In article , d ()
wrote:

And you'll refuse the old age pension when the time comes? By far and
away the biggest single item of 'benefits'

Since I've been paying in for it via national insurance all my working
life why should I refuse it?

Er, no you haven't. You've been paying other people's pensions through NI.
Your pension will be paid by people in work when your pension is paid.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
wrote:
You're quite an advert for Tories yourself. Just about as full of hate for
others I've seen. But you could seek treatment.

Ah , the defeated lefties last stand - accuse someone of being full of
hate/racist/sexist/mysogynist.

You wouldn't know real hate if it bit you in the ********.

Thanks for confirming you're an expert in it.

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW 12

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 09/10/2012 16:04, Dave Plowman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Anyway , there's no chance of this hairbrained bill making it through.
If it does the tories are finished for a generation as they'll have
****ed their own supporters royally.

Which they did with the poll tax. Saying it would be fair for everyone,
which translates into their very rich pals paying less in proportion.

"In proportion" to what?

Are you that thick? The poll tax was a fixed sum paid by everyone.
Replaced a tax based on property value. The result being those in an
expensive property paid the same as those in a slum.

Are you another one who doesn't know the difference between council tax
and income tax?

What I can't understand is how many middle income people get taken in
by it.

Would you charge "da man" more for a TV licence?

The TV licence isn't a tax. You don't have to have a TV - unlike a roof
over your head.

--
*Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool*

Dave Plowman London SW 12

In article ,
Huge wrote:
But since you feel every one should always be able to live in the house
they've bought regardless of income, would you extend that to help with
council charges, maintenance, heating etc?

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Perfectly reasonable thing to ask. If you really think a 'mansion tax'
would result in droves of people having to sell up.

--


Dave Plowman London SW 12

On 10/10/2012 00:48, Dave Plowman wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:
wrote:

Anyway , there's no chance of this hairbrained bill making it through.
If it does the tories are finished for a generation as they'll have
****ed their own supporters royally.

Which they did with the poll tax. Saying it would be fair for everyone,
which translates into their very rich pals paying less in proportion.

"In proportion" to what?

Are you that thick?

I see.

You'd rather make silly attempts at abuse than try to answer the question.

OK. Let's see what else you say...

The poll tax was a fixed sum paid by everyone.
Replaced a tax based on property value. The result being those in an
expensive property paid the same as those in a slum.

No, still no answer as to what you were trying to talk about with the phrase
"in proportion".

And still no answer to the next question:

Are you another one who doesn't know the difference between council tax
and income tax?

What I can't understand is how many middle income people get taken in
by it.

Would you charge "da man" more for a TV licence?

The TV licence isn't a tax. You don't have to have a TV - unlike a roof
over your head.

Then why do you want to charge your imaginary bloated plutocrats more for the
same (or, probably, less) council services than might be provided to a
salt-of-the-earth good ol' boy from down on the estate?

On 10/10/2012 00:51, Dave Plowman wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
But since you feel every one should always be able to live in the house
they've bought regardless of income, would you extend that to help with
council charges, maintenance, heating etc?

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Perfectly reasonable thing to ask. If you really think a 'mansion tax'
would result in droves of people having to sell up.

Wha does the value of anyone else's home have to do with you?

Or with anyone, including the council?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 09/10/2012 17:27, tim..... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:29:37 on Tue, 9 Oct
2012, Clive Page remarked:
They were paid for jointly by Essex and Kent County Councils (you
probably
don't remember the good old days when County Councils did useful things
like that).

But it was explicitly promised at the time that when they tolls paid
for
the cost of construction (and interest etc.) the tunnels would become
free
of charge. I expect all those making the promises are now dead,
unfortunately.

In general I am also cynical, but in this case I don't think the County
Council project ever had a hope of breaking even, and had to be bailed
out.
In which case, the original promise has little relevance.

why would a county council scheme have significantly more chance of
failing
than a commercial one?

It's the M25 which has made the Dartford Tunnel into big business.

Thirty and forty years ago it carried far less traffic.

but why would a commercial organisation take it on if they didn't think that
the traffic would grow so as to cover their costs?

And if they thought so, why wouldn't the councils

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:48:32 +0100
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 09/10/2012 16:04, Dave Plowman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Anyway , there's no chance of this hairbrained bill making it through.
If it does the tories are finished for a generation as they'll have
****ed their own supporters royally.

Which they did with the poll tax. Saying it would be fair for everyone,
which translates into their very rich pals paying less in proportion.

"In proportion" to what?

Are you that thick? The poll tax was a fixed sum paid by everyone.
Replaced a tax based on property value. The result being those in an
expensive property paid the same as those in a slum.

The only people who had an issue with it - as witnessed by the types who
rioted - were the scrounging crusties and people who lived in homes where a
number of (usually immigrant) families all piled into the same house to avoid
paying the rates. For most people it wouldn't have made much difference in
what they paid.

Would you charge "da man" more for a TV licence?

The TV licence isn't a tax. You don't have to have a TV - unlike a roof
over your head.

You have to buy food though. Perhaps the rich should pay more at Tesco
to subsidise all your poor downtrodden comrades on da street init?

Face it - you have an issue with anyone who makes a decent living. You can't
stand the fact that some people have more money than you but you dress it up as
some sort undergraduate level right-on social conscience.

B2003

On 10/10/2012 08:33, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
tim..... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote:
Clive Page remarked:

They were paid for jointly by Essex and Kent County Councils (you probably
don't remember the good old days when County Councils did useful things
like that).
But it was explicitly promised at the time that when they tolls paid for
the cost of construction (and interest etc.) the tunnels would become free
of charge. I expect all those making the promises are now dead,
unfortunately.

In general I am also cynical, but in this case I don't think the County
Council project ever had a hope of breaking even, and had to be bailed out.
In which case, the original promise has little relevance.

why would a county council scheme have significantly more chance of failing
than a commercial one?

It's the M25 which has made the Dartford Tunnel into big business.
Thirty and forty years ago it carried far less traffic.

but why would a commercial organisation take it on if they didn't think that
the traffic would grow so as to cover their costs?

The Trafalgar House deal was done after or very near to completion of the
M25. The M25 was feeding traffic into two two-lane tunnels and into much less
capacious dual two-lane access roads, so the deal was struck so as to provide
for doubling the capacity of the crossing by building the bridge for
southbound traffic and using both tunnels for northbound traffic.

And if they thought so, why wouldn't the councils

Essex and Kent were not given a choice.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that residents of Essex and Kent (the whole
of the two counties, not just of the small towns nearest the tunnel portals)
should have been given permanent discounts on the tolls. After all, they had
made the original investment, stretching back over several decades.

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2012 00:51, Dave Plowman wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
But since you feel every one should always be able to live in the
house they've bought regardless of income, would you extend that to
help with council charges, maintenance, heating etc?

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Perfectly reasonable thing to ask. If you really think a 'mansion tax'
would result in droves of people having to sell up.

Wha does the value of anyone else's home have to do with you?

Or with anyone, including the council?

Quite. And what does anyone's income have to do with anyone else,
including the council and government. Lets just abolish all taxes and let
the individual fend for himself.

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

Dave Plowman London SW 12