reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:


That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work.


Oh, really? In 1979, Britain was a gloomy, strike ridden, third rate
economy. Thatcher dug it out of a hole to become the first nation it is
today.

reducing congestion
 

JNugent wrote:


Hmmm...

(a) People are attacted to agricultural workers but can't stick truckers.

(b) Truckers can/cannot be like agricultural workers.

Hmmmm........


I dunno either. :-)

reducing congestion
 

JNugent wrote:


Are there enough unemplyed workers in the locality to cover this seasonal
work?

Probably, yes. But they are too lazy.

reducing congestion
 

Martyn Hodson wrote:
"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


It can, but the "filter down" effect that your alluding to and Thatcher
espoused didn't happen and hasn't happened yet to any significant degree.

reducing congestion
 

Silk wrote:

JNugent wrote:

Are there enough unemplyed workers in the locality to cover this seasonal
work?

Probably, yes. But they are too lazy.

If you don't even know the area being discussed your opinion is worthless.
BTW its not seasonal work.

John B

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
Martyn Hodson wrote:

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

It can, but the "filter down" effect that your alluding to and
Thatcher espoused didn't happen and hasn't happened yet to any
significant degree.

Yes, you never see satellite dishes or designer trainers on council estates,
do you?

--
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
 

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:47:41 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:



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."


That doesnt explain your non sequitur about the rich allegedly banking
surplus cash as if its a bad thing.


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
 

Silk wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:


That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work.


Oh, really? In 1979, Britain was a gloomy, strike ridden,
third rate economy. Thatcher dug it out of a hole to become
the first nation it is today.

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

reducing congestion
 

Silk wrote:
JNugent wrote:


Are there enough unemplyed workers in the locality to
cover this seasonal work?

Probably, yes. But they are too lazy.

Your evidence for this is?

reducing congestion
 

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...


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.

Mr Considerably Wealthier than Yow might only need a
BMW, but he could decide to buy two Jaguars instead.

reducing congestion
 

Conor wrote:


Nope. THe local shop closed down because non of the new residents used
it.

I'm not really surprised. Have you ever been into one of these shops?
Customer service is an alien concept, unless it's prefixed with the word
bad.

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:


Your evidence for this is?


It's a well known fact. That's all that's required to prove something on
Usenet. ;-)

reducing congestion
 

JohnB wrote:


If you don't even know the area being discussed your opinion is worthless.
BTW its not seasonal work.

*All* farming is seasonal.

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:

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

In every way possible.

reducing congestion
 

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


That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work.


Oh, really? In 1979, Britain was a gloomy, strike ridden,
third rate economy. Thatcher dug it out of a hole to become
the first nation it is today.

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

You must be trolling.

reducing congestion
 

Oliver Keating wrote in message
...

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.

Why is owning a second home "the ultimate frivolous activity"? It's well
known that property is as a general rule a solid investment. You get the
benefit of having an appreciating asset whilst having a house in the
country, or nearer your family etc. Why should activities you consider
frivolous be taxed heavily, rather than ones I consider frivolous? Why not
tax gambling like mad?

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.

The argument about heavily taxing high earners is going on elsewhere in the
thread, so I won't repeat myself here.

What I'd like to know is this: If you're so bothered why go to the frivolity
of buying a new car when you've got a couple of apparently servicable cars
knocking around? Why not give what you've lost in depreciation on the CLK to
charity? You don't actually give a toss, but like to think, and for others
to think that you do. Same goes for you being bothered about the
environment. I don't suppose you considered that manufacturing a new car is
widely acknowledged to pollute more than running an old one. If you're going
to constantly bang on about your politics you ought to have the decency to
stand by your views.

reducing congestion
 

Silk wrote:

JohnB wrote:

If you don't even know the area being discussed your opinion is worthless.
BTW its not seasonal work.

*All* farming is seasonal.

Thank you for showing your ignorance.
In this case the work is throughout the year.

John B

reducing congestion
 

"Doki" wrote in message
...

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


That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work.


Oh, really? In 1979, Britain was a gloomy, strike ridden,
third rate economy. Thatcher dug it out of a hole to become
the first nation it is today.

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

You must be trolling.



Everyone has different opinions, I'm simply interested in other people's.

reducing congestion
 

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Martyn Hodson wrote:
"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


It can, but the "filter down" effect that your alluding to and Thatcher
espoused didn't happen and hasn't happened yet to any significant degree.

the 'filter down' effect applies to anyone working for privately owned
company ( in this context, working for a sole proprietor, partnership
co-op or limited company , rather than a state owned or publicily quoted
company)

as without investment from the owner/partners/ shareholders/ co-op members
there would be not business and no ongoign wealth creation would there ?


---
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: 12/12/2003

reducing congestion
 

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:54:37 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote:

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.

Between us, my wife & I own 2 homes & rent a 3rd. Does that make us rich? Hardly. We have
our family home. We also own the home which, before our marriage, I shared with my mother;
my mother still lives there. My wife also rents an apartment near her work (1000 miles
from home).

Now should I sell my old home, thus making my mother homeless? Should my wife commute
daily?

If you want to tax rich people, tax income, not what people choose to spend their money
on.

--
Duncan

reducing congestion
 

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
....
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.

I think you will find the definition of what constitutes those 'certain
needs' changes with income. You will also find that most rich people don't
leave their money sitting around as surplus cash. At the moment, private
investors are probably the easiest way for small to medium size businesses
to get capital for new ventures.

Colin Bignell

reducing congestion
 

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
....
The thing is, most people with a 2nd home will travel there every weekend
without fail.

For the people I know with second homes, once a month is more probable.

Colin Bignell

reducing congestion
 

"Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)" wrote the
following in:

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.

But a second home is an inefficient allocation of resources. Something
that could be used to help solve housing shortage problems instead ends
up sitting unused for large amounts of the time and the owners make
little contribution to the local economy.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

reducing congestion
 

"Duncan McNiven" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:54:37 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote:

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.

Between us, my wife & I own 2 homes & rent a 3rd. Does that make us rich?
Hardly. We have
our family home. We also own the home which, before our marriage, I shared
with my mother;
my mother still lives there. My wife also rents an apartment near her work
(1000 miles
from home).

Now should I sell my old home, thus making my mother homeless? Should my
wife commute
daily?

If you want to tax rich people, tax income, not what people choose to
spend their money
on.


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

reducing congestion
 

"Martyn Hodson" wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Martyn Hodson wrote:
"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


It can, but the "filter down" effect that your alluding to and Thatcher
espoused didn't happen and hasn't happened yet to any significant
degree.

the 'filter down' effect applies to anyone working for privately owned
company ( in this context, working for a sole proprietor, partnership
co-op or limited company , rather than a state owned or publicily quoted
company)

as without investment from the owner/partners/ shareholders/ co-op members
there would be not business and no ongoign wealth creation would there ?



Perfectly true, that has been happening for many hundreds of years. However,
the dogmatists in the eighties would have had us believe that there was
going to be a sudden and massive increase in the number of businesses being
set up and that within a very short time everyone would be significantly
better off than hitherto. It didn't happen.

reducing congestion
 

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote in message
. ..

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
...
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.

I think you will find the definition of what constitutes those 'certain
needs' changes with income.

To a degree true, but any individual only requires a certain amount of food
and the other basics of life. The point is that someone with a holiday home
in a different part of the country is depriving that local economy of the
same level of income that a permanant resident would put in.


You will also find that most rich people don't
leave their money sitting around as surplus cash. At the moment, private
investors are probably the easiest way for small to medium size businesses
to get capital for new ventures.


Undoubtedly true, but not pertinent to this thread.

reducing congestion
 

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.

--
Duncan

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.

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

reducing congestion
 

"PeterE" wrote in message
...
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 ....

err. ********.
Just one or two years ago, not too far from where you are, you could get a
decent house in a non-dodgy area for less than 30,000

(to the original point -the prices have more than doubles in a short space
of time)

reducing congestion
 

JohnB wrote:

Thank you for showing your ignorance.
In this case the work is throughout the year.

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

I'm sure there are a lot of farms that have a similar workload all year
round, but the type of activity will vary according to season.

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