In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
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. Even then,
on a bad it day took 2hrs. When you are scheduled to
start recording at 0900 hrs the team needs to be at the
studio at least 2 hrs before to set up.

I never cease to be surprised about people complaining of journey times by
car in London rush hour. I long ago realised it made more sense to use
public transport. Especially for that sort of journey where the north
London line would have made things easy.

However, I've never found traffic bad if having to get somewhere by car
for an 0700 start. When I drive to Scotland, I leave south London at 0630
and am across London before the rush hour starts.

--
*TEAMWORK...means never having to take all the blame yourself *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
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.

What makes you think that 'skill and talent' wouldn't want to go to a
country with a lower cost of living? Because moving tax from direct to
indirect simply pushes up that.


At the personal level, I suspect a lot of people like the choice whether to
buy a (possibly) heavily taxed item rather than have their earnings
plundered before they get them, in the case of salaried/waged employees.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"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.


I'm afraid that sort of inaccurate generalisation is typical, coming from
that quarter....

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"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.


Only in your head - you cook it up and run with it, don't you? I merely
compared typical prices of music CDs which was the position for a long time
before the advent of eBay, Amazon, CDNow, Play.com and any number of others
on the 'Net.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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.

For a long time the US was the world's largest producer, and we don't have
that kind of a tradition behind us.


Quite, it's what people get used to; Brits are used to being taken to the
cleaners - being taxed to death (direct and indirect) to pay long term
benefits to just about anyone who can themselves over here. One example I
saw on the telly was an unmarried Somali woman complaining that *seven
hundred quid a week* benefits wasn't enough to support her and her five
kids!!

I have heard it said that all the North Sea Oil revenue went to pay benefits
for the huge amount of unemployed back in the 70s/80s/90s??

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


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.

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. There
seemed to be a zillion times more adults travelling on foot or via
bicycle. Generally adults only ride bicycles in the US for recreation, and
otherwise only if they cannot have a driver's license. I ride mine to
commute economically, and rarely share the sidewalks with anybody at all,
riding or walking. There are rarely any bicycle lanes.

Here in the US my sensibilities would be steadily offended by a solo 98
pound woman driving 5,985 pound *luxury* SUVs which are really heavy duty
pickup trucks in drag, were they not so common that I have become inured
to the gross excess. Check out the tech specs on the Cadillac Escallade,
and see what I mean. Especially note the 7,400 pound GVW.


Streuth!



This is where low taxes on fuel lead to.


And low food prices lead to the huge, fat waddling arses you get to see
everywhere these days!

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"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


Of course - on a sliding scale of little or no tax on staples (bread, milk
&c.) to *lots* of tax on luxury cars and CD players.


or a drastic reduction in tax-funded services,


Or a drastic reduction of ****ing the taxpayer's money away on scams and
silly ideas.


either of which would
have a disproportionate effect on the less well off.


The less well-off can not be separated from each other. The rich really
don't want to have to take their rubbish to the landfill....



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


I wouldn't exempt road fuel duty, I just wouldn't keep piling it on until
the less well off were forced off the road and Brit haulage firms go bust
because they can't compete with European firms. Wealthy people in gas
guzzling limos and 4X4 don't care - a lot of the time they don't pay for the
fuel they use. I didn't when I was running my own two companies - it all
came off the pre tax profits as a company expense.

"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:-)


Mr Looser thinks that people who get a lift from owning/wearing a Rolex
actually give a damn about what Joe Snot might think of it. My son loves his
Rolex - the bloody thing cost over 400 quid for a service last year!!



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.


I've got two pairs (original boxes) in a cupboard - virtually *unused*!

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote


However, I've never found traffic bad if having to get somewhere by car
for an 0700 start. When I drive to Scotland, I leave south London at 0630
and am across London before the rush hour starts.


Traffic into London at about 06:00 is travelling at quite a lick - it ain't
hard to avoid the rush.

Scotland? St Neots (Cambs) *overnight* to Dundee - 6 hours; return journey
Dundee to St Neots overnight in a fully loaded car - 6 1/2 hours.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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... ;-


No, they can be educated by legislation but first we need to educate the
masses so that they know this is possible.



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.



Which are provided by the 'gullible Brits' via taxation!



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'.


Exactly: when you are getting the Golden Egg you don't vacate the nest
without due cause.



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.)


Where, ultimately, does the bank's money (profit) come from?


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.


Yes - 48% of all statistics are made up on the spot!




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.
:-)


Exactly.



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. :-)



Has to happen once in a while I suppose! :-)


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


That's OK, I'll pull it back on topic: when US Dollars = Euros = Pounds
Sterling for hifi gear (and other consumer electronics) off the shelf in the
High Street (Mall), I say those that justify the disparity to themselves and
accept it without a murmer are *gullible*...!!