keeprenting Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) I was reading about this English Democrat mayor who is cutting costs in Doncaster. http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/index.p...st&Itemid=2 What really shocks me is some of the stuff there is to cut. My rip-off council taxes are used to fund gay pride events? As the good mayor says, I'm not a homophobe, but why should I be forced to pay to celebrate someone else's sexuality? And "Black History Month"??? Why on earth should taxpayers pay to celebrate historical events because of the colour of the protagonists' skin? If and to the extent that important historical events involve black people, they should be in the school curriculum. If people want to celebrate less important historical events just because of the colour of the protagonists' skin, let them go ahead. I don't have a problem with that. However, I do have a problem with my hard-earned cash being forcibly confiscated to fund it. Worse, a quick google search reveals that councils across the country are up to their necks in this ridiculous nonsense and even boast about it: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q...yUK%7CcountryGB Edited September 17, 2009 by keeprenting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rain'ard Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Where i come from there are a lot of gays, and they pay a lot of coucil tax. So why shouldn't they get something back. Why sould the council tax go on serious stuff all the time? What gets me about the council tax is I'm paying full whack and the dustman dont seem to want take my rubbish away unless its gift wrapped or I take it over the tip for them myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 when the mayor took office he was interviewed on he radio. It was illuminating. Did you know (because he didn't) that the gay pride event is a net money-spinner ? So the argument for cutting it isn't financial. I wonder what it is, then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 when the mayor took office he was interviewed on he radio. It was illuminating. Did you know (because he didn't) that the gay pride event is a net money-spinner ? So the argument for cutting it isn't financial. I wonder what it is, then ? It has been mentioned on here before, when times get difficult we all look for scapegoats and spongers, people to blame for the problems we have. I'm not anti gay/lesbian but when we are facing these difficult times we should not be funding parties, hamster watchers or anti-smoking classes for pregnant school girls. Who can you blame? Blame the government for creating a situation where we all end up hating each other. That's the real travesty, they are turning us into a nation of resentful, homophobic, racist, Musophobiads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It has been mentioned on here before, when times get difficult we all look for scapegoats and spongers, people to blame for the problems we have. Mmm. That may explain the reasons. I'm not anti gay/lesbian but when we are facing these difficult times we should not be funding parties, hamster watchers or anti-smoking classes for pregnant school girls. But surely if a gay pride event makes money that that's exactly what we should be funding at times like this ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It has been mentioned on here before, when times get difficult we all look for scapegoats and spongers, people to blame for the problems we have. I'm not anti gay/lesbian but when we are facing these difficult times we should not be funding parties, hamster watchers or anti-smoking classes for pregnant school girls.Who can you blame? Blame the government for creating a situation where we all end up hating each other. That's the real travesty, they are turning us into a nation of resentful, homophobic, racist, Musophobiads. Why, exactly, should the taxpayer not fund anti-smoking classes for pregnant school girls? This has nothing to do with the girls themselves; it is for the sake of their as yet unborn children. Protection of children is, I believe, the main raison d'etre of the social services. If you support the idea that children are not purely the property of their parents, then you should support this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britney's Piers Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 So the argument for cutting it isn't financial. I wonder what it is, then ? AIUI he's doing what the voters wanted him do to when they elected him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyChimp Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 when the mayor took office he was interviewed on he radio. It was illuminating. Did you know (because he didn't) that the gay pride event is a net money-spinner ? So the argument for cutting it isn't financial. I wonder what it is, then ? If gay prides make money then why can't private enterprise fund it and reap the profits? Why should tax payers have to fund something that according to you doesn't need funding? Then perhaps tax money can be spent on what government should be funding, refuse collection and police officers on the street. Or better yet, reduce taxes if they do not need to be spent on that which private industry openly admits can be afforded ie profitable. FWIW I am a huge gay rights supporter, believe in gay marriages, and protection of civil liberties extended to gay people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Why sould the council tax go on serious stuff all the time? Because that's what it's for. Gay or straight pride parades are not the remit of government - or shouldn't be. By now, it should be obvious that the individuals attracted to public service are not built for restraint when it comes to abusing taxpayers. I don't believe that we should allow a government 'business' making profit out of parades, or that it currently makes a net profit when ALL expenses are taken into account aover ALL events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Wolf Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Because that's what it's for. Absolutely! This is where a huge problem arises. Yes I will pay to have my bins taken away and such like neccesities but I should be able to decide or not what cultural or such like things I support financially. It disgusts me how much of my income they are allowed to spend on such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I was reading about this English Democrat mayor who is cutting costs in Doncaster.http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/index.p...st&Itemid=2 What really shocks me is some of the stuff there is to cut. My rip-off council taxes are used to fund gay pride events? As the good mayor says, I'm not a homophobe, but why should I be forced to pay to celebrate someone else's sexuality? And "Black History Month"??? Why on earth should taxpayers pay to celebrate historical events because of the colour of the protagonists' skin? If and to the extent that important historical events involve black people, they should be in the school curriculum. If people want to celebrate less important historical events just because of the colour of the protagonists' skin, let them go ahead. I don't have a problem with that. However, I do have a problem with my hard-earned cash being forcibly confiscated to fund it. Worse, a quick google search reveals that councils across the country are up to their necks in this ridiculous nonsense and even boast about it: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q...yUK%7CcountryGB this is the difference between left and right political views. left want to social-engineer the society. right want to give powers to citizens to do what they want ... I have never voted for left (labour, democrats, social democrats, etc ...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearbullfence Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 when the mayor took office he was interviewed on he radio. It was illuminating. Did you know (because he didn't) that the gay pride event is a net money-spinner ? So the argument for cutting it isn't financial. I wonder what it is, then ? Define "net". It tax take from event is greater than tax to pay for it then good stuff, but very unlikely. However, what I suspect is revenue to local business is greater than tax spent - in which case it is a public money drain and is a viable target for efficiency. Why should tax payers subsidise local businesses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 when the mayor took office he was interviewed on he radio. It was illuminating. Did you know (because he didn't) that the gay pride event is a net money-spinner ? So the argument for cutting it isn't financial. I wonder what it is, then ? state is not here to make money. state should be minimised as much as possible and money and powers should be given/left to individuals/citizens .... and especially the state should not try to social-engineer the society ... as a member of the majority I am sick of all this positive discrimination, which favours everybody excluding my self ... victimisation of majority continues ... my contributions to the society (aka my tax man bills, trying to get kids on uni, etc ...) are higher than average, but unfortunately I do not feel treated like that .... this form of the social (in)justice makes me very uncomfortable and I am looking for political parties, who can change it ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Where i come from there are a lot of gays, and they pay a lot of coucil tax. So why shouldn't they get something back. Why should the council tax go on serious stuff all the time? What gets me about the council tax is I'm paying full whack and the dustman dont seem to want take my rubbish away unless its gift wrapped or I take it over the tip for them myself because it is my money as well and I want to keep them to benefit my children .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone_Twin Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Why, exactly, should the taxpayer not fund anti-smoking classes for pregnant school girls? This has nothing to do with the girls themselves; it is for the sake of their as yet unborn children. Protection of children is, I believe, the main raison d'etre of the social services. If you support the idea that children are not purely the property of their parents, then you should support this. neither are they the property of the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shedfish Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 i think the only objection i have, regarding the Public Sector as a whole, is the 'service' you get when you contact this vast inert body of Civic Office circle jerkers, for info, advice, to add your name to a list for something such as housing, allotments, the like. the 'you need to speak to' game is endemic, people you deal with seem to have a genuine disdain for any member of the public they claim to serve, and the result is usually nil. my perception is of vast, unnecessary armies of paper pushers with the slopiest shoulders on the planet. if ever there is a result or conclusion to an enquiry, it takes months, sometimes years. in an age where i can securely transmit data or set up a videocon half way round the world, in an instant, this level of 'service' just doesn't cut it. this critique is obviously not aimed at the vital parts of the Public Sector, e.g. emergency services etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assetrichcashpoor Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Personally I'm all in favour of cutting wasteful public expenditure, however I don't believe that in Doncaster that cutting gay pride etc. will have impact on people's council tax bills. It's headline grabbing but ultimately fairly pointless. I haven't done any research on this but I wouldn't be surprised to find Pareto's 80/20 theory if one looked into Doncaster's accounts. i.e. 20% of the services cost 80% of the budget. If these 20% of services are targetted then you'll get the biggest savings. One of the biggest costs in the public sector is the staff costs including the final salary retire at 60 pensions. If the pensions were changed to career average retire at 63 say, there would be huge savings. But it won't happen until its too late. For my sins I work in the public sector but not for local government. In the 4 years I've been here the pension scheme has changed from final salary to career average and the retirement age has increased to 65 for new (mainly young) employees. Although I'll have to work longer and receive less than someone who started 10 years before me, I'd still prefer the current situation than to be promised a final salary and retirement at 60 and then to find out when I'm in my 50s that there's no money left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 when the mayor took office he was interviewed on he radio. It was illuminating. Did you know (because he didn't) that the gay pride event is a net money-spinner ? So the argument for cutting it isn't financial. I wonder what it is, then ? Retailing is a net money spinner. Arms production is a net money spinner. Football clubs are net money spinners. So are you suggesting the Council should run those too? No, you aren't being honest; you want to post-rationalise the state taking money off people to spend on pet projects because they allegedly make money. Just be honest - they run the event for social engineering reasons and they couldn't care less if it makes money. The argument for cutting it should be that it is not the business of the Council to be celebrating anyones sexuality. If it's a money maker let private enterprise run it; or better still let the people operating it make the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Personally I'm all in favour of cutting wasteful public expenditure, however I don't believe that in Doncaster that cutting gay pride etc. will have impact on people's council tax bills. It's headline grabbing but ultimately fairly pointless. You don't get it; it's the principle of what right people have to take money off other people and spend it on their pet projects that is wrong. You suggest the cost is trivial but it's indicative of an attitude of staggering presumptiousness that thinks they have the moral right to simply blow peoples money as they feel. Thankfully the debate doesn't have to be won as it's all coming to an and soon anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_FaFa!_* Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) You don't get it; it's the principle of what right people have to take money off other people and spend it on their pet projects that is wrong. You suggest the cost is trivial but it's indicative of an attitude of staggering presumptiousness that thinks they have the moral right to simply blow peoples money as they feel.Thankfully the debate doesn't have to be won as it's all coming to an and soon anyway. +1 Some people appear to think they are entitled to others' money. My ex-LL helped himself to £100 of my deposit without so much of as a by your leave and got all self-righteous and angry when I had the temerity to question his judgment. Sadly it turned out he hadn't placed the deposit in the TDS, so it looks like his pride is going to cost him. A pity we cannot do this with government spending......... Edited September 18, 2009 by shylock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!) Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 You don't get it; it's the principle of what right people have to take money off other people and spend it on their pet projects that is wrong. You suggest the cost is trivial but it's indicative of an attitude of staggering presumptiousness that thinks they have the moral right to simply blow peoples money as they feel.Thankfully the debate doesn't have to be won as it's all coming to an and soon anyway. can you win the debate with the idiots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 But surely if a gay pride event makes money that that's exactly what we should be funding at times like this ? Local government exist to provide services, not 'make money'. If an event is profitable, it is up to the beneficiaries of the money to organise and pay for the event. As it happens, government have done much to stifle such events. Everything we do these days has to be licensed and wrapped in red tape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 neither are they the property of the state. Of course not, but the state does have a duty of protection of children as a consequence of our modern ethic that children should not suffer for the sins of their parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 our modern ethic that children should not suffer for the sins of their parents. Children will always suffer for the sins of their parents. It's part of being human, whatever people in Islington babble on about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 when the mayor took office he was interviewed on he radio. It was illuminating. Did you know (because he didn't) that the gay pride event is a net money-spinner ? So the argument for cutting it isn't financial. I wonder what it is, then ? I bet those are selective figures 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.