General
16 Mar 04
16 Mar 04
1 edit
Originally posted by SirLoseALotnot really since i only know of it in a tom lehrer song.
The poll tax in the UK,I have heard of this many times.Never could figure out what it is.Anyone care to explain?
but here is an explanation from elsewhere.
in friendship,
prad
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
poll tax
a capital tax levied equally on every adult in the community. Although no longer a significant source of revenue for any major country, the poll tax did provide large sums for many governments until well into the 1800s. The tax has long been attacked as being an unfair burden upon those less able to pay. In the United States, the poll tax has been connected with voting rights. Poll taxes enacted in Southern states between 1889 and 1910 had the effect of disenfranchising many blacks as well as poor whites, because payment of the tax was a prerequisite for voting. By the 1940s some of these taxes had been abolished, and in 1964 the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution disallowed the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting in federal elections. In 1966 this prohibition was extended to all elections by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that such a tax violated the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. In 1990, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain introduced a poll tax with exemptions for people with low incomes or disabilities. The measure was extremely unpopular and played a role in her replacement as prime minister later that year.
16 Mar 04
Originally posted by SirLoseALotmy limite dunderstanding of this is that we currently us a council tax system , which taxes a household based on the value of their property, also varying on where in the country it is. Poll tax taxes each individual in the household individually.
The poll tax in the UK,I have heard of this many times.Never could figure out what it is.Anyone care to explain?
Council tax means that 1 person in a house pays the same as 7 people would in the same house. Which system is fairer? That totally depends on perspective, but the argument against poll tax introduction in the UK was that if there are 7 people sharing a house it's because they can't afford to live elsewhere. It's not however ture that 1 person in the same house is automatically rich enough to afford to pay as much as 7.
16 Mar 04
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakYeah, I was opposed to the poll tax back in '90, partly because as I was a college student I had to pay, even though I didn't earn anything. I don't think I had to pay the full amount though.
my limite dunderstanding of this is that we currently us a council tax system , which taxes a household based on the value of their property, also varying on where in the country it is. Poll tax taxes each individual in the household i ...[text shortened]... house is automatically rich enough to afford to pay as much as 7.
At the time I thought it wasn't fair that poorer people paid the same as rich people. Now, I've changed my opinion on that. So long as it isn't crippling for the poorer people, why should richer people pay more? (Note, it isn't because I'm richer now that I believe this, because I'm only slightly richer 🙁 ).
The current system is not fair to single householders. I think there is a single person rate which is something like 75% of full rate. When my wife wasn't working I had to pay full tax on just one wage! It was quite a stretch.
16 Mar 04
Originally posted by wucky3have you worked in a society that is over unionised, where unions act as mafia only interested in keeping power and not helping the people they 'represent', instead intimidating them into following suit? I wonder if her lessening the power of unions was actually a bad thing.
lol... i was a student when the poll tax was introduced and went on the big demo in london ( who remembers the riots?) closing all the pits and privatising nearly every public service wasn't enough for Thatcher. it'll take 100 years to undo the damage that woman did
16 Mar 04
Originally posted by belgianfreakYes, it was a bad thing. There's no such thing as over-unionised - or do you think some people shouldn't be allowed to join unions?
have you worked in a society that is over unionised, where unions act as mafia only interested in keeping power and not helping the people they 'represent', instead intimidating them into following suit? I wonder if her lessening the power of unions was actually a bad thing.
16 Mar 04
Originally posted by belgianfreakthatcher was worse than the mafia... she had grown men crying because they couldn't feed there families during the miners strike. The unions protected the worker...she didn't want the working class to have a voice and be heard.
have you worked in a society that is over unionised, where unions act as mafia only interested in keeping power and not helping the people they 'represent', instead intimidating them into following suit? I wonder if her lessening the power of unions was actually a bad thing.
17 Mar 04
Originally posted by RedmikeUnions might in theory be to protect the worker but often they are a platform for self-important upstarts to gain a measure of power and then cling onto it for dear life. Scargill was one of these. He was more interested in bringing down Thatcher than in the miners. Some protection!
Yes, it was a bad thing. There's no such thing as over-unionised - or do you think some people shouldn't be allowed to join unions?
17 Mar 04
Originally posted by wucky3So she was worse than the mafia because she made grown men cry?
thatcher was worse than the mafia... she had grown men crying because they couldn't feed there families during the miners strike. The unions protected the worker...she didn't want the working class to have a voice and be heard.
And what do you think the mafia does to grown men?
17 Mar 04
Originally posted by VargWorking class people fighting for their jobs doesn't make them upstarts.
Unions might in theory be to protect the worker but often they are a platform for self-important upstarts to gain a measure of power and then cling onto it for dear life. Scargill was one of these. He was more interested in bringing down Thatcher than in the miners. Some protection!
Scargill and the NUM said there was a program of pit closures, and they were right (in fact they underestimated the scale of it).
It was Thatcher which turned the dispute into a question of bringing down the government - with her talk of the 'enemy within' and such bollox. The NUM were doing what a union's supposed to do - fighting, by whatever means they can, to protect their members' jobs and liveliehod. Thatcher picked the fight as part of drive to smash the unions, and as revenge for the NUM's defeat of Heath in the 70s.
Can you answer the point about 'over-unionisation'? What does this mean?
17 Mar 04
Originally posted by RedmikeScargill was the upstart. Trying to make a political name for himself.
Working class people fighting for their jobs doesn't make them upstarts.
Scargill and the NUM said there was a program of pit closures, and they were right (in fact they underestimated the scale of it).
It was Thatcher which turned the dispute into a question of bringing down the government - with her talk of the 'enemy within' and such bollox. The NUM ...[text shortened]... Heath in the 70s.
Can you answer the point about 'over-unionisation'? What does this mean?
There were lies on both sides. The fallacy of foreign coal being cheaper, for example. But everybody knows that coal is not sustainable, so if the pits weren't closed then, they would be closing now, and we would be having the strikes now.
Scargill was a socialist of the old type, of course he wanted to see the government brought down.
If they were fighting for the workers, how come there was no official ballot on the strike? And of the 9 pits to unnofficially ballot, 8 of them voted against action and only one for (by 2% margin)?
As for over unionisation, well belgianfreak said that, not me. But I suppose he means too much power in the hands of the unions, with them abusing their position.
17 Mar 04
Sorry to leave this hanging but I don't have much time to post ATM. "over unionised" was a bad way of putting it as i timplies that too many people are members of unions. What I meant to say was I have a problem when unions have too much power and abuse it.
As for over unionisation, well belgianfreak said that, not me. But I suppose he means too much power in the hands of the unions, with them abusing their position.[/b]