We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Blair warns Labour not to return to 1980s
Comments
-
quite simple
should a rich person pay exactly the same tax as a poor person?
after all, they both pay the same price for a hamburger
or should the rich subsidise the poor?
Well, you could argue we now just have a system where the poor pay more and the rich less.
Look at a single person working an average wage living in a band b property. Then look at 2 mid-high earners living in a band d.
The less well off is paying far more as a proportion of income. The difference between the bands is pretty negligible when looking at the wage difference.
The poll tax penalised larger households.
The council tax penalises smaller households, especially on the current banding prices.0 -
The_Thrilla wrote: »....Thatcher was the only one who was a psychopath..... .The_Thrilla wrote: »....And I don't care what you call me, peasant.
Two very definite splutters of tea from me there The Thrilla :rotfl:I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!0 -
Yep it's hard to believe anyone can be so idiotic.
Many people use exaggeration to illuminate a point but to then pretend it is all true is stupid.
Where are the are the 6 million corpses she directly ordered killed. Which countries has she invaded and occupied?
I know you think it is clever to be asprovocative as possible but you just look pathetic.
No doubt you will come back with a "la la la no tlistening - don't care what you think" comment rather than any evidence for your ridiculous assertions0 -
The_Thrilla wrote: »
She wrecked the country,
.
The left always claim the mines and works were viable so tell me something, why didn't the rich and powerful unions buy them up?0 -
The left always claim the mines and works were viable so tell me something, why didn't the rich and powerful unions buy them up?
Interesting you should bring this up but in 1977 the miners arranged a meeting in Harrogate to discuss workers control.
The majority of workers were for it as you can imagine. However a certain Mr Scargill refused to have anything to do with it and destroyed any chance of such a thing happening."The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell. British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)0 -
Anthony 'Suez' Eden and Alec Douglas-Home must run him a very close second....
As far as Eden is concerned, Suez was a balls up, but then he was on speed at the time, so that might have had a lot to do with it.
Douglas-Home took over as PM at a time when (post Profumo and Vassal) it seemed as if the Conservative Party was facing disaster. In the end Labour only won the first 1964 GE by four seats, which wasn't bad going in the circumstances, and certainly a damn sight better than Heath managed a few months later.
Heath (1970-1974) was useless. The best that can be said is that he wasn't as bad as Wilson (1974-1976) who had given up by then, and was drunk a lot of the time....I can never decide whether Jim Callaghan was absolutely useless or just dealt a bad hand. The failure to call an election in autumn 1978 was, with hindsight, probably the worst political decision after WW2 excluding Suez. Having said that, being PM of a country that has the IMF in must be very tough, especially if your supporters are demanding that you create a Socialist paradise....
I'd select option B. Although I believe it's a bit of a myth about the Autumn 78 election that never was. Callaghan didn't go for it because there were polls that showed the Conservatives ahead, and since the actual result in May 1979 showed that the polls underestimated Tory support, he'd probably have lost in 78 as well....
A genuine question:
I always assumed that the Community Charge did for Thatcher but stuff I've been reading recently suggests that, while it was deeply unpopular in the country, the cabinet were quite relaxed about it and it was actually her stance of no, no, no to the Euro that did for her.
Thoughts...?
It did for Thatcher because the backbenchers didn't like it as they feared for their seats.The backbenchers made her and the backbenchers unmade her.0 -
The left always claim the mines and works were viable so tell me something, why didn't the rich and powerful unions buy them up?
Tower colliery managed it. Closed down by British Coal in 1995, the miners pooled their redundancy money, bought it, and ran it for 13 years. Scargill didn't like that one little bit.0 -
A genuine question:
I always assumed that the Community Charge did for Thatcher but stuff I've been reading recently suggests that, while it was deeply unpopular in the country, the cabinet were quite relaxed about it and it was actually her stance of no, no, no to the Euro that did for her.
Thoughts...?
I think the Poll tax did for her with the electorate.
Her stance on Europe did for her with the cabinet.
Probably a combination of both for the parliamentary party who were facing electoral defeat, with no prospect of reversing the Poll tax while Thatcher was still PM.
For all Thatchers professed love of Britain, the Poll tax was remarkably un-british, as well as replacing an easily collected simple tax with one that was difficult to collect.
It did of course help to force people off the electoral register - a nice bonus side effect for the tories perhaps ?US housing: it's not a bubble - Moneyweek Dec 12, 20050 -
-
But it's not really a tax, is it? It's a charge for services provided. Presumably the benefits system would have provided support for the poor, just as it does with Council Tax.
TruckerT
Why do people persist in thinking that council tax / poll tax / rates are basically for collecting the bins and a few other services ?
If you look at the info you receive when you get you council tax bill, you will see that by far the largest areas of spend will be Education, Housing, Adult social care, Highways and Transport etc.
Roughly 7% of spend will be on central public services (which would include bins, street lighting etc).
The only true areas of charges for services received are for things like getting a passport (where the charge is not supposed to exceed the full cost of issuing one)US housing: it's not a bubble - Moneyweek Dec 12, 20050
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards