BBC Blog Network

User Profile

atrisse

Listed below are comments made by atrisse between Friday, 13th November 2009 and Monday, 30th November 2009 (17 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Appetite for fat cat taxes? 6:22pm on 30 Nov 2009 I can't accept that any kind of property tax is either good or fair. Far better to do it through income for ordinary domestic dwellings, £2m or not. Maybe there are a few palaces that could be targeted but I'd say they're in the minority.

There was a time the Lib Dems were going to introduce a fairer council tax based on income rather than property value. Looks like they reneged on that one. What's worse is inheritance tax, also based on property and which, because the givernment has been slow to increase the threshold, has put about 15/100 of households in the UK within reach of this crooked and despised tax... merely because their property has increased in value way above inflation and that threshold.

If I vote at all it will be for a party ready to deal with such horrid taxes so that ordinary householders aren't penalised twice, so far as taxes go.
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 12:42pm on 30 Nov 2009 Still nothing on the hateful and despised inheritance tax, nor stamp duty (which comprises the bulk of the expense of moving home), nor the once heralded local income tax to replace the council tax.

This proposal can be applauded if only because it will help undo the rather ridiculous system where the less wealthy are taxed then receive a rebate through tax credits. Daft.
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 12:29pm on 30 Nov 2009 I appreciate that it's perfectly fair that those who are the benficiaries of wealth in our system should look after those who produce them that wealth but this won't win my vote.

I'd far sooner have a fairer council tax based on income rather than property. Income tax (based on what the government says I can afford) covers my access to various central services so why not the same re local tax? That policy was once on the books of the Lib Dems and would have leaned me more toward this party.

Nick Clegg really doesn't seem to have that spark that inspires confidence.
Thursday 26 November 2009 11:42pm on 26 Nov 2009 As was obvious in the chatter after Mark Thompson had said his piece (people from channel 4 and 5 were talking about what the BBC should be in 10 years), the BBC doesn't pay it's camerapeople halfway enough. The camera was shaky, kept zooming in and out, focusing in and out and honestly a competent amateur could do a great deal better.

I reckon the BBC should pay its camera and video cart people enough to cut out all that drossy photography and keep it sensible - on Newsnight at least. Can you imagine camerawork like that on Holby City that was featured in the programme. The culprits would be sacked!
Prime Minister's Questions: Schools 09:17am on 26 Nov 2009 I don't want my tax to go to any school that teaches a way of life other than British; that reinforces segregation in society. In fact, I'd be happier if the money didn't go to religious schools at all.

So I'm glad Cameron brought this one up.
Why did Bank of England keep shtoom? 5:56pm on 25 Nov 2009 Come on, Robert, ple-e-ease!

"The first and obvious question is why on earth the Bank, Treasury and FSA thought it was a good idea to keep the £61.6bn of lending secret."

You've been around a while. You must know this happens from time to time. HBOS/RBS are hardly the first instance. In earlier days when the B of E ran the show, most banks had overdraft arrangments with it. They dreaded going beyond that limit because the B of E might put their credit rating down, charge a huge rate of interest and invite the bank's boss to a very uncomfortable cup of tea.

The only mistake is the B of E revealing this latest spree at all. It's opened the floodgates to political intrusion which is something we really do not want.
Britain lands key EU foreign policy post 10:29am on 20 Nov 2009 The posts seem mendicant. What pay does she get?
Not the Queen's Speech 11:34am on 18 Nov 2009 # 14. At 11:14am on 18 Nov 2009, PalusKeg wrote:
"It is ridiculous in this day and age we still have an archaic queens speech. It is nothing to do with the queen it is writing by the government why is it not called "The governments speech spoken by a queen with absolutely no proper power.""

Awww, come on. We have to give her SOMEthing to do other than showing off her hats and giving those regal waves from the back seat of a car. The Queen's speech is her only chance to practice with the crown these days. They love ritual, queen and brown alike. It gives order to their day...
Not the Queen's Speech 11:15am on 18 Nov 2009 I love the BBC news headline "Queen to set out Brown programme."

About sums it up.
A balanced approach to climate change 8:15pm on 13 Nov 2009 I think some of the scepticism comes from many of the public seeing no one in a position of (corporate or other) responsibility taking things seriously. Aviation is still actively promoted (to preserve profit), nothing is done about importing food while we export food of exactly the same sort; and office lights everywhere (including those of government buildings) blaze throughout the night while computers tick over silently waiting for an inout so they can do something.

Simultaneously we are treated to endless patronising lectures (particularly on news reports) about how we can "reduce our carbon footprint". We're told we're going to have smart meters foisted on us that, aside from invading our privacy yet again, will tell us when to switch things off, as if we don't KNOW when we're using electricity... well, most of use do and we're happy to reduce our consumption. We also know that the more electricity and gas we save, the higher the unit prices will get because the suppliers have to keep their shareholders amped.

So why should we take it seriously? I'm not a sceptic. I've just given up caring. It's pretty obvious the ecology will rebalance itself in response to the ravages of 20th century humanity. It isn't so much that twice the population are "polluting" than in, say, 1960, but that 'twice' is about 3 billion. As the forests go, so the atmosphere will change - you don't need a Nobel Prize to realise that! Just needs a bit of systems thinking - something that most scientists and sceptical public aren't too good at.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

atrisse