PDA

View Full Version : Rain tax



DimPrawn
28th September 2009, 18:08
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8279467.stm

FFS, do they never give up?

Tarquin Farquhar
29th September 2009, 07:54
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8279467.stm

FFS, do they never give up?1. Surface drainage charges are NOT a tax, so stop frothing at the mouth about ZaNuLabour taxing to death etc etc etc... They are commercial charges for a service provided.

2. Drainage DOES cost money, and it is the water companies that provide the service and charge the cost.

3. Rain DOES fall on churches and scout halls just as much as on houses and businesses, and needs just the same drainage.

4. But the charities don't like paying their share, so they should be let off (with the rest of us carrying their costs)?

Can someone explain part 4 please?

NotAllThere
29th September 2009, 08:04
Sure - commercial premises pay less than scout huts. They're making money from their businesses. If you tax the scout huts, then the scouts sell their huts, because they can't afford to keep them, and your tax take is reduced. Or, to put it another way, there's no point in taxing people who don't have money. Far better to pile the charge onto businesses, don'tcha know?

Charities are helping the local community for nowt, so why shouldn't the local community support them. It's all about "fairness".

Any, the government are abolishing this tax, rather than bringing it in. It was an idea from Offtwat.

Tarquin Farquhar
29th September 2009, 10:38
Sure - commercial premises pay less than scout huts. They're making money from their businesses. If you tax the scout huts, then the scouts sell their huts, because they can't afford to keep them, and your tax take is reduced. Or, to put it another way, there's no point in taxing people who don't have money. Far better to pile the charge onto businesses, don'tcha know?

Charities are helping the local community for nowt, so why shouldn't the local community support them. It's all about "fairness".

Any, the government are abolishing this tax, rather than bringing it in. It was an idea from Offtwat.Tax? Tax? What tax??

If you want to operate a church or scout hall, then you must pay the costs associated with it. If you use electricity in it, you must pay the electricity bill. If you use water, you must pay the water bill. If you use drainage, you must pay the drainage bill.

You say "Charities are helping the local community for nowt, so why shouldn't the local community support them." But the water company is not the local community, it's a business; and a church or scout group is not a charity that I must feel obliged to support: let the congregation or the scout hut users pay their own bills, don't lobby for me to pay them, directly or indirectly (as would be the case if their bills were waived).

NotAllThere
29th September 2009, 10:40
Another sock puppet. :ohwell

Tarquin Farquhar
29th September 2009, 10:41
Another sock puppet. :ohwellAnother argumentum ad hominem.

BlackenedBiker
29th September 2009, 10:43
another day

BlackenedBiker
29th September 2009, 10:44
another dollar

Moscow Mule
29th September 2009, 10:46
another dollar

:spel 500 dollars.

Sysman
29th September 2009, 10:46
Another end of month.

Kerching!

DS23
29th September 2009, 10:47
Another argumentum ad hominem.

are these charities using the water that falls on their roofs?

original PM
29th September 2009, 10:50
but is it not being found that a lot of surface drainage does not actually hit the drains - and although many people have been charged by their water companies for it over the past 20 years you will only be offered a refund on the past year?

but yes it is not a tax but a charge for a service so not really the numpty labores fault.

NickFitz
29th September 2009, 10:50
So DP is outraged at the way the privatised water companies have been charging excessively for drainage, and therefore presumably is in favour of the Government's intention to force those companies to charge more fairly?

DP praise for NL - wonders will never cease :yay:

Tarquin Farquhar
29th September 2009, 10:56
are these charities using the water that falls on their roofs?No. That's why they have to pay for the drainage that takes it away.

sweetandsour
29th September 2009, 11:04
But the water company is not the local community, it's a business;Back in the day, the provision of clean water was pursued for the public good.

The lack of it had previously been the cause of quite a high number of deaths as people moved from the countryside to the cities during the Industrial Revolution .....

NotAllThere
29th September 2009, 11:06
Another argumentum ad hominem.

That would presume a real person - not one that's been made up.

Tarquin Farquhar
29th September 2009, 11:36
That would presume a real person - not one that's been made up.So, despite my performing apparently conscious acts, you assert that I do not exist? What does that mean? Cogito, ergo sum.


"Does BIG BROTHER exist?" (asked Winston Smith)

"Of course he exists." (said O'Brien)

"Does he exist in the same way as I exist?"

"You do not exist," said O'Brien.

I admit that I am not using my real name. Is that a problem, Mr (or Ms) NotAllThere?

NotAllThere
29th September 2009, 12:05
1. You don't seem to know what a sockpuppet is.
2. You don't recognise that the use of "fairness", implies irony
3. You don't recognise irony.

Therefore, you are either a septic, or a sockpuppet.

But if you're really not a sock puppet, don't take it to heart - just remember not take everything at face value.

DS23
29th September 2009, 12:12
So, despite my performing apparently conscious acts..

it is that you are consciously acting in an uncharitable way that inclines people to believe that you are trying to provoke a reaction and thus are in fact the imaginary friend of a fiend.

Scary
29th September 2009, 12:24
I was reading a comment on an El Reg article about rain ownership today


Brian Miller Posted Monday 28th September 2009 14:44 GMT

There is a lot of rain water coming down that is simply let go. In Seattle, the government "owns" all the rain. Seriously, it is the law here. (could be a county ordinance, not sure) Anyways, if you catch rain water, doing so is illegal, and all due punishment will apply.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/28/onr_new_desalinisation_gear/comments/

Sounds crazy if true.

Sysman
29th September 2009, 12:31
I was reading a comment on an El Reg article about rain ownership today


Brian Miller Posted Monday 28th September 2009 14:44 GMT

There is a lot of rain water coming down that is simply let go. In Seattle, the government "owns" all the rain. Seriously, it is the law here. (could be a county ordinance, not sure) Anyways, if you catch rain water, doing so is illegal, and all due punishment will apply.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/28/onr_new_desalinisation_gear/comments/

Sounds crazy if true.

Many years ago and before water boards were privatised, a schoolmate's father tried generating electricity from a stream running through his land. The water board concerned wanted to charge him for using "their" water. They wanted so much that he ripped the equipment out.

ThomasSoerensen
29th September 2009, 12:33
:spel 500 dollars.

poor you, I am sorry to hear you have fallen on hard times.
If you give me your bank details I will send you my pocket change.