<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Clegg&#8217;s Council Tax proposals make no sense</title>
	<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/11/11/cleggs-council-tax-proposals-make-no-sense/</link>
	<description>crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 04:39:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Groth</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/11/11/cleggs-council-tax-proposals-make-no-sense/#comment-105691</link>
		<dc:creator>John Groth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:51:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/11/11/cleggs-council-tax-proposals-make-no-sense/#comment-105691</guid>
		<description>If the politicians would spend only a little of their time
on planning to reduce or eliminate government spending,
or how to use tax money more efficiently, we would never
get into these convoluted discussions of complicated tax increases.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the politicians would spend only a little of their time<br />
on planning to reduce or eliminate government spending,<br />
or how to use tax money more efficiently, we would never<br />
get into these convoluted discussions of complicated tax increases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/11/11/cleggs-council-tax-proposals-make-no-sense/#comment-104783</link>
		<dc:creator>James Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:03:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/11/11/cleggs-council-tax-proposals-make-no-sense/#comment-104783</guid>
		<description>I'm not saying it's regressive, I'm just saying it isn't progressive.  Bit of a pedantic point to make, I admit.

The problem with Clegg using this billion to plug his pupil premium funding gap is that means supporting the overall tax take, something which he appeared to realise halfway through calling for it in the GMTV interview and thus got all confused.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not saying it&#8217;s regressive, I&#8217;m just saying it isn&#8217;t progressive.  Bit of a pedantic point to make, I admit.</p>
<p>The problem with Clegg using this billion to plug his pupil premium funding gap is that means supporting the overall tax take, something which he appeared to realise halfway through calling for it in the GMTV interview and thus got all confused.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Black</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/11/11/cleggs-council-tax-proposals-make-no-sense/#comment-104712</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Black</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:56:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/11/11/cleggs-council-tax-proposals-make-no-sense/#comment-104712</guid>
		<description>I have to admit I thought this suggestion was strange as well.  The 10% may be a flat rate of course but as it is a percentage then it is not completely regressive. The more you have the more you pay.  

I would have thought that the £1 billion being raised by this proposal would do well to fill the funding gap on Nick Clegg's pupil premium proposal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to admit I thought this suggestion was strange as well.  The 10% may be a flat rate of course but as it is a percentage then it is not completely regressive. The more you have the more you pay.  </p>
<p>I would have thought that the £1 billion being raised by this proposal would do well to fill the funding gap on Nick Clegg&#8217;s pupil premium proposal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
