In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:58:11 +0100
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Apart from those on the highest income tax band, of course.

Oh dear, here comes the politics of envy.

Envy?

You do seem to have an irrational hatred for anyone with more money than
you.

Do I? You need to seek help about this feeling you have of always being
right.

You just can't help yourself can
you. So is that top end tax rise to 50% a myth then?

I'm happy to pay my fair share of the cost of running the country. If
only it wasn't wasted on scroungers like you.

Scrounger? So exactly what benefits am I claiming then?

By your post, you seem to want the benefits etc this country provides
without paying your fair *share* of the costs.

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

Dave Plowman London SW 12

On 08/10/2012 16:17, d wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:18:42 +0100
Dave Plowman wrote:
Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but we had a change of government
quite some time ago. And they don't appear to intend scrapping the charge
either, by the changes being proposed.

True, but then they never promised they would unlike Labour.

I doubt the government cares so long as they can screw citizens over
here for even more tax money.

Apart from those on the highest income tax band, of course.

Oh dear, here comes the politics of envy. You just can't help yourself can
you. So is that top end tax rise to 50% a myth then?

B2003

The above is all wrong.

The Conservative government set up a deal in the 1980s by which Trafalgar
House would construct the bridge and improve the A282. They would collect
tolls until a formula-calculated amount had been collected, then hand the
entire crossing back to the DoT, which would then abolish the tolls. That was
the deal.

What happened was that Trafalgar House kept to the deal.

But when they handed the crossing back to the state, Labour had taken over. A
Labour cretin by the name of Steven Ladyman (a Parly under-sec at Transport),
together with The Mouth Of The Humber, decided to welsh on the deal and
continued to collect tolls, arguing (deceitfully) that "public opinion" (on
the basis of a mysterious survey) supported the tolls as a "congestion
charge". That was an outright lie.

That deal having been decidedly wrecked, the incoming Conservative government
probably needs to collect the money to help pay Gordon Brown's debts. Far
from ideal, but at least not as dishonest as Labour with their "public
opinion" lie.

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:12:53 +0100
Dave Plowman wrote:
You do seem to have an irrational hatred for anyone with more money than
you.

Do I? You need to seek help about this feeling you have of always being
right.

When arguing with you I usually am.

I'm happy to pay my fair share of the cost of running the country. If
only it wasn't wasted on scroungers like you.

Scrounger? So exactly what benefits am I claiming then?

By your post, you seem to want the benefits etc this country provides
without paying your fair *share* of the costs.

Since I'm already in the 40% tax bracket I already pay more than my fair share.
Or is this the standard lefty opinion that anyone who is against any tax
rises of any sort is a sociopathic facist who has no sympathy for the poor
downtrodden proles surviving on only a basic Sky+ package, 20 fags a day and
child benefit for their 5 brats? Well ******** to that.

B2003

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:16:00 +0100
JNugent wrote:
continued to collect tolls, arguing (deceitfully) that "public opinion" (on
the basis of a mysterious survey) supported the tolls as a "congestion
charge". That was an outright lie.

The thing that ****ed me off about new labour and politicians in general is
that they genuinely seem to think we can't see through their BS and deceit.

B2003

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 02:50:08 +0100
Clive wrote:
In message , d
writes
Oh dear, here comes the politics of envy. You just can't help yourself
can
you. So is that top end tax rise to 50% a myth then?
This is a mere squabble in a sweet shop. In the 60s supertax was 98p
in the pound.

Sounds like the idea of some left wing idiot in france who was proposing
a 100% tax on earnings above 100K euros or something. Presumably it never
occured to his lonely braincell that if all the money above a certain rate
goes in tax then companies simply won't bother paying above that rate.
I suspect the same happened with a 98% tax which is why they ditched it.

The 98% was only on unearned income [1].

So all the people with serious amounts of unearned income left the country

tim

[1] The top rate of tax on earned income was 83% with a 15% unearned income
surcharge.

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 11:08:01 +0100
"tim....." wrote:
Sounds like the idea of some left wing idiot in france who was proposing
a 100% tax on earnings above 100K euros or something. Presumably it never
occured to his lonely braincell that if all the money above a certain rate
goes in tax then companies simply won't bother paying above that rate.
I suspect the same happened with a 98% tax which is why they ditched it.

The 98% was only on unearned income [1].

So all the people with serious amounts of unearned income left the country

A bit like the liberal dufflecoats moronic mansion tax then. So if you bought
your house in the 60s or whenever for 20K in some then grungy area like
notting hill or clerkenwell and now its worth a million , too bad , cough up
please. Oh , you can't afford to? Sell your house then you rich *******. Etc.

Politics of envy yet again.

B2003

In article ,
wrote:
By your post, you seem to want the benefits etc this country provides
without paying your fair *share* of the costs.

Since I'm already in the 40% tax bracket I already pay more than my fair
share.

Sorry - didn't realise you were so poor.

--
*Windows will never cease *

Dave Plowman London SW 12

In article ,
wrote:
A bit like the liberal dufflecoats moronic mansion tax then. So if you
bought your house in the 60s or whenever for 20K in some then grungy
area like notting hill or clerkenwell and now its worth a million , too
bad , cough up please. Oh , you can't afford to? Sell your house then
you rich *******. Etc.

The figure quoted for the 'mansion tax' was two, not one million. Although
I do realise both figures are beyond your ken.

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?

--
*It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.

Dave Plowman London SW 12

On 08/10/2012 12:14, d wrote:
So who did pay for them in 1963? Private finance in the early 60s? Pretty
bloody unlikely.

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.


--
Clive Page

In message , tim.....
writes
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 02:50:08 +0100
Clive wrote:
In message , d
writes
Oh dear, here comes the politics of envy. You just can't help
yourself can
you. So is that top end tax rise to 50% a myth then?
This is a mere squabble in a sweet shop. In the 60s supertax was 98p
in the pound.
Sounds like the idea of some left wing idiot in france who was proposing
a 100% tax on earnings above 100K euros or something. Presumably it never
occured to his lonely braincell that if all the money above a certain rate
goes in tax then companies simply won't bother paying above that rate.
I suspect the same happened with a 98% tax which is why they ditched it.
The 98% was only on unearned income [1].
So all the people with serious amounts of unearned income left the country
[1] The top rate of tax on earned income was 83% with a 15% unearned
income surcharge.
I believe this was what was behind the Beatles track "Taxman".
--
Clive