reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.transport.london.]
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
Except that you then wrote:
A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60 miles
(probably not a lot more, unless one lives adjacent to a motorway
interchange).

Indeed. But the car journey to which I was referring was a journey *within
the area within a one hour commute from Central London*

If that's what you meant, then you have mislead more than one person.

Robin (and everyone else) took that to mean that you were limiting it
to commuting by car.

Their error, I fear, since I did not claim that - did I?

No, but the implication was there, or so I thought.

However, that's moot: I still think that you're 'one hour's commute' is
over-optimistic.

I used to commute from a small village just south of Guildford
(about 30 miles from London), and it'd take me more than an hour
to reach Waterloo, let alone a place of work in central London.

This was mostly because getting from home to Guildford station used
to take me 20 minutes or so; by the time you add a reasonable time
to get from Waterloo to the office, and it was nearer 120 minutes
door-to-door. While Finchley isn't exactly Central London I think
the point is clear enough even so.

--
Good night little fishey-wishes.... I've counted you, so no
sneaky eating each other.
-- FW (should I worry?)

reducing congestion
 

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:15:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Even people whose favourite method of getting around is
by car would think twice about using it to commute to Charing Cross.

You'd want your head examined.




So of all the people who commute into London by car (of which there is still
a significant number I understand) none of them work in the vicinity of
Charing Cross? Seems a bit unlukely to me, especially as at least one office
block along the Strand has it's own sub-surface car park.



Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted.



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 Thu, 25 Dec 2003 11:24:37 +1030, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, (Aidan Stanger) wrote:



AIUI there is one country where the supply of cars has been almost as
limited as the supply of British houses.

That would be singapore.

I was there on business in late 1995, one of the local expats was telling
me he'd just paid the equivalent of 45K stg for a 3 year old toyota
corolla.

That said, I've never seen as many S class Mercs in one place at one time
ever.

The Singapore situation is somewhat different - it is registering the
cars that is the expensive part.

Duties of several 100% on the purchase price + mandatory scrapping after 10
years + $35k of what's called IIRC a certificate of entitlement before you
can even drive it away off the forecourt + annual taxes of 1-2 sing $ per
cc.

This

http://www.aas.com.sg/carprice/usedcar.htm

puts the price of a 2001 1.6 corolla @ ~70k sing $. Which is over £23K

A mint example here would be under 5k.


Its little wonder that yank teen got his arse flayed after vandalising cars
over there in the early 90s.


However, I think the cost of that has
fallen slightly now that they've got their complicated congestion charge
scheme BICBW.


When I was there, that only applied to the CBD.


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
 

"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.

--
Duncan

My sentiment exactly. Tax all income at the same base %, rich or
poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation, which are nothing more
than a tax on already-taxed income.

reducing congestion
 

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:15:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Even people whose favourite method of getting around is
by car would think twice about using it to commute to Charing Cross.

You'd want your head examined.




So of all the people who commute into London by car (of which there is
still
a significant number I understand) none of them work in the vicinity of
Charing Cross? Seems a bit unlukely to me, especially as at least one
office
block along the Strand has it's own sub-surface car park.



Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted.



Merely respnsing to the previous post, if you have anything to add to any
aspect of the thread I'm happy to resume.

reducing congestion
 

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:


Millions were in the same boat. Strangely they seemed to be those
who
worked the hardest for the least rewards.

For the first time in years, it was plain to see that the lazy
whingebags in society weren't quite as hard-working as they said
they
were. The unions were ****ing up this country by making unreasonable
demands on employers. Thatcher made sure these people could no
longer
hold the country to ransom. I suppose it must have come as a shock
to
some, when they realised the union-negotiated tea-break was over and
there was work to be done.

Still, you'll be glad to know
that the ****ed up society we now live in is a direct result of
the
Thatcher "me first, **** the rest" policies.

I think you'll find that's more to do with the loony left rewarding
the
lazy and irresponsible through state benefits. My only criticism of
Thatcher was she didn't go far enough. Like most Thatcher critics,
you
confuse individual responsibility with selfishness.

If it weren't for unions, most of us would be working 18 hours a
day, with 1 ****e break, and earn just enough money to afford bread,
water, and a cardboard box to live in.
Of course, sometimes the unions went too far; I'll grant you that.
:-)

reducing congestion
 

Ian Smith wrote:
"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.

--
Duncan

My sentiment exactly. Tax all income at the same base
%, rich or poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation,
which are nothing more than a tax on already-taxed income.

Yup, I'd go for that. I'm sure most pensioners and other non income tax
payers would welcome it.

reducing congestion
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:09:19 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


So of all the people who commute into London by car (of which there is
still
a significant number I understand) none of them work in the vicinity of
Charing Cross? Seems a bit unlukely to me, especially as at least one
office
block along the Strand has it's own sub-surface car park.



Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted.



Merely respnsing to the previous post,


By attempting to introdce a straw man argument about cars when none were
mentioned.



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
 

Ian Smith wrote:

If it weren't for unions, most of us would be working 18 hours a
day, with 1 ****e break, and earn just enough money to afford bread,
water, and a cardboard box to live in.

What more do you need? Some people are just plain greedy.

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote in message
...

Ian Smith wrote:

... Tax all income at the same base
%, rich or poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation,
which are nothing more than a tax on already-taxed income.

Yup, I'd go for that. I'm sure most pensioners and other non income tax
payers would welcome it.

Why?

Their income - whatever it happened to be - would fall into the category
"all income". As well as dividends and interest receipts, that would include
pensions, child benefit, jobseeker's allowance, supplementary benefit, etc,
etc (indeed, it would have to if *all* other taxes were abolished).

Don't forget it's an income tax, not an earnings tax.

reducing congestion
 

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:09:19 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


So of all the people who commute into London by car (of
which there is still a significant number I understand)
none of them work in the vicinity of Charing Cross?
Seems a bit unlukely to me, especially as at least one
office block along the Strand has it's own sub-surface
car park.



Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted.



Merely respnsing to the previous post,


By attempting to introdce a straw man argument about cars
when none were mentioned.


Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...

My sentiment exactly. Tax all income at the same base %, rich or
poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation, which are nothing more
than a tax on already-taxed income.

Or even more fair...

Tax all income at the same base rate and close the loopholes that exist
which rich people exploit to avoid paying tax.


--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

reducing congestion
 

As a fairly recent subscriber here, I noticed that..

"JNugent" and many other subscribers to this 'reducing congestion' thread
wrote about..

Housing and the lack of it..(tent & caravan shares are now on the up in the
UK)
Right to Buy council houses..(not forgetting negative equity)
Maggie Thatcher.. (aaarrrgghhhh!!)
Trade Unions.. (Gawd bless 'em)
Ted Heath.. (can't really remember him as PM)
Income tax..(we have to tolerate it)
Earnings tax..(same thing init?)
Tories..(can't stand 'em)
New Labour..( *any* kind of Labour Govt is better than a Tory Govt).

...with so many other subjects wrapped within the this thread.. I'd need a
week off work to catch up.

What seems to be conspicuous by it's absence in this thread are ideas on
*how* to reduce road congestion? I have my own ideas which would reduce
road congestion the UK.. "at a stroke" (to quote Maggie).

But, as this thread is already 3 miles long.. full of humps and hairpin
bends, and in all probability has run itself into exhaustion: I doubt very
much if any subscriber here would really want to know the most *effective*
way to reduce road congestion and make driving in the UK a pleasure once
more.

Believe me.. I know *exactly* how to bring that about. :-)

Luke.

reducing congestion
 

JNugent wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote in message
...

Ian Smith wrote:

... Tax all income at the same base
%, rich or poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation,
which are nothing more than a tax on already-taxed income.

Yup, I'd go for that. I'm sure most pensioners and other
non income tax payers would welcome it.

Why?

Their income - whatever it happened to be - would fall into
the category "all income". As well as dividends and
interest receipts, that would include pensions, child
benefit, jobseeker's allowance, supplementary benefit, etc,
etc (indeed, it would have to if *all* other taxes were
abolished).

Don't forget it's an income tax, not an earnings tax.

Not quite true, some income is exmpt from tax, but like all things that can
be changed.

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote in message
...

JNugent wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:

Ian Smith wrote:

... Tax all income at the same base
%, rich or poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation,
which are nothing more than a tax on already-taxed income.

Yup, I'd go for that. I'm sure most pensioners and other
non income tax payers would welcome it.

Why?
Their income - whatever it happened to be - would fall into
the category "all income". As well as dividends and
interest receipts, that would include pensions, child
benefit, jobseeker's allowance, supplementary benefit, etc,
etc (indeed, it would have to if *all* other taxes were
abolished).

Don't forget it's an income tax, not an earnings tax.

Not quite true, some income is exmpt from tax, but like all things that
can
be changed.

No, that's not right. The PP posited a tax (and you supported it) on *all
income*.

If there were exemptions, it wouldn't be a tax on all income.

QED.

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote...
Cast_Iron wrote:

So of all the people who commute into London by car (of which there is
still a significant number I understand) none of them work in the
vicinity of Charing Cross? Seems a bit unlukely to me, especially as
at least one office block along the Strand has it's own sub-surface
car park.

Of course some people commute to that area by car. However, I'd expect
most (if not all) of those people to be commuting from other parts of
London.

London has an extremely large "travel to work" area that extends well beyond
its boundaries, so yes some people who work in central London certainly
commute from other parts of London, but there is a significant number who
live well outside.

Yes. However, commuting by car to the Charing Cross area from outside
London is far too much hassle for most people.

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...

What seems to be conspicuous by it's absence in this thread are ideas on
*how* to reduce road congestion? I have my own ideas which would reduce
road congestion the UK.. "at a stroke" (to quote Maggie).

Ah, you've missed the point of uk.rec.driving completely.


THe point of this newsgroup is to start a thread off with one on topic
post then see how far away we can get from it.


--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

reducing congestion
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:52:17 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:



By attempting to introdce a straw man argument about cars
when none were mentioned.


Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?


Liar.

Message-ID:


"A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten miles at most."



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
 

"Conor" wrote in message...

Ah, you've missed the point of uk.rec.driving completely.

THe point of this newsgroup is to start a thread off with one on topic
post then see how far away we can get from it.

Conor
.................................................. ...

Thanks for that Conor.

Ah'm a little bitty wiser now :-)
Luke.

reducing congestion
 

Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

What seems to be conspicuous by it's absence in this thread are
ideas on *how* to reduce road congestion? I have my own ideas which
would reduce road congestion the UK.. "at a stroke" (to quote
Maggie).

Ah, you've missed the point of uk.rec.driving completely.

THe point of this newsgroup is to start a thread off with one on topic
post then see how far away we can get from it.

I thought that was the point of Usenet per se ;-)

--
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
 

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:52:17 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:



By attempting to introdce a straw man argument about cars
when none were mentioned.


Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?


Liar.

Message-ID:


"A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten
miles at most."


Where are cars mentioned in there?

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:52:17 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

By attempting to introdce a straw man argument about cars
when none were mentioned.

Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?

Liar.

Message-ID:

"A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten
miles at most."

Where are cars mentioned in there?

What do you think his favoured mode is, then?

--
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 Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:54:49 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Liar.

Message-ID:


"A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten
miles at most."


Where are cars mentioned in there?



A rather pathetic attempt at evasion is noted.

Message-ID:

"As with all things it depends on the start and end points. In this
instance Charing Cross was cited as the reference point from which a one
hour commute by car will take the individual a maximum of ten miles, on a
good day."


You clearly *were* referring to cars. Referencing it again as a rhetorical
device in


Message-ID:



Waste someone elses time idiot.


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
 

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:54:49 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Liar.

Message-ID:


"A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about
ten
miles at most."


Where are cars mentioned in there?



A rather pathetic attempt at evasion is noted.

Message-ID:

"As with all things it depends on the start and end points.
In this instance Charing Cross was cited as the reference
point from which a one hour commute by car will take the
individual a maximum of ten miles, on a good day."


You clearly *were* referring to cars. Referencing it again
as a rhetorical device in


Message-ID:



Waste someone elses time idiot.


Simply following your example.

reducing congestion
 

Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

My sentiment exactly. Tax all income at the same base %, rich or
poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation, which are nothing more
than a tax on already-taxed income.

Or even more fair...

Tax all income at the same base rate and close the loopholes that
exist which rich people exploit to avoid paying tax.

....and also the loopholes poor people also use to avoid paying tax

reducing congestion
 

Stimpy wrote:
Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

My sentiment exactly. Tax all income at the same base %, rich or
poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation, which are nothing
more than a tax on already-taxed income.

Or even more fair...

Tax all income at the same base rate and close the loopholes that
exist which rich people exploit to avoid paying tax.

...and also the loopholes poor people also use to avoid paying tax

Trouble is, since most taxes apart from income tax are regressive in effect,
the poor end up paying more of their income in tax than the richest.

Tobacco duty, for example, is effectively a tax on the poor.

--
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 Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:56:38 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Waste someone elses time idiot.


Simply following your example.


No, you're too f*cking thick to follow your nose let alone someone elses
example.


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
 

PeterE wrote:

Tax all income at the same base rate and close the loopholes that
exist which rich people exploit to avoid paying tax.

...and also the loopholes poor people also use to avoid paying tax

Trouble is, since most taxes apart from income tax are regressive in
effect, the poor end up paying more of their income in tax than the
richest.

Agreed... hence the suggestion of having a single rate of personal income
tax, applied to ALL income and collected more effectively, and no other
taxes whatsoever.

Tobacco duty, for example, is effectively a tax on the poor.

Agreed... The suggestion being discussed would eliminate tobacco duty

reducing congestion
 

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:56:38 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Waste someone elses time idiot.


Simply following your example.


No, you're too f*cking thick to follow your nose let alone someone elses
example.


So having been caught out you have to resort to personal abuse, how sad.

reducing congestion
 

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:05:50 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Waste someone elses time idiot.


Simply following your example.


No, you're too f*cking thick to follow your nose let alone someone elses
example.


So having been caught out you have to resort to personal abuse, how sad.


That would be something like.

Message-ID:

"Ah at last, the standard "**** you Jack, I'm OK" attitude."


The only thing 'caught out' here is your rather limited intellect which
managed to contradict itself multiple times in the one thread.

The next time you attempt to falsely ascribe views you pathetic train
spotter I suggest finding someone else.


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
 

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:05:50 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Waste someone elses time idiot.


Simply following your example.


No, you're too f*cking thick to follow your nose let
alone someone elses example.


So having been caught out you have to resort to personal
abuse, how sad.


That would be something like.

Message-ID:

"Ah at last, the standard "**** you Jack, I'm OK" attitude."


The only thing 'caught out' here is your rather limited
intellect which managed to contradict itself multiple times
in the one thread.

The next time you attempt to falsely ascribe views you
pathetic train spotter I suggest finding someone else.



How sad that you cannot separate the use of a common phrase to describe an
attitude to hurling personal abuse. So what were you saying about limited
intellect?

reducing congestion
 

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Silk wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:


Ah at last, the standard "**** you Jack, I'm OK" attitude.


It's **** or be ****ed, unfortunately. That's why we are
supposed to have governments and leaders to guide us.

Is it possible to **** without being ****ed?

Very much so, at least as long as one remains undetected.

reducing congestion
 

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:13:37 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


The only thing 'caught out' here is your rather limited
intellect which managed to contradict itself multiple times
in the one thread.

The next time you attempt to falsely ascribe views you
pathetic train spotter I suggest finding someone else.



How sad that you cannot separate the use of a common phrase to describe an
attitude

Falsely ascribing views and running away when challenged could be described
as an attitude. Given you had no evidence to support this supposition, it
clearly was a term of emotive abuse, never mind a clear logical fallacy in
the form of an appeal to consequences.


to hurling personal abuse. So what were you saying about limited
intellect?


That would be the lying goit who posted

"Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?"



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
 

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:13:37 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


The only thing 'caught out' here is your rather limited
intellect which managed to contradict itself multiple times
in the one thread.

The next time you attempt to falsely ascribe views you
pathetic train spotter I suggest finding someone else.



How sad that you cannot separate the use of a common phrase to describe
an
attitude

Falsely ascribing views and running away when challenged could be
described
as an attitude. Given you had no evidence to support this supposition, it
clearly was a term of emotive abuse, never mind a clear logical fallacy in
the form of an appeal to consequences.


to hurling personal abuse. So what were you saying about limited
intellect?


That would be the lying goit who posted

"Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?"




How sad that you haven't yet learnt about discussion and debate to explore
options and possibilities. Perhaps when you get to be a big boy you'll be
able to play with the grown ups.

reducing congestion
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:03:48 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


How sad that you cannot separate the use of a common phrase to describe
an
attitude

Falsely ascribing views and running away when challenged could be
described
as an attitude. Given you had no evidence to support this supposition, it
clearly was a term of emotive abuse, never mind a clear logical fallacy in
the form of an appeal to consequences.


to hurling personal abuse. So what were you saying about limited
intellect?


That would be the lying goit who posted

"Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?"


How sad that you haven't yet learnt about discussion and debate to explore
options and possibilities.

Something I suggest a lying troll who selectively misquotes, rewrites
others posts and then swears blind that 'it wasnt me guv' when caught,
should attempt to adhere to rather than projecting your lameness upon
others.


Perhaps when you get to be a big boy you'll be
able to play with the grown ups.


Most amusing coming from the Natural inheritor of Duhg Bollens mantle.



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, 28 Dec 2003, Aidan Stanger wrote:

Silk wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:

Ah at last, the standard "**** you Jack, I'm OK" attitude.

It's **** or be ****ed, unfortunately. That's why we are supposed to
have governments and leaders to guide us.

Is it possible to **** without being ****ed?

Yes.

tom

--
or are they poststructuralist terrorists? perhaps we shall never truly know.

reducing congestion
 

Dan:
That'd mean that the very poor would pay almost nothing, and the very
highly
paid would be paying something like 99% tax.

Labour had very high rates of tax back in the 60's. Lot of the rich people
moved to France or tax exiles and took their businesses (tax wise if not
physically) with them...
Regards,
Martin

reducing congestion
 

"Martin²" wrote in message
...
Dan:
That'd mean that the very poor would pay almost nothing, and the very
highly
paid would be paying something like 99% tax.

Labour had very high rates of tax back in the 60's. Lot of the rich people
moved to France or tax exiles and took their businesses (tax wise if not
physically) with them...
Regards,
Martin

The poor always want the rich's money and the rich always want to keep it
for themselves.

reducing congestion
 

"Purditer" wrote in
message ...

"Martin²" wrote in message
...
Dan:
That'd mean that the very poor would pay almost nothing, and the very
highly
paid would be paying something like 99% tax.

Labour had very high rates of tax back in the 60's. Lot of the rich
people
moved to France or tax exiles and took their businesses (tax wise if not
physically) with them...
Regards,
Martin

The poor always want the rich's money and the rich always want to keep it
for themselves.

..............................................

The true art of Politics is getting votes from the poor, funds from the
rich, and a promise to protect each from the other. Problem is: all the
guys who know how to run the country, are too busy driving taxis or cutting
hair.

Luke.