Loz

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is the road we are starting on. Opening up to competition. No? A bit of an extrapolation, and also some of the FUD employed by some opponents to the bill. The US is a markedly different system. A better idea would be to look at Australia, which has a much more interesting balance between public and private. People are encouraged to get private insurance and use the private facilities, but the public system is still at least as good (if not better) than the UK. The Guardian did a examination of Australian, Canadian, Irish and US healthcare systems. Quite interesting.

LodshipLang Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... opening up possibilities for competition ... That's a bad thing?

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why then change the centuries old meaning of marriage for a vocal, marginal, minority, many of > whom may have no interest in the matter anyway? As far as I can see, it has never had a single meaning, from the cultures with polygamy through to the establishment of divorce (which rather changed the whole basic concept of 'till death us do part'). So what is the 'centuries old meaning of marriage', SF?

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As Loz said at the beginning of this thread, surely there are > more important matters our policians should be devoting their energies to. Point of order, Mr Speaker... I said, "there are so many issues in the country right now, why on earth [do you want to] have a referendum on this one". I was not saying that gay marriages are not an issue worth pursuing by the government. Quite the opposite, I think it is an idea who's time has come and the government should be changing the law in the way proposed.

Actually, MM, the most recent figures show that: - the top 1% contribute 26.6% of the income tax take on a share of 12.4% of the total income. - the top 5% contribute 45.3 % of the income tax take on a share of 25.2% of the total income - the top 10% contribute 55.5% of the income tax take on a share of 34.8% of the total income It always amuses me when people say (generally in the Guardian comments) that the 1% should be kicked out of the country.

Do you celebrate Christmas? Are you a Christian? Personally, any excuse for a few bevvies as far as I'm concerned.

I'm surprised no one has chopped the Angel of the North off at the ankles as yet.

Blimey, I assumed he was driving something sporty as well.

That's an entirely different debate, mikeb. I'd actually have more sympathy towards that as a) it taxed the asset capital gain, rather than the asset value and b) it is done at a point of liquidity. If it replaced Stamp Duty then that would be a good thing. It always struck me as strange that the purchaser paid tax, but the seller didn't. The other side would be that it may discourage mobility, but that would depend on the level of taxation.

Senor Chevalier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So why should A who has a house worth XXX the value of which may have come from a variety of > sources, earnings, inheritance, capital gain, gift, lottery etc not be taxed. Meanwhile B earns > XXX but because the value happened to be earned in the preceding year, a massive chunk goes to the > taxman. Does there ever come a point where applying higher and higher tax to B without > allocating any to A is unfair and one way of reducing the burden of tax on B would be to spread > it partly to A. But only if A owns a house. If he rents, your cunning plan comes unstuck. And if B is very successful and owns a nice house in Chelsea, he get taxed twice. I'm all for a fairer taxation system, but this isn't it. This is just, 'you've got a nice house, give me some money' which just sounds like the politics of envy, rather than a well thought out addition to the taxation system.

Privately is easy enough if you can be around to show people around before letting and organising fixing stuff after letting. Suggest you join the Residential Landlords Association for advice, forms and contracts.

Senor Chevalier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Every year on Jan 31st the state forcibly takes a large chunk of my assets. Each year without fail. > As a consequence my mortgage is much larger than it would be if they didn't. What's the difference? You are going to have to explain that. It that based on the value of your assets of is it based on your income for that year? > On the whole I think most people would find a way to pay the tax without being forced sellers. In a > small minority of marginal cases the introduction of this tax may lead to a requirement to downsize. > Yes, I think this would on the whole be tolerable. I suspect you would find it tolerable on the basis that it would not effect you in this way. So very tolerant of you.

The problem with the Mansion tax is... how much - exactly - is a house worth? The council tax got around this by banding valuations, but if you are going to tax a percentage, then you have to know the exact value of the property on the day the tax is applied. And since the value of a house is 'what the next buyer will pay for it' this is pretty much impossible.

They are still free. I think you've stumbled upon a dodgy website, LG. Try: http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcareabroad/EHIC/Pages/Introduction.aspx ETA: The EHIC is no substitution for travel insurance.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What the proposal does do is aim to ride roughshod over the meaning and institution of marriage for > dubious reasons of social engineering. In that case, as my original post in this thread said, you could argue that about any marriage held outside the auspices of the church. You have to be consistent - either marriage is a religious construct or a state/legal construct. Which do you think it is, SF?

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't forget one of our literary giants did hard labour simply for being gay not much more than a century ago! Or half a century ago - Alan Turing, father of computer science and arguably the man who did the most to win the second world war, was chemically castrated and hounded to death for being gay. Ignorance is dangerous. Sometimes fatally so.

I think the e-dealer has been sampling his own wares.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The matter shouldn't be left to a handful of > politicians whose motives are questionable. You could say that about, well... everything. In which case we may as well abandon the whole parliamentary democracy idea and reduce governance of the country down to a series of X-factor style online votes. At that point, the country is doomed.

As long as people understand that that are a tool to help solve crime, providing they aren't wearing an 'advanced technology cloaking device', otherwise known as a 'hoodie'. But some people really do believe that CCTV prevents crime, which is wrong.

I don't think they have gone into that much detail, but I have heard a 1% figure being bandied around.

Good grief - there is so many issues in the country right now, why on earth have a referendum on this one? Personally, I think there are two solutions: 1) If marriage is indeed a religious construct, then make it so only churches can perform marriages. All homosexual and non-religious heterosexual unions would become civil partnerships. 2) If you think that non-religious heterosexual unions can be marriages and so therefore marriage is state construct, then all unions (both homosexual and heterosexual) should be classed as marriages.

annabel42 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There has been a murder and numerous thefts > in Forest Hilll Road recently. > Are there any CCTV cameras there?. Why? You do realise CCTV camera don't actually prevent crime? Or do you just like watching grainy footage of people being robbed and murdered?

Senor Chevalier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, I am saying that there is an element of windfall to many who have property > wealth and that prices have moved beyond the grasp of many. If the windfall could be taxed in some > way then the imbalance may be reduced slightly, so that the next generation might have a similar > opportunity to achieve equivalent outcomes to the previous one (if prepared to work equally hard). But there is no windfall until the property is sold. Until then, you are taxing a a paper profit, which is inherently unfair. Taxes should only be applied when a profit is monetised.

You do if it's a flat.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gingerbeer Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is it true that: I will tower over most of the > populace being 6 feet tall, 6'3 in heels? > > What do you know... the average adult female in > the US is half an inch taller than in England. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height Did you know that an the average Englishman's penis size is approximately twice as long as the average American's?