Stars Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Wrong. It's his contribution for owning the place. Now where's yours? The tenant doesn't own the place. so he doesn't have to make a contribution for owning it. Just to remind you - The tenant can pay once for the right to be there, without it becoming a form of extortion (two charges for the same service). So choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 The tenant doesn't own the place. so he doesn't have to make a contribution for owning it.Just to remind you - The tenant can pay once for the right to be there, without it becoming a form of extortion (two charges for the same service). So choose. *Bangs head against wall* No, he makes a contribution for living in the UK. Not in the house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 No, he makes a contribution for living in the UK. Not in the house. When he pays the market price for being in the house he also pays the market price for being in the uk...because the house is in the uk Sigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) When he pays the market price for being in the house he also pays the market price for being in the uk...because the house is in the uk. Wrong. The house is in the UK but he's not paid for being in the UK. He's paid for living in some bricks. Edited September 4, 2009 by absolutezero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) Wrong.The house is in the UK but he's not paid for being in the UK. He's paid for living in some bricks. He hasn't strictly paid for all his right to be in the uk granted, but he will naturally pay the rest in trade, when he pays other service providers who also pay their rent to other landlords. When all the landlords he directly or indirectly uses have been paid for his presence, then he will have made the total payment he owes for his use of the uk. So like i said, he has already paid for his presence in the uk before you tax him. Edited September 4, 2009 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 He hasn't strictly paid for all his right to be in the uk granted, he will naturally pay the rest in trade, when he pays other service providers who also pay their rent to other landlords. When all the landlords he directly or indirectly uses have been paid for his presence, then he will have made the total payment he owes for his use of the uk. So like i said, he has already paid for his presence in the uk. Pointless arguing really. You're not logical and refuse to listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grime- skint wouldbe ftb Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 If Lib/Lab/Con implemented the British National Party's "British jobs for British workers" policy, everything would be solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 If Lib/Lab/Con implemented the British National Party's "British jobs for British workers" policy, everything would be solved. Sadly, some poor souls actually believe that HS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackalope Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) Nor are Trade Unions public sector bodies. They are mutual organisations, paid for and run by their members. They are, at least partially, funded by the generosity of the tax payer via the government through the "union modernisation fund". Still, it's a state of affairs that won't survive the imminent change of government. Edited September 4, 2009 by jackalope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papag Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Never mind the power cuts who's going to empty the bins in Leeds where the council due to running out of funds proposed to reduce the wages of the Bin men by £5500 pa.Strike began tonight as final talks broke down. Winter of discontent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 With what the banksters have got away with I find it difficult to criticise any person or group using their leverage to blackmail the population/employer/supplier of funds.Precedent has been set on a scale, type and for a less deserving group than has ever been done before. There are going to be serious moral, social and financial ramifications for decades for what the banksters have done and everything else is pretty insignificant. If these crooks can get away with it why not everyone else? French go thru instant strikes weekly! I've been caught out a couple of times with fisherman blockading port/ferry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three Pint Princess 2 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 No more hiring of cheaper foreign labour. Pay Rise National register of workers' skills Allow union representatives to bring up grievances on sites. Not much to ask for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) As much as like to see a bit of trouble this sort of action isn't an effective route to long term prospersity (which is really all we want.) I would like to see the Unions tackle the issue of house prices as they're a major cost on production which devalue wages, they need a new approach; not a re-run of the 1970's. Edited September 4, 2009 by chefdave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hilltop Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 As much as like to see a bit of trouble this sort of action isn't an effective route to long term prospersity (which is really all we want.) I would like to see the Unions tackle the issue of house prices as they're a major cost on production which devalue wages, they need a new approach; not a re-run of the 1970's. Unions can only do what the members mandate them to do, which was at the heart of the miners debacle. Unions are not sophisticated policy machines, that is the difference they have from political parties. It is also their strength. Address the employment, pay and conditions issues and other organisations must address the consequences. In over 100 years we have failed to find a better way doing it. Certainly, no sensible political party wants to interpose itself between workers and management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiggerthetiger Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Pointless arguing really. You're not logical and refuse to listen. Injin never does ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Unions can only do what the members mandate them to do, which was at the heart of the miners debacle.Unions are not sophisticated policy machines, that is the difference they have from political parties. It is also their strength. Address the employment, pay and conditions issues and other organisations must address the consequences. By dealing with the issue in such a limited and simplistic a way they make genuine progress pretty unlikely. I'm pretty tempted to think that this is actually the point - the unions will demand pay and conditions should be improved, this can't arithmetically happen and so nobody is helped and workers end up being royally f@cked once again. The change of direction needs to be along these lines - unions should organise and lobby for taxes to be taken off their members, they should enlist the help of employers to this end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Injin never does ...... Exactly what I said last night... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiggerthetiger Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Exactly what I said last night... It was almost a seamless transition but not quite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) The house is in the UK but he's not paid for being in the UK. He's paid for living in some bricks. Well, according to your theory, if we take away the bricks and the roofing tiles and the timber etc there should be no charge because there is nothing left to charge for? - according to you, the charge is entirely for the bricks of the house. In reality, however, there is still a charge and this charge is not for bricks but purely a for being wherever the house is (in this case, the uk). The rent paid by tenant to be in the house incorporates this charge (of course). Edited September 4, 2009 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 It was almost a seamless transition but not quite. Don't be daft, i have had several long running arguments with Injin I am not an anarchist, injin is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Don't be daft, i have had several long running arguments with Injin Any psychiatrists in? You'd have field day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 They are, at least partially, funded by the generosity of the tax payer via the government through the "union modernisation fund".Still, it's a state of affairs that won't survive the imminent change of government. Last time I looked it up the entire fund was worth £10 million pounds. With about 5-6 million union members in the UK (far more than belong to any political party and about 30% of the working population) that is about £2 per member. Given that most union members pay £70-100 per year in subs I don't think the money is likely to make that much difference. How many billions have the banks and other private companies received from the taxpayer and will the Tories be rushing to get them to hand the money back ? I doubt it Oh and lest we forget all 6 million union members are taxpayers as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted September 4, 2009 Author Share Posted September 4, 2009 Last time I looked it up the entire fund was worth £10 million pounds. With about 5-6 million union members in the UK (far more than belong to any political party and about 30% of the working population) that is about £2 per member. Given that most union members pay £70-100 per year in subs I don't think the money is likely to make that much difference. How many billions have the banks and other private companies received from the taxpayer and will the Tories be rushing to get them to hand the money back ? I doubt it Oh and lest we forget all 6 million union members are taxpayers as well. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Last time I looked it up the entire fund was worth £10 million pounds. With about 5-6 million union members in the UK (far more than belong to any political party and about 30% of the working population) that is about £2 per member. Given that most union members pay £70-100 per year in subs I don't think the money is likely to make that much difference. How many billions have the banks and other private companies received from the taxpayer and will the Tories be rushing to get them to hand the money back ? I doubt it Oh and lest we forget all 6 million union members are taxpayers as well. Stop posting sense. You'll upset all the rabid capitalists on here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.