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.