Two More Dry Slopes Saved

steverandomno wrote:I'm sure you would find a lot of people within the very small skiing community who would support keeping dry slopes open, but I think it is reasonable to draw the line at forcing the wider community to pay for it, most of whom, have no interest in the sport.

Maybe we disagree on this?

steverandomno wrote:Who pays? There are forms of funding other than taxpayer.

Do you think that taxpayer funding of the dry ski slopes ensures that it is not just the well heeled that get to experience skiing?

Do you think it is fair that a kid in Hackney is forced to repay the debt incurred in ensuring that a kid in Edinburgh can go to a dry ski slope? (That is exactly what is happening at the moment.) Or do you think it is fair that a couple should be denied IVF treatment so that their next door neighbours kid can go skiing?

Kids are always used to put emotion into in these debates. What about the middle class adults who use these facilities? Is it fair that impoverished pensioners or any adult living 100 miles from the nearest dry slope should pay for them? (via VAT to central government, then granted to local councils)

Unless you want everybody to be paying an extra 10% tax, on top of the 50% they already pay (VAT + NI + Council + Income), some priorities have to come into force. Skiing, should be a very low priority.

Removing government funding does not necessarily mean that the dry slopes cease to exist, or that only the well healed get to use them.

steverandomno wrote:Consigning them to a life of debt bondage shouldn't.

Especially not so that somebody else can go skiing.

I Guess that is todays society, looking after number one, shame.