Poppy Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Braco totally agree with the 15% absolutely brilliant conception ( no exception). We in ten years of building our own house have claimed nothing from UK or France, we spend 120 Euros per week in the supermarket, goodness knows how much per week in the DIY stores and please don't start me on the French health service it's not a delusion that UK is best. Please email if you want to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braco Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 It maybe better than the French. I do not have any experience to call upon but my experiences around the world tell me that it is a total delusion. While by no means a perfect test try checking out life longevity on Google. In other parts of the world GP’s may not earn up to £250k a year but the voters are left with enough of their earnings to keep them busy. In the UK we have the RAC, AA, and Green Flag amongst others providing a vehicle recovery service. Can any one seriously claim that this service could be provided more efficiently by a government department? On the plus side obesity would be history if the well meaning cretins took over food distribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulT Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 [quote user="Braco"] A truly democratic system would also a allow total opt out of certain aspects. Example do you want to be part of the governments pension scheme, national health service………… [/quote]But at times you have to protect some people from themselves. Talking to a friend the other day who is in his early 60s discussing pensions. He has some private pensions that have not done at all well. He then disclosed that in the past 20 years when he has been self-employed he has not paid any NI contributions so only a small state pension.As for the health service. The private market is not interested in A&E so if you opt out and are involved in an accident so will you just be left there?Perhaps though have opt out options would create a huge administrative department to run the opt out.Is it a case of interested people for whatever reason stand for election and some people go along and vote for them and that is it. No updates on what is going on, the Council Tax bill drops on the mat and we pay it. Should not the public have more involvement in the decisions made not just get involved once every 5 years to vote.Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braco Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 PaulI am a democrat and as such do not believe in representative government or vote for any party. What is needed is a simple constitution, elected officers to follow the letter of the constitution, and the demos (people in the word democracy) to vote directly on any change to the constitution.What we have now are representative’s that gain and hold power by pandering to peoples fear, envy and special interest. I take your point that some people will make mistakes but I strongly think that it is their right to choose and not the role of the state to direct..Looking at the life expectancy levels it is interesting that people in Greece which spends far less on health care and where smoking is almost a duty have a higher life expectancy than in the UK. Even if the figures were reversed I do not think that a few more months at the end of your life would add much to the overall experience.The other point that should be made is that in my opinion we are vastly over employed for no other reason than to support the waste that we create. Striped of this waste our current economies will easily support families with a single bread winner.To give just one example can you think of any good reason why governments need to subsidise the production of children or a more wasteful process than taxing people, then employing civil servant’s to pay back monies in child care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulT Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 BracoI agree with you about the 'representatives'. Plus most of these are career politicians who go from university, to researcher to being elected.My problem with people voting is that some seem to have been absent when the brains were being issued - do I want them involved with deciding direction. I dare say though most of these cannot be bothered to vote otherwise they will miss some soap on TV.These are also the people knocking out the little ones. 'I'm having a baby so the council will now give me a flat'. 'I cant work cos I've got so many so the State will need to feed them and me'. Unfortunately, you do not need a licence to breed. So my reply to a good reason, but it is a bad reason, is that a civilised country does not allow its people to die of starvation so there will be subsidies for children. And why should only one section of society, the irresponsible section, be given handouts subsidised by the responisible section.We could have government by constant vote - if they can do it for reality TV shows then it could be done. A frightening thought.The situation that countries find themselves is the same as a lot of people. They have allowed debts to pile up. Some people have loans, vast credit card debts etc. They either have to cut back drastically so as to manage the debt or, as some are doing, entering in to AVCs or even declaring bankruptcy. Perhaps the only option for countries is to cut back drastically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Poppy,did you live in a caravan for ten years on you own land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppy Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 [quote user="idun"]Poppy,did you live in a caravan for ten years on you own land?[/quote]No, we pitched the caravan on the local camp site. It was very cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braco Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Hi Paul I agree with almost all the points you make. I do not agree with ‘And why should only one section of society, the irresponsible section, be given handouts subsidised by the responisible section’. My contention is that helping the irresponsible is counter productive and damaging to society and the economy. You can only pile so much weight onto a working donkey, at some point its legs will buckle and it will collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 [quote user="woolybanana"]but Coops, I agree, but sometimes the price gets out of hand or the services are not really necessary or well run.[/quote]Then it's time for those who care about such things to get into politics. No good just moaning from the sidelines. Pity so much politics is tied up with self-promotion and agrandisement and not caring about and for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulT Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote user="Braco"]Hi Paul I agree with almost all the points you make. I do not agree with ‘And why should only one section of society, the irresponsible section, be given handouts subsidised by the responisible section’. My contention is that helping the irresponsible is counter productive and damaging to society and the economy. You can only pile so much weight onto a working donkey, at some point its legs will buckle and it will collapse. [/quote]The irresponsible and the responsible.....I remember when I started work there were two people doing the same job on the same pay who were coming up for retirement. One of them said to me:'He has always p155ed his wages against the wall. I have always put some aside. When we retire he will get handouts and I will get nothing because I have been careful'.This is a case of irresponsibility being rewarded. If the irresponsible are given handouts I fully empathise with the other person above feeling cheated that carefulness is not rewarded.Yes, the case could be that if the irresponsible one knew he would not get handouts he might have lived his life differently.The whole of the benefits system requires overhauling and not rewarding irresponsibility only genuine hardship cases that are not of their own making.Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppy Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Back full circle to my comment, why should I be penalised for putting my money into a roof over my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Poppy,how are you being penalised then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braco Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Balance needs to put back into the equation. While the government is prepared to pay an underclass to live off benefits then the result will be that the underclass will grow and grow.There is plenty of work in the UK. Witness the growing prosperity of migrant workers mainly from Eastern Europe next time you pass through Dover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppy Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote user="idun"]Poppy,how are you being penalised then?[/quote]Don't think I'm getting paranoid [:D] but if instead of spending my money on a large house and incurring huge TH & TB bills I had spent my money on drink, cigs, decent car etc etc and built a smaller house I would have much smaller TH & TB bills and be receiving exactly the same services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulT Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 [quote user="Poppy"][quote user="idun"]Poppy,how are you being penalised then?[/quote]Don't think I'm getting paranoid [:D] but if instead of spending my money on a large house and incurring huge TH & TB bills I had spent my money on drink, cigs, decent car etc etc and built a smaller house I would have much smaller TH & TB bills and be receiving exactly the same services.[/quote]Poppy on that basis we should all pay the same amount of tax irrespective of what we earn.Some apsects of life are unfair but I do not think that the current system of the richer subsidising the poorer will change.Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppy Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Thanks for your comments Paul but I am only referring to TH & TF. I agree with other methods of taxation. The money that I have spent building my house has already been taxed twice. In addition to that I am paying TVA on materials and contributing to the cotisations of French builders I have employed. I am still only complaining about TH & TF [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 One thing for you to consider Poppy, is that those two taxes help to fund your commune and canton and the services they provide. You can actually vote in local elections, even if you do not take French citizenship, so you do at least have a voice in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppy Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Cooperlola I do understand what you are saying but I receive absolutely no services at all from the commune. If my house was occupied by 20 people most of them receiving child allowance, unemployment benefit, and every benefit available I would still be paying the same or possibly exempt from TH & TF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 I meant that as a voter you should make your views known and maybe campaign on that basis if you feel so strongly about it. What have you done with your rubbish? Do you use the back roads or do you hover above them in your car? Do you visit a village at night and see where you're going courtesy of the street lights? Do you admire those nice flowers round your village or do you just think they're a waste of your money? You may not get good value for your taxes, I'm prepared to concede, but I doubt whether anybody can honestly say they never use local services, ever, or benefit from them in just a small way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppy Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Coops I am honestly not trying to sound like a grumpy old §§§ We put the rubbish in the boot of the car and take it to the nearest bins once per week, the nearest bins are in the next canton. It would be easier to burn the rubbish in the garden. We do hover heart in mouth over the backroads we are on one and planning has allowed over building without the infrastructure.We never go to the village in the dark because the roads are too dangerous. The flowers in the canton are not as nice as mine. Not trying to wind anyone up but just trying to put forward another point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Streason Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Tax revenues have to come from somewhere and they spread it around so you dont know how much you pay each year. On avarage the bigger the property the more ability to pay. What gets me are the taxes that look specific but which just go into the general pot. A road fund licence that doesnt fund the roads, Natonal insurance which isnt etc etc.One day I will try to keep records of the tax I pay in a year. Income tax, national insurance, VAT, car tax, road fund licence, stamp duty, local taxes, TV licence and so on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Poppy, if you can't have a grump on a forum, where can you?Stan, I'm not sure what the value in naming taxes after a specific beneficiary is either but no doubt somebody knows! One way or another we either pay what it costs to provide services or we don't get the services, and how the costs and the payments are spread around should, in theory at least, have something to do with the ideology of those we elect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppy Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 I know it's probably a one off point of view but why should it be that the bigger the property the bigger the tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suein56 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 [quote user="Poppy"]I know it's probably a one off point of view but why should it be that the larger the property the larger the tax?[/quote]... today, IMO, it is more likely to be the newer the property the higher the tax, the older the (unmodernised) property the lower the tax.Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppy Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Totally agree Sue the newer the property the higher the tax and the older the property the lower the tax [:D]. Sometimes this is due to not declaring but whatever how is this a fair system of taxation [:D] Never in my most wildest dreams did I think I would be paying over a thousand pounds in taxes on a one bedroom house in France with no bathroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.