Public Discussion on Government Revenues

[commish]

http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=70555

 

Chris Thomas did not get any support from his colleagues for his proposal for a public debate about taxes, rates and charges. I am not surprised that the Council off Ministers would not support it, but I am surprised that the other back-benchers did not think that there should be a public debate. Why not?

[Boris Johnson]

I am not surprised, what would it achieve, really? The public would say we want to pay less tax and the government would say we need more tax to pay for governing. You cant keep asking the public to make decisions as the public dont know what is good for them.

[Lisenchuk]

So we shouldn't bother about public opinion or equity and just accept that Govt think it ok to impose unfair taxes and charges such as the sewerage charge?</p>

ETA: I have already posted the news article in the sewerage charge thread.

 

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/56256-l5

[Matt Bawden]

Surely the whole point of a publicly elected Government is to make decisions on our behalf so that we don't have to have a public consultation every time a decision needs to be made, is it not?

[slinkydevil]

Surely the whole point of a publicly elected Government is to make decisions on our behalf so that we don't have to have a public consultation every time a decision needs to be made, is it not?

 

Yeah but they're shit at it.

[Lisenchuk]

Surely the whole point of a publicly elected Government is to make decisions on our behalf so that we don't have to have a public consultation every time a decision needs to be made, is it not?

Inequitable and inadequately debated sewerage charges and more like it follow.

Do you mean these type of decisions,Matt?

[Thomas Jefferson]

I am not surprised, what would it achieve, really?

 

I agree. I don't see any great revelations coming about from a consultation. They already know full well that the public think they're a bunch of twats. And you know what? They don't give a toss.

[Boris Johnson]

 

Surely the whole point of a publicly elected Government is to make decisions on our behalf so that we don't have to have a public consultation every time a decision needs to be made, is it not?

 

Yeah but they're shit at it.

Who the public picking them or the politicians?

 

Matt is correct, that is what we elect them for; all this consultation stuff only serves the purpose of giving the politicians the option to say "we only did what the public wanted" no, what we need are strong politicians like Mr Robertshaw who are not afraid to stand behind unpopular policy's. We are going through what the UK did in the early 90s when Margret Thatcher, god rest her soul. was the strong politician that sorted out the Spanish practices that were wrecking Britain. We have been shielded by the VAT money but now we need our very own Thatcherite and I think we have one, a very good move by AB setting up CR in the department he is running now.

[Moghrey Mie]

I am not surprised, what would it achieve, really? The public would say we want to pay less tax and the government would say we need more tax to pay for governing. You cant keep asking the public to make decisions as the public dont know what is good for them.

But the public might say they would prefer 2% on Income Tax rather than an arbitrary £50 this year and £100 next year toilet tax on every household.

[Thomas Jefferson]

Or the public might have better ideas for saving money, such as not giving the civil servants a pay rise -- which, it needs to be said again, is going to cost a lot more than what is going to be gained as a result of the toilet tax. Unlike individual departments with their myopic silo mentalities and petty empire-building, the taxpayer can look at the big picture. And when I say "the big picture", I mean taxpayers know how it will affect taxpayers (the people the Government is supposed to serve).

[Lisenchuk]

 

I am not surprised, what would it achieve, really? The public would say we want to pay less tax and the government would say we need more tax to pay for governing. You cant keep asking the public to make decisions as the public dont know what is good for them.

But the public might say they would prefer 2% on Income Tax rather than an arbitrary £50 this year and £100 next year toilet tax on every household.

That is a fair and reasonable method and has my vote.

[Lisenchuk]

 

 

Surely the whole point of a publicly elected Government is to make decisions on our behalf so that we don't have to have a public consultation every time a decision needs to be made, is it not?

 

Yeah but they're shit at it.

Who the public picking them or the politicians?

 

Matt is correct, that is what we elect them for; all this consultation stuff only serves the purpose of giving the politicians the option to say "we only did what the public wanted" no, what we need are strong politicians like Mr Robertshaw who are not afraid to stand behind unpopular policy's. We are going through what the UK did in the early 90s when Margret Thatcher, god rest her soul. was the strong politician that sorted out the Spanish practices that were wrecking Britain. We have been shielded by the VAT money but now we need our very own Thatcherite and I think we have one, a very good move by AB setting up CR in the department he is running now.

Robertshaw isn't the answer to anyone's problems,in fact he is little more than a failed political experiment.

 

Remembering,of course,that this is the same Robertshaw who recently demonstrated his arrogant disregard for many his fellow representatives in Tynwald by seeing no reason to be transparent over a £750,000 spend of public funds on consultants.

[thesultanofsheight]

I am not surprised, what would it achieve, really? The public would say we want to pay less tax and the government would say we need more tax to pay for governing. You cant keep asking the public to make decisions as the public dont know what is good for them.

Which department do you work in? Been reading your posts for a while now and most are jam packed with complete shite.

[Albert Tatlock]

 

 

I am not surprised, what would it achieve, really? The public would say we want to pay less tax and the government would say we need more tax to pay for governing. You cant keep asking the public to make decisions as the public dont know what is good for them.

But the public might say they would prefer 2% on Income Tax rather than an arbitrary £50 this year and £100 next year toilet tax on every household.

That is a fair and reasonable method and has my vote.

The public don't all say that - and where do you think that was said anyway?

 

Reasonable and fair is to live within your means in the first instance. Raise income tax by 2% with current government spending attitudes and approaches, and you'll have to do it year on year, never mind having to do so simply adjusting for inflation on what you raised previous years.

[Lxxx]

 

 

 

 

I am not surprised, what would it achieve, really? The public would say we want to pay less tax and the government would say we need more tax to pay for governing. You cant keep asking the public to make decisions as the public dont know what is good for them.

But the public might say they would prefer 2% on Income Tax rather than an arbitrary £50 this year and £100 next year toilet tax on every household.

That is a fair and reasonable method and has my vote.

Not a chance. An island of 85,000 people does not need a huge state to administer it. Never has and never will. We need to dismantle it ASAP. There's one thing holding us back and that is greed, pure and simple.