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.

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. ;-)

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.

Cast_Iron wrote:

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

In every way possible.

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.

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.

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

"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.

"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

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