Reminder Secure

Baroness Thatcher (retitled)

This thread is being watched by 2 people
Tony Stephenson is off-line
13 April 2013 19:31
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
Location
United Kingdom
East Yorkshire
Driffield

Quote from stevephot
Tony thats a terrible argument..

how about being more sensible:
  • couple late 40's Managers 4 bedroomed detached house 2 cars in drveway living take home pay combined £77K
  • Young Couple 1 bed flat, 1 car parked on the street combined wage of £22K
Pay the same for Poll Tax.

Now is that fair?

There was a reason the Poll Tax was dropped and the Council tax (the replacement)  had banding.




Not so terrible an argument methinks Steve...

It's not the fault or problem of the couple in their late 40's as to how much the younger couple earn! In any case, the couple with the higher earnings must have worked and paid for what they had and would already be paying far higher rates of Income Tax and NI contributions so where is the fairness in them having to pay more for their Council provided services too?
By all means take more from higher earners in Income Tax if you wish to impose socialist ideology on taxation but when you also expect someone to pay more for their Council services too, then that is certainly not a fair society!

The Council Tax was just a re-naming of the old rating system which was and is a grossly unfair socialist ideology which took/takes in no account of ability to pay ( does that sound familiar Steve?).

Just because someone lives in a bigger house than someone else, it doesn't mean they automatically have an income to match and two couples occupying different properties don't usually use any more services than each other so why expect one couple to pay more than the other?


www.le-femme.co.uk


Iain Thomson is off-linePlatinum Member
14 April 2013 03:32
IainT
Photographer
IainT
Location
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire


Quote from jivago
Contrarywise? - That was the direct testimomy of a retired Inspector.  Many will differ with you that the Police were/are underpaid?



Police could retire at 50 and do live longer than the time that they have contributed - As unsustainable as so called 'excessive' benefits? I think many will struggle with that one"- No?



All Public figures suffer from so called "inaccurate propaganda" - Demagogues like Thatcher more than most!






Maybe he was winding you up or maybe he was never in the Police service. The fact Police Officers paid 11% of their salary into a contributory pension scheme is just that, a fact...it was compulsory, however one thing Thatcher did was to allow officers to opt out of the government scheme and source their own private schemes if they so chose. The police pension scheme is like any private contributory scheme, the underwriters gamble on some dying early and not getting their full entitlement, to compensate for those who live long lives. The Police pension is not a benefit, its a bought and paid for entitlement. But I guess it fits in with the anti-police anti-Thatcher lobby to make up suitable rhetoric to match their views, it would be silly to let truth get in way....

I believe other government and civil service pension schemes only required a 5% contribution by the employee for eventual benefits which were greater pro-rata than the police service scheme, i guess the difference was funded by the tax payer.
I tend to be a modest man, but then I do have a lot to be modest about.


14 April 2013 04:16
stevephot
Photographer


Tony

I fail to see why you cannot understand that one couple paying 10% of their wages on poll tax is the same as a couple paying only 2%, especially when they cannot afford it.

It was seen as a tax on the poor, it was a tax on the poor and im afraid that those who were sold on the whole capitalism dream even today cannot understand the only people who did well from that dream were the upper middle class and above.

It is like today the working poor are now in real poverty and its down to capitalism, nothing else.


Dont blame me..i voted for the other lot :)


Hugh is off-lineGold Member
14 April 2013 04:23
Hugh
Photographer
Hugh
Location
United Kingdom
Dyfed
Aberystwyth

Quote from stevephot
It is very easy to give the odd example of whether it was fair or not, but for the majority it was a terrible tax and it was a tax that those on the least wages who could not  afford it.  And dont forget, those unemplyed would not be paying it.   The people it hit the most were those who had the least pay.






The Poll tax was a poorly planned and marketed tax, because people objected strongly to paying it.

The National Lottery is a brilliantly planned and marketed tax.
Maggie would never have dreamt that you could get proles to queue up voluntarily every week to hand over money to support opera.
It's not Fine Art just because it's in Black and White.


Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
14 April 2013 04:39
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

Quote from Hugh
The Poll tax was a poorly planned and marketed tax, because people objected strongly to paying it.



LOL
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


Iain Thomson is off-linePlatinum Member
14 April 2013 05:49
IainT
Photographer
IainT
Location
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire


Quote from Hugh


The Poll tax was a poorly planned and marketed tax, because people objected strongly to paying it.

The National Lottery is a brilliantly planned and marketed tax.
Maggie would never have dreamt that you could get proles to queue up voluntarily every week to hand over money to support opera.




Lol...yeah...National lottery is the best IainT is a naughty person ever to get the poor to pay tax for things they never use or have no interest in. If i were to suggest that it always seems to be the "poor" who can afford to smoke, drink and hand over tenners willy nilly for scratch cards etc i,m sure i,ll be accused of rabid right wing views......
I tend to be a modest man, but then I do have a lot to be modest about.


Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
14 April 2013 05:55
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

Quote from IainT
If i were to suggest that it always seems to be the "poor" who can afford to smoke, drink and hand over tenners willy nilly for scratch cards etc i,m sure i,ll be accused of rabid right wing views......



I get this all the time at my bike club, most of them are out of work or on some sort of disablility benefit for some cough (or other seemingly pathetic reason) and they moan like buggery I have a car, two bikes and other expensive hobbies (photography, computing etc.).  Yet... do I frequent the pub every single evening and buy 4/5 pints?  do I smoke a pack or two a day?  do I only ever eat takeaway food?  do I go on holiday every few months? etc. etc.

I can only speak from personal experience but those who claim to be poor simply cannot see that they channel their money in a different way to those who are 'rich', and in fact their total ourgoings aren't all that different.
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


Andy_B is off-lineSilver Member
14 April 2013 06:07
Andy_B
Photographer
Andy_B
Location
United Kingdom
London
London

Quote from stevephot
Tony I fail to see why you cannot understand that one couple paying 10% of their wages on poll tax is the same as a couple paying only 2%, especially when they cannot afford it.  



Because the comunity charge was there to pay for local services! 

Income tax is designed to take more off the rich - and it does. Not only does it take more as you earn more, it ratchets it up with a larger proportion too!

Community charge was a much smaller proportion of your outgoings, to reflect the local services you use. Two people use twice as many services... they should pay twice as much - seems fair to me. The idea of the community charge was to get the local population to force councils to stop wasting money on irrelevant (politics based) services - everyone is paying so everyone has an interest in getting the prices down.

Now that's been replaced with a system whereby every household pays the same. I'm single so I get a 25% discount... but I use hardly any local services! The family of six in the house next door are getting a much better deal out of the council than me... how is that fair? Currently the power in council spending is in the hands of those with larger poorer families - who vote themselves extra services that they don't need to pay for.

And where does your 'payent should be based on income' arguent end? Should I pay more for a pint of milk, food, clothes? That's what you're arguing for... cutting the link between use of goods/services and paying for them!


Christopher John Ball is off-lineSilver Member
14 April 2013 06:26
christopher_ball
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
London
london

Quote from RedChecker
or on some sort of disablility benefit for some cough (or other seemingly pathetic reason) and they moan like buggery



What do you think the fraud rate is on disability benefits and can you expand upon what you mean by 'or other seemingly pathetic reason' ?



Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
14 April 2013 06:34
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

Quote from christopher_ball
What do you think the fraud rate is on disability benefits and can you expand upon what you mean by 'or other seemingly pathetic reason' ?



All sorts of reasons.. dodgy knees, asthma that sort of thing, most of them had something in the past but played on it as if it were a dilapidating condition even though they were well shot of it.  It certainly didn't stop them riding superbikes though (which I'd argue needs a certain degree of physical fitness) back & forth to the Ace Cafe during the day for a laugh while the rest of us were grafting for a living. 

As as for fraud... a former member of the club was sub-letting his flat (provided due to his disablility) to one of his mates for cash in hand and lived at his mum's instead (well, he had to fund his hobby of biking & going to the pub somehow).  The funny thing was he still kept a key for when the inspectors would come around to check on him (they'd tell him a week in advance so he was always well prepared)

Again, I'm only speaking from experience.  I'm sure the rest of the nation that claims benefits does so fully above board and wouldn't contemplate milking a system that's relatively easy to abuse once you have a foot in the door.
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.



23 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
Cody illy_xx Methzee Winterlilly
bengie diphoto gazza GlasgowPhotographer imageatthemill keltica Ladiesman mikebee moorlane oro panda49 philippahh Photojoe670 photostevo plymjack stevegosh steveh32 Thunder_Photos Willjamieson