UK General Election 2005

[Xaccers]

Another example is the retirement age, some bloke the to gov to the european court due to the sexist retirement laws which allowed women to retire at 60.
Result; women now have to work til 65.
Fair, not the result he wanted, and not the result many women wanted either!
Course we'll all be working til 75 soon anyway.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Another example is the retirement age, some bloke the to gov to the european court due to the sexist retirement laws which allowed women to retire at 60.
Result; women now have to work til 65.
Fair, not the result he wanted, and not the result many women wanted either!
Course we'll all be working til 75 soon anyway.

Yeah, great. Women get to retire 5 years before men, and they live longer.

Still, like you said, we'll all be working until we croak anyway. And if I make it to post-retirement age, i'll be forced to live on expired cat food too.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Another example is the retirement age, some bloke the to gov to the european court due to the sexist retirement laws which allowed women to retire at 60.
Result; women now have to work til 65.
Fair, not the result he wanted, and not the result many women wanted either!
Course we'll all be working til 75 soon anyway.

Actually an old friend of mine had an interesting take on being fair (which you neatly illustrated). His attitude was that he was an equal b*st*rd to everyone (even me if I wanted something he didn't want to lend me).. It was still fair, even though no one liked it

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Another example is the retirement age, some bloke the to gov to the european court due to the sexist retirement laws which allowed women to retire at 60.
Result; women now have to work til 65.
Fair, not the result he wanted, and not the result many women wanted either!
Course we'll all be working til 75 soon anyway.

Oh yes.This poor old cow has to go until she is 62.Thanks very much indeed.Mind if I was 2 years younger I'd have to go until I was 65.


Oh and someone was muttering about the inequality of car insurance being gender biased in favour of women.Tell me,how many men benefit by being included on their wife's/partners insurance? If it gets the same treatment as pensions did them then these men will be paying more for their insurance anyway.

And I still can't vote because I have no idea who to vote for. Except I will NEVER,EVER vote Tory.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Oh and someone was muttering about the inequality of car insurance being gender biased in favour of women.Tell me,how many men benefit by being included on their wife's/partners insurance? If it gets the same treatment as pensions did them then these men will be paying more for their insurance anyway.

That is what I said to Andyl. Sometimes fairer isn't in everyone's best interests.

Originally Posted by Punky post #105

...rather than improving men's lives, it will harm them because they'll be paying more, than the sexual-discriminatory previous system. Men and women will be paying more, and so be poorer.

And men don't benefit from having women on their insurance, women are disadvantaged from having men on there (unless the woman in question has a bad record).

Still, this is getting OT. I mentioned it as an example to support an on-topic point, not to re-ignite another gender flamewar

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Oh yes.This poor old cow has to go until she is 62.Thanks very much indeed.Mind if I was 2 years younger I'd have to go until I was 65.

Am I right in thinking your pension contributions are 8% of your earnings? (I know it was for my ex)
Yet you won't get a pension relative to that "investment"
Oh and the really awful news is that the average life expectancy of a retired teacher is only 2 years!

Originally Posted by punky

It depends, does he deserve a beer? There are a lot of people I am sure, can't afford a beer - do I have to go out and buy them all beers? What if my mate doesn't deserve a beer, do I still have to buy him a beer, even though I have more than him?

He's your mate, of course he deserves a beer
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

Fairer, isn't always better. Take the idea (which I support in principal only) for example. People say that gender shouldn't be a factor in car insurance premiums. Is it fair that women get charged less for car insurance, because they won the gender lottery? Of course not. Is it in everyone's best interests? Yes. If this enforced equality takes place, will men get a discount? No, women will pay more. Okay, until you look at the real world data. In quite a few households, men are the only source of income, and in the majority of the rest, they represent the bigger income. If this fairer car insurance system comes into affect, rather than improving men's lives, it will harm them because they'll be paying more, than the sexual-discriminatory previous system. Men and women will be paying more, and so be poorer. Noone wins, except for batchelors who will have their morale boosted a bit.

The idea is to burden as few a people as possible, not to burden everyone fairly. A fairer tax system that makes many poor people poorer. Is that a good idea?

Insurance is based on average risk factors across a whole range of demographics. Men pay more because they, as a group, represent higher risk as based on historical precedent. Engineers, meanwhile, pay less than say marketing consultants, because they are a low risk group. All those factors, not just gender, come into play in determining a premium (I have an insurance company as a client). I'm sober now so I have no excuse for not really knowing what point I'm trying to respond to or make

I'm probably being a bit thick here but I can't get to grips with how income related tax can adversely affect the poor. As I understand under these propsals those that earn more will pay more, those that earn less will pay less. It's a tax which reflects ability to pay.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

I'm probably being a bit thick here but I can't get to grips with how income related tax can adversely affect the poor. As I understand under these propsals those that earn more will pay more, those that earn less will pay less. It's a tax which reflects ability to pay.

5 people share a property, they all earn low wages, something like £12,000 a year.
Their landlord pays the council tax.
The 5 people therefore pay nothing.
Under the local income tax they'll all start paying.

It's fair in that everyone who works pays, it's not helpful in that there's no benifit in living with others under one roof to share the cost, and the majority of house shares involve low income people because sharing the costs out makes it affordable.

[bob_builder]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

It's fair in that everyone who works pays, it's not helpful in that there's no benifit in living with others under one roof to share the cost, and the majority of house shares involve low income people because sharing the costs out makes it affordable.

It is like the Poll Tax - that was fairer for a single OAP living in a bungalow who paid less compared to 5 adults in a house who all had to pay but we all know what happened to that tax!

Now 5 adults pay the same as a single OAP in the same value house and the OAPs are protesting!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

5 people share a property, they all earn low wages, something like £12,000 a year.
Their landlord pays the council tax.
The 5 people therefore pay nothing.
Under the local income tax they'll all start paying.

It's fair in that everyone who works pays, it's not helpful in that there's no benifit in living with others under one roof to share the cost, and the majority of house shares involve low income people because sharing the costs out makes it affordable.

The services that council tax pay for are, by and large, unrelated to your living arrangements. Why should there be a benefit to sharing a home? The most equitable system is to charge per individual, but unlike the Poll Tax taking into account their circumstances, there ability to pay. With income tax those on low incomes will pay a lot less (or nothing) than those on high incomes, with the unemployed, low income OAPs etc excused.
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

5 people share a property, they all earn low wages, something like £12,000 a year.
Their landlord pays the council tax.
The 5 people therefore pay nothing.
Under the local income tax they'll all start paying.

Of course the 5 people pay something; the landlord recovers it through the rent.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

I'm probably being a bit thick here but I can't get to grips with how income related tax can adversely affect the poor. As I understand under these propsals those that earn more will pay more, those that earn less will pay less. It's a tax which reflects ability to pay.

I have already shown you numerous examples. Your view of the income tax verus council tax is too simplistic. Having income tax instead of council tax might faviour poor people, but only if there was only 1 person per house. We know that is not the case, and that is what makes income tax more of a liability.

Poorer people are more likely to share a house, or rent, and it is precisely these people that will be 'worse affect' (not in how much they'll pay, but in the relative change in what they have to pay). I would do better under Lib Dems because my living situation isn't common. If I was to just rent my own place, I would be worse off with Lib Dems.

Like I said before, a tax is supposed to raise money, not make people happy. Therefore the Lib Dems want to implement a more efficient tax that'll raise more money that its predecessor. Don't forget all the rest of the taxes that Lib Dems want to implement, like apparently, if you have a dog, you should be taxed too. God knows why they need so much money.

If the Lib Dems are so ethical and wonderful, why not give people a choice? If you do better with council tax, stick with it, and if you do better with extra income tax, choose that? That way the poor will be unburdened as much as possible, but the Lib Dems don't want that. It is about money, not ethics, and they need bank loads of it.

[bob_builder]

Originally Posted by punky

Like I said before, a tax is supposed to raise money, not make people happy. Therefore the Lib Dems want to implement a more efficient tax that'll raise more money that its predecessor. Don't forget all the rest of the taxes that Lib Dems want to implement, like apparently, if you have a dog, you should be taxed too. God knows why they need so much money.

If the Lib Dems are so ethical and wonderful, why not give people a choice? If you do better with council tax, stick with it, and if you do better with extra income tax, choose that? That way the poor will be unburdened as much as possible, but the Lib Dems don't want that. It is about money, not ethics, and they need bank loads of it.

People will have a choice... at the general election!

They can choose to pay:
less tax - same level of public services (with less bureaucracy) - Conservative
more tax - same level of public services (with more bureaucracy) - Labour
a lot more tax - better public services - Liberal Democrat

Originally Posted by andyl

Of course the 5 people pay something; the landlord recovers it through the rent.

LOL - do you seriously think that the landlord would reduce his rent because he no longer had council tax to pay - of course not, the people would be worse off.
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

Don't forget all the rest of the taxes that Lib Dems want to implement, like apparently, if you have a dog, you should be taxed too.

You're joking, I hope ..... are they going to tax Cats, Rabbits and other pets as well ? - and who will sort out the thousands of stray dogs caused by people simply abandoning their dog rather than pay tax on it - they really are losing the plot

Originally Posted by bob_builder

People will have a choice... at the general election!

They can choose to pay:
less tax - same level of public services (with less bureaucracy) - Conservative
more tax - same level of public services (with more bureaucracy) - Labour
a lot more tax - better public services - Liberal Democrat

and your basing that on what?

[bob_builder]

Originally Posted by Damien

and your basing that on what?

Newsnight on BBC2