|
|
Post by lambethgull on Dec 11, 2010 13:09:50 GMT
It boils down to the same f*cken thing mate, or do you not have to pay it? Tax is tax what ever you call it! They relabelled it, got away with it, and are laughing all the way to the bank! Blagged the lot of you didn`t they? Poll tax = council tax give or take a penny or two! Er, yes Aussie, the Council Tax is a tax, and it's a tax I pay. Taxes have existed for hundreds of years, but few taxes have ever been as a unfair as the Poll Tax which resulted in people living in mansions (with the means to do so) paying the same as those living in the humblest of dwellings. The Council Tax has many anomalies and is far from perfect, but it's fairer than the Poll Tax. |
|
|
|
Post by Bayern Gull on Dec 11, 2010 13:36:13 GMT
But the facts are I suppose the country can't afford to provide free further education . . . But it can apparently afford unnecessary (and possibly illegal) wars; nuclear weapons (that have no practical use); 2 new Aircraft Carriers (OK; they are at least selling one off as soon as it's built); the anachronistic Royal Family; the anti-democratic House of Lords etc. etc. |
|
chelstongull
TFF member
Posts: 6,759
Favourite Player: Jason Fowler
|
Post by chelstongull on Dec 11, 2010 14:18:47 GMT
But the facts are I suppose the country can't afford to provide free further education . . . But it can apparently afford unnecessary (and possibly illegal) wars; nuclear weapons (that have no practical use); 2 new Aircraft Carriers (OK; they are at least selling one off as soon as it's built); the anachronistic Royal Family; the anti-democratic House of Lords etc. etc. We need our Armed Forces to have the best equipment in case Adolf, or whoever comes calling again or some evil dictator needs a good talking to. Good border control would help save a few £. |
|
|
|
Post by the92ndfish on Dec 11, 2010 15:01:16 GMT
But the facts are I suppose the country can't afford to provide free further education . . . But it can apparently afford unnecessary (and possibly illegal) wars; nuclear weapons (that have no practical use); 2 new Aircraft Carriers (OK; they are at least selling one off as soon as it's built); the anachronistic Royal Family; the anti-democratic House of Lords etc. etc. Nuclear weapons are a debatable issue depending on what side of the debate you take but what isn't debatable is that they give the country a prestige and standing in the world it wouldn't have without them. Look at Britain's world power compared to Germany's and you'll see the crux of it. The only reason we're that much more listened to and influential than the Germans is nuclear weapons and our UN security council seat. If we remove the Royal Family, we'd have to institute a Presidency which would no doubt probably cost a similar amount once we invested in all the regalia that would consist of and it's running costs. The aircraft carriers are essential if we want to continue having the ability to project our power beyond Europe, otherwise we might aswell give up and sit around ignoring the world until it comes back and bites us in the ass. Like in the late 20's and early 30's. Finally there is no point in a democratic House of Lords, firstly it has very little power, secondly if you created a democratic house of lords it'd end up squabbling with the commons over primacy. This happened in Australia in the 1970s and lead to a constitutional crisis and the grinding to a halt of all government work for the best part of a year. Furthermore if you have elected 15 yr Lords with some kind of power and perhaps a role whereby they are considered more equal with the Commons than they are now. What you'll have is a government less accountable to the people given those 15 yr terms. If you don't impose 15 yr terms and correlate Lords elections with the Commons or stagger them all you're doing is duplicating the Commons for no reason whatsoever and expanding government influence even more into the Lords. |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Dec 11, 2010 15:33:18 GMT
Finally there is no point in a democratic House of Lords, firstly it has very little power, secondly if you created a democratic house of lords it'd end up squabbling with the commons over primacy. This happened in Australia in the 1970s and lead to a constitutional crisis and the grinding to a halt of all government work for the best part of a year. Furthermore if you have elected 15 yr Lords with some kind of power and perhaps a role whereby they are considered more equal with the Commons than they are now. What you'll have is a government less accountable to the people given those 15 yr terms. If you don't impose 15 yr terms and correlate Lords elections with the Commons or stagger them all you're doing is duplicating the Commons for no reason whatsoever and expanding government influence even more into the Lords. It already does, hence the Parliament Act. The House of Lords is a mess at the moment and it needs clearing up. Its powers are limited (and should stay so), but its function is an important one. I am personally in favour of some sort of elected upper chamber, although I haven't decided what form this should take. The alternatives are to continue with the dog’s breakfast we have at the moment/something resembling it, or a wholly appointed Lords. The problem with the latter option is it creates problems of legitimacy – if citizens don’t choose who sits in Parliament, who does or should? |
|
|
|
Post by Bayern Gull on Dec 11, 2010 16:05:45 GMT
But it can apparently afford unnecessary (and possibly illegal) wars; nuclear weapons (that have no practical use); 2 new Aircraft Carriers (OK; they are at least selling one off as soon as it's built); the anachronistic Royal Family; the anti-democratic House of Lords etc. etc. We need our Armed Forces to have the best equipment in case Adolf, or whoever comes calling again or some evil dictator needs a good talking to. Good border control would help save a few £. Aircraft Carriers are not necessary to protect the UK and there are no conceivable circumstances where nuclear weapons would be used by the UK acting alone. The US would only allow Britain to use those weapons in support of American objectives but what would be the point of that anyway as they have more than enough weapons of their own. I do agree with you on the border controls though - the situation that has now arisen with illegal immigration is scandalous. I think Nick Clegg's suggestion of an amnesty might be the only solution (and would bring in more taxation revenue) but would need to be accompanied by American style border control (the type we experience at their airports rather than the Mexican border variety). |
|
|
|
Post by Bayern Gull on Dec 11, 2010 17:08:38 GMT
But it can apparently afford unnecessary (and possibly illegal) wars; nuclear weapons (that have no practical use); 2 new Aircraft Carriers (OK; they are at least selling one off as soon as it's built); the anachronistic Royal Family; the anti-democratic House of Lords etc. etc. Nuclear weapons are a debatable issue depending on what side of the debate you take but what isn't debatable is that they give the country a prestige and standing in the world it wouldn't have without them. Look at Britain's world power compared to Germany's and you'll see the crux of it. The only reason we're that much more listened to and influential than the Germans is nuclear weapons and our UN security council seat. If we remove the Royal Family, we'd have to institute a Presidency which would no doubt probably cost a similar amount once we invested in all the regalia that would consist of and it's running costs. The aircraft carriers are essential if we want to continue having the ability to project our power beyond Europe, otherwise we might aswell give up and sit around ignoring the world until it comes back and bites us in the ass. Like in the late 20's and early 30's. Finally there is no point in a democratic House of Lords, firstly it has very little power, secondly if you created a democratic house of lords it'd end up squabbling with the commons over primacy. This happened in Australia in the 1970s and lead to a constitutional crisis and the grinding to a halt of all government work for the best part of a year. Furthermore if you have elected 15 yr Lords with some kind of power and perhaps a role whereby they are considered more equal with the Commons than they are now. What you'll have is a government less accountable to the people given those 15 yr terms. If you don't impose 15 yr terms and correlate Lords elections with the Commons or stagger them all you're doing is duplicating the Commons for no reason whatsoever and expanding government influence even more into the Lords. Britain has not been a World Power since Suez (and probably since sometime in 1945). It is not listened to and has almost no influence in the world. Nuclear weapons make no difference whatsoever to that - they are weapons that could not be used apart from as part of an American action (that's why I refer to Suez above - the Americans would deal with the suggestion of any unilateral UK action in the same way). Germany certainly has a great deal more influence than the UK within Europe but there again the same could be said for many much smaller countries - none of whom have nuclear weapons. Why would we want to project our power beyond Europe? I can see there might be a case for a joint-European force that could deal with issues threatening European security but Britain on its own - what is the point? I know there are the Falkland Islands with all their resource potential but in reality there is no way that Britain could ever again mount an operation like the one of 1982. It is taking nothing away from the outstanding performance of the British armed forces in those battles to mention that victory in that war was a very close run thing. One way or another there will have to be a negotiated settlement with regard to those islands. On the Royals - I don't think the argument that we would otherwise have to have a President is a very good one. The institution of royalty was one that fitted to a time that has now passed. The present Queen has done a fantastic job of managing the transition but the institution itself has outlived its usefulness. I'm sure a single president with a single residence could be done a lot more cheaply. As for the Lords . . . I would go with a separate English parliament (with no UK parliament) and then have each of those parliaments elect a small number of representatives (according to the population they represent) to a second chamber. This second chamber would deal with things that needed deciding at UK level and from among them there could be a rotating presidency arrangement. I didn't deal with the points in order and I now see I missed one . . . I don't think Britain ignored the rest of the world in the '20s and '30s and then was surprised when it came back to bite it. Britain was still running a huge empire at the time and was ultimately prepared to declare war in order to protect it (under the pretext of Poland - a country that suffered proportionately more than any other during the ensuing war and then suffered another 40 years or so under the USSR's heel). Of course it was a good thing that the more democratic nations prevailed in the war (at least in the West) but that war was certainly not caused by British isolationism. Even if there was an element of hopeful appeasement, that was surely understandable coming from people who still remembered 1914-18. |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Dec 12, 2010 9:48:00 GMT
It boils down to the same f*cken thing mate, or do you not have to pay it? Tax is tax what ever you call it! They relabelled it, got away with it, and are laughing all the way to the bank! Blagged the lot of you didn`t they? Poll tax = council tax give or take a penny or two! Er, yes Aussie, the Council Tax is a tax, and it's a tax I pay. Taxes have existed for hundreds of years, but few taxes have ever been as a unfair as the Poll Tax which resulted in people living in mansions (with the means to do so) paying the same as those living in the humblest of dwellings. The Council Tax has many anomalies and is far from perfect, but it's fairer than the Poll Tax. Did you know once upon a time that it was called `window tax`? That`s why on some of the older buildings some of the windows are bricked up so they didn`t have to pay as much, this tax has changed it`s name and other aspects of it`s self several times, so it is you who are completely wrong I`m afraid mate! |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Dec 12, 2010 11:26:17 GMT
Er, yes Aussie, the Council Tax is a tax, and it's a tax I pay. Taxes have existed for hundreds of years, but few taxes have ever been as a unfair as the Poll Tax which resulted in people living in mansions (with the means to do so) paying the same as those living in the humblest of dwellings. The Council Tax has many anomalies and is far from perfect, but it's fairer than the Poll Tax. `? That`s why on some of the older buildings some of the windows are bricked up so they didn`t have to pay as much, this tax has changed it`s name and other aspects of it`s self several times, so it is you who are completely wrong I`m afraid mate! I did know about the Window Tax actually. Every Primary school child in England knows that. I can't work out whether you're doing a davethegull style wind up, or whether you're unable to grasp what I'm saying. But I will try again: - Poll Tax ("Community Charge") - an annual flat-rate tax based on the amount of people living in a dwelling. - Council Tax - an annual tax based on the value of a property Both are annual taxes (as is vehicle excise duty (car tax), the TV licence fee, even PAYE is determined annually), and both are run and maintained for the local authority. But it's clearly ridiculous to claim, as you have,that the only difference between the two is the name. |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Dec 12, 2010 11:38:35 GMT
Did you know once upon a time that it was called `window tax`? That`s why on some of the older buildings some of the windows are bricked up so they didn`t have to pay as much, this tax has changed it`s name and other aspects of it`s self several times, so it is you who are completely wrong I`m afraid mate! I did know about the Window Tax actually. Every Primary school child in England knows that. I can't work out whether you're doing a davethegull style wind up, or whether you're unable to grasp what I'm saying. But I will try again: - Poll Tax ("Community Charge") - an annual flat-rate tax based on the amount of people living in a dwelling. - Council Tax - an annual tax based on the value of a property Both are annual taxes (as is vehicle excise duty (car tax), the TV licence fee, even PAYE is determined annually), and both are run and maintained for the local authority. But it's clearly ridiculous to claim, as you have,that the only difference between the two is the name. I totally understand what your saying but think maybe you can`t grasp what I`m trying to say so I`ll say it again  :- Window tax = Poll tax = Council tax, the methods of which payment is calculated isn`t the point, the fact that the house/occupier is taxed is the point! What I can`t grasp is the fact that the services given for this tax is the same for everyone so why on earth isn`t the fee, it`s like going to a shop to buy something and because your house is worth more your bottle of milk and newspaper cost you more, it`s quite ridiculous if you think about it being fair. So far the calculations for any of those relabeled taxes have been, in my opinion quite daft! |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Dec 12, 2010 11:53:26 GMT
I did know about the Window Tax actually. Every Primary school child in England knows that. I can't work out whether you're doing a davethegull style wind up, or whether you're unable to grasp what I'm saying. But I will try again: - Poll Tax ("Community Charge") - an annual flat-rate tax based on the amount of people living in a dwelling. - Council Tax - an annual tax based on the value of a property Both are annual taxes (as is vehicle excise duty (car tax), the TV licence fee, even PAYE is determined annually), and both are run and maintained for the local authority. But it's clearly ridiculous to claim, as you have,that the only difference between the two is the name. I totally understand what your saying but think maybe you can`t grasp what I`m trying to say so I`ll say it again :- Window tax = Poll tax = Council tax, the methods of which payment is calculated isn`t the point, the fact that the house/occupier is taxed is the point! What I can`t grasp is the fact that the services given for this tax is the same for everyone so why on earth isn`t the fee, it`s like going to a shop to buy something and because your house is worth more your bottle of milk and newspaper cost you more, it`s quite ridiculous if you think about it being fair. So far the calculations for any of those relabeled taxes have been, in my opinion quite daft! I didn't say the Council Tax was fair, or that there weren't problems with it. I said it was fairer than and different to the Poll Tax (which it is). In terms of the point highlighted, the reason for this is that it isn't fair to tax poor folk the same as richer folk. Think about it, if I earn £20,000 and pay £1,000 in tax a year, I'm being taxed 5% of my earnings. If Joe Bloggs the other side of town earns £200,000 and pays £1,000 in tax a year, he's taxed 0.5% of what he earns. The 'value' of a property might not be a very good way of determining wealth or earnings, but it's better than making no effort at all. It also costs far less the administer than an income-based local authority tax, which would be the fairest way of doing it. Council Tax does fund our local authorities and services such as refuse collection, leisure centres and libraries, but also the roads, Police, Fire Brigade and schools. Now one could say that I never use libraries and leisure centres, so why should I be taxed for them. But nobody living in a community or society lives in isolation. I don't have children and don't own a car, but I accept that my taxes should contribute to these things if I want to live in a good society. |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Dec 12, 2010 12:09:20 GMT
If the tax was income based wouldn`t it be income tax? Don`t we already pay that? Maybe this is place all taxes should be calculated and received from instead of them being spread out and made to look like something their not, all they would need to do then is work out a new mechanism for distrubution so local councils got their fair share, it would also make it a lot more difficult for people to avoid paying it! Just a thought!  |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Dec 12, 2010 12:19:43 GMT
If the tax was income based wouldn`t it be income tax? Don`t we already pay that? Maybe this is place all taxes should be calculated and received from instead of them being spread out and made to look like something their not, all they would need to do then is work out a new mechanism for distrubution so local councils got their fair share, it would also make it a lot more difficult for people to avoid paying it! Just a thought! There would be advantages to that in terms of fairness, but it would be incredibly difficult to deliver unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Dec 12, 2010 12:41:59 GMT
If the tax was income based wouldn`t it be income tax? Don`t we already pay that? Maybe this is place all taxes should be calculated and received from instead of them being spread out and made to look like something their not, all they would need to do then is work out a new mechanism for distrubution so local councils got their fair share, it would also make it a lot more difficult for people to avoid paying it! Just a thought! There would be advantages to that in terms of fairness, but it would be incredibly difficult to deliver unfortunately. There must be a formula out there in the world of maths that could work it out, basically recalculating everyones tax brackets in relationship to there house brackets shouldn`t be that difficult to work out, if your a maths boffin I imagine it would be easy, it looks bigger than it really is and quite a duanting task but if you break it down into a box diagramme it starts become easier to get your head around! |
|
davethegull
TFF member
Posts: 1,094
Favourite Player: Dave Caldwell
|
Post by davethegull on Dec 12, 2010 13:06:49 GMT
Can I ask the question.........Is violence against the state ever justified? I would argue yes it is. When the state forgets that it is there to serve the people and not push them back into serfdom. British people are now slaves to the Banks with Gov't supplying the muscle and the means of transferring the cash to them. To achieve this they have to keep the people down and scared to rise up against them. If Gov't pass laws that only serve to keep their masters in power at the expense of the people they should be removed by whatever means necessary, including violence against the state. The problem is that the Military and Police are used as arms of the state and not protectors of the people. Our Soldiers and Policemen should remember that they too are paying the price along with their families. They should be on the side of the people and tell their masters so. That would put the wind up the faceless Banksters robbing us blind and tell Gov't to remember who they serve!
|
|
:- Window tax = Poll tax = Council tax, the methods of which payment is calculated isn`t the point, the fact that the house/occupier is taxed is the point! What I can`t grasp is the fact that the services given for this tax is the same for everyone so why on earth isn`t the fee, it`s like going to a shop to buy something and because your house is worth more your bottle of milk and newspaper cost you more, it`s quite ridiculous if you think about it being fair. So far the calculations for any of those relabeled taxes have been, in my opinion quite daft!
