RIP Michael Foot

[Fuengirola Saint]

What a knob

 

**** off you Tory ****wit

If you are just going to say Knob when you don´t agree then i suggest you do not reply to any of my threads

Edited 6 March, 2010 by Fuengirola Saint

[Fuengirola Saint]

You really do have a bizarre perspective on the political situation in this country and it's therefore a good thing that you have absented yourself from these shores and live in the Spanish equivalent of Portsmouth (or is that Benidorm?) So it's the poor and the middle classes that have been subsidising the rich? Look up the meaning of the word subsidy, as I'm pretty sure that you cannot understand what it properly means.

 

As Sergei rightly asks, how many Lord Montagus are there? Your whole stance on the Community Charge appears to be based on the fact that a minute section of the population might have benefited from paying a lower sum for local services, whilst conversely paying considerably higher rates of taxation than the vast majority of the population on the other. You seem to have ignored commenting on the situation which the Community Charge was intended to address, that of the widow living alone and paying more in Rates than the large family next door, just because her house might be larger, but regardless of the fact that her usage of local services was considerably less. Or do you think that the situation was fair? At least with the Council Tax, she will get a discount as a single occupant, but there is no additional cost increase levied on homes with larger families comprising of more than one bread winner, who use more local services and who could pay more.

 

And Redondo is also right, that the greatest burden of taxation falls upon the middle classes, who generally as law abiding citizens grin and bear it, never dreaming of disobeying the laws of the land as the poll tax rioters did, as that would be anarchy. The Labour Government therefore see them as a soft target, but then wonder why they seek ways to avoid the taxes, or to emmigrate. As I said, they never learn.

 

My point was do you think it was fair that the very rich got a massive tax cut ( they didn´t ****ing need one ) and the poorest ended up paying more? Just answer that point please and don´t go off on a tangent about some poor little old lady next door

[Fuengirola Saint]

You really do have a bizarre perspective on the political situation in this country and it's therefore a good thing that you have absented yourself from these shores and live in the Spanish equivalent of Portsmouth (or is that Benidorm?) So it's the poor and the middle classes that have been subsidising the rich? Look up the meaning of the word subsidy, as I'm pretty sure that you cannot understand what it properly means.

 

As Sergei rightly asks, how many Lord Montagus are there? Your whole stance on the Community Charge appears to be based on the fact that a minute section of the population might have benefited from paying a lower sum for local services, whilst conversely paying considerably higher rates of taxation than the vast majority of the population on the other. You seem to have ignored commenting on the situation which the Community Charge was intended to address, that of the widow living alone and paying more in Rates than the large family next door, just because her house might be larger, but regardless of the fact that her usage of local services was considerably less. Or do you think that the situation was fair? At least with the Council Tax, she will get a discount as a single occupant, but there is no additional cost increase levied on homes with larger families comprising of more than one bread winner, who use more local services and who could pay more.

 

And Redondo is also right, that the greatest burden of taxation falls upon the middle classes, who generally as law abiding citizens grin and bear it, never dreaming of disobeying the laws of the land as the poll tax rioters did, as that would be anarchy. The Labour Government therefore see them as a soft target, but then wonder why they seek ways to avoid the taxes, or to emmigrate. As I said, they never learn.

 

My point was do you think it was fair that the very rich got a massive tax cut ( they didn´t ****ing need one ) and the poorest ended up paying more? Just answer that point please and don´t go off on a tangent about some poor little old lady next door

[Fuengirola Saint]

You really do have a bizarre perspective on the political situation in this country and it's therefore a good thing that you have absented yourself from these shores and live in the Spanish equivalent of Portsmouth (or is that Benidorm?)

 

Sorry to disappoint you but i live in Málaga city, not a fish and chip shop for miles

[Fuengirola Saint]

You really do have a bizarre perspective on the political situation in this country and it's therefore a good thing that you have absented yourself from these shores and live in the Spanish equivalent of Portsmouth (or is that Benidorm?)

 

Sorry to disappoint you but i live in Málaga city, not a fish and chip shop for miles

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Thank you for the economics lecture Fuengirola Saint. Out of interest what do you do in Spain?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Thank you for the economics lecture Fuengirola Saint. Out of interest what do you do in Spain?

[Fuengirola Saint]

Thank you for the economics lecture Fuengirola Saint. Out of interest what do you do in Spain?

 

What do you mean thanks for the economics lecture? Just stating a fact.

Not that it´s any of your business what i do here, i do building work and teach English as well.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Thank you for the economics lecture Fuengirola Saint. Out of interest what do you do in Spain?

 

What do you mean thanks for the economics lecture? Just stating a fact.

Not that it´s any of your business what i do here, i do building work and teach English as well.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Thank you for the economics lecture Fuengirola Saint. Out of interest what do you do in Spain?

 

Can you answer my original point for me? Was it fair that the very rich got a tax cut and the poorest got a tax rise, just that point nada mas.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Thank you for the economics lecture Fuengirola Saint. Out of interest what do you do in Spain?

 

Can you answer my original point for me? Was it fair that the very rich got a tax cut and the poorest got a tax rise, just that point nada mas.

[Thedelldays]

well..on a more personal note..my mother bought her council flat in Millbrook in the early 90's for £11k thanks to the right to buy scheme. she did not even get mortgage, she got a loan for £11k. she had to keep it for 3 years before she could sell it..

 

well, it was paid off completely after a couple of years and she sold it in 2001 for over £100k.

 

I grew up in millbrook so I guess I am one of fenguerolas examples..If maggie brought in the right to buy or she championed it...then thank you very much is all I can say...my mother now lives in a better place and it is also owned out right.

[Thedelldays]

well..on a more personal note..my mother bought her council flat in Millbrook in the early 90's for £11k thanks to the right to buy scheme. she did not even get mortgage, she got a loan for £11k. she had to keep it for 3 years before she could sell it..

 

well, it was paid off completely after a couple of years and she sold it in 2001 for over £100k.

 

I grew up in millbrook so I guess I am one of fenguerolas examples..If maggie brought in the right to buy or she championed it...then thank you very much is all I can say...my mother now lives in a better place and it is also owned out right.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Fuengirola Saint how do you define fair; it was fairer for some and unfair for others and like all new taxes woudl probably raise more money than the previous system.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Fuengirola Saint how do you define fair; it was fairer for some and unfair for others and like all new taxes woudl probably raise more money than the previous system.

[Fuengirola Saint]

well..on a more personal note..my mother bought her council flat in Millbrook in the early 90's for £11k thanks to the right to buy scheme. she did not even get mortgage, she got a loan for £11k. she had to keep it for 3 years before she could sell it..

 

well, it was paid off completely after a couple of years and she sold it in 2001 for over £100k.

 

I grew up in millbrook so I guess I am one of fenguerolas examples..If maggie brought in the right to buy or she championed it...then thank you very much is all I can say...my mother now lives in a better place and it is also owned out right.

 

Good for your mum,I wouldn´t condemn anyone who took advantage of the right to buy scheme,but why did they say councils couldn´t build new homes to replace those that were sold.

Without getting too deep, in simple terms Thatcher wanted everyone to have a mortgage so that they would think twice about exercising their hard fought right to withdraw their labour in any dispute with their employer.

[Fuengirola Saint]

well..on a more personal note..my mother bought her council flat in Millbrook in the early 90's for £11k thanks to the right to buy scheme. she did not even get mortgage, she got a loan for £11k. she had to keep it for 3 years before she could sell it..

 

well, it was paid off completely after a couple of years and she sold it in 2001 for over £100k.

 

I grew up in millbrook so I guess I am one of fenguerolas examples..If maggie brought in the right to buy or she championed it...then thank you very much is all I can say...my mother now lives in a better place and it is also owned out right.

 

Good for your mum,I wouldn´t condemn anyone who took advantage of the right to buy scheme,but why did they say councils couldn´t build new homes to replace those that were sold.

Without getting too deep, in simple terms Thatcher wanted everyone to have a mortgage so that they would think twice about exercising their hard fought right to withdraw their labour in any dispute with their employer.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Fuengirola Saint how do you define fair; it was fairer for some and unfair for others and like all new taxes woudl probably raise more money than the previous system.

 

Of course it was fairer for some and not others, but my original point was that it was unfair to cut the taxes of the very wealthy and increase those of the poor

[Fuengirola Saint]

Fuengirola Saint how do you define fair; it was fairer for some and unfair for others and like all new taxes woudl probably raise more money than the previous system.

 

Of course it was fairer for some and not others, but my original point was that it was unfair to cut the taxes of the very wealthy and increase those of the poor

[Johnny Bognor]

Of course it was fairer for some and not others, but my original point was that it was unfair to cut the taxes of the very wealthy and increase those of the poor

 

So what's your view on Fraudon Clown then?

 

Abolishes the 10p tax rate, which has no impact on Lord Montague, hitting working people on less than £18k a year. Is Fraudon as bad as Thatcher?

[Johnny Bognor]

Of course it was fairer for some and not others, but my original point was that it was unfair to cut the taxes of the very wealthy and increase those of the poor

 

So what's your view on Fraudon Clown then?

 

Abolishes the 10p tax rate, which has no impact on Lord Montague, hitting working people on less than £18k a year. Is Fraudon as bad as Thatcher?

[Fuengirola Saint]

So what's your view on Fraudon Clown then?

 

Abolishes the 10p tax rate, which has no impact on Lord Montague, hitting working people on less than £18k a year. Is Fraudon as bad as Thatcher?

 

Strange as it may seem to you, i´m in complete agreement with you on this one. He cut the 10p rate to pay for a headline grabbing basic rate cut.

People seem to be under the mis-apprehension that i am a New Labour supporter. I do not and have never supported them,but i have to say they are preferable to the disaster that is the Bullingdon club.

[Fuengirola Saint]

So what's your view on Fraudon Clown then?

 

Abolishes the 10p tax rate, which has no impact on Lord Montague, hitting working people on less than £18k a year. Is Fraudon as bad as Thatcher?

 

Strange as it may seem to you, i´m in complete agreement with you on this one. He cut the 10p rate to pay for a headline grabbing basic rate cut.

People seem to be under the mis-apprehension that i am a New Labour supporter. I do not and have never supported them,but i have to say they are preferable to the disaster that is the Bullingdon club.

[Whitey Grandad]

What do you mean thanks for the economics lecture? Just stating a fact.

Not that it´s any of your business what i do here, i do building work and teach English as well.

An opinion is not a fact. Fact

[Whitey Grandad]

What do you mean thanks for the economics lecture? Just stating a fact.

Not that it´s any of your business what i do here, i do building work and teach English as well.

An opinion is not a fact. Fact

[Gemmel]

People seem to be under the mis-apprehension that i am a New Labour supporter..

 

Not at all, people think you are a brainwashed commi, who has never researched any of the politics you spout off about.

 

The world owes you a living sort of guy

[Gemmel]

People seem to be under the mis-apprehension that i am a New Labour supporter..

 

Not at all, people think you are a brainwashed commi, who has never researched any of the politics you spout off about.

 

The world owes you a living sort of guy

[Wes Tender]

My point was do you think it was fair that the very rich got a massive tax cut ( they didn´t ****ing need one ) and the poorest ended up paying more? Just answer that point please and don´t go off on a tangent about some poor little old lady next door

 

But of course, I'm not going off on a tangent by mentioning the little old lady next door. As I stated, it was the example given to illustrate why the Rates were unfair. Now, you may like to marginalise that fact as an irrelevance, not suiting your particular agenda, that you just can't stand the fact that a very small percentage of the population that you despise ended up paying less, but I asked you whether it was fair that the elderly lady living alone possibly paid more than the family of four.

 

Just answer that point please and don't try and squirm out of it again. Then I'll answer your question.

 

Whilst you're at it, do you believe that there are more Lords in their mansions who got reduced local charges, or more single people living alone who were paying much more for those local services?

 

You say that Lords in their mansions could afford it, but if they paid more, would they get better services for their money, or is it just the principle that because they might be rich, they aren't entitled to expect value for their expenditure? Anyway, they can afford it, whereas the little old lady living alone perhaps cannot afford it. Who deserves the attention of a caring society more?

[Wes Tender]

My point was do you think it was fair that the very rich got a massive tax cut ( they didn´t ****ing need one ) and the poorest ended up paying more? Just answer that point please and don´t go off on a tangent about some poor little old lady next door

 

But of course, I'm not going off on a tangent by mentioning the little old lady next door. As I stated, it was the example given to illustrate why the Rates were unfair. Now, you may like to marginalise that fact as an irrelevance, not suiting your particular agenda, that you just can't stand the fact that a very small percentage of the population that you despise ended up paying less, but I asked you whether it was fair that the elderly lady living alone possibly paid more than the family of four.

 

Just answer that point please and don't try and squirm out of it again. Then I'll answer your question.

 

Whilst you're at it, do you believe that there are more Lords in their mansions who got reduced local charges, or more single people living alone who were paying much more for those local services?

 

You say that Lords in their mansions could afford it, but if they paid more, would they get better services for their money, or is it just the principle that because they might be rich, they aren't entitled to expect value for their expenditure? Anyway, they can afford it, whereas the little old lady living alone perhaps cannot afford it. Who deserves the attention of a caring society more?

[Fuengirola Saint]

But of course, I'm not going off on a tangent by mentioning the little old lady next door. As I stated, it was the example given to illustrate why the Rates were unfair. Now, you may like to marginalise that fact as an irrelevance, not suiting your particular agenda, that you just can't stand the fact that a very small percentage of the population that you despise ended up paying less, but I asked you whether it was fair that the elderly lady living alone possibly paid more than the family of four.

 

Just answer that point please and don't try and squirm out of it again. Then I'll answer your question.

 

Whilst you're at it, do you believe that there are more Lords in their mansions who got reduced local charges, or more single people living alone who were paying much more for those local services?

 

You say that Lords in their mansions could afford it, but if they paid more, would they get better services for their money, or is it just the principle that because they might be rich, they aren't entitled to expect value for their expenditure? Anyway, they can afford it, whereas the little old lady living alone perhaps cannot afford it. Who deserves the attention of a caring society more?

 

When you answer my question that i put to you about Labour massaging the unemployment figures, you implied they had manipulated them to make them lower,you seem to have conveniently ignored that question considering you brought it up in the first place as an answer to ecuk´s post

[Fuengirola Saint]

But of course, I'm not going off on a tangent by mentioning the little old lady next door. As I stated, it was the example given to illustrate why the Rates were unfair. Now, you may like to marginalise that fact as an irrelevance, not suiting your particular agenda, that you just can't stand the fact that a very small percentage of the population that you despise ended up paying less, but I asked you whether it was fair that the elderly lady living alone possibly paid more than the family of four.

 

Just answer that point please and don't try and squirm out of it again. Then I'll answer your question.

 

Whilst you're at it, do you believe that there are more Lords in their mansions who got reduced local charges, or more single people living alone who were paying much more for those local services?

 

You say that Lords in their mansions could afford it, but if they paid more, would they get better services for their money, or is it just the principle that because they might be rich, they aren't entitled to expect value for their expenditure? Anyway, they can afford it, whereas the little old lady living alone perhaps cannot afford it. Who deserves the attention of a caring society more?

 

When you answer my question that i put to you about Labour massaging the unemployment figures, you implied they had manipulated them to make them lower,you seem to have conveniently ignored that question considering you brought it up in the first place as an answer to ecuk´s post

[Fuengirola Saint]

But of course, I'm not going off on a tangent by mentioning the little old lady next door. As I stated, it was the example given to illustrate why the Rates were unfair. Now, you may like to marginalise that fact as an irrelevance, not suiting your particular agenda, that you just can't stand the fact that a very small percentage of the population that you despise ended up paying less, but I asked you whether it was fair that the elderly lady living alone possibly paid more than the family of four.

 

Just answer that point please and don't try and squirm out of it again. Then I'll answer your question.

 

Whilst you're at it, do you believe that there are more Lords in their mansions who got reduced local charges, or more single people living alone who were paying much more for those local services?

 

You say that Lords in their mansions could afford it, but if they paid more, would they get better services for their money, or is it just the principle that because they might be rich, they aren't entitled to expect value for their expenditure? Anyway, they can afford it, whereas the little old lady living alone perhaps cannot afford it. Who deserves the attention of a caring society more?

 

No it isn´t fair that the little old lady next door pays more, thats why she gets a 25% discount

[Fuengirola Saint]

But of course, I'm not going off on a tangent by mentioning the little old lady next door. As I stated, it was the example given to illustrate why the Rates were unfair. Now, you may like to marginalise that fact as an irrelevance, not suiting your particular agenda, that you just can't stand the fact that a very small percentage of the population that you despise ended up paying less, but I asked you whether it was fair that the elderly lady living alone possibly paid more than the family of four.

 

Just answer that point please and don't try and squirm out of it again. Then I'll answer your question.

 

Whilst you're at it, do you believe that there are more Lords in their mansions who got reduced local charges, or more single people living alone who were paying much more for those local services?

 

You say that Lords in their mansions could afford it, but if they paid more, would they get better services for their money, or is it just the principle that because they might be rich, they aren't entitled to expect value for their expenditure? Anyway, they can afford it, whereas the little old lady living alone perhaps cannot afford it. Who deserves the attention of a caring society more?

 

No it isn´t fair that the little old lady next door pays more, thats why she gets a 25% discount

[dune]

I wonder if our ex pat friend would be so complimentary of Socialism if he lived in Britain and had to pay Browns stealth taxes.

[dune]

I wonder if our ex pat friend would be so complimentary of Socialism if he lived in Britain and had to pay Browns stealth taxes.

[Wes Tender]

No it isn´t fair that the little old lady next door pays more, thats why she gets a 25% discount

 

Yes, under the Council Tax she does. But we weren't talking about that, were we? We were discussing the Community Charge and why it was proposed as an alternative to the Rates. She gets a discount for living alone, but a family having more bread winners does not pay more, does it, even though it is obvious that they will put an increased burden on the local council's services.

[Wes Tender]

No it isn´t fair that the little old lady next door pays more, thats why she gets a 25% discount

 

Yes, under the Council Tax she does. But we weren't talking about that, were we? We were discussing the Community Charge and why it was proposed as an alternative to the Rates. She gets a discount for living alone, but a family having more bread winners does not pay more, does it, even though it is obvious that they will put an increased burden on the local council's services.

[Thedelldays]

Good for your mum,I wouldn´t condemn anyone who took advantage of the right to buy scheme,but why did they say councils couldn´t build new homes to replace those that were sold.

Without getting too deep, in simple terms Thatcher wanted everyone to have a mortgage so that they would think twice about exercising their hard fought right to withdraw their labour in any dispute with their employer.

but how does this sit with helping the rich....?

[Thedelldays]

Good for your mum,I wouldn´t condemn anyone who took advantage of the right to buy scheme,but why did they say councils couldn´t build new homes to replace those that were sold.

Without getting too deep, in simple terms Thatcher wanted everyone to have a mortgage so that they would think twice about exercising their hard fought right to withdraw their labour in any dispute with their employer.

but how does this sit with helping the rich....?

[View From The Top]

well..on a more personal note..my mother bought her council flat in Millbrook in the early 90's for £11k thanks to the right to buy scheme. she did not even get mortgage, she got a loan for £11k. she had to keep it for 3 years before she could sell it..

 

well, it was paid off completely after a couple of years and she sold it in 2001 for over £100k.

 

I grew up in millbrook so I guess I am one of fenguerolas examples..If maggie brought in the right to buy or she championed it...then thank you very much is all I can say...my mother now lives in a better place and it is also owned out right.

 

My mum also bought her house via the right to buy scheme.

 

The flaw, however, was the money raised from sales was not earmarked to build more social housing to replace the housing stock lost to the new wave of home owners.

 

This helped to ramp up prices and when interest rates went through the roof many, many thousands of people lost their homes.

[View From The Top]

well..on a more personal note..my mother bought her council flat in Millbrook in the early 90's for £11k thanks to the right to buy scheme. she did not even get mortgage, she got a loan for £11k. she had to keep it for 3 years before she could sell it..

 

well, it was paid off completely after a couple of years and she sold it in 2001 for over £100k.

 

I grew up in millbrook so I guess I am one of fenguerolas examples..If maggie brought in the right to buy or she championed it...then thank you very much is all I can say...my mother now lives in a better place and it is also owned out right.

 

My mum also bought her house via the right to buy scheme.

 

The flaw, however, was the money raised from sales was not earmarked to build more social housing to replace the housing stock lost to the new wave of home owners.

 

This helped to ramp up prices and when interest rates went through the roof many, many thousands of people lost their homes.

[Thedelldays]

My mum also bought her house via the right to buy scheme.

 

The flaw, however, was the money raised from sales was not earmarked to build more social housing to replace the housing stock lost to the new wave of home owners.

 

This helped to ramp up prices and when interest rates went through the roof many, many thousands of people lost their homes.

not surprised there was no money put back in...£11k even in 1993 (or what ever it was) was dirt cheap...only to be sold 8-9 years later for nearly 10x that amount..

 

almost giving money away

[Thedelldays]

My mum also bought her house via the right to buy scheme.

 

The flaw, however, was the money raised from sales was not earmarked to build more social housing to replace the housing stock lost to the new wave of home owners.

 

This helped to ramp up prices and when interest rates went through the roof many, many thousands of people lost their homes.

not surprised there was no money put back in...£11k even in 1993 (or what ever it was) was dirt cheap...only to be sold 8-9 years later for nearly 10x that amount..

 

almost giving money away

[View From The Top]

not surprised there was no money put back in...£11k even in 1993 (or what ever it was) was dirt cheap...only to be sold 8-9 years later for nearly 10x that amount..

 

almost giving money away

 

But the collective value of sales per council would have gone someway to replacing stock.

 

The law did not allow this which was a deliberate decision and deeply flawed IMHO.

[View From The Top]

not surprised there was no money put back in...£11k even in 1993 (or what ever it was) was dirt cheap...only to be sold 8-9 years later for nearly 10x that amount..

 

almost giving money away

 

But the collective value of sales per council would have gone someway to replacing stock.

 

The law did not allow this which was a deliberate decision and deeply flawed IMHO.

[dune]

But the collective value of sales per council would have gone someway to replacing stock.

 

The law did not allow this which was a deliberate decision and deeply flawed IMHO.

 

This is one of the few times i'll ever agree with you.

[Whitey Grandad]

not surprised there was no money put back in...£11k even in 1993 (or what ever it was) was dirt cheap...only to be sold 8-9 years later for nearly 10x that amount..

 

almost giving money away

But there was no longer the horrendous cost of maintenance.

[Whitey Grandad]

but how does this sit with helping the rich....?

You don't subsidise people by not stealing money (taking taxes) from them, the same way that you're not subsidising them by not charging them for the air that they breathe.

[Wes Tender]

You don't subsidise people by not stealing money (taking taxes) from them, the same way that you're not subsidising them by not charging them for the air that they breathe.

 

Fuengirola seemed to think that reducing the amount charged to Lord Montagu under the Community Charge, was tantamount to the poor subsidising the rich. As you rightly point out, a subsidy is something awarded to somebody in need, so although we since learn that he teaches English, his comprehension seems a little lacking.

[Wes Tender]

When you answer my question that i put to you about Labour massaging the unemployment figures, you implied they had manipulated them to make them lower,you seem to have conveniently ignored that question considering you brought it up in the first place as an answer to ecuk´s post

 

Go ahead and provide me with documentary evidence that the unemployment figures have not been manipulated downwards by Labour. And then produce evidence that those snippets I provided were somehow innacurate or falsified.