Having researched it, it's not meant to be homophobic as such, but a dig at the "Loony Left" councils in the mid-1980s (for example, Ken Livingstone spent taxpayers' money on gay rights groups when he was in charge of the GLA).
@@RBenjo21 given that the tory government had implemented Section 28, and the "loony left" was having to make up for that in whatever way they could, you can 100% take it as homophobic.
@@GusPlayer94 Forcing the tax payer to support these largely unproven for necessity groups. Where's the transparency, the fairness, the reason and the evidence? People struggling with life for whatever reason (sexual orientation included) should visit a mental healthcare provider not join a group of people with the same problem (not that being gay is a problem, but sexual orientation is a serious issue and causes a lot of unnecessary suffering).
Exactly. By entirely removing the link to property value and introducing a flat tax for every person, a household of three people on the average wage paid three times the amount of a millionaire living alone. The old rates system also created anomalies for those who were property rich and cash poor, but it was fairer for most people than the poll tax. The fairest method is a local income tax to run alongside national income tax, as then it's based upon ability to pay.
well, if the duke uses the same amount of services as the dustman I think there's fairness in that. I know this converts into a higher tax rate for the dustman, but the dustman is getting already economies of scale. This isn't health where you need to equalize genetic and epigenetic health risks.... Also, in the future we'll start to apply the principle "who uses, pays for it" which is give or take a poll tax.
Interesting to watch this nowadays as I didn't pay attended when I was a teenager of course. Changes to taxes generally affect some more than others, but I can appreciate why it boiled people's piss.
Labour councils DID end up overcharging yet Conservatiives got the blame. Too many glitches in the system where old folk were grotesquely overcharged put the nails in the coffin.
Reading the Wikipedia page on the poll tax, although it sounded fair in theory, going from a system in which the local component of taxation was based on property rental value (rates) to a two tier system was widely perceived as unfair, while local authorities struggled to identify those in the 20% banding - particularly in areas with a significant mobile population (e.g. University towns). The non-collection of up to 30% of poll tax owed unsurprisingly resulted in many councils increasing the tax to make up the lost revenue, which of course increased nonpayment and resentment. Not mentioned in the article is another potential consequence - less affluent areas tend to have higher demands on local services than more affluent areas, but of course will also generate lower local taxation, both from the population and resident businesses. I don't know if the government planned a higher proportion of central government grants for such areas, but given areas with significant concentrations of less affluent people tend to vote Labour...
Some of that stuff you couldn't get away with now adays, I cant believe there highlighted Gay seminars. It theory it was a good idea. everyone pays the same, the problem was everyone paid the same, which meant a house hold with 3 people had treble bill than before. since most of the rates were set much higher. thats correct is it not?
Having researched it, it's not meant to be homophobic as such, but a dig at the "Loony Left" councils in the mid-1980s (for example, Ken Livingstone spent taxpayers' money on gay rights groups when he was in charge of the GLA).
Its that bad that it is a great add although I am in support of a per head tax or flat tax as it does not demotivate from working the issue is showing your earnings to the gov as that is a type of invigilation.
While I consider taxation to be theft of the value generated by workers' labour (along with rent and private, as well as state profit), I think any taxation system that bears no relation to the ability to pay and/or which increases the grotesque inequality inherent in a capitalist society to be an abomination.
@@davidparry5310 You just hit the nail on the head that is my issue how do we deal with that though concern for equality sound like communism to me though Jordan Peterson made a good point about it. Though there does need to be a solution but not socialism.
I think Thatcher was a good PM but the poll tax was the worst thing she did and to make it worse she didn't pay herself. Should have had a local sales tax along with a national sales tax!
Having researched it, it's not meant to be homophobic as such, but a dig at the "Loony Left" councils in the mid-1980s (for example, Ken Livingstone spent taxpayers' money on gay rights groups when he was in charge of the GLA).
![[DRIP] ‘Love, Maybe’ PREVIEW](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U7hwHp95m1k/mqdefault.jpg)
That big closeup on "Gay Seminars" is hilarious.
I think I could watch that 5 times and still not understand what they were trying to say.
Having researched it, it's not meant to be homophobic as such, but a dig at the "Loony Left" councils in the mid-1980s (for example, Ken Livingstone spent taxpayers' money on gay rights groups when he was in charge of the GLA).
@@RBenjo21 given that the tory government had implemented Section 28, and the "loony left" was having to make up for that in whatever way they could, you can 100% take it as homophobic.
@@GusPlayer94 Forcing the tax payer to support these largely unproven for necessity groups. Where's the transparency, the fairness, the reason and the evidence? People struggling with life for whatever reason (sexual orientation included) should visit a mental healthcare provider not join a group of people with the same problem (not that being gay is a problem, but sexual orientation is a serious issue and causes a lot of unnecessary suffering).
@@user-jq6wf1xk5g Literally in what way are you saying being gay isn't an issue? Kind of making it sound like an issue
3:47 Thatcher's poll tax infamously meant that "a duke would pay the same as a dustman" - it was Thatcher's downfall.😄👍
Exactly. By entirely removing the link to property value and introducing a flat tax for every person, a household of three people on the average wage paid three times the amount of a millionaire living alone. The old rates system also created anomalies for those who were property rich and cash poor, but it was fairer for most people than the poll tax. The fairest method is a local income tax to run alongside national income tax, as then it's based upon ability to pay.
well, if the duke uses the same amount of services as the dustman I think there's fairness in that. I know this converts into a higher tax rate for the dustman, but the dustman is getting already economies of scale. This isn't health where you need to equalize genetic and epigenetic health risks.... Also, in the future we'll start to apply the principle "who uses, pays for it" which is give or take a poll tax.
"So, what work have we done this week in preparing for today's Gay Seminar?"
"I'm freeeeeee!"
When they linked the right to vote with the 'Community Charge' it became a 'Poll Tax'.
Wait one bloody minute.... I thought the Labour Party was the party of extra taxes. What gave the Conservative Party the idea of a new tax?
This is what caused her empire to collapse isnt it?
Two years later Trafalgar Square is almost demolished after the poll tax riots. Thatcher's BIGGEST mistake and it done her in LOL
Brings to mind the present-day slogans and platitudes on Universal Credit which completely ignore any & all inconvenient truths.
Explain.
Interesting to watch this nowadays as I didn't pay attended when I was a teenager of course. Changes to taxes generally affect some more than others, but I can appreciate why it boiled people's piss.
Labour councils DID end up overcharging yet Conservatiives got the blame. Too many glitches in the system where old folk were grotesquely overcharged put the nails in the coffin.
What kind of disgusting looking tea is that they're using?!
I thought it was shitty coffee
So that went well ;)
Reading the Wikipedia page on the poll tax, although it sounded fair in theory, going from a system in which the local component of taxation was based on property rental value (rates) to a two tier system was widely perceived as unfair, while local authorities struggled to identify those in the 20% banding - particularly in areas with a significant mobile population (e.g. University towns). The non-collection of up to 30% of poll tax owed unsurprisingly resulted in many councils increasing the tax to make up the lost revenue, which of course increased nonpayment and resentment.
Not mentioned in the article is another potential consequence - less affluent areas tend to have higher demands on local services than more affluent areas, but of course will also generate lower local taxation, both from the population and resident businesses. I don't know if the government planned a higher proportion of central government grants for such areas, but given areas with significant concentrations of less affluent people tend to vote Labour...
GAY SEMINARS!!
Some of that stuff you couldn't get away with now adays, I cant believe there highlighted Gay seminars. It theory it was a good idea. everyone pays the same, the problem was everyone paid the same, which meant a house hold with 3 people had treble bill than before. since most of the rates were set much higher. thats correct is it not?
Having researched it, it's not meant to be homophobic as such, but a dig at the "Loony Left" councils in the mid-1980s (for example, Ken Livingstone spent taxpayers' money on gay rights groups when he was in charge of the GLA).
The problem was more simply put as saying "if you want to pay less rates, vote in your local conservative councillor"
Its that bad that it is a great add although I am in support of a per head tax or flat tax as it does not demotivate from working the issue is showing your earnings to the gov as that is a type of invigilation.
While I consider taxation to be theft of the value generated by workers' labour (along with rent and private, as well as state profit), I think any taxation system that bears no relation to the ability to pay and/or which increases the grotesque inequality inherent in a capitalist society to be an abomination.
@@davidparry5310 You just hit the nail on the head that is my issue how do we deal with that though concern for equality sound like communism to me though Jordan Peterson made a good point about it.
Though there does need to be a solution but not socialism.
@@mks8172 equality != equal opportunities.
@@davidparry5310 there are better ways to fundamentally fix inequality other than levy taxes on working people, while wealth accumulators get away...
I think Thatcher was a good PM but the poll tax was the worst thing she did and to make it worse she didn't pay herself. Should have had a local sales tax along with a national sales tax!
It was a much fairer system
Gay seminars was great xD I would vote tory now if they showed me that advert today.
Having researched it, it's not meant to be homophobic as such, but a dig at the "Loony Left" councils in the mid-1980s (for example, Ken Livingstone spent taxpayers' money on gay rights groups when he was in charge of the GLA).
@@RBenjo21 4:06 C'mon buddy, they're called the Conservative Party - you know that they hate the gays.
@@redlightmax Bugger off the Politics of Inequality
It did for them and is council not higher
Gay seminars
Special Guest This Week: John Inman