Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Do what they've been telling us what is 'green' - pay more tax.


Recommended Posts

I've often thought, in the past, about so called neoliberal types and their, shall we say, 'politically selective' determination of when to invoke arguments of 'negative externalities', its very choosy.

Things like, if something disproportionately negatively affects non-whites, its automatic evidence of racism, and whites must pay, even if non-whites are only affected marginally more, and for debatable reasons *cough, covid* . Conversely, as most non-whites live in cities, proportionally more whites in the country, i've never once heard a politician describe exorbitant fuel taxes as 'implicitly anti white' and public transport subsidies pro-black.

In the past, when I was anti-nimby (after the 2011 census results, i've become somewhat more nimby...we're full, and then some!), i've thought if urbanites want green belts, so they get the benefits of both living in the city, saving on commuting costs, but also having the countryside nearby AND benefittting from higher property profits due to supply being restricted inside the greenbelt, perhaps they should pay a surcharge for the privilege of living inside the green belt. Lets say a grand or two a year, which could be remitted to cover the commuting costs of those forced to commute in from outside the greenbelt. But then i've thought, no, the public, regardless of where they live would never stand for that....its just wrong. 

 

Of course, the urban intellectual caste elites have no such moral qualms. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/11/staff-who-work-from-home-after-pandemic-should-pay-more-tax

Link to post
Share on other sites

Living near to/within the greenbelt is already expensive enough, and you could argue that these people already do pay a surcharge when they buy their home there.

For example my house, while not in the greenbelt, would have cost less if it were in suburbia, rather than where it is i.e. the open countryside.

As for the first part of your question about fuel surcharges being "anti white" - have you you heard ANY politician say ANYTHING is anti-white? I haven't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, PatronizingGit said:

I've often thought, in the past, about so called neoliberal types and their, shall we say, 'politically selective' determination of when to invoke arguments of 'negative externalities', its very choosy.

Things like, if something disproportionately negatively affects non-whites, its automatic evidence of racism, and whites must pay, even if non-whites are only affected marginally more, and for debatable reasons *cough, covid* . Conversely, as most non-whites live in cities, proportionally more whites in the country, i've never once heard a politician describe exorbitant fuel taxes as 'implicitly anti white' and public transport subsidies pro-black.

In the past, when I was anti-nimby (after the 2011 census results, i've become somewhat more nimby...we're full, and then some!), i've thought if urbanites want green belts, so they get the benefits of both living in the city, saving on commuting costs, but also having the countryside nearby AND benefittting from higher property profits due to supply being restricted inside the greenbelt, perhaps they should pay a surcharge for the privilege of living inside the green belt. Lets say a grand or two a year, which could be remitted to cover the commuting costs of those forced to commute in from outside the greenbelt. But then i've thought, no, the public, regardless of where they live would never stand for that....its just wrong. 

 

Of course, the urban intellectual caste elites have no such moral qualms. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/11/staff-who-work-from-home-after-pandemic-should-pay-more-tax

Staff who work from home after pandemic 'should pay more tax'

Er most people I know working from home are higher skilled and higher paid then those who work in sandwiches shops an the like.

So, they do pay more tax.

This is from  DB, who are a pan circling abortion of a turd company, whove destroyed more wealth than most.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, spunko said:

Living near to/within the greenbelt is already expensive enough, and you could argue that these people already do pay a surcharge when they buy their home there.

For example my house, while not in the greenbelt, would have cost less if it were in suburbia, rather than where it is i.e. the open countryside.

As for the first part of your question about fuel surcharges being "anti white" - have you you heard ANY politician say ANYTHING is anti-white? I haven't.

I think Ben Bradley has alluded to the obsession with getting more blacks into unis while the actual dearth is in working class whites as 'anti white' 

 

I guess it depends on which greenbelt. Cities like Oxford and Cambridge most certainly are more expensive inside...ok, if not an annual tax, a surtax on uplift value, if beyond surrounding areas Like I said, I wouldnt seriously promote it, I just cant believe DB are so shamelessly promoting their 'idea'

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PatronizingGit said:

I've often thought, in the past, about so called neoliberal types and their, shall we say, 'politically selective' determination of when to invoke arguments of 'negative externalities', its very choosy.

Things like, if something disproportionately negatively affects non-whites, its automatic evidence of racism, and whites must pay, even if non-whites are only affected marginally more, and for debatable reasons *cough, covid* . Conversely, as most non-whites live in cities, proportionally more whites in the country, i've never once heard a politician describe exorbitant fuel taxes as 'implicitly anti white' and public transport subsidies pro-black.

In the past, when I was anti-nimby (after the 2011 census results, i've become somewhat more nimby...we're full, and then some!), i've thought if urbanites want green belts, so they get the benefits of both living in the city, saving on commuting costs, but also having the countryside nearby AND benefittting from higher property profits due to supply being restricted inside the greenbelt, perhaps they should pay a surcharge for the privilege of living inside the green belt. Lets say a grand or two a year, which could be remitted to cover the commuting costs of those forced to commute in from outside the greenbelt. But then i've thought, no, the public, regardless of where they live would never stand for that....its just wrong. 

 

Of course, the urban intellectual caste elites have no such moral qualms. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/11/staff-who-work-from-home-after-pandemic-should-pay-more-tax

I follow your point.

I would have to be honest here. My older brother was moaning about a massive housing development in Leafy Trafford Greater Manchester. I wss polite but affordable housing is needed. It is.

I met up with him for a drink 18 months ago. We then walked to join our youngest brother. He took me right along the edge (Carrington Moss). I hadnt been for 20 years. The saplings were trees. Wildlife everywhere. A new wood. I back tracked. He ventured after he knew I would and thats why we walked over via the wood.

Theres some Greater Manchester system for divving up new housing and business parks. Yep one to the south of me. It wasnt I frequent the area, green belt, but no new road upgrades meant/means extra commute. I had finally arrived as a NIMBY.

To bring it back to the start. I see what your saying bit my countrside bit is limited. I am jealous of those who can afford more than me, can commute, gain the financial advantages of the city yet live there.

However. I also know areas like Macclesfield to the south of me have a lot of poor estates, country side rich but limited in gaining access to the Greater Manchester cash.

I agree with you. I guess it is where that boundary lies and I would feel its farther out than the greenbelt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DB is what you get if you mix the worst aspects of government and banking.

Re taxing working from home.  This only shows how disconnected their people are from reality.

  • Sure, people from DB office are now working from home and there's an issue with them not commuting and having lunch.
  • What about me -- I 'work from home' in that that's where my office is.  I have to drive around the place (ordinarily) to have meetings with customers, etc.  I also work at customer sites (for weeks at a time) when necessary.
  • Or what about the guy that runs the shop down the road.  He lives in the flat above/behind it.  Does he 'home work'?
  • Or the guy that runs the garage.  He lives the other side of the village, so maybe 2 minutes away.  He definitely doesn't 'home work', but he might as well (from the DB definition).
  • Or what about a mobile hairdresser -- their home is their official 'office', but they're out during most working hours.
  • And what about 'proper' office workers' (even if you could define this in tax legislation)?  Is my mate Mark, who commutes for 5 miles to get to work in the same category as my mate David, who travels 80 miles to London every day -- one would find the tax punishing, the other a fair swap for not having to commute. 
  • And what about when Dave was flying to Munich for one week on one week off -- is that even commuting? 
  • What about oil rig workers (fortnight on, fortnight off). 
  • What about my old mate Paul who did 6 month stints in Saint Helena -- where the hell was his office?

The whole thing is a nonsense that only makes sense if you're someone whose world is only 'people who work in DB'.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Grey Man said:

Ignore the title. It is a much  wider discussion than that.

Talks about the city/country side political divide.

 

There's always some grounding for stereotypes. This is why they are so funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...