Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2005 22:23:50 GMT 1
I think I have just found out TB's secret to success in the coming election.
"Let Uncle Gordon appear to give away a few bob to the masses. Make 'em feel good then go for the votes. Then hammer them with every devious tax plan we can for the next 5 years"
That is an extract from the minutes of a Cabinet Meeting last week leaked by Tony's "friend".
This subtle political ruse is set to go down into the history books!
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 16, 2005 22:37:22 GMT 1
This subtle political ruse is set to go down into the history books! Nah, its been done by every chancellor in the run up to an election since Pitt the younger. Now if you want a political ruse, try this. " I know maggie, lets change the rates system. Lets charge every adult in a house £300 regardless of there relative wealth, so a house hold with, shall we say, 4 peeeepil living in a council house on the Grange, will pay £1200 per year rates, whilst our good friends Lord and Lady Muck living in their 18th Century Mansion will only pay £600 per year. Its a win win situation because we get to screw the poor barstewards we have made unemployed whilst Lord and Lady Muck get to buy a few extra crates of chardonne" Michael Howard, to the prosperity of the people, what snot is to the front of a wedding dress.
|
|
|
Post by apmaddocks on Mar 16, 2005 22:41:14 GMT 1
A very policital comment, from the one side answered by someone on the other side.
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Mar 16, 2005 22:42:03 GMT 1
Definitely a budget to ensure that Labour don't scare the "Middle England" vote off at the pending election.
Many people voted for Labour for the last 2 elections expecting them to make a material difference (in line with their promises after all - who can forget Mandelsohn & Precsott jiving to "Things can only get better" !) after the Tories had been in for far too long - many are now questioning what Tony has done exactly ?
Let's wait for Tony's mob to get back in & see the s**t really hit the fan when Gordon next stands up to speak - Capital Gains Tax on house sales anyone ?
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 16, 2005 22:47:17 GMT 1
Many people voted for Labour for the last 2 elections expecting them to make a material difference Wrong. They voted in Labour cos they wanted the country to be better than it was under the tories, and guess what, it is. Yipppeeeeee
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 16, 2005 22:51:40 GMT 1
Nah, its been done by every chancellor in the run up to an election since Pitt the younger. Now if you want a political ruse, try this. " I know maggie, lets change the rates system. Lets charge every adult in a house £300 regardless of there relative wealth, so a house hold with, shall we say, 4 peeeepil living in a council house on the Grange, will pay £1200 per year rates, whilst our good friends Lord and Lady Muck living in their 18th Century Mansion will only pay £600 per year. Its a win win situation because we get to screw the poor barstewards we have made unemployed whilst Lord and Lady Muck get to buy a few extra crates of chardonne" Michael Howard, to the prosperity of the people, what snot is to the front of a wedding dress. Michael Howard is the child catcher from chitty chitty bang bang. I wouldn't trust him and his band of cronies with this country and its Peeeeple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2005 22:52:45 GMT 1
Thank goodness Sister Pab, for a minute I thought this thread was getting serious
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 16, 2005 22:53:31 GMT 1
Michael Howard is the child catcher from chitty chitty bang bang. I wouldn't trust him and his band of cronies with this country and its Peeeeple.
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Mar 16, 2005 22:55:51 GMT 1
Sister Pab - The poll tax was a good principle in certain aspects that was appallingly executed. The basic principle that all earners in a household should pay some form of contribution to their local services is one I agree with. Leaving the Muck's out of this for a moment, a more pertinent comparison (seen more often, there aren't many Mucks down my way) is Mr & Mrs Retired-but-not-quite-OAP's who live together in a house and have to pay the same under the Council Tax as their neighbours Mr & Mrs both-working-and have 2 kids who work too - how is that fair? What needs to be done, if any party is prepared to grasp the idea (not sure where Kennedy's lot stand on this), is to levy local Authority income via a method that is not just based on how much your house is worth but also against how much you earn & thus can afford to pay. The present system can in many situations unfairly treat those who don't earn a great deal but just by living in a house in a particular area for a length of time now have a valuable asset - this doesn't necessarily mean they can afford to pay a vast council tax bill. We then need to address the whole issue of central & local Govt inefficiency, waste, over-staffing, stupid ideas (£80k for a pile of metal lumps in the centre of a lovely market town sound familiar?) & general wallyness, although I fear that this topic will take more than the collective minds of this board to solve
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2005 22:57:02 GMT 1
Oh dear! Mummy is calling ne to bed. Thank goodness. Night night
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 16, 2005 23:06:08 GMT 1
Sister Pab - The poll tax was a good principle in certain aspects that was appallingly executed. The basic principle that all earners in a household should pay some form of contribution to their local services is one I agree with. Leaving the Muck's out of this for a moment, a more pertinent comparison (seen more often, there aren't many Mucks down my way) is Mr & Mrs Retired-but-not-quite-OAP's who live together in a house and have to pay the same under the Council Tax as their neighbours Mr & Mrs both-working-and have 2 kids who work too - how is that fair? What needs to be done, if any party is prepared to grasp the idea (not sure where Kennedy's lot stand on this), is to levy local Authority income via a method that is not just based on how much your house is worth but also against how much you earn & thus can afford to pay. The present system can in many situations unfairly treat those who don't earn a great deal but just by living in a house in a particular area for a length of time now have a valuable asset - this doesn't necessarily mean they can afford to pay a vast council tax bill. We then need to address the whole issue of central & local Govt inefficiency, waste, over-staffing, stupid ideas (£80k for a pile of metal lumps in the centre of a lovely market town sound familiar?) & general wallyness, although I fear that this topic will take more than the collective minds of this board to solve This is a really difficult one to call, if the council tax was changed to people's income then it would cause a whole new set of problems, stacks would not have to pay, where they do now, also those on very good pensions, could end up paying more just because they have saved for thier old age, ie sold that big house for the more modest property living of the rest, it just doesnt work, somewhere there has to be an answer, just like we pay a bigger water bill than some others who have propertys worth nearly three times as much.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 16, 2005 23:29:07 GMT 1
I agree with both of you ( ) Strange thing is, if we still had the poll tax i would be much better off. Single, 25K income, homeowner, living alone. now paying £550 ish Ctax, would be paying much less i guess on poll tax. Where i agree is that the present system is unfair in that i pay my £75/month and get jack all except my bin collected every three weeks ( cos it takes me that long to fill it ) and s**te roads. I basically pay for others to use the librays, park and ride, recreation facilities blah blah blah. I dont of coarse object to this, redistribution of wealth and all that. But is it fair, of coarse not.
|
|