tenants applied to their council for a smaller property to avoid being penalised and no such properties were available, thereby trapping them in the reduced benefit trap.
    BUT, lets be clear, it's not a tax.
  15. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Wait. What?

    I didn’t wish cancer on anybody. Quite the opposite- I wouldn’t wish Harry on cancer.
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  16. That'll do for starters, yes.
  17. Isitreally

    Isitreally Super Member

    Ok, but still an inappropriate remark.
  18. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    You’re right. But the system won’t let me delete it now.

    I’m sorry Harry. I regret my remarks.

    I certainly shouldn’t critize someone’s humanity whilst simultaneously being deliberately cruel in the way that I do it.
  19. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Don't worry, DA does it all the time. :D:D:D:D:D:D
  20. You are either so staggeringly ignorant as to not understand that (a) btiw2 did no such thing and (b) the comment was now't but a joke, or else you are simply creaming yourself over the opportunity at coming across as morally offended. It's a toss-up bewixt them.

    I am offended by your phoniness. Your patent intellectual dishonesty.

    (I hope that didn't take the edge off btiw2's apology in any way.)

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice