I agree. The man next door got cheap rates as a farmer but 4 full time workers 
lived their paying half what us two retired next door paid in rates. When the 
poll tax came in our council got very greedy and near doubled the amount of 
money they wanted - for all their little schemes while blaming the increase on 
the government. When the demands came through the door we were better off 
though paying about 5% more than the year before due to the council 
extravigances. But the farmer and all his family  - and every other farmer 
around on similar agricutural rates - went potty. Next doors bill for 4 adults 
mean their tax bill was up 600% and he was not a happy bunny. Far from blaming 
the council who were responsible for half that increase he jumped on the anti - 
Maggie bandwaggon and would drive round the countryside in his big car 
complaining to all and sudrey. Needless to say he was very happy when the tax 
went and farm rates resumed though we noticed that
 the dear council still kept to their near double take - once again blaming the 
government and being bekieved by all the suckers who thought locals were honest 
when, in fact the council was run by officers who were not local and only 
fronted by locals. Incidentally, since we are now Unitary we have the same 
officers - promoted and no local council but one run on party lines with our 
reps doing as they are told. And that was under labour though it was DC who 
ordered local conservatives to vote for unitary as it who give them control (it 
did). We didn't get a vote of course. 
 
   

--- On Wed, 23/12/09, David Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:


From: David Sullivan <[email protected]>
Subject: [canals-list] Poll Tax (not)
To: "canals list" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, 23 December, 2009, 9:42


  



Steve Wood writes:
>As I recall the concept of a poll tax 
>(which is what you're proposing) was dumped as unworkable and unfair 
>when TBW was still in charge.

a) it wasn't a poll tax. It was nothing whatever to do with the right to vote
b) it was completely fair. You had N people in your house, you paid for N people

The reason it was dropped was the opposition of the vast army of scroungers 
that the
country is burdened with.

There, that'll stir things up a bit!

Dave
NB Uncontroversial









      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to