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?

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

In article ,
says...
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


I can't believe this!

I'm self employed in my spare time, to bring in some extra money.

As soon as I start doing this, the Government want £8 per month, plus 29%
(and then more in due course) of all of my profits.

Because I want to better myself, I have to pay the government almost a third
of what I earn.

If I want to save any of that money, I can only save a certain amount before
I start getting taxed on _that too_ (and as of 2006, I can save even less)

OTOH, I could lie about being disabled/unemployable, and let the same
government pick up the bill for me, (and because I've got nothing else to
do), my 10 children, while I watch Sky Sports all day in my 2 council houses
knocked together.

Social justice my arse!

An awful lot of the people out there who "are clearly very rich" also
clearly work very hard for their money.

(OTOH, there are some really rich chinless wonders out there who don't work
hard, but you can't tar everyone with the same brush)

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

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?

wrote:

says...

Um, people _do_ want to live in London, and there are 100,000 new
homes propesed. What is the problem with that?

And those would be the low cost housing which they've been forced to
implement because essential workers can't afford to live there?

Conor - if these proposed housing units a

(a) built in non-electorally-sensitive locations, and then

(b) allocated to 100,000 "essential workers" (is, the nurses, teachers,
police officers, lower-paid civil servants, etc that we have heard so much
hand-wringing about) and their families, I shall buy a hat and eat it.

My prediction is that if built, they will be filled with exactly the same
sort of tenants as current social housing and that the whole thing is a
gerrymandering smokescreen.

wrote:

"Doki" wrote:

... 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.

Unfortunately for you, it did.

When the top tax rate rate was reduced from Labour's dizzying 95% to the
current 40% (and during the intermnediate stages, as that was not a single
reduction but the effect of a series of them), the Treasury receipts from
those higher-rate taxpayers increased.

But I expect there are some eho would rather see the Treasury get less as
long as a few toffs were getting rippied-off. eh?

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).

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?

"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.

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?