Messages

[...and you've linked to an article essentially stating that a giverment commity has noticed that the value of green energy measures will currently be included in the re-evaluation of Council tax (happening in 2010 I beleive, I got that from Wiki) and suggesting that it would be better if, sometime in the intervening couple of years, the process for re-evaluation be altered so that it doesn't.]

...and you've linked to an article essentially stating that a giverment commity has noticed that the value of green energy measures will currently be included in the re-evaluation of Council tax (happening in 2010 I beleive, I got that from Wiki) and suggesting that it would be better if, sometime in the intervening couple of years, the process for re-evaluation be altered so that it doesn't.

Selective editing there, Arthur- I also said that I didn't believe drawing attention to the problem would alter it in the long run.  What's your problem?  How much attention has been drawn towards Inheritance Tax (for example)?  Has that changed anything?

SO can you see why I'd think you've either misread the article or willfuly misintereted it for the sake of having something to be angry about.

Not as easily as I can see you trying to justify another Arthur-I'm-so-witty-Wyatt post, no.  Why would I need to try and find something to be angry about?  I can think of a dozen different topics off the top of my head to be angry about- why would I willfully misinterpret this one?  More to the point, this topic had largely moved on from green power to pensions and you want to invalidate the entire thread as 'stupid' because you can only see one point of view in the intial post?

I think you're stupid, Arthur.  And a twat.

The new boiler cost two grand- which is more than putting up a wind turbine (according to Trouty).

Oh, whatever...

Are you having a laugh?  "Moronic greed" is a link title and a personal opinion.  Are you seriously going to call me on a link title?!?  Stop being a twat.

I think it is moronic to add the value of green energy to your council tax (and hypocritical given that we are to be taxed for being environmentally unfriendly)- and yes, I think we're largely governed by morons if they can't see that this will deter people from going green.  Is my opinion to be taken as a distorted fact now?  Call me on the pension facts if you like (and until you turned up, that's what most of my involvement in this thread was about)- I'm more than happy to back them up.

Currently, nobody that I'm aware of (with the possibility of people involved in pilot schemes) is paying any extra council tax for having green energy.  This will change with the upcoming council tax revalutions and I don't believe for one minute that a paper urging the government to rethink will make any difference.  I've recently installed a more efficient, greener boiler in my house- should that be taken into account as well?  The point made- which has been made by several other people- is that it's not a good way to get people to go green.  It's largely seen as yet another way to leech money out of ordinary people.

How many different ways do you want me to say it?  If you don't agree- fine- but please stop being a twat about the reasons that this thread exists and exactly what it is I'm moaning about.

As for Scott Nestel, defender of the Wiki-faith, you are correct:

Re: [artdroids] Any chance of a crit?

I couldn't find it- has Arthur been on another wiki-rampage?

*snigger*


--- PJ Holden  wrote:

see wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
180_degree_rule

Guilty as charged, your honour.  Twice it is then, since the original incident.  Still hardly an obsession, is it?  Of course, act like a cockspur and people are going to remember it, Arthur.  How many times have you reminded Scojo of his little obsessions?  Is that your obsession?  In fact, who was it, only the other day, who sent out a group email speculating on the identity of his latest sock puppet?

Now piss off back to your Wiki-patrol*, or attempt to look witty using somebody a bit less capable, you sad knacker.




*that's three times now- be sure to jot it down in your little campaign book.

What distortion of facts would that be, Arthur?

And I think this the second time I've made reference to your Wikipedia escapades- the first being when you actually did it.  That's hardly an obsession, is it?

If you want to try and be clever, try somebody more your speed.

I'm sorry- did you mean more, or less stupid than calling yourself Scott Nestel and embarking on a covert crusade to save Wikipedia?

That is the benchmark for internet wankery after all.

I'll take that as an apology then?

Yes Arthur.

I know that council tax is linked to the price of your home.  All I am saying is that sticking solar panels on your house ought not to be taken into account where council tax is concerned.  If you're going to lose in council tax, the money that you would've saved in fuel, how many people will go green out of the goodness of their heart?

Just because somebody writes a report that says "this will be bad for home owners" does not inspire me with the faith that the government will take this to heart and have a rethink on council tax.  Is this really so difficult?

You really ought to spend a bit less time trying to be clever and... you know... read what you're slagging off.

A man after my own heart.  When you've sold your wife and kids on the idea, could you have a word with mine, please?

[Inaccurate: â??Moronic greed.â? â??but try to do something that genuinely helps the environment and guess what? You get taxed again.â?]

Inaccurate: â??Moronic greed.â? â??but try to do something that genuinely helps the environment and guess what? You get taxed again.â?

'moronic greed' - yes, because link titles in this place always represent hard facts, don't they?  Maybe I should've included quote marks- or a question mark at the end- just in case some argumentative arsegike turned up to the party.

Inaccurate: â??but try to do something that genuinely helps the environment and guess what? You get taxed again.â?

You've never heard of 'stealth taxes' then?  I'm sorry if you don't agree that this proposal is another in a long line of stealth taxes imposed by this particular government, but many people do.  I happen to be one of them.  In our area, we get a little leaflet informing us of where our council tax money goes.  Guess what?  There's no mention of the fact that over a quarter of it is being siphoned off to top up pension funds.

Patronising: â??My goodness, Mr Cosh- what a rude little man you are.â?

Patronising and offensive: â??And that ludicrously high council tax you're already paying? Over a quarter of it is actually spent on public sector pensions. All wrong.â?

Let's see now- that first quote comes after your comments to me- so nothing to answer for there, I'm afraid.  Top marks for trying though.

It's patronising and offensive to object to a two-tier pension system, is it?  The government urged people to invest in company pension schemes, promising them that their money would be safe, no matter what happened to the companies that they worked for.  Gordon Brown then taxed those same pension funds (which had previously been tax exempt- for a very good reason) at £5billion per year.  Now that pension funds are collapsing, leaving people with nothing, the government (and in particular, Gordon Brown) is saying, "hang on, it's nothing to do with us".

Why should we, as taxpayers, fund the shortfall in public sector pensions, but not private sector pensions?  And don't give me any of that better salary bollocks either- a lot of people who've lost out are factory workers, lorry drivers, forklift drivers- in short, ordinary people- many of whom will earn less than a lot of public sector workers.  Sorry mate- but I find that kind of attitude far more patronising and insulting than voicing an obvious truth- the truth that over a quarter of your council tax isn't being spent on services at all.  Would this be a good time to point out that my wife works for the largest accounting firm in the world in- wait for it- pensions?

I genuinely canâ??t understand how you can draw the above conclusions from a report which is actually agreeing with you.

I think you need to go back and read that article again.  The report concludes that central and local government must reduce the barriers faced by people and organisations that want to exploit local low-carbon energy sources.  Logically, the writers of the report must think that the opposite of this is on the cards to have reached that conclusion.

The report says: "Given the potential climate change and security benefits of such investments, homeowners should not be penalised in this way."  This suggests (as is also indicative of the story title) that eco-friendly homes 'face tax hike'.  The report is agreeing with me in suggesting that the government might not.  The fact that this report has been commissioned at all tells me that it's already a done deal.

I was actually trying to concede that there might be an interesting argument to be had if we wanted to but hey-ho.

Sorry, but that one just reeks of bullshit.  Back-pedalling, weasely bullshit at that.  You already said that you'd overreacted, so which is it?  Don't be shy, now...

Seems to me that anytime someone makes grand statements then weasels out of them (the specifics of your excuse donâ??t really interest me) itâ??s posturing. The locationâ??s unimportant.

No really, what are you talking about?  I stand by my statement and haven't budged from the outset- I don't like this country and I'd like to leave, but I'm stuck.  What do you want me to say?  Would you like me to further elaborate on exactly what it is I don't like about living here?  What, exactly, would satisfy you?  From where I'm sitting, you're the one who's posturing.

Stop wasting my time.


Art- Yes, I can read- it's the hypocrisy of it that kicks me in the balls.  We're all about to be crucified for driving our cars, on supposedly green issues- but there's no incentive given for going green in other areas.  Some people will go green because it's the right thing to do- most will do it to save money.  The net result is a greener environment- which should be encouraged at all costs, surely?

Exactly- which is really what gets my goat.  All this bollocks about saving the planet- raising car taxes is all about getting the money in and, as per usual, it will sting the people least able to afford it.

Live in the country, you say?  That'll be your council tax going up even more then...

Bah!  You'll be back and opening a chip shop before you know what's going on!

;)

Seriously, Duds- what's it like over there?  What's good about it and what's bad?  How much is property?  What do you get for your money?

I'm with you, fish- I don't earn a vast fortune by any stretch of the imagination- certainly less than my friend who works for the council, who's just had a year's paid maternity leave- and who will be retiring at 60 and who is guaranteed her pension.

"You should probably expect that kind of reaction when you spout a lot of offensive, patronising and inaccurate crap"

Please elaborate.  Which patronising and innacurate crap would this be then?

"Had you written that in the first place I probably wouldnâ??t have overreacted in the way I did"

I see- so it's my fault that you jump to conclusions and then spout off (quite rudely, I might add) based on those conclusions.  Ok.

"I understood it perfectly: it was all just internet posturing."

I'd like to leave and bemoan the fact that I can't.  That's internet posturing, is it?  What would it be if it was something I said in the pub- no wait, I get it- pub posturing?  Fine.  Needless to say, I wouldn't be too sorry to see the back of you, or your faux bad-boy attitude.

More than three kids before you need a car?  Do you know how much crap just ONE kid needs?  How am I supposed to take my child to nursery?  Walk the five mile round trip twice a day?  She's walking now- maybe she could take herself?

Tsk...

"...due to my plans to jet off to NZ in a couple of years."

That's right- rub it in, you bastard!