"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

David wrote;
And of course whilst the tax is higher here than in the US, it's also
lower than it is in many European countries.

If you can call three "many":-)

The UK has it seems jumped from fifteenth to fourth in
the ratings, with only Sweden, Denmark and Holland
at higher levels.

What is important is whether or not people think they
are getting good value for their money.

Iain

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

My understanding of the "Rolex thing" is that it's about status and
wealth.

Others might say it is an interest in quality, an appreciation
of the finer things in life:-)

Rolex is the best known quality watch but there are
others, more exclusive and far more expensive.
Vacheron Constantin is a name that comes to mind.

For the same reason people choose to buy at suit
from Gieves and Hawkes when they could get
something at 1/20th the price off the peg from
a high street shop.

Once you have owned a Gieves and Hawkes suit,
it is unlikely you will ever settle for anything
less. The same goes for Church's shoes.

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

My understanding of the "Rolex thing" is that it's about status and
wealth.

Others might say it is an interest in quality, an appreciation
of the finer things in life:-)

At what point does "an appreciation of the finer things in life" roll over
into a desire to show off your "appreciation of the finer things in life";
to show that you own objects with the 'right' brand names on them. A watch
is something that you carry about with you, that is visible to those who you
come into contact with, so it looks to me to be well onto the show-off side
of that equation. Where there is a qualitative difference between a
"quality" item and a cheaper one then maybe there is something in the
argument you put forward. But as I've said before a Rolex is just a watch,
it works no better and looks no better than one at a fraction of the price.


David.

In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 31/01/2011 09:24, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 29/01/2011 16:37, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In


OK, but you've completely misread, cut and misrepresented my post. My
'state of mind' as you call

Sorry. Afraid I tend not to use the "royal we" or say "one". Hence my
"your" wasn't talking about you personally.


Have you ever heard of structural cause by the way? Or do you think
that might be a bit complicated?

No idea what the "structural cause" part means, I'm afraid. Not jargon
I've previously encountered.


No, OK, it's a reference to certain theories that suggest, amongst other
things, that throwing money at certain issues, especially those linked
to socio-economic disadvantage, doesn't always address the cause, just
the symptom. 'Structures' might include things like governments,
industry, media and discourse - these things are the cause, and the
agents (you, me, them) can only work within those structures, and 'they'
cause inequality etc.

OK. That seems to me to an idea that would be plausible in some cases and
not in others. Reality is probably often a mix.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message


You don't think the taxman is one of the very worst for trading on the
nation's gullibility - why doesn't anyone query why the tax on petrol
is so high compared with other countries??

The high taxes on gasoline were originally justified when Britain
imported all of its petroleum fuel and needed to keep a check on its
balance of payments.

The curio for me is the way the UK goverment didn't take the tax on petrol
and use it to fund improving our railways (and other infrastructure). Which
are currently about the worst in Europe. Would have helped us prepare for
when we *don't* have our own supply of oil on our own doorstep.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Keith G
wrote:



*That* is the sort of thing that has to be stopped. See my other post -
the 'rich' must be educated to bear a pro rata proportion of taxation
to support the society in which they live.

You remind me of a cartoon one of my ex-colleagues used to display on the
noticeboard outside his office. (We all had offices with these as we all
gave tutorials so used them to give info to students.)

This showed a Victorian bloke thrashing a poor waif with a big stick. With
the title "Reasonable chastisement for the slow laggard student". :-)

Somehow I don't think that "education" of the rich will cause them to pay
more tax. They may become rich because their urge is to maximise what
they can grab from the rest of us. So by self-selection they may not be
interested in being "educated". Unless you had my cartoon in mind... ;-

Witness the 'diamond geezer' who could not explain to the Parliament
committee *why* needed so many millions as a 'bonus' for just being
in his seat whilst the bank made a profit from the support *others*
were giving it. His 'answers' showed he just wanted the money to
show he was able to get it. Back to the fancy watch...


That said, fie were made President of this Sceptered Isle I would
abolish Income Tax in favour of taxes on property, goods and services.
High Income Tax (a temporary measure brought in to pay for the Boer War
or summat - from memory) simply drives skill and talent abroad and
deters international companies from establishing themselves here.

I do agree with you about how gullable many of the people in the UK are.
It never ceases to amaze me how easy bankers, etc, seem to find it to
get their PR across. Thus causing people to believe that they are paid
loads because they are the 'best people' who have 'rare talents'. Even
after a world-wide meltdown on their watch and for which they are
*still* paying themselves big handouts.

I'm afraid I don't personally believe the guff that if they had to
pay tax like the rest of us "they'd all leave and we'd be worse off".
I don't think they'd go. I don't think they'd be 'irreplacable'.

Indeed, if you routinely listen to something like 'More or Less' on
BBC Radio 4 you will find that they have often examined the evidence
behind the PR.

The reality beyond the PR is that a lot of what 'big' banks and
companies do in the UK is based on other UK activity which others
would simply take on. Most of our employment and wealth generation
comes from small and medium sized business, and there are countless
thousands of competent people running them. Personally, I don't
fall for the claim that none of them would be unable to step into
the shoes of the tax dodgers who decided to leave. Nor does it
seem to me to be the case that all other EU countries have been
in poverty *because* they have no 'big bankers dodging tax'.

Despite this they do keep making claims and in general the press
seem to fall for it. A recent example was dealt with on 'More or
less'. This was the ex-chair of the CBI who claimed that the
big UK city banks provided 20 percent of UK tax intake. (Thus
we should not dare to touch them further.)

The reality was that:

When asked where he'd got this number he initially failed to
reply. However just before the program he said he'd "Heard this
figure from someone at a seminar and couldn't remember who or
where." He had no idea how it had been obtained. He was just
stating it as a 'fact' because it fitted with what he assumed
must be true.

When the statisticians on the program looked into it they found
that the highest figures were more like 10 percent. And that
this included the tax on the UK bank acounts, etc. i.e. the tax
you may end up paying yourself as a *customer* of the bank. So
even if all the 'big international bankers' picked up their toys
and went abroad the tax take probably would not drop much since
the same mugs would be paying it here in the UK as they do now.
:-)

TBH if the top bankers who flushed so many billions of *other
people's money* down the toilet in their rush to gamble decided
to leave, I'd buy a ticket to be at the front of the crowd
standing on the cliffs waving them bye-bye... having first
ensured they'd paid all their due back-taxes *before* they
left. :-)

So yes, Keith, on this one I agree with you. :-)

That said, this isn't really a political group, is it...


Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , Arny
Krueger wrote:
Petrol is not always inescapable, and the rate at which it is used
can relate to the opulence level demanded by the driver.

Ideally, there would be a mass transit system alternative for the
kinds of trips that absorb most of the fuel.

When I lived in Germany a lot of people commuted via the train.

They do in London too. Don't have any actual figures, but I'd guess
it's more than half if they work in central London, since it is very
lacking in car parking for commuters.

I dread to think what the commuter traffic is like now in London. Back
in 1980 I lived in Richmond, and often had to drive to a studio in
Finsbury Park N.London. The North Circular Road was a nightmare so I
took a cross-town route which a cabbie showed me.

c1980 I used to have to commute each day between Newham and Holloway.
Had to do this by BR and tube. Had to go *in* to Holborn and come out
again. Hated it. But that was quicker and cheaper than trying to go in a
direction closer to a straight line. One of the reasons I was pleased to
emigrate.

That said, for a few years in the 1980s I switched to using a bicycle. This
was when I lived in Leytonstone and worked at QMC (Mile End) so a more
convenient ride via a mix of back streets... plus at times the Bow flyover.
Main problem was the drivers who wanted to kill you if they could. Plus all
the rubbish in the air put there by the cars and lorries. Another reason I
left.

One of the problems of the UK having a lousy long-distance and mid-distance
rail system is that it pressures people to congregate into packed places
like London. Other EU countries have vastly better intercity train
services. When the Channel Tunnel was being built we were promised that
some of the fast trains would run past central London (via Stratford where
I lived a kid) and come though to the rest of the UK at the same high
speeds. Never happened.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Keith G" wrote

But the problem with piling taxes onto 'inescapables' like petrol is that
it unfairly hits the poor hardest and can add to their hardship which in a
modern/enlightened, civilised and supposedly 'affluent' society is not
acceptable. It certainly increases the chances of that car which has just
rear-ended you having no insurance cover...!!

The burden of taxes need to be borne equally between people at different
affluence levels and the rich must expect to pay more pro rata if they are
to continue to enjoy their priveleges and live amongst ordinary people.


And:

That said, fie were made President of this Sceptered Isle I would abolish
Income Tax in favour of taxes on property, goods and services. High Income
Tax (a temporary measure brought in to pay for the Boer War or summat -
from memory) simply drives skill and talent abroad and deters
international companies from establishing themselves here.

Were those two *really* written by the same person?

Abolishing income tax would either require a substantial rise in indirect
taxes or a drastic reduction in tax-funded services, either of which would
have a disproportionate effect on the less well off.

And isn't there a conflict between wanted to load the tax burden onto
indirect taxes, yet exempt road fuel duty?

Unlike you I'm not convinced that the country's economic wellbeing is so
tightly linked to the presence of a few high-earning superstars. Talent is
not that rare, and if the superstars go abroad perhaps that will create
opportunities for new talent to come through here.

As for international companies; where they are based means increasingly
little in a globalised world. It means little if their nominal HQ is in some
tax haven somewhere, what matters is where their production facilities are,
and where their customers are.

David.

"Iain Churches" wrote

David wrote;
And of course whilst the tax is higher here than in the US, it's also
lower than it is in many European countries.

If you can call three "many":-)

Well OK, "several" if you prefer. But contrary to what Keith was implying we
are not the most expensive in Europe let alone the rest of the world.

The UK has it seems jumped from fifteenth to fourth in
the ratings, with only Sweden, Denmark and Holland
at higher levels.

It's several years since I've had to buy petrol in continental Europe, but I
well remember it being quite a bit more expensive in some countries
including France. Of course the last UK government made a policy of
increasing fuel duty faster than inflation, it looks like the present
government will abandon that.

What is important is whether or not people think they
are getting good value for their money.

Absolutely. People have to decide whether they want a particular product at
the price for which it is available here and now. The fact that a similar
product may be available elswhere for less is of little relevance to making
that decision unless they are able to take advantage of that lower price. In
the past that was rarely possible, unless you happened to be travelling to
the country concerned and the item itself was portable enough. These days we
have the internet, and people are increasingly buying from around the world
that way. But watch the postage costs and import duties!

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


That's what's know as "special pleading". From someone else who talks
like a tabloid editorial.


Wouldn't know, I've never read a 'tabloid editorial' - but it seems you
have..??

I've seen the odd few.

So the end result will be a return to a Feudal past with negligible tax
on the rich and very low wages for everybody else. Is that the sort of
world you want to live in?


Do you think we live in one any different?

Yes, we are heading in that direction but we aren't there yet. And it's
not something that attracts me in the least. Paying taxes is a small price
to pay for delaying that fate for a while longer.

You and a few million other 'gullible Brits'

You mistake: I nether buy coffee at £3.50 a cup nor run a 9mpg 4x4 people
van, so I'm not "gullible" by your definition.


They are not the only criteria for 'gullibility', I'm sure you would qualify
amply on other counts. Not a 'football fan' are you?



need to bloody well wake up - at least before the 'Baby Boomers' push the
number of *pensioners* in the UK to 30 million!

And what, exactly, do you think these "gullible Brits" need to wake up to?
A large number of pensioners will require more taxes, not less.


You really see Nikolai and Guldeep paying Income Tax at 80p in the pound to
keep a load of old farts toasting their tits on the Costa for better than 30
years?