|
reducing congestion
"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. |
reducing congestion
"Mikael Armstrong" wrote in message ... "Conor" wrote in message .. . In article , says... Well I'm sure permission could be granted for the construction of a few extra houses to satisfy some of the demand. Nope. Govt policy on greenfield sites. We know that! But perhaps that is the policy which should be modified! Not the taxation one. Don't be daft, you'd upset the residents of the village... |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
"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. |
reducing congestion
"Doki" wrote in message ... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... 2) It would actually be impossible to raise enough revenue if everyone was taxed to the same %age because the rich provide a disproportionately large chunk of revenue. But if you reduce the tax burden surely you encourage enterprise, which moves more money around the economy and thus you still get your tax. I am not an economist, but AFAIK there are still arguments about high vs low tax :). The rich will always provide you with more revenue per capita as they're spending and earning more cash. That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work. |
reducing congestion
Conor wrote:
Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday evenings is caused by many people going and from to their country cottages for the weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted a punative rate of council tax? Just how congested are the roads on Friday and Sunday evenings? UIVMM they're far from the busiest times! I drive nights down the A1/M1. On a Friday it is way busier than any other night. Of course it is, but isn't that just because other nights are quiet? How does it compare with daytime traffic levels? Apart from a few roads in city centers, are any roads really congested at night? And are any likely to become so in the next ten years? |
reducing congestion
Robin May wrote: "PeterE" wrote the following in: Conor wrote: This applies to people living and working in a rural community. People like agricultural workers. Who nowadays are generally asylum seekers bussed in from the nearest big city. Stupid statements like that reveal nothing but your own idiocy. The largest agricultural employer near me (one of the largest in its field in the world) busses in workers from Portugal. So much for supporting the local economy. John B |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:07:37 +0000, Doki wrote:
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. Asylum seekers? |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
wrote:
says... Do disagree that agricultural workers are often bussed in from cities then? Yep. They're only bussed in during harvest time in labour intensive situations such as potato harvesting where they do the sizing. You don't find many on farms outside of that. That doesn't militate against what Peter wrote. He didn't say they were there all the time (and those of us that live and work in or near to agricultural areas know that what you both have said is true). |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
"Doki" wrote in message
... "Mikael Armstrong" wrote in message ... "Conor" wrote in message .. . In article , says... Well I'm sure permission could be granted for the construction of a few extra houses to satisfy some of the demand. Nope. Govt policy on greenfield sites. We know that! But perhaps that is the policy which should be modified! Not the taxation one. Don't be daft, you'd upset the residents of the village... Of course! They moan about expensive housing, but you can be sure they would object to any new housing too. |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
JNugent wrote: wrote: Robin May wrote: "PeterE" wrote: Conor wrote: This applies to people living and working in a rural community. People like agricultural workers. Who nowadays are generally asylum seekers bussed in from the nearest big city. Stupid statements like that reveal nothing but your own idiocy. The largest agricultural employer near me (one of the largest in its field in the world) busses in workers from Portugal. So much for supporting the local economy. Are there enough unemplyed workers in the locality to cover this seasonal work? Quite possibly there are within a ten mile radius but not in the village immediately adjacent. Secondly AIUI, it is not seasonal. It is throughout the year. And the company has also built accommodation for them on the site even though there is a serious lack of housing in the area (both private and LA) for others on low incomes. John B |
reducing congestion
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:11:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote: But if you reduce the tax burden surely you encourage enterprise, which moves more money around the economy and thus you still get your tax. I am not an economist, but AFAIK there are still arguments about high vs low tax :). The rich will always provide you with more revenue per capita as they're spending and earning more cash. That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work. Oh really ? That explains why the tax take increased by nearly 50% when the 60% band was abolished. It also explains why the top 10% of tax payers are now paying close to 40% of the overall take compared to just over 20% at the height of so socially equitable rates of 98%. greg -- Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland. I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan. You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide. |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:11:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron" wrote: But if you reduce the tax burden surely you encourage enterprise, which moves more money around the economy and thus you still get your tax. I am not an economist, but AFAIK there are still arguments about high vs low tax :). The rich will always provide you with more revenue per capita as they're spending and earning more cash. That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work. Oh really ? That explains why the tax take increased by nearly 50% when the 60% band was abolished. It also explains why the top 10% of tax payers are now paying close to 40% of the overall take compared to just over 20% at the height of so socially equitable rates of 98%. But they don't spend more cash. Everyone has certain needs, once those needs are met their surplus cash sits in the bank or wherever they choose to put it. |
reducing congestion
JNugent wrote: wrote: JNugent wrote: The largest agricultural employer near me (one of the largest in its field in the world) busses in workers from Portugal. So much for supporting the local economy. Are there enough unemplyed workers in the locality to cover this seasonal work? Quite possibly there are within a ten mile radius but not in the village immediately adjacent. Would transport-to-work costs mean it wasn't a runner? I think the rates of pay may be more of an issue and perahps employment rules. Admittedly the company does employ a very few local people by providing its own transport in the form of minibuses which pick up a few workers from surrounding villages. But it is only a handful and is seen as more of a sop to deflect opposition to their practices than anything else. Secondly AIUI, it is not seasonal. It is throughout the year. And the company has also built accommodation for them on the site even though there is a serious lack of housing in the area (both private and LA) for others on low incomes. Ah... got you... I didn't know this was any form of argument to 'win'; how odd of you. there are probably fewer (if, indeed, any) issues around planning permission for that sort of accommodation (which I suspect does not consist of three-bed semis with garage!) Possibly not, although there would be issues surrounding its effect on the local infrastructure. However the comparison with 3-bed semis with garage is an incorrect one. You clearly don't know the price of housing around here where even a one-bed studio is likely to be out of the reach of those on a low income. So I've got you on that one nyah nyah ;-) John B |
reducing congestion
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:10:35 -0000, Conor
wrote: In article , says... Cast_Iron wrote: Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday evenings is caused by many people going and from to their country cottages for the weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted a punative rate of council tax? Just how congested are the roads on Friday and Sunday evenings? UIVMM they're far from the busiest times! I drive nights down the A1/M1. On a Friday it is way busier than any other night. But Friday night (8pm -10pm just before or as the cones get put out) M1 south from A50 down to M10 is a lot quieter than the M1 going north and equally on Sunday evening M1 north is lot quieter than M1 south. There does seem to be more traffic south of Luton in both directions. Going south I can get in the fast lane for about 50% of the run, past Luton I am usually forced to slow down and join the queue doing 65mph in the outside lane. -- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets! |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:19:42 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote: "Mikael Armstrong" wrote in message ... I can't say I have a second home, but why should a second home be heavily taxed? Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich should be targeted for tax for two reasons: 1) Social justice 2) It would actually be impossible to raise enough revenue if everyone was taxed to the same %age because the rich provide a disproportionately large chunk of revenue. Therefore ... accepting your arguments, the Government should tax the rich very heavily and directly. Taxing people who have second homes is inefficient - you use the word 'clearly' but don't / can't justify. Of course the Government hasn't got the guts to tax heavily - that would involve looking less voter friendly ! I like the idea of 'social justice' insofar as a second home is much less heavily used in terms of local resources: waste disposal, road maintenance and so forth, and should therefore be comparatively lightly taxed. |
reducing congestion
Conor wrote:
In article , says... This very different from what you usually tell us about house prices up north. Why is that? Even with the 100% increase they're still cheap compared to most of the rest of England. It is still possible to buy a 3 bed house for £70,000 in Driffield but that's still above alot of peoples incomes here. But people on that kind of money have *never* been able to afford to buy houses. Such a house could easily be bought by a couple earning £23,000 pa between them, which is not a lot of money. -- http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt, 1783) |
reducing congestion
"JNugent" wrote in message ... wrote: Robin May wrote: The largest agricultural employer near me (one of the largest in its field in the world) busses in workers from Portugal. So much for supporting the local economy. Are there enough unemplyed workers in the locality to cover this seasonal work? From what I've heard of people employing foreign workers on piece rates, they often work faster and with less breaks than local workers. |
reducing congestion
JNugent wrote: You are *too* suspicious! :-) Comes from experience of the world today I suppose. And of this ng ;-) And of you ;-)) Happy Christmas John B |
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? I looked through an estate agent's window not far north of Nottingham (sometimes considered oop north by a lot of people from as nearby as Leicester :P) and you can't. Round here the council can't give council houses away, and you can probably buy them for around that money after having rented them for a while. That said, council houses can be in an absolutely horrific state when you get them and need a lot of work to get sorted. |
reducing congestion
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message ... "Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:11:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron" wrote: But if you reduce the tax burden surely you encourage enterprise, which moves more money around the economy and thus you still get your tax. I am not an economist, but AFAIK there are still arguments about high vs low tax :). The rich will always provide you with more revenue per capita as they're spending and earning more cash. That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work. Oh really ? That explains why the tax take increased by nearly 50% when the 60% band was abolished. It also explains why the top 10% of tax payers are now paying close to 40% of the overall take compared to just over 20% at the height of so socially equitable rates of 98%. But they don't spend more cash. Everyone has certain needs, once those needs are met their surplus cash sits in the bank or wherever they choose to put it. but that somewhere can include direct investment in new business investment in venture capital orgs investment in banks, building socieites and other financial services providers all of which has a varying effect on job and wealth creation --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 |
reducing congestion
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:24:55 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote: That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work. Oh really ? That explains why the tax take increased by nearly 50% when the 60% band was abolished. It also explains why the top 10% of tax payers are now paying close to 40% of the overall take compared to just over 20% at the height of so socially equitable rates of 98%. But they don't spend more cash. So what. Everyone has certain needs, once those needs are met their surplus cash its in the bank or wherever they choose to put it. This has what to do with the price of eggs ? greg -- Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland. I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan. You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide. |
reducing congestion
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:05:46 -0000, "JNugent"
wrote: 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? Yes, but the prices in the cities (particularly Manchester) are rising fast, so I don't think this situation will last, except in very run-down areas or smaller towns (of lower employment). Some evening of prices/salaries across the country is, I think, needed - though I (from a purely selfish perspective :) ) would prefer it to be the South getting cheaper than the North getting more expensive :) Neil -- Neil Williams is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null. Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me. |
reducing congestion
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:24:55 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron" wrote: That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work. Oh really ? That explains why the tax take increased by nearly 50% when the 60% band was abolished. It also explains why the top 10% of tax payers are now paying close to 40% of the overall take compared to just over 20% at the height of so socially equitable rates of 98%. But they don't spend more cash. So what. Everyone has certain needs, once those needs are met their surplus cash its in the bank or wherever they choose to put it. This has what to do with the price of eggs ? greg If you hadn't snipped it your own contribution you would understand. In order to refresh your memory I'll repost the relvant bit. "The rich will always provide you with more revenue per capita as they're spending and earning more cash." |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:34:33 +0000, "Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)"
wrote: Of course the Government hasn't got the guts to tax heavily - that would involve looking less voter friendly ! Never mind the the more mundane fact that doing so would raise *less* revenue, thus increasing the overal tax burden for everyone. greg -- Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland. I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan. You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide. |
reducing congestion
Mark Scott wrote:
Asylum seekers? It's ironic, isn't it. It's okay for "our" people to sit on their parasitic arses, but not okay for willing foreigners to do the work no one else is willing to. My solution: One assylum seeler gets to stay; one lazy ******* gets sent to Afghanistan. Problem solved. |
reducing congestion
Oliver Keating wrote:
What an incredible contribution. Thank you. I have seen the light You're welcome. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk