Thatcher

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 50319
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Thatcher

Postby Mick F » 11 Apr 2012, 8:11pm

Rubbish every Wednesday.
Recycling every other Wednesday.
Today was both.

We don't put out rubbish every week coz we don't produce enough to make it worth our while taking it down the drive, but when we do, it is collected. Not today, as it happens.

If this system was 'pay as you use', we wouldn't pay. As we pay in advance, we deserve a refund.
Mick F. Cornwall

SiF
Posts: 51
Joined: 1 May 2010, 9:12am

Re: Re: Thatcher

Postby SiF » 11 Apr 2012, 9:05pm

Raph wrote:The poll tax pretended everyone was the same - funny how on one hand 80s-style tories used to say so delightfully that isn't it marvelous that it's part of life's rich tapestry that some fall by the wayside (the weakest, of course, natural weeding produces a leaner more efficient human race), but then when it suited them, suddenly shock horror we're all the same - so we all pay the same poll tax. We all breathe the same air so we'll all pay the same. Seems so fair when taken out of context, yet £500 a year cripples some but is merely a fraction of the hairdressing bill for others. We refer to a system where some get ridiculously powerful at the expense of everyone else as "democratic", then on one isolated detail we're all the same so suddenly families crammed 4 to a room paid the same as lord and lady Poshnobshire crammed into their tiny 52-up 58 down manor.

So trying to make out that the poll tax was fair because everyone's equal so should pay an equal amount should be a very convincing argument to someone who's exceedingly gullible. But then one winning streak in tory policy was to grind down education so people remained stupid enough to keep loving the tories and lap up any populist (usually patriotic) claptrap they spouted, eloquently repeated word for stultifying word by a thousand morons across the nation.

Still, socialism has so much of its own claptrap I wouldn't know where to start on that...

A point that neither left or right wing politics take into account is merit - in the 80s we loved millionaires, now we hate them, but to me the difference is between wealth that is created from nothing, and wealth that is simply taken from others. no point talking of tory "trickle-down" effect, when the wealth has been squeezed out of the rest of us in the first place. But if someone takes some worthless commodity out of the ground and turns it into something that benefits all, they should get rich. Entrepreneurs that create real benefits get rich, that's good. This can only be monitored by governments, which is where the nanny state so hated by tories comes in.

SiF wrote:
karlt wrote:
The Mechanic"]I am not sure I understand why there was such a fuss about the poll tax. It is only the same as a local income tax, something much favoured by the current SNP Scottish government. Anyone who could not pay the poll tax got similar relief to those currently available for domestic rates etc. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?


Unlike a local income tax, or the rates that preceded it, it made no attempt to be related to income, value of assets or ability to pay. Some poor sod living in a glorified potting shed got to pay the same rates as the Duke of Devonshire.

Why should it? That is what income tax is for? It should be based on consumption.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my GT-I9000 using hovercraft full of eels.

Not a bad idea then, as the poorest are unlikely to consume more than the rich.


Democracy is held up as the be-all and end-all but it's merely less scary than the alternatives and even if it actually worked it can only be as good as the people in it. Democracies have occasionally elected dictators. Money is the main power in our democracy, and as such is not particularly democratic.

Also - "we can elect Politicians to look after our interests" - you're assuming somewhat naïvely that they're a) able to look after our interests in the face of financial powers, b) willing to bother doing so. We elect them into power, at that point many of them stop caring what our interests are. The few that still care can be sidelined very easily.

The tory view of money is that it represents effort and value, but it distorts it just as easily.

[quote="thirdcrank wrote:They do say that some of the long-term dictators have taken great pleasure in outlasting US presidents. After the Embassy Siege Ayatolah whatsisname apparently thought he was humiliating President Carter by delaying releasing his hostages until Mr Carter had left office.

I can't help thinking that these people are missing the point.

Yes - missing it by several miles! Was it Nicaragua where the communism govt held an election, and got voted out? That's something to be hugely proud of![/quote]

Sound argument. Using the 0.000001% of the population that spends £500 on a haircut as a basis.

Another politics of envy argument .... zzzzzzzzz

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my XOOM 2 using hovercraft full of eels. 2

Raph
Posts: 605
Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 8:14pm
Location: Banbury

Re: Re: Thatcher

Postby Raph » 11 Apr 2012, 9:27pm

SiF wrote:Sound argument. Using the 0.000001% of the population that spends £500 on a haircut as a basis.

You've inadvertently hit the nail on the head - the .000001% benefit the most, the rest can **** right off. Also, you've picked the figure of speech to attack, precisely because you can't make headway against the argument it represents. There's a whole spectrum between the 0.000001% that were the 4 crammed to a room and the 0.000001% that had posh haircuts, let's see that leaves 99.99998% between the two extremes I put forward as examples. I think it's you that's missing the point by several miles.

Raph
Posts: 605
Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 8:14pm
Location: Banbury

Re: Thatcher

Postby Raph » 11 Apr 2012, 9:36pm

Oh, and re "politics of envy", if someone steals all the pies, I don't envy them, but I might resent them. On a national or global scale, it might lead to lots of resentment - maybe even revolutions, which usually end up screwing everybody all the more. Sadly I think this might be the way we're going.

Your 0.000001% quote is so good I'll use it again - if 0.000001% actually owned 0.000001% of capital, there would be nothing to resent.

PS Get a cheaper hairdresser.

SiF
Posts: 51
Joined: 1 May 2010, 9:12am

Re: Re: Re: Thatcher

Postby SiF » 11 Apr 2012, 9:54pm

Raph wrote:
SiF wrote:Sound argument. Using the 0.000001% of the population that spends £500 on a haircut as a basis.

You've inadvertently hit the nail on the head - the .000001% benefit the most, the rest can **** right off. Also, you've picked the figure of speech to attack, precisely because you can't make headway against the argument it represents. There's a whole spectrum between the 0.000001% that were the 4 crammed to a room and the 0.000001% that had posh haircuts, let's see that leaves 99.99998% between the two extremes I put forward as examples. I think it's you that's missing the point by several miles.


No,by your argument all taxation would be based on income and ability to pay. That's just ideological.

And there are plenty of people living in large houses that are poorly maintained and who are in ill health because they cannot afford heating. They live a simple life. My wife visits plenty of such patients. They have no INCOME.

And we know of people who have numerous kids, no jobs, but cars and live in 5 bed detached houses. They are funded by the taxpayer. They have INCOME.

By your logic the former would suffer.

I understand the headway, but it has no logic. Just an emotive argument. As Blair said, the problem with the 'tax the rich' argument is that it doesn't affect them, but trickles down to those in the middle. And equality has widened under the last govmt. You are using the minority argument that widens the disparity in the first place, as it actually disincentivises those who want to succeed. It took Blair 10 years to realise the obvious....

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my XOOM 2 using hovercraft full of eels. 2

SiF
Posts: 51
Joined: 1 May 2010, 9:12am

Re: Re: Thatcher

Postby SiF » 11 Apr 2012, 9:59pm

Raph wrote:Oh, and re "politics of envy", if someone steals all the pies, I don't envy them, but I might resent them. On a national or global scale, it might lead to lots of resentment - maybe even revolutions, which usually end up screwing everybody all the more. Sadly I think this might be the way we're going.

Your 0.000001% quote is so good I'll use it again - if 0.000001% actually owned 0.000001% of capital, there would be nothing to resent.

PS Get a cheaper hairdresser.


Oh I get the cheapest, but I tip well. They deserve it!

Oh, and I didn't know you could spend £500 on a haircut. I must be mixing with the wrong types.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my XOOM 2 using hovercraft full of eels. 2

Raph
Posts: 605
Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 8:14pm
Location: Banbury

Re: Thatcher

Postby Raph » 11 Apr 2012, 11:03pm

Wow SiF, you've given up, but I haven't quite yet. Congrats on part-quoting unimportant details to try and distract - I'll spell it out: the haircut reference was figurative, but even so, let's go with it - £500 was a year's poll tax, compared with a year's haircuts for somebody well-off, and in the 80s I did know people for whom that kind of expense was normal. Not my mates mind you, but people for whom I'd do jobs (not hairdressing I hasten to add!), sometimes at 50p per hour, which seemed to be what the tories at the time thought was a going rate. Huge unemployment made such cheap labour possible, otherwise I'd have got fussy and insisted on a living wage. Fair enough I was earning only enough to squat in East London while doing up posh kitchens - the economy does best when a certain critical mass of people are desperate and on the breadline and willing to work for peanuts rather than take pride in anything.

It would be lefty claptrap to blame all that squarely on Thatcher, posh haircuts and kitchens existed before and since (speaking figuratively SiF) - but toryism glorified those who made money for the sake of making money, regardless whether they made it by taking it from others or by doing something beneficial for others.

I wasn't putting forward any of the notions you seem to read into my posts. I was specifically attacking the poll tax, not defending council tax - I know people in the situations you cite and I agree council tax isn't a fair way of doing it but it beats the poll tax by some huge margin. It's interesting that you use "ideological" as a derogatory term - your objection to taxation on income is that it's unfair, so you're ideological too. it's one of those scaremongering words - someone with an ideology must be scary. If the poorest pay the same tax as the richest, not the same proportion, the same amount - I find that a scary ideology indeed.

On the whole you seem to be arguing with some imagined lefty who thinks everyone should "get" the same regardless what they put in, and that definitely isn't me. in fact it's not even communism! Under communism you get slung in the clink if you don't pull your weight! As far as I'm concerned, you want to earn more, good - work more! There will never be an exact correlation between effort, value and money, they have to vary naturally to some extent, but the extreme variations we're getting to now are obscene. If I dare utter a slightly lefty sound and ask how bonuses of £millions are proportional to most people's wages, I get told by any tory "so what? Life's unfair, get used to it!" - ok fair enough... so what on earth reason is there for most people to support toryism? The gullibility of the population in the face of crass patriotism, or stuff like "we're all in it together" is part of it, but sadly the main reason for me not to vilify toryism is that lefty politics ultimately does no better! I'd rather stick with capitalism but keep an eye on it.

Strange that you make a dig at the notion that poverty and wealth are an "emotive" issue. Of course they're emotive! It's a pretty cheap objection - oh dear now I can't mention any injustice ever cos Sif will call it "emotive". Yeah of course it's emotive, what do you expect? Tories weren't emotive were they? Remember the "enemy within"? Those evil nurses "holding us to ransom"? The "bear in the woods" whatever the hell that was... Thatcher wasn't emotive? The flashing eyes and headmistress tone got us all uppity cos they tapped into emotions of anger, usually aimed at the bottom of society, not the top that were screwing us all and still are.

And yes it got even worse under labour, not just the inequality, but the scaremongering too, consequently now there's all this surveillance - and amusingly the tories who objected to it so much in opposition are now putting it into practice, in a similar way to labour freaking out about tuition fees, and then implementing them when in government. So as usual not much difference between the parties, merely the one in power is always wrong, the opposition is always right. And die-hard adherents of each take personal affront at any criticism.

Raph
Posts: 605
Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 8:14pm
Location: Banbury

Re: Re: Re: Thatcher

Postby Raph » 11 Apr 2012, 11:18pm

SiF wrote:And we know of people who have numerous kids, no jobs, but cars and live in 5 bed detached houses. They are funded by the taxpayer. They have INCOME.

Yes, that got massively worse under labour - I was on the dole for a few months in the 80s, impossible to survive on - I was squatting, it was either that or on the street - but I only thought of the dole as a stepping stone. Nowadays it's a viable career with perks.

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Thatcher

Postby Edwards » 12 Apr 2012, 4:23am

Raph wrote:
SiF wrote:And we know of people who have numerous kids, no jobs, but cars and live in 5 bed detached houses. They are funded by the taxpayer. They have INCOME.

Yes, that got massively worse under labour - I was on the dole for a few months in the 80s, impossible to survive on - I was squatting, it was either that or on the street - but I only thought of the dole as a stepping stone. Nowadays it's a viable career with perks.


I am so glad I do not read some of the newspapers or believe any politician including that woman. :roll: :shock: :cry:
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

SiF
Posts: 51
Joined: 1 May 2010, 9:12am

Re: Thatcher

Postby SiF » 14 Apr 2012, 4:40pm

Raph wrote:Wow SiF, you've given up, but I haven't quite yet. Congrats on part-quoting unimportant details to try and distract - I'll spell it out: the haircut reference was figurative, but even so, let's go with it - £500 was a year's poll tax, compared with a year's haircuts for somebody well-off, and in the 80s I did know people for whom that kind of expense was normal. Not my mates mind you, but people for whom I'd do jobs (not hairdressing I hasten to add!), sometimes at 50p per hour, which seemed to be what the tories at the time thought was a going rate. Huge unemployment made such cheap labour possible, otherwise I'd have got fussy and insisted on a living wage. Fair enough I was earning only enough to squat in East London while doing up posh kitchens - the economy does best when a certain critical mass of people are desperate and on the breadline and willing to work for peanuts rather than take pride in anything.


Oh quite the opposite in fact. haven't given up, just succeeded where I needed to. I just don't believe in focussing my energy on the negatives, but concentrate on achieving life goals. Otherwise when you fail, you just turn around and blame the chips on your shoulder. And being raised in poor inner-city London, you need to look forward and focus on achievement to drag yourself out of it.

And lets be honest, sometimes life is s**t enough as it is to get wound up by all the inequalities that affect you.

It would be lefty claptrap to blame all that squarely on Thatcher, posh haircuts and kitchens existed before and since (speaking figuratively SiF) - but toryism glorified those who made money for the sake of making money, regardless whether they made it by taking it from others or by doing something beneficial for others.


Fully agree with you there.

I wasn't putting forward any of the notions you seem to read into my posts. I was specifically attacking the poll tax, not defending council tax - I know people in the situations you cite and I agree council tax isn't a fair way of doing it but it beats the poll tax by some huge margin. It's interesting that you use "ideological" as a derogatory term - your objection to taxation on income is that it's unfair, so you're ideological too. it's one of those scaremongering words - someone with an ideology must be scary. If the poorest pay the same tax as the richest, not the same proportion, the same amount - I find that a scary ideology indeed.


Taxation exists in a number of forms, many historical and irrelevant I know, intended to extract income for different reasons as well as condition certain behaviours. It isn't ideological, it's practical. Coming from a poor working class background I was taught to stand on my own 2 feet, work hard and not to expect help from anyone else - you should be judged on your own achievements. Hence I had no problem with the poll tax. I agree that the ability of the richest to avoid paying their share is totally immoral. Govmts have taken a long time to address this issue though, but at least they are. Problem is, thieves are always one step ahead.

On the whole you seem to be arguing with some imagined lefty who thinks everyone should "get" the same regardless what they put in, and that definitely isn't me. in fact it's not even communism! Under communism you get slung in the clink if you don't pull your weight! As far as I'm concerned, you want to earn more, good - work more! There will never be an exact correlation between effort, value and money, they have to vary naturally to some extent, but the extreme variations we're getting to now are obscene. If I dare utter a slightly lefty sound and ask how bonuses of £millions are proportional to most people's wages, I get told by any tory "so what? Life's unfair, get used to it!" - ok fair enough... so what on earth reason is there for most people to support toryism? The gullibility of the population in the face of crass patriotism, or stuff like "we're all in it together" is part of it, but sadly the main reason for me not to vilify toryism is that lefty politics ultimately does no better! I'd rather stick with capitalism but keep an eye on it.


Yes , sorry, mistook you as another moaning lefty. I just feel that those of us in the middle are forgotton by politicians. And fully agree with what you say actually. The variations in equality are appalling, and have accelerated over the past 20 years, funded by a lack of reward for the average working person. And to equate tory with 'toff' is unrepresentative of the conservative vote, and just about all of the working class people that I know vote conservative. Commonly, they have the same 'work ethic' as you describe above.

Strange that you make a dig at the notion that poverty and wealth are an "emotive" issue. Of course they're emotive! It's a pretty cheap objection - oh dear now I can't mention any injustice ever cos Sif will call it "emotive". Yeah of course it's emotive, what do you expect? Tories weren't emotive were they? Remember the "enemy within"? Those evil nurses "holding us to ransom"? The "bear in the woods" whatever the hell that was... Thatcher wasn't emotive? The flashing eyes and headmistress tone got us all uppity cos they tapped into emotions of anger, usually aimed at the bottom of society, not the top that were screwing us all and still are.


Yes, but my point (ie, reference to Blair) was that the constant stream of 'emotive' policies negates any common sense. So, the top rate tax could be 45% or 50%, the number is emotive. But what matters is that those at the top pay their fair amount. It could be 10% or 90%, but they will attempt to avoid it through specialist measures. So what matters is that they are prevented from doing so, as the previous and current govmt are trying to do. It just doesn't sound sexy as a policy.

And yes it got even worse under labour, not just the inequality, but the scaremongering too, consequently now there's all this surveillance - and amusingly the tories who objected to it so much in opposition are now putting it into practice, in a similar way to labour freaking out about tuition fees, and then implementing them when in government. So as usual not much difference between the parties, merely the one in power is always wrong, the opposition is always right. And die-hard adherents of each take personal affront at any criticism.


Absolute agreement here as well. Politics has become another 'entertainment show' with each side trying to gain popularity points. They are too busy being personalities instead of doing what is right for the country. Brown and now Osbourne (although Brown was an expert) are just appeasing the 'minorities' at the expense of those who aren't a member of any specific group. Problem is, it costs a fortune.

SiF
Posts: 51
Joined: 1 May 2010, 9:12am

Re: Thatcher

Postby SiF » 14 Apr 2012, 4:50pm

Edwards wrote:
Raph wrote:
SiF wrote:And we know of people who have numerous kids, no jobs, but cars and live in 5 bed detached houses. They are funded by the taxpayer. They have INCOME.

Yes, that got massively worse under labour - I was on the dole for a few months in the 80s, impossible to survive on - I was squatting, it was either that or on the street - but I only thought of the dole as a stepping stone. Nowadays it's a viable career with perks.


I am so glad I do not read some of the newspapers or believe any politician including that woman. :roll: :shock: :cry:


So do I, they print all kinds of rubbish. I use my own experiences.

When my dad was unemployed (he was a bricklayer which is seasonal) he was too proud to claim benefit. All I got out of the state was a new school uniform once. Now living off the state is a professional occupation for some. And our family knows of a few!

Problem is, we don't have a welfare state that helps the needy, but a dependency state that supports the useless. The money consequently goes to the wrong place.

JohnW
Posts: 6433
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Thatcher

Postby JohnW » 14 Apr 2012, 7:39pm

SiF wrote:..................Problem is, we don't have a welfare state that helps the needy, but a dependency state that supports the useless. The money consequently goes to the wrong place.


That is so right - well expressed SiF.

User avatar
NUKe
Posts: 3983
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 11:07pm
Location: Suffolk

Re: Thatcher

Postby NUKe » 14 Apr 2012, 8:34pm

Yes there are some abuses of the welfare state and these need catching and dealing with, Its criminal and abusers should feel the weight of the law. But there are many families that are struggling and the government cutting benefits saying we are all in it together, is not going to help, When you look at the rubbish printed inthe papers what they don't tell you is the largest chunk of the welfare state is going to pay private landlords. It's the rich that get richer at the expense of the poor.

Labours family tax credits are one of the best ways of tackling the welfare state but it needs to be paid for. The liberals had an excellent ideas on progressive taxation before they sniffed power. The conservatives had some good ideas on welfare reform in the reports from Ian Duncan Smith but the current front bench seem to have forgotten it
NUKe
_____________________________________

indy
Posts: 42
Joined: 17 Jul 2010, 6:06pm

Re: Thatcher

Postby indy » 15 Apr 2012, 4:45pm

3 Problems with the Welfare State...

1) There appears to be an assumption that its only PEOPLE that abuse the welfare system but the biggest scandal are the ways that large corporations are able to milk it. There was an article in one of the broadsheets a few years ago giving the % of people that worked for Tesco's who were claiming low income related benefits. Tesco's makes BILLIONS of £'s a year and by all accounts has very good a Tax minimisation dept YET it is able to get away with paying its staff so little that the UK Tax payer is in effect subsidising Tesco's share holders via welfare payment wage top ups.

2) The age of Entitlement, the huge number of people that believe that for the consideration of a National Insurance payment the State is obligated to write them a lifetime's worth of welfare blank cheque.

3) This might be controversial but its hard not to see that the large influx of foreign workers hasn't had an impact on wages for unskilled employment leading at least a section of the working population being better off on benefits.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Thatcher

Postby meic » 15 Apr 2012, 5:00pm

Coming from a poor working class background I was taught to stand on my own 2 feet, work hard and not to expect help from anyone else


Now Thatcher would approve of that, she loved the poor working class. :wink:

She was too honest to say "We are all in it together" though as the quote above was more suited to her idea of how a dog-eat-dog lower class should be kept productive.

If you end up topdog it seems OK. If you are just part of the pack fighting over the scraps you may be tempted to look across the channel, to Europe, and think there is a better way.
Yma o Hyd