Discussion:
Tory conference and Tory lies
(too old to reply)
JNugent
2019-10-05 07:25:26 UTC
Permalink
The whole point of the poll tax was it was sold as being fairer.
How could
that be the case when my widowed OAP mother living on a very modest
income
in her own modest house not only paid more than the old rates, but
paid
the same as the working rich single bloke across the road in a house 4
times the size, who paid a lot less than with rates?
Because both are using the same services.
Really? The large house across the road has a bigger frontage. Requires
more sweeping. And all his cars wear out the road quicker than my
mother's
shoes. And so on.
That's a bit desperate as an "argument", surely?
One could, with more justification, point to family make-up as a
factor, since children need to be educated and older people are more
likely to require the use of the council's social services.
Neither of those are connected to frontage size, though.
(a) a flat per capita tax (the Community Charge),
(b) a local sales tax (a VAT supplement, though with a strict cap
provision to prevent spendthrift councils for gouging residents and
those who make purchases in the area even though not living there) and
(c) charging directly for (some) services.
I would go for (b).
I wouldn’t with so much bought online now and
that approach would encourage the consumers
with cars to shop where the local sales tax is
lower which isnt necessarily their own area.
What's the problem with that?
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
The fact that high-ticket items could simply bought in an area with
lower sales taxes would act as a brake on high-spending authorities
and in fact, neighbouring areas would be in competition with each other.
And that would produce more traffic on the roads.
The effect would be marginal.

Here in the SE, there is already a tendency for buyers to congregate at
the large regional shopping centres (Lakeside, Bluewater, Galleria,
Westgate, etc) because local authorities are unbelievably acquisitive
and dog-in-the-manger over parking.
JNugent
2019-10-05 07:25:56 UTC
Permalink
The whole point of the poll tax was it was sold as being fairer.
How could that be the case when my widowed OAP mother living on a
very modest income in her own modest house not only paid more than
the old rates, but paid the same as the working rich single bloke
across the road in a house 4 times the size, who paid a lot less
than with rates?
Because both are using the same services.
Really? The large house across the road has a bigger frontage.
Requires more sweeping. And all his cars wear out the road quicker
than my mother's shoes. And so on.
If your mother walks everywhere, she will not be paying a separate car
tax for road upkeep, unlike the multi-car owner.
Surely you don't think VED actually pays for road upkeep?
The total collected in all car taxes including the tax on fuel likely
does tho.
...by a factor of three at a minimum.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-05 07:43:22 UTC
Permalink
(in
Presumably, the bin collection costs the same
irrespective of
the
ability to pay. Do you advocate charging a
wealthy
person
more
for
the
same service? Perhaps this should be extended to
charging
more
for
an
ice cream or a fish supper?
Indeed, I had the same thought. How about anyone
with a
more
expensive
television pays more for their TV licence?
You don't have to have a TV. Or a car. Somewhere to
live
tends to
be an
essential.
But some like you and I have big houses with just one
person
living
in
it.
But use far fewer council services than those who have
kids.
Are you referring to the kids which will grow up, find a
job,
and
pay
tax
in
order to pay your pension in future years?
No, they don’t pay anything towards my pension.
But they will pay towards other peoples’ pensions in the
future.
Most actually pay towards their own pension while working now.
State pension?
Your view appears to be rather selfish.
Not when most actually pay towards their own pension while
working
now.
Do you give all of your state pension to charity every four
weeks?
It’s best not to get too anti-kids, as you may need other
peoples’
before you die.
I know that I wont. Have been retired for a long time now
and
have accumulated so many assets that there is no chance
that
I will ever spend them all. And I won't ever be in a care
home,
I will pull the plug instead of having anything to do with
one
or even in home care if I can no longer do the basic stuff
like
get around and feed and shower etc myself unaided.
As I said, selfish.
Nothing selfish about choosing to pull the plug when
I decide that that is nothing even remotely like a real life.
Really? Have you no friends or relatives at all - whose emotions
after
you
have gone are to be completely ignored?
<silence>
Do you not even care for the feelings of those who will find you,
after
you
have pulled your plug?
<silence>
Quite the reverse in fact.
Dear oh dear, you may need help.
<more silence>
Everyone can see that’s a lie.
despite the rush to try and give clever answers to easy questions.
As I said before - selfish, totally selfish.
Repeating that lie changes nothing.
I will leave others to be the judge of that.
They already have with your repeated bare faced lies about silence.
And yet, you have not made any effort to answer the questions I asked.
Another bare faced lie.
That was not answering my question, that was just a continuation of smug
selfishness.

Do you think that the person who has been instructed to find you dead will
not undergo initial investigation by the police on suspicion of murder?
You are pretending that
you can't see that and are fooling no one.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/uk.d-i-y/slyKFZkrjD8/tRXziAwTBwAJ
No I’m not.

Who is the liar?
And the only thing that is even close to selfish about
organising pulling the plug effectively is that it certain
does do some minimum wage person out of the job
of piping your arse and feeding and showering you,
Stiff shit for them.
And your totally is just another bare faced lie.
So, you admit your are selfish - just not totally selfish?
Nope. only selfish in the stupid sense that there will be no
job for anyone to wipe my arse, feed me or shower me.
You seem to believe that pulling the plug is the most straightforward thing
to do in the world.

How do you know that anyone who is deemed an accessory to your death (by
whatever means) will not have broken the law and won't be prosecuted after
your demise?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-
cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide
AlexK
2019-10-05 10:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
(in
in
Presumably, the bin collection costs the same
irrespective of
the
ability to pay. Do you advocate charging a
wealthy
person
more
for
the
same service? Perhaps this should be extended
to
charging
more
for
an
ice cream or a fish supper?
Indeed, I had the same thought. How about
anyone
with a
more
expensive
television pays more for their TV licence?
You don't have to have a TV. Or a car. Somewhere
to
live
tends to
be an
essential.
But some like you and I have big houses with just
one
person
living
in
it.
But use far fewer council services than those who
have
kids.
Are you referring to the kids which will grow up,
find a
job,
and
pay
tax
in
order to pay your pension in future years?
No, they don’t pay anything towards my pension.
But they will pay towards other peoples’ pensions in the
future.
Most actually pay towards their own pension while working
now.
State pension?
Your view appears to be rather selfish.
Not when most actually pay towards their own pension while
working
now.
Do you give all of your state pension to charity every four
weeks?
It’s best not to get too anti-kids, as you may need
other
peoples’
before you die.
I know that I wont. Have been retired for a long time
now
and
have accumulated so many assets that there is no chance
that
I will ever spend them all. And I won't ever be in a
care
home,
I will pull the plug instead of having anything to do
with
one
or even in home care if I can no longer do the basic
stuff
like
get around and feed and shower etc myself unaided.
As I said, selfish.
Nothing selfish about choosing to pull the plug when
I decide that that is nothing even remotely like a real life.
Really? Have you no friends or relatives at all - whose emotions
after
you
have gone are to be completely ignored?
<silence>
Do you not even care for the feelings of those who will find you,
after
you
have pulled your plug?
<silence>
Quite the reverse in fact.
Dear oh dear, you may need help.
<more silence>
Everyone can see that’s a lie.
despite the rush to try and give clever answers to easy questions.
As I said before - selfish, totally selfish.
Repeating that lie changes nothing.
I will leave others to be the judge of that.
They already have with your repeated bare faced lies about silence.
And yet, you have not made any effort to answer the questions I asked.
Another bare faced lie.
That was not answering my question,
Rubbing your lying nose in where I
Post by Keema's Nan
did answer you questions does tho.
that was just a continuation of smug selfishness.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Post by Keema's Nan
Do you think that the person who has been instructed
to find you dead will not undergo initial investigation
by the police on suspicion of murder?
Doesn’t matter what they investigate when I have pulled
the plug on myself.
Post by Keema's Nan
You are pretending that you can't see that and are fooling no one.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/uk.d-i-y/slyKFZkrjD8/tRXziAwTBwAJ
No I’m not.
You clearly are when that answer your questions.
Post by Keema's Nan
Who is the liar?
You, as always.
Post by Keema's Nan
And the only thing that is even close to selfish about
organising pulling the plug effectively is that it certain
does do some minimum wage person out of the job
of piping your arse and feeding and showering you,
Stiff shit for them.
And your totally is just another bare faced lie.
So, you admit your are selfish - just not totally selfish?
Nope. only selfish in the stupid sense that there will be no
job for anyone to wipe my arse, feed me or shower me.
You seem to believe that pulling the plug is the
most straightforward thing to do in the world.
Corse it is, thousands do it every single day.

Even you should be able to manage it.
Post by Keema's Nan
How do you know that anyone who is deemed an accessory
to your death (by whatever means) will not have broken the
law and won't be prosecuted after your demise?
That has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, fuckwit.

And when I have pulled the plug myself, and have just
notified someone else that I have done that, so that
someone who is not aware of my intentions doesn’t
discover what I have chosen to do, that wont be possible.
Post by Keema's Nan
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-
cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide
Completely trivial to avoid that situation by pulling the
plug while it is still possible to organise that myself unaided.

Even easier to do that with the other ways I listed.
Peeler
2019-10-05 10:48:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 20:36:43 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal senile trolling asshole's latest trollshit>
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Incubus
2019-10-07 09:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
(in
Presumably, the bin collection costs the same
irrespective of
the
ability to pay. Do you advocate charging a
wealthy
person
more
for
the
same service? Perhaps this should be extended to
charging
more
for
an
ice cream or a fish supper?
Indeed, I had the same thought. How about anyone
with a
more
expensive
television pays more for their TV licence?
You don't have to have a TV. Or a car. Somewhere to
live
tends to
be an
essential.
But some like you and I have big houses with just one
person
living
in
it.
But use far fewer council services than those who have
kids.
Are you referring to the kids which will grow up, find a
job,
and
pay
tax
in
order to pay your pension in future years?
No, they don’t pay anything towards my pension.
But they will pay towards other peoples’ pensions in the
future.
Most actually pay towards their own pension while working now.
State pension?
Your view appears to be rather selfish.
Not when most actually pay towards their own pension while
working
now.
Do you give all of your state pension to charity every four
weeks?
It’s best not to get too anti-kids, as you may need other
peoples’
before you die.
I know that I wont. Have been retired for a long time now
and
have accumulated so many assets that there is no chance
that
I will ever spend them all. And I won't ever be in a care
home,
I will pull the plug instead of having anything to do with
one
or even in home care if I can no longer do the basic stuff
like
get around and feed and shower etc myself unaided.
As I said, selfish.
Nothing selfish about choosing to pull the plug when
I decide that that is nothing even remotely like a real life.
Really? Have you no friends or relatives at all - whose emotions
after
you
have gone are to be completely ignored?
<silence>
Do you not even care for the feelings of those who will find you,
after
you
have pulled your plug?
<silence>
Quite the reverse in fact.
Dear oh dear, you may need help.
<more silence>
Everyone can see that’s a lie.
despite the rush to try and give clever answers to easy questions.
As I said before - selfish, totally selfish.
Repeating that lie changes nothing.
I will leave others to be the judge of that.
They already have with your repeated bare faced lies about silence.
And yet, you have not made any effort to answer the questions I asked.
Another bare faced lie.
That was not answering my question, that was just a continuation of smug
selfishness.
Do you think that the person who has been instructed to find you dead will
not undergo initial investigation by the police on suspicion of murder?
You are pretending that
you can't see that and are fooling no one.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/uk.d-i-y/slyKFZkrjD8/tRXziAwTBwAJ
No I’m not.
Who is the liar?
And the only thing that is even close to selfish about
organising pulling the plug effectively is that it certain
does do some minimum wage person out of the job
of piping your arse and feeding and showering you,
Stiff shit for them.
And your totally is just another bare faced lie.
So, you admit your are selfish - just not totally selfish?
Nope. only selfish in the stupid sense that there will be no
job for anyone to wipe my arse, feed me or shower me.
You seem to believe that pulling the plug is the most straightforward thing
to do in the world.
I imagine it's even harder once you are infirm.
Post by Keema's Nan
How do you know that anyone who is deemed an accessory to your death (by
whatever means) will not have broken the law and won't be prosecuted after
your demise?
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-
cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide
There's always a one-way ticket to Dignitas.

Alternatively, you could walk around certain culturally "enriched" areas
wearing a nice watch.
Mark
2019-10-05 07:47:03 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don’t like one democratic result, we
will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one we approve of”?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone forever.
The main reason that leavers don't want another referendum is that
they know it would have a different result.
Very likely. However, what is the point of having a second referendum when we
cannot even respect the decision of the first one?
Because we know a lot more about what Brexit means now than we did in
2016.
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once we are out of the
EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the EU than
rejoin later.
But is that really democracy, or just a sham dressed up as a democratic
process?
The EU membership referendum certainly was a sham, given the lies&
unfullfilabble promises made by the leave campaigns.
And for those who have fogooten we already had referenda on our
membership of the EEC etc.
--
Little Britain leaves. Great Britain stays.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-05 10:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don’t like one democratic result, we
will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one we approve of”?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone forever.
The main reason that leavers don't want another referendum is that
they know it would have a different result.
Very likely. However, what is the point of having a second referendum when we
cannot even respect the decision of the first one?
Because we know a lot more about what Brexit means now than we did in
2016.
Is that the best you can do?

Would you agree to having a general election a year or so after the previous
one, on the grounds that we know a lot more about actual government policy
than we learned from their manifesto?
Post by Mark
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once we are out of the
EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the EU than
rejoin later.
How can you know this, when you have no experience of what life outside the
EU for the UK will be like?
Post by Mark
But is that really democracy, or just a sham dressed up as a democratic
process?
The EU membership referendum certainly was a sham, given the lies&
unfullfilabble promises made by the leave campaigns.
And for those who have fogooten we already had referenda on our
membership of the EEC etc.
Ah yes, the old chestnut of the 1975 referendum, which backed remain by a
decent majority.(Although some of us did not vote that way even then).

If the EU was so good for us between 1975 and 2016, how come a large majority
for remain was turned into a narrow majority to leave over that period?
Mark
2019-10-05 10:40:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:16:24 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don’t like one democratic result, we
will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one we approve of”?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone forever.
The main reason that leavers don't want another referendum is that
they know it would have a different result.
Very likely. However, what is the point of having a second referendum when we
cannot even respect the decision of the first one?
Because we know a lot more about what Brexit means now than we did in
2016.
Is that the best you can do?
Can do do "better"?
Post by Keema's Nan
Would you agree to having a general election a year or so after the previous
one, on the grounds that we know a lot more about actual government policy
than we learned from their manifesto?
Why a year or so? We have them every few years already.
Do remember that Brexiters *never* want another referedum.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once we are out of the
EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the EU than
rejoin later.
How can you know this, when you have no experience of what life outside the
EU for the UK will be like?
For one reason the UK gets a more favourable deal than other countries
as part of our EU membership. If we left and rejoined there is not
guarantee that we would keep the favourable terms.

And neither do Brexiters have any evidence that we would be better off
outside the EU.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
But is that really democracy, or just a sham dressed up as a democratic
process?
The EU membership referendum certainly was a sham, given the lies&
unfullfilabble promises made by the leave campaigns.
And for those who have fogooten we already had referenda on our
membership of the EEC etc.
Ah yes, the old chestnut of the 1975 referendum, which backed remain by a
decent majority.(Although some of us did not vote that way even then).
If the EU was so good for us between 1975 and 2016, how come a large majority
for remain was turned into a narrow majority to leave over that period?
Because they were mislead.
--
Little Britain leaves. Great Britain stays.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-05 12:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:16:24 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don’t like one democratic result,
we
will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one we approve
of”?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone forever.
The main reason that leavers don't want another referendum is that
they know it would have a different result.
Very likely. However, what is the point of having a second referendum when we
cannot even respect the decision of the first one?
Because we know a lot more about what Brexit means now than we did in
2016.
Is that the best you can do?
Can do do "better"?
Post by Keema's Nan
Would you agree to having a general election a year or so after the previous
one, on the grounds that we know a lot more about actual government policy
than we learned from their manifesto?
Why a year or so? We have them every few years already.
Every 5 years according to the law; and even if the victorious party have a
small parliamentary majority they are still allowed to govern. They are not
told to have a second election because the voters may not have known what
they were voting for.
Post by Mark
Do remember that Brexiters *never* want another referedum.
Oh dear.

Round and round and round we go, with the sawdust heads.

We haven’t implemented the result of the first referendum yet.

Until we do, talk of a second referendum is completely irrelevant.
Post by Mark
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once we are out of the
EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the EU than
rejoin later.
How can you know this, when you have no experience of what life outside the
EU for the UK will be like?
For one reason the UK gets a more favourable deal than other countries
as part of our EU membership. If we left and rejoined there is not
guarantee that we would keep the favourable terms.
We are not talking about life after rejoining. Life after leaving is the
subject, and you know nothing about it - except for the hype you have
read/been told.
Post by Mark
And neither do Brexiters have any evidence that we would be better off
outside the EU.
Yes they do. We would automatically be better off by the net amount we
contribute to EU funds.
Post by Mark
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
But is that really democracy, or just a sham dressed up as a democratic
process?
The EU membership referendum certainly was a sham, given the lies&
unfullfilabble promises made by the leave campaigns.
And for those who have fogooten we already had referenda on our
membership of the EEC etc.
Ah yes, the old chestnut of the 1975 referendum, which backed remain by a
decent majority.(Although some of us did not vote that way even then).
If the EU was so good for us between 1975 and 2016, how come a large majority
for remain was turned into a narrow majority to leave over that period?
Because they were mislead.
Misled over 40 years, by personal experience of living through that period?

Yeah right.
Mark
2019-10-05 12:36:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:07:16 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:16:24 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don’t like one democratic result,
we
will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one we approve
of”?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone forever.
The main reason that leavers don't want another referendum is that
they know it would have a different result.
Very likely. However, what is the point of having a second referendum when we
cannot even respect the decision of the first one?
Because we know a lot more about what Brexit means now than we did in
2016.
Is that the best you can do?
Can do do "better"?
Post by Keema's Nan
Would you agree to having a general election a year or so after the previous
one, on the grounds that we know a lot more about actual government policy
than we learned from their manifesto?
Why a year or so? We have them every few years already.
Every 5 years according to the law; and even if the victorious party have a
small parliamentary majority they are still allowed to govern. They are not
told to have a second election because the voters may not have known what
they were voting for.
Post by Mark
Do remember that Brexiters *never* want another referedum.
Oh dear.
Round and round and round we go, with the sawdust heads.
We haven’t implemented the result of the first referendum yet.
Thank goodness, just look at the damage that the result has already
done.
Post by Keema's Nan
Until we do, talk of a second referendum is completely irrelevant.
Of course it's not. It could prevent the disaster.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once we are out of the
EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the EU than
rejoin later.
How can you know this, when you have no experience of what life outside the
EU for the UK will be like?
For one reason the UK gets a more favourable deal than other countries
as part of our EU membership. If we left and rejoined there is not
guarantee that we would keep the favourable terms.
We are not talking about life after rejoining. Life after leaving is the
subject, and you know nothing about it - except for the hype you have
read/been told.
It is foolish to restrict this debate to such narrow criteria.
And you know more than you have read/been told? I doubt it.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
And neither do Brexiters have any evidence that we would be better off
outside the EU.
Yes they do. We would automatically be better off by the net amount we
contribute to EU funds.
Complete rubbish. Being a memeber of the EU had many benefits which
you are ignoring. The UK economy is already much worse off than any
so-called savings that could be made from Brexit.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
But is that really democracy, or just a sham dressed up as a democratic
process?
The EU membership referendum certainly was a sham, given the lies&
unfullfilabble promises made by the leave campaigns.
And for those who have fogooten we already had referenda on our
membership of the EEC etc.
Ah yes, the old chestnut of the 1975 referendum, which backed remain by a
decent majority.(Although some of us did not vote that way even then).
If the EU was so good for us between 1975 and 2016, how come a large majority
for remain was turned into a narrow majority to leave over that period?
Because they were mislead.
Misled over 40 years, by personal experience of living through that period?
Misled by the populist xenaphobic press & politicians, mainly.
--
Little Britain leaves. Great Britain stays.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-05 14:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:07:16 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:16:24 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don’t like one democratic
result,
we
will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one we approve
of”?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone forever.
The main reason that leavers don't want another referendum is that
they know it would have a different result.
Very likely. However, what is the point of having a second referendum
when
we
cannot even respect the decision of the first one?
Because we know a lot more about what Brexit means now than we did in
2016.
Is that the best you can do?
Can do do "better"?
Post by Keema's Nan
Would you agree to having a general election a year or so after the previous
one, on the grounds that we know a lot more about actual government policy
than we learned from their manifesto?
Why a year or so? We have them every few years already.
Every 5 years according to the law; and even if the victorious party have a
small parliamentary majority they are still allowed to govern. They are not
told to have a second election because the voters may not have known what
they were voting for.
Post by Mark
Do remember that Brexiters *never* want another referedum.
Oh dear.
Round and round and round we go, with the sawdust heads.
We haven’t implemented the result of the first referendum yet.
Thank goodness, just look at the damage that the result has already
done.
Post by Keema's Nan
Until we do, talk of a second referendum is completely irrelevant.
Of course it's not. It could prevent the disaster.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once we are out
of
the
EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the EU than
rejoin later.
How can you know this, when you have no experience of what life outside the
EU for the UK will be like?
For one reason the UK gets a more favourable deal than other countries
as part of our EU membership. If we left and rejoined there is not
guarantee that we would keep the favourable terms.
We are not talking about life after rejoining. Life after leaving is the
subject, and you know nothing about it - except for the hype you have
read/been told.
It is foolish to restrict this debate to such narrow criteria.
And you know more than you have read/been told? I doubt it.
I know that life prior to joining the EEC in 1973 was not a problem.

Ok so we didn’t spend half the year importing tasteless salad veg from
Holland or Spain, we just went without. Similarly with strawberries,
raspberries and blueberries in the winter (in fact few of us had ever heard
of blueberries). We ate Cape fruit over the summer months, and oranges/lemons
seemed to come from Israel.

We also had a year round supply of lamb by importing meat from New Zealand
and Australia when ours was not available.

Pre 1973 we did not import £171 million worth of pork a year from Denmark,
when we are perfectly capable of rearing our own pigs.

Also, we did not import £270 million worth of potatoes a year from Belgium
and the Netherlands when they can be grown perfectly well in the UK.

And just why we now import £143 million worth of Cheddar cheese from the EU
is a mystery no one seems to answer, especially as Cheddar is in the
UK.Presumably that is why EU countries lobbied against Cheddar becoming a
designated regional brand?
Post by Mark
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
And neither do Brexiters have any evidence that we would be better off
outside the EU.
Yes they do. We would automatically be better off by the net amount we
contribute to EU funds.
Complete rubbish. Being a memeber of the EU had many benefits which
you are ignoring.
So many benefits, I see, that you fail to mention any of them?
Post by Mark
The UK economy is already much worse off than any
so-called savings that could be made from Brexit.
A link to your figures would be helpful...
Post by Mark
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
But is that really democracy, or just a sham dressed up as a
democratic
process?
The EU membership referendum certainly was a sham, given the lies&
unfullfilabble promises made by the leave campaigns.
And for those who have fogooten we already had referenda on our
membership of the EEC etc.
Ah yes, the old chestnut of the 1975 referendum, which backed remain by a
decent majority.(Although some of us did not vote that way even then).
If the EU was so good for us between 1975 and 2016, how come a large majority
for remain was turned into a narrow majority to leave over that period?
Because they were mislead.
Misled over 40 years, by personal experience of living through that period?
Misled by the populist xenaphobic press & politicians, mainly.
Pamela
2019-10-06 22:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:07:16 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:16:24 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
SNIP
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once
we are out of
the
EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the EU
than rejoin later.
How can you know this, when you have no experience of what life outside the
EU for the UK will be like?
For one reason the UK gets a more favourable deal than other
countries as part of our EU membership. If we left and rejoined
there is not guarantee that we would keep the favourable terms.
We are not talking about life after rejoining. Life after leaving is
the subject, and you know nothing about it - except for the hype you
have read/been told.
It is foolish to restrict this debate to such narrow criteria.
And you know more than you have read/been told? I doubt it.
I know that life prior to joining the EEC in 1973 was not a problem.
Ok so we didn't spend half the year importing tasteless salad veg from
Holland or Spain, we just went without. Similarly with strawberries,
raspberries and blueberries in the winter (in fact few of us had ever
heard of blueberries). We ate Cape fruit over the summer months, and
oranges/lemons seemed to come from Israel.
We also had a year round supply of lamb by importing meat from New
Zealand and Australia when ours was not available.
Pre 1973 we did not import £171 million worth of pork a year from
Denmark, when we are perfectly capable of rearing our own pigs.
Also, we did not import £270 million worth of potatoes a year from
Belgium and the Netherlands when they can be grown perfectly well in the
UK.
And just why we now import £143 million worth of Cheddar cheese from
the EU is a mystery no one seems to answer, especially as Cheddar is in
the UK.Presumably that is why EU countries lobbied against Cheddar
becoming a designated regional brand?
Weren't these changes more than balanced out by our increased exports,
particularly of services?

No one you might meet in the street was complaining about the EU, until
Cameron announced the referendum. Why should they? We enjoyed decades of
increased prosperity.
ZakJames
2019-10-06 23:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:07:16 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:16:24 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
SNIP
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once
we are out of
the
EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the EU
than rejoin later.
How can you know this, when you have no experience of what life outside the
EU for the UK will be like?
For one reason the UK gets a more favourable deal than other
countries as part of our EU membership. If we left and rejoined
there is not guarantee that we would keep the favourable terms.
We are not talking about life after rejoining. Life after leaving is
the subject, and you know nothing about it - except for the hype you
have read/been told.
It is foolish to restrict this debate to such narrow criteria.
And you know more than you have read/been told? I doubt it.
I know that life prior to joining the EEC in 1973 was not a problem.
Ok so we didn't spend half the year importing tasteless salad veg from
Holland or Spain, we just went without. Similarly with strawberries,
raspberries and blueberries in the winter (in fact few of us had ever
heard of blueberries). We ate Cape fruit over the summer months, and
oranges/lemons seemed to come from Israel.
We also had a year round supply of lamb by importing meat from New
Zealand and Australia when ours was not available.
Pre 1973 we did not import £171 million worth of pork a year from
Denmark, when we are perfectly capable of rearing our own pigs.
Also, we did not import £270 million worth of potatoes a year from
Belgium and the Netherlands when they can be grown perfectly well in the
UK.
And just why we now import £143 million worth of Cheddar cheese from
the EU is a mystery no one seems to answer, especially as Cheddar is in
the UK.Presumably that is why EU countries lobbied against Cheddar
becoming a designated regional brand?
Weren't these changes more than balanced out by our increased exports,
particularly of services?
No one you might meet in the street was complaining
about the EU, until Cameron announced the referendum.
That’s bullshit. That was the reason that a number of
the major parties had promised a referendum in their
manifestos before that.
Post by Pamela
Why should they? We enjoyed decades of
increased prosperity.
But many didn’t like the hordes of EU citizens who
showed up and what that did to house prices and
jobs and pay rates.
Peeler
2019-10-06 23:24:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 10:17:37 +1100, ZakJames, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the nym-shifting senile Australian retard's latest trollshit>

Get the fuck out of normally evolved humans' ngs, you anomalous 85-year-old
trolling senile asshole!
--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$***@news.mixmin.net>
Pamela
2019-10-07 10:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
On 5 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:07:16 +0100, Keema's Nan
On 5 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:16:24 +0100, Keema's Nan
On 5 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On 4 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
SNIP
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once
we are out of the EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the
EU than rejoin later.
How can you know this, when you have no experience of what life
outside the EU for the UK will be like?
For one reason the UK gets a more favourable deal than other
countries as part of our EU membership. If we left and rejoined
there is not guarantee that we would keep the favourable terms.
We are not talking about life after rejoining. Life after leaving
is the subject, and you know nothing about it - except for the hype
you have read/been told.
It is foolish to restrict this debate to such narrow criteria. And
you know more than you have read/been told? I doubt it.
I know that life prior to joining the EEC in 1973 was not a problem.
Ok so we didn't spend half the year importing tasteless salad veg from
Holland or Spain, we just went without. Similarly with strawberries,
raspberries and blueberries in the winter (in fact few of us had ever
heard of blueberries). We ate Cape fruit over the summer months, and
oranges/lemons seemed to come from Israel.
We also had a year round supply of lamb by importing meat from New
Zealand and Australia when ours was not available.
Pre 1973 we did not import £171 million worth of pork a year from
Denmark, when we are perfectly capable of rearing our own pigs.
Also, we did not import £270 million worth of potatoes a year from
Belgium and the Netherlands when they can be grown perfectly well in
the UK.
And just why we now import £143 million worth of Cheddar cheese from
the EU is a mystery no one seems to answer, especially as Cheddar is
in the UK.Presumably that is why EU countries lobbied against Cheddar
becoming a designated regional brand?
Weren't these changes more than balanced out by our increased exports,
particularly of services?
No one you might meet in the street was complaining about the EU, until
Cameron announced the referendum.
That’s bullshit. That was the reason that a number of the major parties
had promised a referendum in their manifestos before that.
You have never set foot in the UK, Rod, so how would you know?
The Natural Philosopher
2019-10-07 01:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
No one you might meet in the street was complaining about the EU, until
Cameron announced the referendum.  Why should they?  We enjoyed
decades of
increased prosperity.
So why did 52% of voters vote to leave the EU?
Was it because they were completely satisfied with the EU?
Pamela lives in a bubble.
Loads of people wround here were well pissed off not only with the EU
but with the British political class.

They may not have gone to Eton or got PPES at Oxford, but they can smell
a wrong 'un a mile off.
--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin
Joe
2019-10-07 08:10:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
Post by Pamela
We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.

Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.

We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
--
Joe
AlexK
2019-10-07 08:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
We enjoyed decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't.
Most did actually.
Post by Joe
All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
While very little of it came from politics, most didn't
come from science and engineering either. Most of
it came from the economy picking up significantly
completely independently of politics.
Post by Joe
Do you not remember life before the EU?
When the NHS was at least adequate,
Still is much more than adequate.
Post by Joe
when policemen patrolled the streets,
But the serious crime rate wasn't any better.
Post by Joe
when council workers swept the streets,
Mostly they didn't, just avoided doing that.
Post by Joe
when potholes were repaired immediately
Plenty of them werent.
Post by Joe
and roads resurfaced much more often,
Because they didn't do that very well at all.
Post by Joe
when every park had resident keepers,
They work fine without them. So do public lavatorys.
Post by Joe
and so on.
Yeah, like the minors strikes, 3 day weeks due to strikes etc etc etc.
Post by Joe
We are so much more prosperous now
We are indeed by every measure that matters.
Post by Joe
that we cannot afford those things.
Choose not to piss the money against the wall on that stuff.
Peeler
2019-10-07 09:26:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 19:32:59 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
Post by Joe
Some people did. Most didn't.
Most did actually.
LOL Auto-contradicting senile arsehole!
--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <***@85.214.115.223>
Ian Jackson
2019-10-07 08:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
Post by Pamela
We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
But is this because we are 'choosing' not to afford them? Are the
shortages largely self-inflicted?

Is my memory failing me, but wasn't there a time when income tax was (at
least) 28%, and not the 20% of today? The things you list above are paid
for out of taxes, and if I'm correct, it doesn't take a genius to think
of a way of restoring them to their previous level.

And note that none of this has anything to do with us being in the EU.
--
Ian
abelard
2019-10-07 08:56:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:47:18 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
Post by Pamela
We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
But is this because we are 'choosing' not to afford them? Are the
shortages largely self-inflicted?
Is my memory failing me, but wasn't there a time when income tax was (at
least) 28%, and not the 20% of today? The things you list above are paid
for out of taxes, and if I'm correct, it doesn't take a genius to think
of a way of restoring them to their previous level.
And note that none of this has anything to do with us being in the EU.
all tax comes out of production...
it doesn't matter a damn whether you call it 'income tax' or 'vat'
or 'quantitative easing' or 'business tax' or 'postage rates' or
50 other fake labels
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2019-10-07 10:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
Post by Pamela
  We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
But is this because we are 'choosing' not to afford them? Are the
shortages largely self-inflicted?
Is my memory failing me, but wasn't there a time when income tax was (at
least) 28%, and not the 20% of today? The things you list above are paid
for out of taxes, and if I'm correct, it doesn't take a genius to think
of a way of restoring them to their previous level.
And note that none of this has anything to do with us being in the EU.
There was a time, within my working life, when the *standard* rate of
income tax was more than 40% (ie, more than eight shillings in the
pound, as it used to be expressed). I paid tax (though not much of it)
at that rate. The standard rate has now been decreased to 22% (that's
20% tax and 2% extra on National Insurance, the difference between the
two being only a word).

But VAT applies now to almost everything one might buy, with very few
exceptions. I can remember a time when food, whether bought at a shop of
at a restaurant, clothing, cinema tickets and car repairs / spares
didn't have any tax attached to them.

Was the overall tax burden higher or lower just before VAT was
introduced (and the standard rate of income tax was still well over 30%)?
abelard
2019-10-07 10:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Joe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
Post by Pamela
  We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
But is this because we are 'choosing' not to afford them? Are the
shortages largely self-inflicted?
Is my memory failing me, but wasn't there a time when income tax was (at
least) 28%, and not the 20% of today? The things you list above are paid
for out of taxes, and if I'm correct, it doesn't take a genius to think
of a way of restoring them to their previous level.
And note that none of this has anything to do with us being in the EU.
There was a time, within my working life, when the *standard* rate of
income tax was more than 40% (ie, more than eight shillings in the
pound, as it used to be expressed). I paid tax (though not much of it)
at that rate. The standard rate has now been decreased to 22% (that's
20% tax and 2% extra on National Insurance, the difference between the
two being only a word).
But VAT applies now to almost everything one might buy, with very few
exceptions. I can remember a time when food, whether bought at a shop of
at a restaurant, clothing, cinema tickets and car repairs / spares
didn't have any tax attached to them.
Was the overall tax burden higher or lower just before VAT was
introduced (and the standard rate of income tax was still well over 30%)?
the sane way to assess the tax rate is to calculate the percentage
government spends in the overall economy

in britain, last i looked that was about half the gdp...ie, total
frigged production numbers
in much of europe it approaches 60%
--
www.abelard.org
Norman Wells
2019-10-07 11:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
There was a time, within my working life, when the *standard* rate of
income tax was more than 40% (ie, more than eight shillings in the
pound, as it used to be expressed). I paid tax (though not much of it)
at that rate. The standard rate has now been decreased to 22% (that's
20% tax and 2% extra on National Insurance, the difference between the
two being only a word).
But VAT applies now to almost everything one might buy, with very few
exceptions. I can remember a time when food, whether bought at a shop of
at a restaurant, clothing, cinema tickets and car repairs / spares
didn't have any tax attached to them.
Was the overall tax burden higher or lower just before VAT was
introduced (and the standard rate of income tax was still well over 30%)?
There's an interesting chart here, but it only goes back to 1990:

https://moneyweek.com/493358/chart-of-the-week-britains-tax-burden/

"The UK has the 22nd-highest tax-to-GDP ratio out of 80 countries,
according to data from the OECD"

And the following says:

"This year[2018], taxes will account for 34.3 per cent of GDP, the
highest since 1969-70 when the figure was 35.0 per cent"

https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/highest_tax_burden_this_year_since_1969_70

I think this indicates the overall tax burden has been between 30 and
35% for the last 50 years or so, and probably longer.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-07 11:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by JNugent
There was a time, within my working life, when the *standard* rate of
income tax was more than 40% (ie, more than eight shillings in the
pound, as it used to be expressed). I paid tax (though not much of it)
at that rate. The standard rate has now been decreased to 22% (that's
20% tax and 2% extra on National Insurance, the difference between the
two being only a word).
But VAT applies now to almost everything one might buy, with very few
exceptions. I can remember a time when food, whether bought at a shop of
at a restaurant, clothing, cinema tickets and car repairs / spares
didn't have any tax attached to them.
Was the overall tax burden higher or lower just before VAT was
introduced (and the standard rate of income tax was still well over 30%)?
https://moneyweek.com/493358/chart-of-the-week-britains-tax-burden/
"The UK has the 22nd-highest tax-to-GDP ratio out of 80 countries,
according to data from the OECD"
"This year[2018], taxes will account for 34.3 per cent of GDP, the
highest since 1969-70 when the figure was 35.0 per cent"
https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/highest_tax_burden_this_year_since_1969_70
I think this indicates the overall tax burden has been between 30 and
35% for the last 50 years or so, and probably longer.
Although that page also says that the bottom 10% of earners pay 49.5% of
their income in tax.

Isn’t that rather difficult when they can earn over £11000 before they pay
any income tax at all? Surely they are not spending their wages exclusively
on high VAT items?
JNugent
2019-10-07 14:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by JNugent
There was a time, within my working life, when the *standard* rate of
income tax was more than 40% (ie, more than eight shillings in the
pound, as it used to be expressed). I paid tax (though not much of it)
at that rate. The standard rate has now been decreased to 22% (that's
20% tax and 2% extra on National Insurance, the difference between the
two being only a word).
But VAT applies now to almost everything one might buy, with very few
exceptions. I can remember a time when food, whether bought at a shop of
at a restaurant, clothing, cinema tickets and car repairs / spares
didn't have any tax attached to them.
Was the overall tax burden higher or lower just before VAT was
introduced (and the standard rate of income tax was still well over 30%)?
https://moneyweek.com/493358/chart-of-the-week-britains-tax-burden/
"The UK has the 22nd-highest tax-to-GDP ratio out of 80 countries,
according to data from the OECD"
"This year[2018], taxes will account for 34.3 per cent of GDP, the
highest since 1969-70 when the figure was 35.0 per cent"
https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/highest_tax_burden_this_year_since_1969_70
I think this indicates the overall tax burden has been between 30 and
35% for the last 50 years or so, and probably longer.
Although that page also says that the bottom 10% of earners pay 49.5% of
their income in tax.
The more tobacco one smokes, the larger the proportion of one's income
is paid in tax. The same is true for alcohol (some types more than
others) and motor fuel. Tey all carry marginal duties which are far
higher than the 20% VAT they also carry.
Post by Keema's Nan
Isn’t that rather difficult when they can earn over £11000 before they pay
any income tax at all? Surely they are not spending their wages exclusively
on high VAT items?
High excise duties rather than income or flat rate taxes.
abelard
2019-10-07 08:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
Post by Pamela
We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
but we can now afford more politicians
--
www.abelard.org
The Natural Philosopher
2019-10-07 09:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
Post by Pamela
We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
Its rather like the housing situation back in the days when women stayed
at home.
Suddenly women who worked as well as dad could jointly afford much nicer
houses. Soon everyine was doing it, and house prices simply doubled.
Now no husband can afford to have his wife NOT work.
--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
Keema's Nan
2019-10-07 10:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Joe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
Post by Pamela
We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
Its rather like the housing situation back in the days when women stayed
at home.
Suddenly women who worked as well as dad could jointly afford much nicer
houses. Soon everyine was doing it, and house prices simply doubled.
Now no husband can afford to have his wife NOT work.
My son-in-law can, and does.
abelard
2019-10-07 10:05:35 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 11:02:25 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Joe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
Post by Pamela
We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
Its rather like the housing situation back in the days when women stayed
at home.
Suddenly women who worked as well as dad could jointly afford much nicer
houses. Soon everyine was doing it, and house prices simply doubled.
Now no husband can afford to have his wife NOT work.
My son-in-law can, and does.
all house must be split into single box units....

nobody is capable of living with others any more
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2019-10-07 10:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Joe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
Post by Pamela
We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
Its rather like the housing situation back in the days when women stayed
at home.
Suddenly women who worked as well as dad could jointly afford much nicer
houses. Soon everyine was doing it, and house prices simply doubled.
Now no husband can afford to have his wife NOT work.
My son-in-law can, and does.
The new thinking is that an old style family is regressive. Even repressive.

It's now work for all. Almost, er, work makes you free .... and equal.
michael adams
2019-10-07 10:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 23:29:13 +0100
Post by Pamela
We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate,
(All figures taken from graphs)

age-standardised mortality rates from all causes of death in
1973 both sexes were c.1,900 per 100,000. In 2017 they were
c.1,000 per 100,000

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/827518/Recent_trends_in_mortality_in_England.pdf

Check for yourself if you don't believe me. And that's without
advances such as keyhole surgery where patients can go home
the same day instead of maybe a week in hospital before.

(page 16)
Post by Joe
when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately
and roads resurfaced much more often,
UK Licenced Vehicles 2014 35.6 million
1973 17 million

https://www.licencebureau.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/road-use-statistics.pdf

(page 9)

As well as the M25 completed 1986, there were around 185 additions
to the motorway network of various length made beween 1973 and 1911

http://www.ukmotorwayarchive.org.uk/en/openings/index.cfm
Post by Joe
when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those
things.
Two things. Large parts of manufacture have moved to China
produced in factories financed largely by western capital;
so that in general there's been a large shift of wealth to
the Far East. Secondly the realive decline in the Uk has
been masked to an extent, for political reasons, by a lowering
of direct taxation which means less Central Govt funding to
Local Govt for things like the police and park keepers.
Basically Councils can't raise the Community Charge so when
costs increase local services suffer.

Oh and not forgetting that in 1973 everyone was 46 years
younger.


michael adams

...
Pamela
2019-10-07 11:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
The NHS was far from adequate in those days. We accepted low standards of
care as normal, cover ups of bad practice abounded, mortality rates were
poorer and clinical outcomes less good than now.

Same goes for the shoddy standards of public services in general in those
days. Public sector workers were overpaid with cushy hours meaning huge
numbers had to be employed to get the job done. All this at the cost of
the taxpayer who generates the real wealth of the country.

Quality of life by almost all measures is far greater now than it was in
those rosy-tinted days of old.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-07 11:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
We enjoyed
decades of increased prosperity.
Some people did. Most didn't. All the improvements to life come from
science and engineering, not politics.
Do you not remember life before the EU? When the NHS was at least
adequate, when policemen patrolled the streets, when council workers
swept the streets, when potholes were repaired immediately and roads
resurfaced much more often, when every park had resident keepers, and
so on.
We are so much more prosperous now that we cannot afford those things.
The NHS was far from adequate in those days. We accepted low standards of
care as normal, cover ups of bad practice abounded, mortality rates were
poorer and clinical outcomes less good than now.
Same goes for the shoddy standards of public services in general in those
days.
Do you mean - like the bin men who would walk to the back of each house,
collect the dustbin, empty it onto the lorry, and take the empty bin back to
where they found it?
Public sector workers were overpaid with cushy hours
Did your conditioned hours include working Saturday morning?

Not particularly cushy - the 45 hour week.
meaning huge
numbers had to be employed to get the job done. All this at the cost of
the taxpayer who generates the real wealth of the country.
Quality of life by almost all measures is far greater now than it was in
those rosy-tinted days of old.
Pamela
2019-10-07 10:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
On 5 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:07:16 +0100, Keema's Nan
On 5 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:16:24 +0100, Keema's Nan
On 5 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On 4 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
SNIP
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once
we are out of the EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the EU
than rejoin later.
How can you know this, when you have no experience of what life
outside the EU for the UK will be like?
For one reason the UK gets a more favourable deal than other
countries as part of our EU membership. If we left and rejoined
there is not guarantee that we would keep the favourable terms.
We are not talking about life after rejoining. Life after leaving is
the subject, and you know nothing about it - except for the hype you
have read/been told.
It is foolish to restrict this debate to such narrow criteria. And
you know more than you have read/been told? I doubt it.
I know that life prior to joining the EEC in 1973 was not a problem.
Ok so we didn't spend half the year importing tasteless salad veg from
Holland or Spain, we just went without. Similarly with strawberries,
raspberries and blueberries in the winter (in fact few of us had ever
heard of blueberries). We ate Cape fruit over the summer months, and
oranges/lemons seemed to come from Israel.
We also had a year round supply of lamb by importing meat from New
Zealand and Australia when ours was not available.
Pre 1973 we did not import £171 million worth of pork a year from
Denmark, when we are perfectly capable of rearing our own pigs.
Also, we did not import £270 million worth of potatoes a year from
Belgium and the Netherlands when they can be grown perfectly well in
the UK.
And just why we now import £143 million worth of Cheddar cheese from
the EU is a mystery no one seems to answer, especially as Cheddar is
in the UK.Presumably that is why EU countries lobbied against Cheddar
becoming a designated regional brand?
Weren't these changes more than balanced out by our increased exports,
particularly of services?
No one you might meet in the street was complaining about the EU, until
Cameron announced the referendum. Why should they? We enjoyed decades
of increased prosperity.
So why did 52% of voters vote to leave the EU?
Was it because they were completely satisfied with the EU?
Too many of the 52% were fooled by false promises, others cast protest
votes against Cameron and his austerity government hoping for an easy
windfall, yet others didn't properly realise what leaving entailed.

Some wanted to leave the EU after years of remorseless propaganda from the
right wing media.

Nowadays it's unlikely there's any majority at all for leaving. The real
majority is for Remaining as a second referendum will show.
JNugent
2019-10-07 10:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
On 5 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:07:16 +0100, Keema's Nan
On 5 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:16:24 +0100, Keema's Nan
On 5 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On 4 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
SNIP
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once
we are out of the EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the EU
than rejoin later.
How can you know this, when you have no experience of what life
outside the EU for the UK will be like?
For one reason the UK gets a more favourable deal than other
countries as part of our EU membership. If we left and rejoined
there is not guarantee that we would keep the favourable terms.
We are not talking about life after rejoining. Life after leaving is
the subject, and you know nothing about it - except for the hype you
have read/been told.
It is foolish to restrict this debate to such narrow criteria. And
you know more than you have read/been told? I doubt it.
I know that life prior to joining the EEC in 1973 was not a problem.
Ok so we didn't spend half the year importing tasteless salad veg from
Holland or Spain, we just went without. Similarly with strawberries,
raspberries and blueberries in the winter (in fact few of us had ever
heard of blueberries). We ate Cape fruit over the summer months, and
oranges/lemons seemed to come from Israel.
We also had a year round supply of lamb by importing meat from New
Zealand and Australia when ours was not available.
Pre 1973 we did not import £171 million worth of pork a year from
Denmark, when we are perfectly capable of rearing our own pigs.
Also, we did not import £270 million worth of potatoes a year from
Belgium and the Netherlands when they can be grown perfectly well in
the UK.
And just why we now import £143 million worth of Cheddar cheese from
the EU is a mystery no one seems to answer, especially as Cheddar is
in the UK.Presumably that is why EU countries lobbied against Cheddar
becoming a designated regional brand?
Weren't these changes more than balanced out by our increased exports,
particularly of services?
No one you might meet in the street was complaining about the EU, until
Cameron announced the referendum. Why should they? We enjoyed decades
of increased prosperity.
So why did 52% of voters vote to leave the EU?
Was it because they were completely satisfied with the EU?
Too many of the 52% were fooled by false promises,
Ah, yes... the old "false consciousness" argument whereby Marxists
justified the denial of democracy (and still do, in some places).
Post by Pamela
others cast protest
votes against Cameron and his austerity government hoping for an easy
windfall, yet others didn't properly realise what leaving entailed.
Some wanted to leave the EU after years of remorseless propaganda from the
right wing media.
Nowadays it's unlikely there's any majority at all for leaving. The real
majority is for Remaining as a second referendum will show.
Roger Hayter
2019-10-05 13:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:16:24 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On 4 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
On 4 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:13:31 +0100,
09:41, abelard wrote: > > > > yours is a minority
opinion...and this pretends to be > >a democracy > > Leave
is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that
matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be
continuous.
Is this your way of saying "if we don't like one democratic
result, we will ignore that until we manage to get a majority
for one we approve of"?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone
forever. The main reason that leavers don't want another
referendum is that they know it would have a different result.
Very likely. However, what is the point of having a second
referendum when we cannot even respect the decision of the first
one?
Because we know a lot more about what Brexit means now than we did
in 2016.
Is that the best you can do?
Can do do "better"?
Post by Keema's Nan
Would you agree to having a general election a year or so after the
previous one, on the grounds that we know a lot more about actual
government policy than we learned from their manifesto?
Why a year or so? We have them every few years already.
Every 5 years according to the law; and even if the victorious party have
a small parliamentary majority they are still allowed to govern. They are
not told to have a second election because the voters may not have known
what they were voting for.
In fact, before the FTPA this happened rather frequently when we had a
government with a small majority (about 4% perhaps??). They were
forced to "go to the country for a further mandate", or possibly
complete defeat if it had become clear they were not acceptable. Sound
familiar?
--
Roger Hayter
Joe
2019-10-05 17:18:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 15:36:31 +0100
Only in 1966 and 1974, which is not what I would describe as “rather
frequently” before the fixed term act was passed.
Don't forget that Blair used to talk about 'three full terms', when he
never actually finished one. And I saw Maggie get pushed into an early
election (which she won) by the media refusing to talk about anything
else.

But do we keep holding elections every few months until one party gets
a reasonable working majority, or do we insist that a minority
government just gets on with it for five years?
--
Joe
Stephen Cole
2019-10-05 12:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:16:24 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:14:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don’t like one democratic result, we
will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one we approve of”?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone forever.
The main reason that leavers don't want another referendum is that
they know it would have a different result.
Very likely. However, what is the point of having a second referendum when we
cannot even respect the decision of the first one?
Because we know a lot more about what Brexit means now than we did in
2016.
Is that the best you can do?
Can do do "better"?
Post by Keema's Nan
Would you agree to having a general election a year or so after the previous
one, on the grounds that we know a lot more about actual government policy
than we learned from their manifesto?
Why a year or so? We have them every few years already.
Do remember that Brexiters *never* want another referedum.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark
We can have as many second referendums as the PM likes once we are out of the
EU, but not until that point.
Why wait until then? It would be a lot better to stay in the EU than
rejoin later.
How can you know this, when you have no experience of what life outside the
EU for the UK will be like?
For one reason the UK gets a more favourable deal than other countries
as part of our EU membership.
Hmm, we are a net contributor, have a massive trade deficit with the EU,
import their economic migrants and fund their (imaginary in some cases)
families in their home countries, give them loans to study they don’t
repay, ......
You're making this up.
You must be the ideal patsy for people offering get rich quick schemes.
Are you trolling?
Unfortunately, Brian’s been radicalised and he can’t tell reality from
fiction any more.
--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-05 13:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
And neither do Brexiters have any evidence that we would be better off
outside the EU.
They have the word of that nice Mr Farage on R4 Any Questions. He assured
the audience all of us in the UK will do very well with a no deal Brexit.
Surely you can't be suggesting he is lying?
--
*I never drink water because of the disgusting things that fish do in it..

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-05 14:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Mark
And neither do Brexiters have any evidence that we would be better off
outside the EU.
They have the word of that nice Mr Farage on R4 Any Questions. He assured
the audience all of us in the UK will do very well with a no deal Brexit.
Surely you can't be suggesting he is lying?
All politicians are lying.

What is strange though, is how some people will believe the ones who say we
will be better off in the EU when the trade figures of -£80 billion per
annum prove otherwise (and we have to pay for the privilege of running that
deficit); but refuse to believe someone who says ’surely, we must be able
to do better than that on our own’?
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-05 15:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Mark
And neither do Brexiters have any evidence that we would be better
off outside the EU.
They have the word of that nice Mr Farage on R4 Any Questions. He
assured the audience all of us in the UK will do very well with a no
deal Brexit. Surely you can't be suggesting he is lying?
All politicians are lying.
What is strange though, is how some people will believe the ones who say
we will be better off in the EU when the trade figures of -£80 billion
per annum prove otherwise (and we have to pay for the privilege of
running that deficit); but refuse to believe someone who says ‘surely,
we must be able to do better than that on our own‘?
Another who doesn't understand trade and services. Check my earlier post.
--
*I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
AlexK
2019-10-05 09:44:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 08:00:51 +1000
The whole point of the poll tax was it was sold as being
fairer. How could that be the case when my widowed OAP
mother living on a very modest income in her own modest
house not only paid more than the old rates, but paid the
same as the working rich single bloke across the road in a
house 4 times the size, who paid a lot less than with rates?
Because both are using the same services.
Really? The large house across the road has a bigger frontage.
Requires more sweeping. And all his cars wear out the road
quicker than my mother's shoes. And so on.
If your mother walks everywhere, she will not be paying a separate
car tax for road upkeep, unlike the multi-car owner.
Surely you don't think VED actually pays for road upkeep?
The total collected in all car taxes including the tax on fuel likely
does tho.
https://www.racfoundation.org/data/road-user-taxation-highways-spending-data-chart
And that's not just road upkeep, its also road rebuilding to help with
congestion etc.
Peeler
2019-10-05 10:34:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 19:44:32 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
And that's not just road upkeep, its also road rebuilding to help with
congestion etc.
That's about UK roads! So, NONE of yours, senile Ozzie pest!
--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID: <plbf76$gfl$***@dont-email.me>
AlexK
2019-10-05 09:47:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 00:31:25 +0100
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:13:31 +0100, Vidcapper
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Yes, that is why we have elections every 5 years - but we do actually
implement the result of the 1st election and see how it goes before
we have a 2nd election.
Maybe if we don't like the result of the next election, we should
delay the change of government for a few years, add some new laws
that to try and force the result we want and then have a new
election, without the winning MPs and government ever taking up their
positions?
We could eliminate General Elections and hold bye-elections in every
constituency every four years or so. Three or four a week, scattered
around the country.
Continuous assessment. And while we're wishing, let's have term limits
for MPs. Parliament should be a service, not a career.
Problem with that approach is that it gets rid of those who understand the
basics.
Peeler
2019-10-05 10:37:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 19:47:15 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
Problem with
The only problem here is that you are a lonely, senile, mentally disturbed
troll, senile Rodent!
--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$***@news.mixmin.net>
abelard
2019-10-05 09:51:43 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 14:50:25 +0100, Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don’t like one democratic result, we
will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one we approve of”?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone forever.
The main reason that leavers don't want another referendum is that
they know it would have a different result.
so your latest answer to democracy is...

set up a dictatorship where the results are not applied while
anti-democrats like you can wait in the endless hope of a
different result in some undefined future

adolf and uncle joe would be proud of you
--
www.abelard.org
Mark
2019-10-05 10:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 14:50:25 +0100, Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don’t like one democratic result, we
will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one we approve of”?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone forever.
The main reason that leavers don't want another referendum is that
they know it would have a different result.
so your latest answer to democracy is...
set up a dictatorship where the results are not applied while
anti-democrats like you can wait in the endless hope of a
different result in some undefined future
No.
I think you are trolling.
Post by abelard
adolf and uncle joe would be proud of you
Ah Yes. Proof you are trolling. *PLONK*
--
Little Britain leaves. Great Britain stays.
abelard
2019-10-05 11:04:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:42:08 +0100, Mark
Post by Mark
Post by abelard
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 14:50:25 +0100, Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don’t like one democratic result, we
will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one we approve of”?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone forever.
The main reason that leavers don't want another referendum is that
they know it would have a different result.
so your latest answer to democracy is...
set up a dictatorship where the results are not applied while
anti-democrats like you can wait in the endless hope of a
different result in some undefined future
No.
I think you are trolling.
Post by abelard
adolf and uncle joe would be proud of you
Ah Yes. Proof you are trolling. *PLONK*
so...
1)you wish to distract from your anti-democratic behaviour...
and
2)you can't cope...
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-10-05 12:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by abelard
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 14:50:25 +0100, Mark
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
yours is a minority opinion...and this pretends to be a democracy
Leave is also a minority opinion.
It wasn't on Jun 23rd 2016, which is the only date that matters!
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don’t like one democratic result, we
will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one we approve of”?
No. But any result from a vote should not be locked in stone forever.
The main reason that leavers don't want another referendum is that
they know it would have a different result.
so your latest answer to democracy is...
set up a dictatorship where the results are not applied while
anti-democrats like you can wait in the endless hope of a
different result in some undefined future
No.
I think you are trolling.
Post by abelard
adolf and uncle joe would be proud of you
Ah Yes. Proof you are trolling. *PLONK*
Oh dear. Someone seems to have lost an argument.
AlexK
2019-10-05 10:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The whole point of the poll tax was it was sold as being fairer. How
could
that be the case when my widowed OAP mother living on a very modest
income
in her own modest house not only paid more than the old rates, but
paid
the same as the working rich single bloke across the road in a house 4
times the size, who paid a lot less than with rates?
Because both are using the same services.
Really? The large house across the road has a bigger frontage. Requires
more sweeping. And all his cars wear out the road quicker than my
mother's
shoes. And so on.
That's a bit desperate as an "argument", surely?
One could, with more justification, point to family make-up as a factor,
since children need to be educated and older people are more likely to
require the use of the council's social services.
Neither of those are connected to frontage size, though.
(a) a flat per capita tax (the Community Charge),
(b) a local sales tax (a VAT supplement, though with a strict cap
provision to prevent spendthrift councils for gouging residents and
those who make purchases in the area even though not living there) and
(c) charging directly for (some) services.
I would go for (b).
I wouldn’t with so much bought online now and
that approach would encourage the consumers
with cars to shop where the local sales tax is
lower which isnt necessarily their own area.
What's the problem with that?
It penalises those who can't shop other than
locally who don’t have cars to do that. And
encourages more use of already loss making
public transport. And adds more complexity
for no useful result.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
The fact that high-ticket items could simply bought in an area with
lower sales taxes would act as a brake on high-spending authorities and
in fact, neighbouring areas would be in competition with each other.
And that would produce more traffic on the roads.
The effect would be marginal.
Here in the SE, there is already a tendency for buyers to congregate at
the large regional shopping centres (Lakeside, Bluewater, Galleria,
Westgate, etc)
Because its more convenient to do everything in one
place which has ample parking for those with cars.
Post by JNugent
because local authorities are unbelievably acquisitive and
dog-in-the-manger over parking.
That’s a minor effect compare with the other one.
Peeler
2019-10-05 10:36:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 20:04:18 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
What's the problem with that?
It penalises those who can't shop other than
Someone actually asked you trolling senile arsehole a question? Now he gets
penalized for it! LOL
--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
JNugent
2019-10-05 14:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The whole point of the poll tax was it was sold as being fairer.
How could
that be the case when my widowed OAP mother living on a very
modest income
in her own modest house not only paid more than the old rates,
but paid
the same as the working rich single bloke across the road in a house 4
times the size, who paid a lot less than with rates?
Because both are using the same services.
Really? The large house across the road has a bigger frontage. Requires
more sweeping. And all his cars wear out the road quicker than my
mother's
shoes. And so on.
That's a bit desperate as an "argument", surely?
One could, with more justification, point to family make-up as a
factor, since children need to be educated and older people are more
likely to require the use of the council's social services.
Neither of those are connected to frontage size, though.
(a) a flat per capita tax (the Community Charge),
(b) a local sales tax (a VAT supplement, though with a strict cap
provision to prevent spendthrift councils for gouging residents and
those who make purchases in the area even though not living there) and
(c) charging directly for (some) services.
I would go for (b).
I wouldn’t with so much bought online now and
that approach would encourage the consumers
with cars to shop where the local sales tax is
lower which isnt necessarily their own area.
What's the problem with that?
It penalises those who can't shop other than
locally who don’t have cars to do that. And
encourages more use of already loss making
public transport. And adds more complexity
for no useful result.
Are you saying that a council which helps people by imposing a lower
sales tax is actually penalising them?

Really?
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
The fact that high-ticket items could simply bought in an area with
lower sales taxes would act as a brake on high-spending authorities
and in fact, neighbouring areas would be in competition with each other.
And that would produce more traffic on the roads.
The effect would be marginal.
Here in the SE, there is already a tendency for buyers to congregate
at the large regional shopping centres (Lakeside, Bluewater, Galleria,
Westgate, etc)
Because its more convenient to do everything in one
place which has ample parking for those with cars.
True.

Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it would
be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere. At
least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the odd
bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
because local authorities are unbelievably acquisitive and
dog-in-the-manger over parking.
That’s a minor effect compare with the other one.
I don't accept that. Parking in towns is unnecessarily difficult and
expensive.
AlexK
2019-10-05 19:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The whole point of the poll tax was it was sold as being fairer.
How could
that be the case when my widowed OAP mother living on a very modest
income
in her own modest house not only paid more than the old rates, but
paid
the same as the working rich single bloke across the road in a house 4
times the size, who paid a lot less than with rates?
Because both are using the same services.
Really? The large house across the road has a bigger frontage. Requires
more sweeping. And all his cars wear out the road quicker than my
mother's
shoes. And so on.
That's a bit desperate as an "argument", surely?
One could, with more justification, point to family make-up as a
factor, since children need to be educated and older people are more
likely to require the use of the council's social services.
Neither of those are connected to frontage size, though.
(a) a flat per capita tax (the Community Charge),
(b) a local sales tax (a VAT supplement, though with a strict cap
provision to prevent spendthrift councils for gouging residents and
those who make purchases in the area even though not living there) and
(c) charging directly for (some) services.
I would go for (b).
I wouldn’t with so much bought online now and
that approach would encourage the consumers
with cars to shop where the local sales tax is
lower which isnt necessarily their own area.
What's the problem with that?
It penalises those who can't shop other than
locally who don’t have cars to do that. And
encourages more use of already loss making
public transport. And adds more complexity
for no useful result.
Are you saying that a council which helps people by imposing a lower sales
tax is actually penalising them?
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
The fact that high-ticket items could simply bought in an area with
lower sales taxes would act as a brake on high-spending authorities
and in fact, neighbouring areas would be in competition with each other.
And that would produce more traffic on the roads.
The effect would be marginal. Here in the SE, there is already a
tendency for buyers to congregate at the large regional shopping centres
(Lakeside, Bluewater, Galleria, Westgate, etc)
Because its more convenient to do everything in one
place which has ample parking for those with cars.
True.
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it would
be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere. At least,
they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the odd bottle of
milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be self-limiting, because
LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers such as car dealers,
furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
because local authorities are unbelievably acquisitive and
dog-in-the-manger over parking.
That’s a minor effect compare with the other one.
I don't accept that. Parking in towns is unnecessarily difficult and
expensive.
It’s a minor effect in the sense that its not the main reason
that most shop in the massive malls now if they have cars.
Peeler
2019-10-05 19:41:36 UTC
Permalink
rOn Sun, 6 Oct 2019 06:25:03 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Are you saying that a council which helps people by imposing a lower sales
tax is actually penalising them?
No,
LOL Did you just get another one of your tiny miserable senile online
orgasms, you anomalous 85-year-old trolling senile pest?
--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <***@85.214.115.223>
JNugent
2019-10-05 23:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The whole point of the poll tax was it was sold as being
fairer. How could
that be the case when my widowed OAP mother living on a very
modest income
in her own modest house not only paid more than the old rates,
but paid
the same as the working rich single bloke across the road in a house 4
times the size, who paid a lot less than with rates?
Because both are using the same services.
Really? The large house across the road has a bigger frontage. Requires
more sweeping. And all his cars wear out the road quicker than my
mother's
shoes. And so on.
That's a bit desperate as an "argument", surely?
One could, with more justification, point to family make-up as a
factor, since children need to be educated and older people are
more likely to require the use of the council's social services.
Neither of those are connected to frontage size, though.
(a) a flat per capita tax (the Community Charge),
(b) a local sales tax (a VAT supplement, though with a strict cap
provision to prevent spendthrift councils for gouging residents
and those who make purchases in the area even though not living
there) and
(c) charging directly for (some) services.
I would go for (b).
I wouldn’t with so much bought online now and
that approach would encourage the consumers
with cars to shop where the local sales tax is
lower which isnt necessarily their own area.
What's the problem with that?
It penalises those who can't shop other than
locally who don’t have cars to do that. And
encourages more use of already loss making
public transport. And adds more complexity
for no useful result.
Are you saying that a council which helps people by imposing a lower
sales tax is actually penalising them?
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least with
a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at least, to
spending, which is a better indicator of income than officially-declared
income). And for high priced items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in
a low-taxed authority area.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
The fact that high-ticket items could simply bought in an area
with lower sales taxes would act as a brake on high-spending
authorities and in fact, neighbouring areas would be in
competition with each other.
And that would produce more traffic on the roads.
The effect would be marginal. Here in the SE, there is already a
tendency for buyers to congregate at the large regional shopping
centres (Lakeside, Bluewater, Galleria, Westgate, etc)
Because its more convenient to do everything in one
place which has ample parking for those with cars.
True.
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere.
At least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the
odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
because local authorities are unbelievably acquisitive and
dog-in-the-manger over parking.
That’s a minor effect compare with the other one.
I don't accept that. Parking in towns is unnecessarily difficult and
expensive.
It’s a minor effect in the sense that its not the main reason
that most shop in the massive malls now if they have cars.
AlexK
2019-10-06 05:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The whole point of the poll tax was it was sold as being fairer.
How could
that be the case when my widowed OAP mother living on a very
modest income
in her own modest house not only paid more than the old rates,
but paid
the same as the working rich single bloke across the road in a house 4
times the size, who paid a lot less than with rates?
Because both are using the same services.
Really? The large house across the road has a bigger frontage. Requires
more sweeping. And all his cars wear out the road quicker than my
mother's
shoes. And so on.
That's a bit desperate as an "argument", surely?
One could, with more justification, point to family make-up as a
factor, since children need to be educated and older people are more
likely to require the use of the council's social services.
Neither of those are connected to frontage size, though.
(a) a flat per capita tax (the Community Charge),
(b) a local sales tax (a VAT supplement, though with a strict cap
provision to prevent spendthrift councils for gouging residents and
those who make purchases in the area even though not living there) and
(c) charging directly for (some) services.
I would go for (b).
I wouldn’t with so much bought online now and
that approach would encourage the consumers
with cars to shop where the local sales tax is
lower which isnt necessarily their own area.
What's the problem with that?
It penalises those who can't shop other than
locally who don’t have cars to do that. And
encourages more use of already loss making
public transport. And adds more complexity
for no useful result.
Are you saying that a council which helps people by imposing a lower
sales tax is actually penalising them?
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life.
But it doesn’t have to be life with your proposed sales tax.

We can reject that proposal because of that downside.
Post by JNugent
At least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or
at least, to spending,
Not necessarily while ever some things like
uncooked food ingredients etc are VAT free.
Post by JNugent
which is a better indicator of income than officially-declared income).
But any sales tax equivalent is very regressive
unless some stuff is exempt. And even then,
if say it applies to ready to eat delivered
meals, that penalises those who can no
longer cook their own meals from basic
raw ingredients anymore and that can
be some of the poorest individuals whose
entire income is benefits with the elderly.
Post by JNugent
And for high priced items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed
authority area.
Assuming they are mobile enough to do that.

And then there is the immense cost of collection
of a special tax by council area. Mad idea.
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
The fact that high-ticket items could simply bought in an area with
lower sales taxes would act as a brake on high-spending authorities
and in fact, neighbouring areas would be in competition with each other.
And that would produce more traffic on the roads.
The effect would be marginal. Here in the SE, there is already a
tendency for buyers to congregate at the large regional shopping
centres (Lakeside, Bluewater, Galleria, Westgate, etc)
Because its more convenient to do everything in one
place which has ample parking for those with cars.
True.
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it would
be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere. At
least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the odd
bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it.
Don’t have to try with the most obvious downsides.
Post by JNugent
Perhaps in a few council areas as a pilot, with other systems being
trialled in other areas at the same time.
That would fuck the council areas silly enough to try
your special tax system. The only thing that could work
is to have it UK wide or at least say england wide.
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
because local authorities are unbelievably acquisitive and
dog-in-the-manger over parking.
That’s a minor effect compare with the other one.
I don't accept that. Parking in towns is unnecessarily difficult and
expensive.
It’s a minor effect in the sense that its not the main reason
that most shop in the massive malls now if they have cars.
Peeler
2019-10-06 08:04:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 16:11:41 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
That would fuck the council areas silly enough to try
your special tax system. The only thing that could work
is to have it UK wide or at least say england wide.
You can go on like that ENDLESSLY, eh, you lonely trolling senile pest? <BG>
--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
Joe
2019-10-06 08:40:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 16:11:41 +1100
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
At least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to
income (or at least, to spending,
Not necessarily while ever some things like
uncooked food ingredients etc are VAT free.
If these uncooked ingredients are grown in the user's garden, and even
then, he is paying an annual rent for the use of his own paid-for
garden, the value of which in included in the Council Tax assessment.

If he buys uncooked food from retailers, he's paying a share of all the
taxes the retailer is charged. OK, he's not paying as much tax as if
there was VAT being charged on it.

Besides, a council-funding sales tax would be something entirely
separate (never levy one tax when you can levy two or more), and would
undoubtedly cover *all* sales, not just VAT-carrying items.
--
Joe
AlexK
2019-10-06 16:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 16:11:41 +1100
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
At least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to
income (or at least, to spending,
Not necessarily while ever some things like
uncooked food ingredients etc are VAT free.
If these uncooked ingredients are grown in the user's garden, and
even then, he is paying an annual rent for the use of his own paid-for
garden, the value of which in included in the Council Tax assessment.
But not if its grown somewhere else. Mate of mine who lives in a rented
flat grows his on a mate of his property and pays nothing for the use of
that, giving the owner of that property some of the produce.

And plenty give away surplus produce for nothing when
it would otherwise go to waste as it often would. I do too.
Post by Peeler
If he buys uncooked food from retailers, he's paying a share
of all the taxes the retailer is charged. OK, he's not paying
as much tax as if there was VAT being charged on it.
Besides, a council-funding sales tax would be something entirely
separate (never levy one tax when you can levy two or more),
And so would have a vast collection cost. No thanks.
Post by Peeler
and would undoubtedly cover *all* sales, not just VAT-carrying items.
There is no undoubtedly. There's a reason that VAT
doesn't apply to uncooked food and some other stuff.
JNugent
2019-10-06 17:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Peeler
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 16:11:41 +1100
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
At least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to
income (or at least, to spending,
Not necessarily while ever some things like
uncooked food ingredients etc are VAT free.
If these uncooked ingredients are grown in the user's garden, and
even then, he is paying an annual rent for the use of his own paid-for
garden, the value of which in included in the Council Tax assessment.
But not if its grown somewhere else. Mate of mine who lives in a rented
flat grows his on a mate of his property and pays nothing for the use of
that, giving the owner of that property some of the produce.
And plenty give away surplus produce for nothing when
it would otherwise go to waste as it often would. I do too.
Post by Peeler
If he buys uncooked food from retailers, he's paying a share
of all the taxes the retailer is charged. OK, he's not paying
as much tax as if there was VAT being charged on it.
Besides, a council-funding sales tax would be something entirely
separate (never levy one tax when you can levy two or more),
And so would have a vast collection cost. No thanks.
How so? It would be collected in the same way as VAT, as an extra few
percent. It doesn't cause difficulties in the USA (though one or two
states may not have a local sales tax).
Post by AlexK
Post by Peeler
and would undoubtedly cover *all* sales, not just VAT-carrying items.
There is no undoubtedly. There's a reason that VAT
doesn't apply to uncooked food and some other stuff.
I'm not sure that state sales taxes in the USA apply to
supermarket-bought raw and packaged food (though it certainly does to
restaurant and fast food, including fast food in supermarkets).

The attractive side of sales taxes (like VAT) is that they're not easy
to evade as a purchaser. A one man band may get away with murder when
declaring income on a tax return, but getting away with excise duty, VAT
or a sales tax is more of a problem.
Peeler
2019-10-06 22:23:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:11:23 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH senile Ozzie cretin's latest trollshit>

Get the fuck out of normally evolved humans' ngs, you anomalous, 85-year-old
trolling senile pest!
--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
JNugent
2019-10-07 00:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by Peeler
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 16:11:41 +1100
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
At least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to
income (or at least, to spending,
Not necessarily while ever some things like
uncooked food ingredients etc are VAT free.
If these uncooked ingredients are grown in the user's garden, and
even then, he is paying an annual rent for the use of his own paid-for
garden, the value of which in included in the Council Tax assessment.
But not if its grown somewhere else. Mate of mine who lives in a rented
flat grows his on a mate of his property and pays nothing for the use of
that, giving the owner of that property some of the produce.
And plenty give away surplus produce for nothing when
it would otherwise go to waste as it often would. I do too.
Post by Peeler
If he buys uncooked food from retailers, he's paying a share
of all the taxes the retailer is charged. OK, he's not paying
as much tax as if there was VAT being charged on it.
Besides, a council-funding sales tax would be something entirely
separate (never levy one tax when you can levy two or more),
And so would have a vast collection cost. No thanks.
How so? It would be collected in the same way as VAT,
Not when you claim that it doesn’t apply to only the stuff
that VAT is currently charged on.
I haven't claimed that. In the USA (as an example), there's stuff
which doesn't carry sales tax.
But your original was about the UK, where that is the case.
It would need a whole
new system or at least a whole new set of what gets charged.
Possibly.
Absolutely certainly if you don’t use the table used for VAT.
But over the years, the range of things carrying VAT has changed in
the UK, more than once.
Yes, but your proposed scheme would see it change
a lot more often as councils fiddle with their personal
tax rates as the see retail traffic change as a result.
And if retail traffic doesn’t change as a result, there is no
point in the massive bureaucracy involved in your scheme.
The world didn't come to a halt because of that.
Sure, but there would be a massive increase in the
effort required to keep reprogramming cash registers
on every council change in their own local rate.
Cash registers can be programmed to calculate and collect the tax - or
not - depending on the goods.
Yes, but a massive effort involved in doing that with
every cash register in the council area on each change.
Post by JNugent
as an extra few percent. It doesn't cause difficulties in the USA
It does in fact cause a whole lot of difficulties with
online orders particularly and those crossing close
state borders to exploit variations in sales tax regimes.
Post by JNugent
(though one or two states may not have a local sales tax).
Post by AlexK
Post by Peeler
and would undoubtedly cover *all* sales, not just VAT-carrying items.
There is no undoubtedly. There's a reason that VAT
doesn't apply to uncooked food and some other stuff.
I'm not sure that state sales taxes in the USA apply to
supermarket-bought raw and packaged food (though it certainly does
to restaurant and fast food, including fast food in supermarkets).
And what it applies to varies by location too. one hell of a mess.
Post by JNugent
The attractive side of sales taxes (like VAT) is that they're not
easy to evade as a purchaser.
In fact very easy to avoid when they vary locally.
By "avoid", you must mean something else.
Nope, the local tax is easy to avoid by shopping
in a council area which doesn’t have a local tax.
Not when every council raises a sales tax. For low-order shopping, the
travel cost will put a brake on how far people are prepared to go in
order to get a lower rate. For a car, it'd be worth buying in the lowest
tax area in easy reach.
In fact, being able to buy expensive items in a nearby jurisdiction
with a lower tax rate is an *advantage*. it doesn't mean the buyer
pays no sales tax on the purchase.
It does mean that the LOCAL TAX is avoided by
shopping in a council area which doesn’t have
a LOCAL TAX so that more shoppers shop there.
If a sales tax were to be the replacement for Council Tax (which is what
the original proposition was), no council would be able to afford not
levying a sales tax.
Post by JNugent
A one man band may get away with murder when declaring income on a
tax return, but getting away with excise duty, VAT or a sales tax is
more of a problem.
But very easy to avoid your locally varying special tax.
There is a reason that no jurisdiction does it your way.
No jurisdiction other than the fifty-two separate states of the United
States of America, you mean?
They don’t have a special local tax added to a national sales tax regime.
They don’t have a national sales tax regime.
So they manage to charge a local (city / state) sales tax without having
a national VAT-like tax to strap it to. That shows you how easy it would
be here, since we already have the system in place (that's if we keep
VAT after we leave - we don't have to).
AlexK
2019-10-07 02:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by Peeler
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 16:11:41 +1100
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
At least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to
income (or at least, to spending,
Not necessarily while ever some things like
uncooked food ingredients etc are VAT free.
If these uncooked ingredients are grown in the user's garden, and
even then, he is paying an annual rent for the use of his own paid-for
garden, the value of which in included in the Council Tax assessment.
But not if its grown somewhere else. Mate of mine who lives in a rented
flat grows his on a mate of his property and pays nothing for the use of
that, giving the owner of that property some of the produce.
And plenty give away surplus produce for nothing when
it would otherwise go to waste as it often would. I do too.
Post by Peeler
If he buys uncooked food from retailers, he's paying a share
of all the taxes the retailer is charged. OK, he's not paying
as much tax as if there was VAT being charged on it.
Besides, a council-funding sales tax would be something entirely
separate (never levy one tax when you can levy two or more),
And so would have a vast collection cost. No thanks.
How so? It would be collected in the same way as VAT,
Not when you claim that it doesn’t apply to only the stuff
that VAT is currently charged on.
I haven't claimed that. In the USA (as an example), there's stuff which
doesn't carry sales tax.
But your original was about the UK, where that is the case.
It would need a whole
new system or at least a whole new set of what gets charged.
Possibly.
Absolutely certainly if you don’t use the table used for VAT.
But over the years, the range of things carrying VAT has changed in the
UK, more than once.
Yes, but your proposed scheme would see it change
a lot more often as councils fiddle with their personal
tax rates as the see retail traffic change as a result.
And if retail traffic doesn’t change as a result, there is no
point in the massive bureaucracy involved in your scheme.
The world didn't come to a halt because of that.
Sure, but there would be a massive increase in the
effort required to keep reprogramming cash registers
on every council change in their own local rate.
Cash registers can be programmed to calculate and collect the tax - or
not - depending on the goods.
Yes, but a massive effort involved in doing that with
every cash register in the council area on each change.
Post by JNugent
as an extra few percent. It doesn't cause difficulties in the USA
It does in fact cause a whole lot of difficulties with
online orders particularly and those crossing close
state borders to exploit variations in sales tax regimes.
Post by JNugent
(though one or two states may not have a local sales tax).
Post by AlexK
Post by Peeler
and would undoubtedly cover *all* sales, not just VAT-carrying items.
There is no undoubtedly. There's a reason that VAT
doesn't apply to uncooked food and some other stuff.
I'm not sure that state sales taxes in the USA apply to
supermarket-bought raw and packaged food (though it certainly does to
restaurant and fast food, including fast food in supermarkets).
And what it applies to varies by location too. one hell of a mess.
Post by JNugent
The attractive side of sales taxes (like VAT) is that they're not easy
to evade as a purchaser.
In fact very easy to avoid when they vary locally.
By "avoid", you must mean something else.
Nope, the local tax is easy to avoid by shopping
in a council area which doesn’t have a local tax.
Not when every council raises a sales tax.
Plenty wouldn’t have their own special tax
to attract shoppers to their council area.
Post by JNugent
For low-order shopping, the travel cost will put a brake on how far people
are prepared to go in order to get a lower rate. For a car,
Not with council areas so small in
most big cities where most live.
Post by JNugent
it'd be worth buying in the lowest tax area in easy reach.
It would be worth it with the big weekly shop
that most do too when you have a car.
Post by JNugent
In fact, being able to buy expensive items in a nearby jurisdiction with
a lower tax rate is an *advantage*. it doesn't mean the buyer pays no
sales tax on the purchase.
It does mean that the LOCAL TAX is avoided by
shopping in a council area which doesn’t have
a LOCAL TAX so that more shoppers shop there.
If a sales tax were to be the replacement for Council Tax (which is what
the original proposition was),
Taint going to happen. The most that might happen
is that councils are allowed to add a local sales tax
to the council tax.
Post by JNugent
no council would be able to afford not levying a sales tax.
True.
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
A one man band may get away with murder when declaring income on a tax
return, but getting away with excise duty, VAT or a sales tax is more
of a problem.
But very easy to avoid your locally varying special tax.
There is a reason that no jurisdiction does it your way.
No jurisdiction other than the fifty-two separate states of the United
States of America, you mean?
They don’t have a special local tax added to a national sales tax regime.
They don’t have a national sales tax regime.
So they manage to charge a local (city / state) sales tax without having a
national VAT-like tax to strap it to.
But only have something like 50 different rates, Yours
would have hundreds of councils each with their own
each with far fewer individuals in them than US states do.

A complete and utter bureaucratic administrative nightmare with
the programming of cash registers alone, let alone enforcement.
Post by JNugent
That shows you how easy it would be here, since we already have the system
in place (that's if we keep VAT after we leave - we don't have to).
Don’t have to but there is no way that it will be
scrapped with a return to the sales tax system
which only taxes goods, not services, you watch.
JNugent
2019-10-07 02:16:08 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Nope, the local tax is easy to avoid by shopping
in a council area which doesn’t have a local tax.
Not when every council raises a sales tax.
Plenty wouldn’t have their own special tax
to attract shoppers to their council area.
But some would.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
For low-order shopping, the travel cost will put a brake on how far
people are prepared to go in order to get a lower rate. For a car,
Not with council areas so small in most big cities where most live.
Post by JNugent
it'd be worth buying in the lowest tax area in easy reach.
It would be worth it with the big weekly shop that most do too when you have a car.
Of course. But that would be even more sensitive to distance. No-one
will spend a fiver in petrol to save four quid in the difference between
sales tax rates. it'd be like driving miles out of your way to fill up
for a penny a litre less.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
In fact, being able to buy expensive items in a nearby jurisdiction
with a lower tax rate is an *advantage*. it doesn't mean the buyer
pays no sales tax on the purchase.
It does mean that the LOCAL TAX is avoided by
shopping in a council area which doesn’t have
a LOCAL TAX so that more shoppers shop there.
If a sales tax were to be the replacement for Council Tax (which is
what the original proposition was),
Taint going to happen. The most that might happen
is that councils are allowed to add a local sales tax
to the council tax.
Post by JNugent
no council would be able to afford not levying a sales tax.
True.
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
A one man band may get away with murder when declaring income on a
tax return, but getting away with excise duty, VAT or a sales tax
is more of a problem.
But very easy to avoid your locally varying special tax.
There is a reason that no jurisdiction does it your way.
No jurisdiction other than the fifty-two separate states of the
United States of America, you mean?
They don’t have a special local tax added to a national sales tax regime.
They don’t have a national sales tax regime.
So they manage to charge a local (city / state) sales tax without
having a national VAT-like tax to strap it to.
But only have something like 50 different rates, Yours
would have hundreds of councils each with their own
each with far fewer individuals in them than US states do.
No problem. Only one rate would be charged in any one area. And they'd
feel compelled to coalesce around a narrow range of rates in any case.
The rate could be quite high (say 10%) if Council Tax were abolished.
Post by AlexK
A complete and utter bureaucratic administrative nightmare with
the programming of cash registers alone, let alone enforcement.
They do it now. All done with EPROM chips or whatever the current
version is. It could probably be done with a flash upgrade downloaded
from the council's website. Decades ago, taximeters took months to get
mechanically adjusted after a fare increase. Then the first digital
meter came along and it was do-able within a few days.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
That shows you how easy it would be here, since we already have the
system in place (that's if we keep VAT after we leave - we don't have
to).
Don’t have to but there is no way that it will be
scrapped with a return to the sales tax system
which only taxes goods, not services, you watch.
I don't expect VAT to be scrapped soon. But longer term, there's no good
reason to keep it.
AlexK
2019-10-07 02:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Nope, the local tax is easy to avoid by shopping
in a council area which doesn’t have a local tax.
Not when every council raises a sales tax.
Plenty wouldn’t have their own special tax
to attract shoppers to their council area.
But some would.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
For low-order shopping, the travel cost will put a brake on how far
people are prepared to go in order to get a lower rate. For a car,
Not with council areas so small in most big cities where most live.
Post by JNugent
it'd be worth buying in the lowest tax area in easy reach.
It would be worth it with the big weekly shop that most do too when you have a car.
Of course. But that would be even more sensitive to distance. No-one will
spend a fiver in petrol to save four quid in the difference between sales
tax rates.
The local sales tax rate would have to be more different
than that to warrant the bureaucratic nightmare of
allowing individual councils to set their own rate.
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
In fact, being able to buy expensive items in a nearby jurisdiction
with a lower tax rate is an *advantage*. it doesn't mean the buyer
pays no sales tax on the purchase.
It does mean that the LOCAL TAX is avoided by
shopping in a council area which doesn’t have
a LOCAL TAX so that more shoppers shop there.
If a sales tax were to be the replacement for Council Tax (which is what
the original proposition was),
Taint going to happen. The most that might happen
is that councils are allowed to add a local sales tax
to the council tax.
Post by JNugent
no council would be able to afford not levying a sales tax.
True.
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
A one man band may get away with murder when declaring income on a
tax return, but getting away with excise duty, VAT or a sales tax is
more of a problem.
But very easy to avoid your locally varying special tax.
There is a reason that no jurisdiction does it your way.
No jurisdiction other than the fifty-two separate states of the United
States of America, you mean?
They don’t have a special local tax added to a national sales tax regime.
They don’t have a national sales tax regime.
So they manage to charge a local (city / state) sales tax without having
a national VAT-like tax to strap it to.
But only have something like 50 different rates, Yours
would have hundreds of councils each with their own
each with far fewer individuals in them than US states do.
No problem.
Hell of a problem with the bureaucratic nightmare
of reprogramming all those cash registers alone
with councils free to change the rate any time
they like as they try to attract shoppers to their
council area and see shoppers leave when they
stuff that up.
Post by JNugent
Only one rate would be charged in any one area.
But the council is free to change that any time
they like, see above.
Post by JNugent
And they'd feel compelled to coalesce around a narrow range of rates in
any case.
If that is the case, there is no point in doing council taxation that way.
It achieves nothing and has that bureaucratic nightmare that comes with it.
Post by JNugent
The rate could be quite high (say 10%) if Council Tax were abolished.
That wouldn’t recoup the amount of cash needed.
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
A complete and utter bureaucratic administrative nightmare with
the programming of cash registers alone, let alone enforcement.
They do it now.
The VAT rates don’t change very often at all and are country wide so
its much easier to reprogram cash registers when it does rarely change.
Post by JNugent
All done with EPROM chips
Hasn’t been done like that for a long time now.
Post by JNugent
or whatever the current version is. It could probably be done with a flash
upgrade downloaded from the council's website.
Someone still has to do it every time the
council changes the rate, which will be
often as they respond to what other adjacent
councils have just done change wise.

A complete and utter bureaucratic nightmare
compare with what has to be done with the VAT,
Post by JNugent
Decades ago, taximeters took months to get mechanically adjusted after a
fare increase. Then the first digital meter came along and it was do-able
within a few days.
And with councils able to change their rate any time they
like, it would be a complete and utter bureaucratic nightmare.
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
That shows you how easy it would be here, since we already have the
system in place (that's if we keep VAT after we leave - we don't have
to).
Don’t have to but there is no way that it will be
scrapped with a return to the sales tax system
which only taxes goods, not services, you watch.
I don't expect VAT to be scrapped soon.
Have fun listing any country that matters
that has ever scrapped their VAT equivalent
and returned to just a sales tax system.
Post by JNugent
But longer term, there's no good reason to keep it.
There is a the very excellent reason to keep
it, it taxes both goods and services and taxes
at each step in the process with goods and
doesn't have the stupidity of deciding which
are retail sales and which are wholesale sales.
Peeler
2019-10-07 08:21:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 13:39:12 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH another 158 !!! lines of the senile cretin's latest trollshit>
--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
Peeler
2019-10-07 08:20:42 UTC
Permalink
...and much better air in here, again!
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Peeler
2019-10-06 17:30:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 03:50:37 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the usual trollshit>

03:50 in Australia??? Did you "sleep in" today, you anomalous senile
trolling cretin? LOL
--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$***@news.mixmin.net>
Keema's Nan
2019-10-06 10:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The whole point of the poll tax was it was sold as being
fairer. How could
that be the case when my widowed OAP mother living on a very
modest income
in her own modest house not only paid more than the old rates,
but paid
the same as the working rich single bloke across the road in a
house 4
times the size, who paid a lot less than with rates?
Because both are using the same services.
Really? The large house across the road has a bigger frontage.
Requires
more sweeping. And all his cars wear out the road quicker than my
mother's
shoes. And so on.
That's a bit desperate as an "argument", surely?
One could, with more justification, point to family make-up as a
factor, since children need to be educated and older people are
more likely to require the use of the council's social services.
Neither of those are connected to frontage size, though.
(a) a flat per capita tax (the Community Charge),
(b) a local sales tax (a VAT supplement, though with a strict cap
provision to prevent spendthrift councils for gouging residents
and those who make purchases in the area even though not living
there) and
(c) charging directly for (some) services.
I would go for (b).
I wouldn’t with so much bought online now and
that approach would encourage the consumers
with cars to shop where the local sales tax is
lower which isnt necessarily their own area.
What's the problem with that?
It penalises those who can't shop other than
locally who don’t have cars to do that. And
encourages more use of already loss making
public transport. And adds more complexity
for no useful result.
Are you saying that a council which helps people by imposing a lower
sales tax is actually penalising them?
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least with
a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at least, to
spending, which is a better indicator of income than officially-declared
income). And for high priced items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in
a low-taxed authority area.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
The fact that high-ticket items could simply bought in an area
with lower sales taxes would act as a brake on high-spending
authorities and in fact, neighbouring areas would be in
competition with each other.
And that would produce more traffic on the roads.
The effect would be marginal. Here in the SE, there is already a
tendency for buyers to congregate at the large regional shopping
centres (Lakeside, Bluewater, Galleria, Westgate, etc)
Because its more convenient to do everything in one
place which has ample parking for those with cars.
True.
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere.
At least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the
odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax; but the
combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to that idea,
and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they have a habit of
doing).
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
because local authorities are unbelievably acquisitive and
dog-in-the-manger over parking.
That’s a minor effect compare with the other one.
I don't accept that. Parking in towns is unnecessarily difficult and
expensive.
It’s a minor effect in the sense that its not the main reason
that most shop in the massive malls now if they have cars.
JNugent
2019-10-06 12:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least with
a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at least, to
spending, which is a better indicator of income than officially-declared
income). And for high priced items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in
a low-taxed authority area.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere.
At least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the
odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax; but the
combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to that idea,
and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they have a habit of
doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.

The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.

I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
charles
2019-10-06 12:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they don‘t
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that don‘t have
a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least
with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at
least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income than
officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd be an
opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, that‘s
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose
high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores and
similar outlets.
But it wouldn‘t be surprising if some councils fuck that up like they
currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high street.
And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldn‘t be cheap to punish
the council that has fucked up the local sales tax because that
council has fools as councillors and very slow to get rid of the
fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to
that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they
have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was the
first UK town to have it.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
JNugent
2019-10-06 12:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they don‘t
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that don‘t have
a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least
with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at
least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income than
officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd be an
opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, that‘s
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose
high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores and
similar outlets.
But it wouldn‘t be surprising if some councils fuck that up like they
currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high street.
And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldn‘t be cheap to punish
the council that has fucked up the local sales tax because that
council has fools as councillors and very slow to get rid of the
fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to
that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they
have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was the
first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
charles
2019-10-06 14:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they dont
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that dont
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd
be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look
at a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was
the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Keema's Nan
2019-10-06 14:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they dont
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that dont
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd
be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look
at a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was
the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
Nugent is a snob.

He wouldn’t lower himself to the level of possibly journeying with a
socialist, or (heaven forbid) in the same vehicle as a benefit claimant or
illegal asylum seeker.

Even being in the same vehicle as a mother with a snivelling child would
bring on one of his ‘migraines'.
charles
2019-10-06 14:41:14 UTC
Permalink
On 6 Oct 2019, charles wrote (in article
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they dont
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that dont
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd
be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like
putting up petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped
that too, when properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of
weeks. Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those
travelling there by car. I don't just mean parking charges
(though £9 for four and a half hours isn't easy to forgive).
There is a deep sense of being watched, waiting for some minor
error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at a map or adjust
sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford
was the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg,
for daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the
price). They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just
one purpose on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
Nugent is a snob.
He wouldn‘t lower himself to the level of possibly journeying with a
socialist, or (heaven forbid) in the same vehicle as a benefit claimant
or illegal asylum seeker.
Even being in the same vehicle as a mother with a snivelling child would
bring on one of his migraines'.
about 5 years ago I travelled on an Oxford P&R wearing a morning suit - on
my way to a family wedding. There were others similarly attired.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Keema's Nan
2019-10-06 14:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
On 6 Oct 2019, charles wrote (in article
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they dont
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that dont
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd
be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like
putting up petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped
that too, when properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of
weeks. Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those
travelling there by car. I don't just mean parking charges
(though £9 for four and a half hours isn't easy to forgive).
There is a deep sense of being watched, waiting for some minor
error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at a map or adjust
sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford
was the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg,
for daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the
price). They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just
one purpose on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
Nugent is a snob.
He wouldn‘t lower himself to the level of possibly journeying with a
socialist, or (heaven forbid) in the same vehicle as a benefit claimant
or illegal asylum seeker.
Even being in the same vehicle as a mother with a snivelling child would
bring on one of his migraines'.
about 5 years ago I travelled on an Oxford P&R wearing a morning suit - on
my way to a family wedding. There were others similarly attired.
I did a similar thing at lunchtime on a normal bus from the centre of
Brighton out to Hove a few years back, with various attractively dressed
ladies going to the wedding of my niece.

As you can imagine, my attire on the return journey was not quite as smart.

However, in Brighton - anything goes. I love the place.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-06 16:03:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 15:56:53 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by charles
On 6 Oct 2019, charles wrote (in article
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they dont
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that dont
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd
be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like
putting up petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped
that too, when properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of
weeks. Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those
travelling there by car. I don't just mean parking charges
(though £9 for four and a half hours isn't easy to forgive).
There is a deep sense of being watched, waiting for some minor
error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at a map or adjust
sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford
was the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg,
for daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the
price). They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just
one purpose on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
Nugent is a snob.
He wouldn‘t lower himself to the level of possibly journeying with a
socialist, or (heaven forbid) in the same vehicle as a benefit claimant
or illegal asylum seeker.
Even being in the same vehicle as a mother with a snivelling child would
bring on one of his migraines'.
about 5 years ago I travelled on an Oxford P&R wearing a morning suit - on
my way to a family wedding. There were others similarly attired.
I did a similar thing at lunchtime on a normal bus from the centre of
Brighton out to Hove a few years back, with various attractively dressed
ladies going to the wedding of my niece.
As you can imagine, my attire on the return journey was not quite as smart.
However, in Brighton - anything goes. I love the place.
It's a jew/poof-infested shithole.

"Let them have Palestine...if only we can get Brighton back."
- Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, KG, OM, PC, FRS, FBA, DL
(1848-1930)
The Natural Philosopher
2019-10-06 17:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
However, in Brighton - anything goes. I love the place.
unfortunately not. Being green gay and urban hipster/snoflake is compulsory
I hate the place
--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!
JNugent
2019-10-06 15:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
On 6 Oct 2019, charles wrote (in article
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they dont
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that dont
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd
be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like
putting up petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped
that too, when properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of
weeks. Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those
travelling there by car. I don't just mean parking charges
(though £9 for four and a half hours isn't easy to forgive).
There is a deep sense of being watched, waiting for some minor
error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at a map or adjust
sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford
was the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg,
for daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the
price). They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just
one purpose on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
Nugent is a snob.
He wouldn‘t lower himself to the level of possibly journeying with a
socialist, or (heaven forbid) in the same vehicle as a benefit claimant
or illegal asylum seeker.
Even being in the same vehicle as a mother with a snivelling child would
bring on one of his migraines'.
about 5 years ago I travelled on an Oxford P&R wearing a morning suit - on
my way to a family wedding. There were others similarly attired.
Ah... you were trying to make a point.

I get that.

Perhaps the bride and her dad, along with the hire-car driver, should
also have used P&R?
charles
2019-10-06 16:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by charles
On 6 Oct 2019, charles wrote (in article
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax
than average penalises those who have to buy locally because
they dont have a car that they can use to shop in council areas
that dont have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life.
At least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to
income (or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of
income than officially-declared income). And for high priced
items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority
area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like
putting up petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped
that too, when properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of
weeks. Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those
travelling there by car. I don't just mean parking charges
(though £9 for four and a half hours isn't easy to forgive).
There is a deep sense of being watched, waiting for some minor
error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at a map or adjust
sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford
was the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg,
for daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the
price). They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just
one purpose on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
Nugent is a snob.
He wouldnt lower himself to the level of possibly journeying with a
socialist, or (heaven forbid) in the same vehicle as a benefit claimant
or illegal asylum seeker.
Even being in the same vehicle as a mother with a snivelling child
would bring on one of his migraines'.
about 5 years ago I travelled on an Oxford P&R wearing a morning suit - on
my way to a family wedding. There were others similarly attired.
Ah... you were trying to make a point.
no, I knew, and we were warned, that parking was not available near the
church. Since a P&R bus stopped almost outside the church, that was the
suggested way to get there.
Post by JNugent
I get that.
Perhaps the bride and her dad, along with the hire-car driver, should
also have used P&R?
The church had enough parking for that car.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
JNugent
2019-10-06 16:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by charles
On 6 Oct 2019, charles wrote (in article
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax
than average penalises those who have to buy locally because
they dont have a car that they can use to shop in council areas
that dont have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life.
At least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to
income (or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of
income than officially-declared income). And for high priced
items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority
area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like
putting up petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped
that too, when properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of
weeks. Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those
travelling there by car. I don't just mean parking charges
(though £9 for four and a half hours isn't easy to forgive).
There is a deep sense of being watched, waiting for some minor
error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at a map or adjust
sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford
was the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg,
for daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the
price). They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just
one purpose on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
Nugent is a snob.
He wouldnt lower himself to the level of possibly journeying with a
socialist, or (heaven forbid) in the same vehicle as a benefit claimant
or illegal asylum seeker.
Even being in the same vehicle as a mother with a snivelling child
would bring on one of his migraines'.
about 5 years ago I travelled on an Oxford P&R wearing a morning suit - on
my way to a family wedding. There were others similarly attired.
Ah... you were trying to make a point.
no, I knew, and we were warned, that parking was not available near the
church. Since a P&R bus stopped almost outside the church, that was the
suggested way to get there.
"not available"?

Unusual, but not unheard of. I expect there was some parking in the
area, but you didn't want to have to spend time hunting for it.

The last time I was at a church in Oxford (not for a religious service),
I parked in the church grounds (with permission, of course). I wouldn't
have cared to take my chances in the surrounding full-up terraced
streets and that's a common problem in areas characterised by terraced
housing occupied by the middle classes.
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
I get that.
Perhaps the bride and her dad, along with the hire-car driver, should
also have used P&R?
The church had enough parking for that car.
And had your destination been in the city centre, there'd have been
parking somewhere nearby. The car-park I used last week had loads of
empty space, for instance.
JNugent
2019-10-06 15:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they dont
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that dont
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd
be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look
at a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was
the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
Have a think about it, particularly from the viewpoint of someone who
isn't familiar with the layout of a particular city or town centre and
for whom the various destinations displayed on the roller blind of a bus
are effectively meaningless.

It's much easier to navigate to where you want to go, then find the
nearest parking place.

Why make a federal case out of something which already has such a simple
solution?

It's not as though I am trying to prove a point to anyone about how
"good" P&R is.

Mind you, if a lot of people are using P&R, then that means that others
are that bit more able to find parking space near to where they need to
go. Isn't that the point of it (or one of them, at least)?
charles
2019-10-06 15:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they
dont have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that
dont have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items,
there'd be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it,
thats why there is such a variation in how it's done and
over time as well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a
large shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales
tax, it would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would
go elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be
cheap to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales
tax because that council has fools as councillors and very slow
to get rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas
as a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at
the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces
tax; but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon
put paid to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down
instantly. (As they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting
up petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of
weeks. Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling
there by car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four
and a half hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of
being watched, waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few
seconds to look at a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the
local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford
was the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg,
for daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the
price). They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just
one purpose on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
Have a think about it, particularly from the viewpoint of someone who
isn't familiar with the layout of a particular city or town centre and
for whom the various destinations displayed on the roller blind of a bus
are effectively meaningless.
It's much easier to navigate to where you want to go, then find the
nearest parking place.
which, in the case of Oxford is probably the Park & Ride. These are well
sign posted on the approaches to the City. If I know I'm going somewhere
that I might take a car, I check on the parking facilities before I go.
That's why the last time I went to Cambridge, I took the train. I was
staying overnight.
Post by JNugent
Why make a federal case out of something which already has such a simple
solution?
It's not as though I am trying to prove a point to anyone about how
"good" P&R is.
Mind you, if a lot of people are using P&R, then that means that others
are that bit more able to find parking space near to where they need to
go. Isn't that the point of it (or one of them, at least)?
It's to keep cars out of the town centre.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
JNugent
2019-10-06 15:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they
dont have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that
dont have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items,
there'd be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it,
thats why there is such a variation in how it's done and
over time as well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a
large shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales
tax, it would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would
go elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be
cheap to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales
tax because that council has fools as councillors and very slow
to get rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas
as a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at
the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces
tax; but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon
put paid to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down
instantly. (As they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting
up petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of
weeks. Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling
there by car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four
and a half hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of
being watched, waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few
seconds to look at a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the
local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford
was the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg,
for daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the
price). They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just
one purpose on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
Have a think about it, particularly from the viewpoint of someone who
isn't familiar with the layout of a particular city or town centre and
for whom the various destinations displayed on the roller blind of a bus
are effectively meaningless.
It's much easier to navigate to where you want to go, then find the
nearest parking place.
which, in the case of Oxford is probably the Park & Ride.
Not in the case I was describing. I was able to park no more than about
300 yards from where I needed to go.
Post by charles
These are well sign posted on the approaches to the City.
I've seen them. I can quite understand that to local-ish drivers,
they're probably more meaningful than they are to people who live a
hundred miles away.
Post by charles
If I know I'm going somewhere
that I might take a car, I check on the parking facilities before I go.
That's why the last time I went to Cambridge, I took the train. I was
staying overnight.
OK. That's your choice and it's your right to make it. I'm sure you
respect the choices of others just as you expect others to respect yours.
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Why make a federal case out of something which already has such a simple
solution?
It's not as though I am trying to prove a point to anyone about how
"good" P&R is.
Mind you, if a lot of people are using P&R, then that means that others
are that bit more able to find parking space near to where they need to
go. Isn't that the point of it (or one of them, at least)?
It's to keep cars out of the town centre.
It's to keep *people* out of the town centre. It certainly achieves
that. See earlier postings on the tension between councils saying they
want town and city centres to remain economically viable but
simultaneously making strenuous efforts to dissuade people from
travelling there.
The Natural Philosopher
2019-10-06 17:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they dont
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that dont
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd
be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look
at a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was
the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
try it with any luggage
Even a laptop

Esssentially nothing that you cant hump 500 yards gets bougfht in either
town now, unles you live in it
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy
Keema's Nan
2019-10-06 19:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they dont
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that dont
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd
be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look
at a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was
the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
try it with any luggage
Even a laptop
Esssentially nothing that you cant hump 500 yards gets bougfht in either
town now, unles you live in it
No, the idea is not that you park your car and walk.

You have to take the bus? You know - bus - that method of transport which the
upper classes have no intention of ever travelling on because they may mikes
with the proles?
Grikbasturd®™
2019-10-06 19:25:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 20:00:17 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they dont
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that dont
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd
be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look
at a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was
the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
try it with any luggage
Even a laptop
Esssentially nothing that you cant hump 500 yards gets bougfht in either
town now, unles you live in it
No, the idea is not that you park your car and walk.
You have to take the bus? You know - bus - that method of transport which the
upper classes have no intention of ever travelling on because they may mikes
with the proles?
With proles like you, can you blame them?
Peeler
2019-10-06 20:13:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 12:25:31 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbasturd®™
Post by Keema's Nan
No, the idea is not that you park your car and walk.
You have to take the bus? You know - bus - that method of transport which the
upper classes have no intention of ever travelling on because they may mikes
with the proles?
With proles like you, can you blame them?
YOU calling someone ELSE a prole??? YOUUU, you ridiculous retarded serb
peasant! LMAO
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
The Natural Philosopher
2019-10-07 01:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they dont
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that dont
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax
than average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At
least with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income
(or at least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income
than officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd
be an opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, thats
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to
lose high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores
and similar outlets.
But it wouldnt be surprising if some councils fuck that up like
they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high
street. And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldnt be cheap
to punish the council that has fucked up the local sales tax
because that council has fools as councillors and very slow to get
rid of the fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as
a pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the
same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid
to that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As
they have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop
making car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in
towns and cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look
at a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was
the first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
i've used them for that purpose on anumber of occasiosns? wahy not?
try it with any luggage
Even a laptop
Esssentially nothing that you cant hump 500 yards gets bougfht in either
town now, unles you live in it
No, the idea is not that you park your car and walk.
You have to take the bus? You know - bus - that method of transport which the
upper classes have no intention of ever travelling on because they may mikes
with the proles?
Oh dear. Yes I know there is a bus. I know both towns very well having
worked in both.

You ever tried e.g. carrying a microwave oven from John Lewis to the bus
stop? Or from te bus stop to where you have parked your car? In the
pouring rain?

Back in the day you would park in a car park, buy the oven, leave it for
collection, drive up, park on a double yellow , pick it up and go

Now you cant even get a car near the store.

And they wonder why high streets are dying?
--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell
Keema's Nan
2019-10-06 14:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they don‘t
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that don‘t have
a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least
with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at
least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income than
officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd be an
opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, that‘s
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose
high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores and
similar outlets.
But it wouldn‘t be surprising if some councils fuck that up like they
currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high street.
And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldn‘t be cheap to punish
the council that has fucked up the local sales tax because that
council has fools as councillors and very slow to get rid of the
fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to
that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they
have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was the
first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
What you actually mean is that certain visitors would not lower themselves by
ever travelling on a bus.
JNugent
2019-10-06 15:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they don‘t
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that don‘t have
a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least
with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at
least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income than
officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd be an
opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, that‘s
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose
high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores and
similar outlets.
But it wouldn‘t be surprising if some councils fuck that up like they
currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high street.
And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldn‘t be cheap to punish
the council that has fucked up the local sales tax because that
council has fools as councillors and very slow to get rid of the
fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to
that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they
have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was the
first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
What you actually mean is that certain visitors would not lower themselves by
ever travelling on a bus.
London's OK for buses (and my pass operates there even before 09:30),
but the complication of using buses just isn't necessary elsewhere.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-07 14:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg,
for daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the
price). They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just
one purpose on one day.
What you actually mean is that certain visitors would not lower
themselves by ever travelling on a bus.
Odd really, because if visiting, you get a much better view of things from
the top of a bus and can actually look at things rather than concentrate
on driving.

But of course some will just be looking for the nearest McDonalds.
--
*You sound reasonable......time to up my medication

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-07 14:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by charles
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was the
first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
Just how would you like a town configured? For those who live there and
pay the running costs? Or specifically for casual visitors?

And do you think the same should apply to the country as a whole?
Optimised for itinerate workers from abroad?
--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2019-10-07 14:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
Post by charles
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was the
first UK town to have it.
Such things may have value for regular visitors who live nearby (eg, for
daily commuters, though it all depends on the conditions and the price).
They are of very little use to casual vistors there for just one purpose
on one day.
Just how would you like a town configured? For those who live there and
pay the running costs? Or specifically for casual visitors?
For both. And for every other sort of citzen.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
And do you think the same should apply to the country as a whole?
Optimised for itinerate workers from abroad?
Why do you ask that? Why would a visitor from abroad be treated
differently from anyone else?
Spud
2019-10-06 13:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they don't
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that don't have
a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least
with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at
least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income than
officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd be an
opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, that's
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose
high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores and
similar outlets.
But it wouldn't be surprising if some councils fuck that up like they
currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high street.
And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldn't be cheap to punish
the council that has fucked up the local sales tax because that
council has fools as councillors and very slow to get rid of the
fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to
that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they
have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was the
first UK town to have it.
But I think they are trying to stop the Busses using some of the shopping
streets now.

S
Keema's Nan
2019-10-06 14:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spud
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher local tax than
average penalises those who have to buy locally because they don't
have a car that they can use to shop in council areas that don't have
a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least
with a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at
least, to spending, which is a better indicator of income than
officially-declared income). And for high priced items, there'd be an
opportunity to buy in a low-taxed authority area.
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to do it, that's
why there is such a variation in how it's done and over time as
well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go
elsewhere. At least, they would for high-priced items, though
perhaps not for the odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax
would therefore be self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose
high-order retailers such as car dealers, furniture stores and
similar outlets.
But it wouldn't be surprising if some councils fuck that up like they
currently do with parking restrictions and fees in the high street.
And those massive malls arent cheap so it wouldn't be cheap to punish
the council that has fucked up the local sales tax because that
council has fools as councillors and very slow to get rid of the
fools of councillors by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax;
but the combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to
that idea, and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they
have a habit of doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
on the other hand, both places have Park & Ride - I believe Oxford was the
first UK town to have it.
But I think they are trying to stop the Busses using some of the shopping
streets now.
S
Oh no. Don’t tell me that people might have to walk?

Whatever next?
Keema's Nan
2019-10-06 12:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least with
a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at least, to
spending, which is a better indicator of income than officially-declared
income). And for high priced items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in
a low-taxed authority area.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere.
At least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the
odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax; but the
combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to that idea,
and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they have a habit of
doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
Go on the train.
JNugent
2019-10-06 13:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least with
a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at least, to
spending, which is a better indicator of income than officially-declared
income). And for high priced items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in
a low-taxed authority area.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere.
At least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the
odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax; but the
combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to that idea,
and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they have a habit of
doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
Go on the train.
I don't use public transport for trips within Great Britain.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-06 14:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least with
a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at least, to
spending, which is a better indicator of income than officially-declared
income). And for high priced items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in
a low-taxed authority area.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere.
At least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the
odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax; but the
combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to that idea,
and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they have a habit of
doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
Go on the train.
I don't use public transport for trips within Great Britain.
You don’t need to tell me that.

I already guessed. Your sort never do - and have a whole host of excuses
lined up to justify themselves.
JNugent
2019-10-06 15:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least with
a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at least, to
spending, which is a better indicator of income than officially-declared
income). And for high priced items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in
a low-taxed authority area.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere.
At least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the
odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax; but the
combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to that idea,
and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they have a habit of
doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
Go on the train.
I don't use public transport for trips within Great Britain.
You don’t need to tell me that.
I already guessed. Your sort never do - and have a whole host of excuses
lined up to justify themselves.
I don't need to justify my choices. Travel on trains and buses is
severely limiting as well as having financial disadvantages. It's not
for me. I suspect that even for many people who do use local transport,
it isn't their first choice either, but circumstances prevail.
abelard
2019-10-07 10:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least with
a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at least, to
spending, which is a better indicator of income than officially-declared
income). And for high priced items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in
a low-taxed authority area.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere.
At least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the
odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax; but the
combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to that idea,
and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they have a habit of
doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
Go on the train.
I don't use public transport for trips within Great Britain.
You don’t need to tell me that.
I already guessed. Your sort never do - and have a whole host of excuses
lined up to justify themselves.
I don't need to justify my choices. Travel on trains and buses is
severely limiting as well as having financial disadvantages. It's not
for me. I suspect that even for many people who do use local transport,
it isn't their first choice either, but circumstances prevail.
last i was in oxford, the local hospitals were charging more than
rent for a detached house in burnley, to park a car while visiting
the sick

the only answer is to get box in walking distance of the centre
and hire a garage on a factory estate for your occasional use
car...but it is still a problem to get the sherpas to organise
your cases for the journey from box to parking
--
www.abelard.org
The Natural Philosopher
2019-10-07 10:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least with
a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at least, to
spending, which is a better indicator of income than officially-declared
income). And for high priced items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in
a low-taxed authority area.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere.
At least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the
odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax; but the
combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to that idea,
and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they have a habit of
doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
Go on the train.
I don't use public transport for trips within Great Britain.
You don’t need to tell me that.
I already guessed. Your sort never do - and have a whole host of excuses
lined up to justify themselves.
I don't need to justify my choices. Travel on trains and buses is
severely limiting as well as having financial disadvantages. It's not
for me. I suspect that even for many people who do use local transport,
it isn't their first choice either, but circumstances prevail.
last i was in oxford, the local hospitals were charging more than
rent for a detached house in burnley, to park a car while visiting
the sick
the only answer is to get box in walking distance of the centre
and hire a garage on a factory estate for your occasional use
car...but it is still a problem to get the sherpas to organise
your cases for the journey from box to parking
The urban hipsters simply cycle everywhere, live right in towns, use
public transport all the time and complain about diesel vans when they
use them to deliver the stuff they buy online.
Totally weird.

The high street is where they walk around faces buried in smart phones
and earplugs in talking to invisible friends. Stopping occaisonally for
a beard trim some organic beansprouts and a soy latte.

They dont actually buy anything there. Except maybe a few lines of coke.

see e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4n6OVoyYQ
--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.
Grik-bastarde®™
2019-10-06 16:04:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 15:24:42 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
No, that a council which chooses to have a higher
local tax than average penalises those who have
to buy locally because they don’t have a car that
they can use to shop in council areas that don’t
have a higher than average local tax.
And a local authority which chooses to have a higher council tax than
average penalises those who live in its area. That's life. At least with
a sales tax, the amount paid would be related to income (or at least, to
spending, which is a better indicator of income than officially-declared
income). And for high priced items, there'd be an opportunity to buy in
a low-taxed authority area.
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by AlexK
Post by JNugent
Let me add something: if the local authority in whose area a large
shopping centre was located decided to impose a high sales tax, it
would be cutting its own throat, because shoppers would go elsewhere.
At least, they would for high-priced items, though perhaps not for the
odd bottle of milk or loaf of bread. The tax would therefore be
self-limiting, because LAs wouldn't want to lose high-order retailers
such as car dealers, furniture stores and similar outlets.
But it wouldn’t be surprising if some councils fuck that up
like they currently do with parking restrictions and fees in
the high street. And those massive malls arent cheap so
it wouldn’t be cheap to punish the council that has fucked
up the local sales tax because that council has fools as
councillors and very slow to get rid of the fools of councillors
by the voters too.
We'll never know unless we try it. Perhaps in a few council areas as a
pilot, with other systems being trialled in other areas at the same time.
I seem to remember a proposal for an out of town car park spaces tax; but the
combined lobbying pressure of the supermarkets soon put paid to that idea,
and the gutless politicians backed down instantly. (As they have a habit of
doing).
I remember that too. It was a typical Prescott "idea". Like putting up
petrol tax by 5% plus inflation. They soon stopped that too, when
properly opposed by the citizenry.
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
Go on the train.
I don't use public transport for trips within Great Britain.
You don’t need to tell me that.
I already guessed. Your sort never do - and have a whole host of excuses
lined up to justify themselves.
Public transport if for impecunious oiks like you.
Peeler
2019-10-06 17:34:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 09:04:02 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew
Post by Grik-bastarde®™
You don’t need to tell me that.
I already guessed. Your sort never do - and have a whole host of excuses
lined up to justify themselves.
Public transport if for impecunious oiks like you.
It's CERTAINLY for stinking filthy pedophilic psychopaths like you, serb
peasant!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-07 14:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
I don't use public transport for trips within Great Britain.
You don‘t need to tell me that.
I already guessed. Your sort never do - and have a whole host of excuses
lined up to justify themselves.
Perhaps he's disabled?
--
*My dog can lick anyone

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2019-10-07 14:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by JNugent
I don't use public transport for trips within Great Britain.
You don‘t need to tell me that.
I already guessed. Your sort never do - and have a whole host of excuses
lined up to justify themselves.
Perhaps he's disabled?
I am certainly less able than I was forty or fifty years ago, if that's
what you mean.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-07 14:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
Go on the train.
Quite. The reason many visit our old towns is for the beauty of the
surroundings. Not to see traffic jams and be poisoned by diesel fumes.

If you want just to shop by car, go to a shopping centre.
--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2019-10-07 14:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
Go on the train.
Quite. The reason many visit our old towns is for the beauty of the
surroundings. Not to see traffic jams and be poisoned by diesel fumes.
If you want just to shop by car, go to a shopping centre.
...and let the city centre shops go bankrupt.

How about work, however occasional, in the city centre?
Keema's Nan
2019-10-07 15:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
Go on the train.
Quite. The reason many visit our old towns is for the beauty of the
surroundings. Not to see traffic jams and be poisoned by diesel fumes.
I was shocked when I went to York some years ago.

Tiny narrow streets which would be charming to walk along (if it wasn’t for
the blast on the horn from behind every few minutes due to impatient van or
4x4 drivers that has one diving into shop doorways for safety).

I expected the centre to be traffic free. I hope things have changed since my
last visit.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
If you want just to shop by car, go to a shopping centre.
Incubus
2019-10-07 15:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
I had jobs in both Oxford and Cambridge over the last couple of weeks.
Both places are incredibly unwelcoming for those travelling there by
car. I don't just mean parking charges (though £9 for four and a half
hours isn't easy to forgive). There is a deep sense of being watched,
waiting for some minor error (eg, stopping for a few seconds to look at
a map or adjust sat-nav) to realise £60 for the local authority.
Go on the train.
Quite. The reason many visit our old towns is for the beauty of the
surroundings. Not to see traffic jams and be poisoned by diesel fumes.
I was shocked when I went to York some years ago.
Tiny narrow streets which would be charming to walk along (if it wasn’t for
the blast on the horn from behind every few minutes due to impatient van or
4x4 drivers that has one diving into shop doorways for safety).
Probably driven by Yorkshiremen. They pay good money for their diesel, you
know. It's no use wasting it sitting there with their engines running idle
while some southerner dawdles in the street.

Peeler
2019-10-06 13:41:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 05:47:54 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
GOTCHA!
YOU got NOTHING ...no brain ...and, especially, NO LIFE!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-07 14:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The way to level the playing fields in favour of towns is to stop making
car-drivers (and their money) feel like unwelcome guests in towns and
cities.
Until, of course, you can no longer get along your local high street due
to parked cars. And the increase in traffic if you make cars more welcome.
--
*It doesn't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Brian Morrison
2019-10-05 11:59:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 07:41:07 +0100
Yes, that is why we have elections every 5 years - but we do actually
implement the result of the 1st election and see how it goes before we
have a 2nd election.
This is true - but only in the sense that after each election, a new
government gets to take charge. However, on countless occasions the new
government ever actually implements what they promised in order to get
voted in - so it's not all that different from not implementing the
promises we were made before the referendum.
I would say that it is very different, it's a single specific question
whereas a general election asks for a vote based on a whole range of
issues.
--
Brian Morrison

"I am not young enough to know everything"
Oscar Wilde
Ian Jackson
2019-10-05 12:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Morrison
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 07:41:07 +0100
Yes, that is why we have elections every 5 years - but we do actually
implement the result of the 1st election and see how it goes before we
have a 2nd election.
This is true - but only in the sense that after each election, a new
government gets to take charge. However, on countless occasions the new
government ever actually implements what they promised in order to get
voted in - so it's not all that different from not implementing the
promises we were made before the referendum.
I would say that it is very different, it's a single specific question
whereas a general election asks for a vote based on a whole range of
issues.
But it remains true that what has been promised to the voters is not
always delivered - whether the reason was that the promises were
well-intentioned, but proved impractical to fulfil, or whether those who
made the promises simply lied.
--
Ian
Incubus
2019-10-07 09:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The whole point of the poll tax was it was sold as being fairer.
How could
that be the case when my widowed OAP mother living on a very modest
income
in her own modest house not only paid more than the old rates, but
paid
the same as the working rich single bloke across the road in a house 4
times the size, who paid a lot less than with rates?
Because both are using the same services.
Really? The large house across the road has a bigger frontage. Requires
more sweeping. And all his cars wear out the road quicker than my
mother's
shoes. And so on.
That's a bit desperate as an "argument", surely?
One could, with more justification, point to family make-up as a
factor, since children need to be educated and older people are more
likely to require the use of the council's social services.
Neither of those are connected to frontage size, though.
(a) a flat per capita tax (the Community Charge),
(b) a local sales tax (a VAT supplement, though with a strict cap
provision to prevent spendthrift councils for gouging residents and
those who make purchases in the area even though not living there) and
(c) charging directly for (some) services.
I would go for (b).
I wouldn’t with so much bought online now and
that approach would encourage the consumers
with cars to shop where the local sales tax is
lower which isnt necessarily their own area.
What's the problem with that?
The short story is that there is no ideal way to
do it, that’s why there is such a variation in how
it's done and over time as well in some places.
The fact that high-ticket items could simply bought in an area with
lower sales taxes would act as a brake on high-spending authorities
and in fact, neighbouring areas would be in competition with each other.
And that would produce more traffic on the roads.
The effect would be marginal.
Here in the SE, there is already a tendency for buyers to congregate at
the large regional shopping centres (Lakeside, Bluewater, Galleria,
Westgate, etc) because local authorities are unbelievably acquisitive
and dog-in-the-manger over parking.
I am told that in Kingston upon Thames, parking costs more than the minimum
wage. People wonder why the High Street is "dying".
Pamela
2019-10-07 10:48:51 UTC
Permalink
On 4 Oct 2019, Mark wrote (in
Democracy is not a one-off event. It is supposed to be continuous.
Is this your way of saying “if we don't like one democratic
result, we will ignore that until we manage to get a majority for one
we approve of?
It rather makes me wonder what's the point of having a referendum if
it's supposed to be an ongoing concern. Of course, attacking the
concept of a referendum is entirely his point.
But is that really democracy, or just a sham dressed up as a
democratic process?
Certain things should be put to a referendum as a matter of course.
It's touching that some people trust the political elite more than they
trust their countrymen.
Yes, but only big things. Things which change the constitution. All the
EU Treaties should have been voted on, for example. What we lack,
however, is a mechanism to force Parliament to abide by the result.
That's why we desperately need a written constitution. Having said
that, any that would be written to-day probably wouldn't be worth the
paper it is written on. Instead of classical liberalism, we'd likely
end up with something "woke" or at the very least containing enough
loopholes to punish people with the wrong opinions.
Incubus, why don't you leave the country and go somewhere else where you
would be happier without moaning all day long about how terrible it is here?
abelard
2019-10-07 10:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Incubus, why don't you leave the country and go somewhere else where you
would be happier without moaning all day long about how terrible it is here?
because you live there
--
www.abelard.org
Peter Percival
2019-10-07 14:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Irrelevant ng removed.
As the Conservative Party begins its conference against a backdrop of
self-created pure chaos, Boris has just made a pledge to spend 13 Billion
quid on building 40 new hospitals, doubtless the first of many uncosted
pledges to come over the next few days. Now, I’ve got a genuine question
for any Tory voters reading; do you actually believe these promises or do
you see them for the naked distractions and lies they clearly are? If the
latter, why do you persist in supporting these charlatans?
If more money is given to the NHS, they will spend it and ask for more.
Nor is there any reason to think they will spend it responsibly.
Loading...