reducing congestion
 

"Silk" wrote in message
...

Please give an example of a type of farming that is not seasonal.


EU subsidised fallow farming.

reducing congestion
 

W K wrote in message
...

"Doki" wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

1) Social justice

People who are not prepared to work should get no money. That's
social
justice.


What about people who want to but are not allowed to?

Which ones would they be? I honestly can't think of anyone who wants
work
but isn't allowed to. I can think of situations where it isn't worth
people's while working, but only on an anecdotal basis.

Its only very recently that we have almost full employment, and there are
still places where jobs aren't dead easy to get.

That's wanting a job and not getting one, not *not being allowed* to work.

reducing congestion
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
wrote:

says...

In the nearest town?
Just a suggestion...

They still can't really afford one on £12k.

What can you raise on a 12K salary?

£35,000 - £40,000?

You can still get a terraced house for that oop narth, can't you?

Some places, but you'd be surprised how few there are these days.

reducing congestion
 

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:

Was it and it is now better in what way do you think?

In every way possible.

So is france, and they haven't had a thatcherite shake up (yet?).
A hell of a lot has happened in 25 years.

BTW "gloomy" ? I thought 1979 was quite fun.
The sun did shine that year BTW.

Or perhaps you refer to the appearance of halogen light bulbs and IKEA since
then?

reducing congestion
 

Oliver Keating wrote:

snip

And as people keep seeming to forget, every pound that one of these
rich kids pays is a pound that the poor don't have to pay.


Perhaps they ought to do something about it and become richer? A lot of
people can't be bothered to improve, prefering to stay poor by choice and
moan about 'rich' people.
--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

Oliver Keating wrote:

snip

Because they if they are rich enough to be buying a second house
(which I regard as the ultimate frivoulous activity), they can
certainly afford to be screwed for every penny by the tax man.


Buying a second home can be a sensible option. My mother in law is 79. She
was paying £250 per month in rent. We purchased it for £18,000 (after the
discount as she lived there for years) with a mortgage of £90 per month. She
now lives rent free and we get a second home (towards our retirement income)
with a current value of £100,000.

If she was to die soon, we would have 2 homes and we may not sell the
second - does that make us 'rich kids' and should it make us a target for
massive tax?

In 1993, I was an unemployed taxi driver and my wife was a dinner lady. I am
now a software engineer and she is a teacher. We both went back to college
and university for 5 years. During that time our sons didn't know what a
holiday was and we lived out of jumble sales. I was receiving £120 per week
in benefits and had to take a cut in that amount when I started uni.

You want to clobber 'rich kids' in an effort to ease congestion on the
roads - what about incentive to get people better off? We lived on £1500 a
year then and £55,000 a year now, but that was done through sheer hard work.
Take your average 'I won't come off benifits until I earn £200 per week'
moron - how are they going to deal with your clobber the rich kids attitude?

--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:

snip

But none of the additional houses are purely holiday/weekend
homes are they? It's a different situation.

Really, what about tomorrow. God forbid that anything were to happen but it
could - do they instantly become targets in your eyes?
--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

Duncan McNiven wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:58:53 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

But none of the additional houses are purely
holiday/weekend homes are they?
It's a different situation.

Yes, it is a very different situation, but if 2nd homes
were heavily taxed it would take some unusually clever
legislation to make this situation exempt without leaving
great loopholes in the law.

House 1 is the permanent family home, no problem, no loophole.
House 2 is the parental home occupied by a parent, no problem, no loophole.
House 3 being 1000 miles away is not in the UK I suspect, if so, no
relevant.

Why do people try to create problems where none exist?

reducing congestion
 

Silk wrote:
Oliver Keating wrote:

1) Social justice

People who are not prepared to work should get no money. That's social
justice.

Aggreed. There are plenty of jobs about. Before I went to University I did
several jobs to get by...

Gardening
Avis RentaCar delivery driver
Taxi driver
Taxi controller

The taxi jobs especially made me feel realy down but my family needed
feeding and clothing. I could either sit on my arse for £120 per week or do
those jobs for £140 per week. That extra £20 meant dealing with drunks and
lowlifes, but it gave us £20 more self respect.

--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
"Doki" wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

1) Social justice

People who are not prepared to work should get no money. That's
social justice.


What about people who want to but are not allowed to?

Which ones would they be? I honestly can't think of anyone who wants
work but isn't allowed to. I can think of situations where it isn't
worth people's while working, but only on an anecdotal basis.



Such people might include (but without excluding anyone else) somone
who needs to change occupation because a disability has set in. That
person has the skills for the new occupation/s s/he wants to take up
but because s/he hasn't used those skills in a full-time job no
prospective employer will give him/her a chance.

So they do any job they are able until a suitable job appears.
--
MrBitsy