Who is Most Evil?

[thetrees]

Thatcher considered Pinochet a close friend....

Probably, given that she required and received his assistance in repelling an aggressor thousands of miles from home. Strangely there are still some people who put our country first.

She was an enthusiastic supporter of Apartheid....

In my opinion this is a wildly inaccurate claim. If she was a supporter of apartheid I don't know about it, and if she was an 'enthusiastic' supporter, surely we would all have known about it.

The Falkland War was a calamity....

An aggressor invade sovereign territory nearly 8000 miles from home and was removed within three months. Hardly a calamity, more like a magnificent show of efficiency.

As was the Poll Tax....

The problem with the Poll Tax was that it was fair. Fairness and Socialism don't go hand in hand together, which is why lots of 'protestors' decided to cause mayhem (with their faces covered, of course)

Had their been no Falklands, UK politics would have continued with its left-right-left lurch. The success of the Falklands gave Thatcher the time to undo the mess created by the Wilson and Callaghan governments and bring prosperity to this country.

That's the prosperity that Brown and Blair have pissed away in the last 10 years, ensuring that there will be a generation of hardship to follow.

[Xann]

but how many hundreds of thousands of people have died in Iraq as a direct results of Bush and Bliar's illegal war?

That's anyones guess.

Blair was a liar and/or a fool. Therefore not fit to govern a country. It happens when they get too comfortable for too long at the top.

[desensitized43]

got to got to got to got to be thatcher!!! when will that evil old witch hurry up and die so the country can have one long piss up!!

[TheSufferingVilla]

Blair was a liar and/or a fool. Therefore not fit to govern a country.

Aren't they the basic requirements for a career in politics?

[Xann]

The problem with the Poll Tax was that it was fair.

From Wiki - feel free to look elsewhere if you like.

"The system was unpopular. It seemed to shift the tax burden from rich to poor, as it was based on the number of people living in a house rather than its estimated price. Many tax rates set by local councils proved to be much higher than earlier predictions, leading to resentment even among people who had supported it. The tax in different boroughs differed dramatically because local taxes paid by businesses varied and grants by central government to local authorities sometimes varied capriciously."

Clicky

[snowychap]

The problem with the Poll Tax was that it was fair.

Regressive taxes are not fair.

[nrogers]

The problem with the Poll Tax was that it was fair.

From Wiki - feel free to look elsewhere if you like.

"The system was unpopular. It seemed to shift the tax burden from rich to poor, as it was based on the number of people living in a house rather than its estimated price. Many tax rates set by local councils proved to be much higher than earlier predictions, leading to resentment even among people who had supported it. The tax in different boroughs differed dramatically because local taxes paid by businesses varied and grants by central government to local authorities sometimes varied capriciously."

Clicky

But isn't a tax on the number of individuals fairer, a house containing more people will use more public services such as Rubbish Collection, etc... Do the people in more expensive properties throw out more rubbish?

[snowychap]

But isn't a tax on the number of individuals fairer, a house containing more people will use more public services such as Rubbish Collection, etc... Do the people in more expensive properties throw out more rubbish?

Quite possibly.

They might well have higher salaries and might have more disposable income with which to purchase more goods with more excessive packaging and thus create more waste. :winkold:

[nrogers]

But isn't a tax on the number of individuals fairer, a house containing more people will use more public services such as Rubbish Collection, etc... Do the people in more expensive properties throw out more rubbish?

Quite possibly.

They might well have higher salaries and might have more disposable income with which to purchase more goods with more excessive packaging and thus create more waste. :winkold:

Rich people don't tend to waste things, that's why they are rich... Well off people will be taxed higher at the income level, why should have have to pay higher taxes again for the same public services?

[snowychap]

Rich people don't tend to waste things, that's why they are rich... Well off people will be taxed higher at the income level, why should have have to pay higher taxes again for the same public services?

Them's the meanies, though.

You must know some penny-pinching rich people.

Because public services are not a product in a market place and therefore they should not to be 'sold' at a set price.

[thetrees]

It had nothing to do with rich, because relatively there weren't that many of them (and still aren't). As always the socialists and so called 'working class' decided to pin it on the rich in order to spread their anarchic bile.

Poll tax was fair to normal people who, rather than spend their money on drinking, smoking and gambling, use their earnings to better their family. Ultimately it was they who lost out, and still do.

[snowychap]

It had nothing to do with rich, because relatively there weren't that many of them (and still aren't). As always the socialists and so called 'working class' decided to pin it on the rich in order to spread their anarchic bile.

Poll tax was fair to normal people who, rather than spend their money on drinking, smoking and gambling, use their earnings to better their family. Ultimately it was they who lost out, and still do.

What on earth has drinking, smoking and gambling to do with the price of a cup of tea?

[Xann]

Rich people don't tend to waste things, that's why they are rich...

Many are wasteful, most are bad payers.

Well off people will be taxed higher at the income level, why should have have to pay higher taxes again for the same public services?

Proportionally they are more able to afford it.

I'd typed the above before reading your post Snowychap, and deleted another after reading your previous response.

Damn you've done it again.

You're doing well mate - I'm off for a cuppa.

[nrogers]

Tax for public services should be the same across the board, it's the same bloody service whether you are in Little Aston or Erdington. It doesn't cost more to pick up rubbish in Little Aston, in fact it would cost less as there are less houses! So by definition alone they are paying more...

[nrogers]

got to got to got to got to be thatcher!!! when will that evil old witch hurry up and die so the country can have one long piss up!!

Yes, yes, I remember the millions and millions of innocent lives she took, by murder, torture and the like!

I mean Stalin was a pussycat by comparison!

[snowychap]

Tax for public services should be the same across the board, it's the same bloody service whether you are in Little Aston or Erdington. It doesn't cost more to pick up rubbish in Little Aston, in fact it would cost less as there are less houses! So by definition alone they are paying more...

So for those who don't use a particular service do they withdraw their part of the payment for that particular service?

[Risso]

Leaving aside notions of fairness, I'd be interested to see a comparison between the real costs of poll tax and council tax for the average family. Before I left for uni we had four of us paying poll tax in the house, but I don't remember it being nearly as painful as our council tax bill, which was pretty crippling.

[Xann]

Tax for public services should be the same across the board

Tax should reflect an individuals ability to pay it.

I mean Stalin was a pussycat by comparison!

Stalin was an evil man, of course.

We all hope that in 40 years Aston's offspring won't find Reagan/Thatcher's legacy more problematical.

Only time will tell. Not looking good though is it?

[ianrobo1]

interesting on the Poll tax because I had to pay whilst at home with parents and it was £40 a month even back in he mid 90's, the council tax is now just over £1000, so living with my wife and allowing for inflation just as a couple we would be paying signifcantly more.

the fairest way is to charge for the services used

therefore I am in favour of the following

1) abolish local rating (got to keep business rates)

2) charge for waste collection based on amount collected and non recyclable

3) charge a local income tax on indivuduals

now none of these are radical but for me they are fairer

at teh end of day local rates only accounts for waht, 20% of local council spending and it would be easier and cheaper. But having the waste aspect and maybe some others means you can keep local accountability

[nrogers]

Tax for public services should be the same across the board

Tax should reflect an individuals ability to pay it.

Are you suggesting the Departure Tax, VAT, Petrol, Road and Beer tax should be means tested?