1 in 4 households are struggling

Sir_Humphrey

The_White_Horse wrote: »

He said "the government wanted everyone to pay the same amount for the same thing - how unfair is that?"

So presumably you also think that companies should hire labour at the same pay rate, no matter what job they are hired to do? Same principle.

A mansion is not the same as a one-bedroom flat, as any fule no. :rolleyes:

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

So presumably you also think that companies should hire labour at the same pay rate, no matter what job they are hired to do? Same principle.

I think that analogy is flawed. I think the correct one would be companies should hire labour at the same payrate for whichever person is doing the job. Hmm, thats flawed too, because different people do jobs with different degrees of efficiencies.

Anyway, I don't think its quite the same principle.

Fire_Fox

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i saw a stupid lefty once on a programme about the poll tax say the funniest thing I ever heard. He said "the government wanted everyone to pay the same amount for the same thing - how unfair is that?"

the answer is VERY. It couldn't have been any fairer. You all get the same, and all pay the same.

The disgusting thing is the same people roll over and pay the council tax which is far higher and oppresive because it was brought in by labour. Without Ben Elton and his ilk stirring it up, the students aren't interested.

What a joke.

I would respond to this post, but I don't understand the third paragraph as your punctuation leaves a lot to be desired. It's also rather unfortunate that you feel the need to resort to insults (!!!!less layabouts, stupid lefty) so early in the discussion - that rather suggests a lack of intellect on your part.

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

I think that analogy is flawed. I think the correct one would be companies should hire labour at the same payrate for whichever person is doing the job. Hmm, thats flawed too, because different people do jobs with different degrees of efficiencies.

Anyway, I don't think its quite the same principle.

About 90% the same. His error is to ignore the qualitative difference between assets with the same basic function. Where the analogy stretches is that there is a far wider variation between human workers than between housing types.

If his argument were valid, then he should be arguing that tramps living in cardboard boxes should be charged the same rate of council tax.

Perhaps a better analogy would be charging the same running costs for an Aston Martin as for a Smart Car.

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Perhaps a better analogy would be charging the same running costs for an Aston Martin as for a Smart Car.

well, they do pay the same taxes on petrol etc, one just uses more, therefore paying more tax. (one could argue the same with tax discs, that the grades signifiy not different use but higher consumption of same use, I suppose)

I think the reason I'm struggling with analogies is because my own position is not yet set in stone:o

thriftybabe

Sorry Pastures if I offended you. I, myself have been very lucky and lived a good lifestyle. I was just meaning that my friend is really THAT hard up that she cannot afford a coffee. TBH she does not have much pleasures. She is on her own. Her so called Partner does not live in this country and does not pay towards her kids. She does her best and worked full time till she got paid off. She had tried hard to get work and I feel bad for her if she cannot buy a coffee. A lot of peopel who work in the City buy all these fancy coffees on their way to work. I worked in the City Centre for a few years and was shocked that the people in my office went out to lunch every day. I did it the odd time just to get out of the office as sometimes the Boardroom (the only place we could sit) was getting used!

The staff that I worked with were all younger than me and did have a lot of debt. I did tut tut at the things they would do and then moan about having no money the week after pay day cause they had to pay it to all their debt.

I do know what you mean about people's priorities. My SIL who does not earn very much lives for the moment. Holidays etc are put on cards and shifted back and forth. That is not for me. They have been their annual holiday and we have decided not to go this year. I know for a fact that we are in a position a thousand times better than her family but still have not done it.

The_White_Horse

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I would respond to this post, but I don't understand the third paragraph as your punctuation leaves a lot to be desired. It's also rather unfortunate that you feel the need to resort to insults (!!!!less layabouts, stupid lefty) so early in the discussion - that rather suggests a lack of intellect on your part.

I think it is extermely obvious what was meant, and that the word "not" before "VERY" was left out. Still, I am glad you didn't feel shame in not being able to work that out for yourself. As they say, there is no such thing as a stupid question.

The point is, the lefty thought it was unfair for people to pay the same amount for the SAME thing. In fact, as I pointed out, the lower paid and benefits brigade probably actually cost the council a lot more than the richer residents.

Why should someone in a bigger house pay more council tax? I have not heard one decent argument for it - other than a socialist redistribution of wealth "you do well, work hard and get something better than someone else, you will pay the price".

the poll tax was absolutely fair. each person paid the same amount.

Or maybe we should charge council tax on your usage of council services? I would quite happily pay a bit for the local roads. I have no kids at school. I would be happy to pay a private bin collection company and perfectly happy to pay for street lights. apart from that, most of what the council does is a complete waste of time and money.

The_White_Horse

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

If his argument were valid, then he should be arguing that tramps living in cardboard boxes should be charged the same rate of council tax.

they should be. they use the street lights. they throw rubbsih away (mainly cans of lager - which i bet they don't recycle), they use the hospitals, they sleep on the streets, they use benches, go to the parks. they should absolutely pay council tax.

The_White_Horse

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

So presumably you also think that companies should hire labour at the same pay rate, no matter what job they are hired to do? Same principle.

that is just stupid. if they do different jobs, then why can't they be paid differently?

However if you are saying some people use more council services than others, and those people should pay more council tax, I quite agree - BUT THE SIZE OF SOMEONES HOUSE IS NO INDICATOR OF THAT.

bendix

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they should be. they use the street lights. they throw rubbsih away (mainly cans of lager - which i bet they don't recycle), they use the hospitals, they sleep on the streets, they use benches, go to the parks. they should absolutely pay council tax.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Love it. Damn right they should. They use council services. In fact, through policing, street-cleaning, litter collection etc, they probably use more council services than Mr and Mrs 2.4 Kids from Acacia Avenue.