Budget 2010

rypt said:
You do realise that Scotland is given money each year from England due to the tax intake in Scotland not covering your expenditure, right?
So tough cookies to you lot when we stop giving you money and instead build nuclear power - while you lot can keep cutting use and go live in caves.
Click to expand...

Haha. Yes, way to go with the argument of renewals. Can't stand being shown to be talking utter drivel on a public messaging board so resort to emotive arguments.

That is down to opinion, but feel free to persue your MP about the matter.

Either which way it is clear to see that Scotland is going to completely show up the rest of the United Kingdom when it comes to energy, yet again.
 
10p on cider like what the hell? surely cider companies will be able to take them to court over this as they are creating an anti-competitive levy... plus its ridiculous, its obviusly aimed at cheap so called ciders which actually dont have a trace of apple.

simple solution governement make these foneys change their labelling, dont allow them to call theirselves cider, and tax the mofo out of them... gosh i should be an mp or somthing
 
Ahleckz said:
Taken from the BBC website:
"A bit more info on that stamp duty cut. Poring over the figures in the Budget Red Book, we understand the measure will cost the Treasury £230m in 2010-11 and £290m in 2011-12. And raising the rate on homes worth more than £1m will not raise enough to plug that hole - raising an estimated £90m in 2010-11 and £70m in 2011-12."

I haven't looked at the Red Book so can't offer anything more than what is there.

I suppose it's looking at past projections for house purchases? It must be quanitifed somehow...
Click to expand...

Ah I see. I don't think it'll cost them anywhere near that amount and they know it, there just won't be enough first time buyers unless lending is greatly relaxed (and we head for another financial meltdown).
 
rypt said:
No, what would be fair is a minimal government only regulating and running the things that it HAS to run, while doing so at maximum efficiency.
Low taxes, higher economic growth.
Click to expand...

Because countries with smaller governments have historically had fairer societies.... oh, wait, that's not true is it?

It's also besides the point. Let's suppose you slash the budget to half what it is now, taxes fall. Great. Now, how do you decide which taxes are fairest? Assuming you aren't insane enough to think that policing and health care aren't part of your mythical small, efficient government's remit why is it fairer to distribute the health and policing costs across the population at large through a higher level of VAT than it is to target some of that cost at the drinkers through alcohol duties?
 
AcidHell2 said:
What a load of rubbish, nearly all of us can afford it, it's just no one wants to pay as we want to buy everything under the sun.
People should pay the same, should have a high personal allowence say circa 10k then 1 flat tax rate. Ambition and high level jobs should not be screwed over.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with that to be honest.
 
More money for the lessor paid earner and nothing for the average earner and professional that worked themselves into a decent salary.
The less you do and the less you earn, the better off you would appear to be.
 
Last edited:
fair tax is an oxymoron...

taxmans idea of a compromise or fair tax:

should we tax you now or later
now and later
should we increase tax 2% on vat, or keep vat the same (so you save 2%) lol
should we tax you 2% alcohol or 2% more on vat, so you have a choice how we take your money, who said the taxman was not fair ?

There is no fair tax fools!

it makes me sick how so many people here are pro government and pro tax, it disgusts me.
 
rypt said:
Why is it not practical?
Click to expand...

Because we live in a social democracy.
We have signed up for certain things already which need a certain level of taxation in order to provide. By drastically lowering these rates it would be impossible for us to provide funds to essential services.

Also, who is going to decide what are "essential" services? I'm also sure that the EU would like to have a word with you.
There are many, many different things happening that many people don't understand. 'High' taxes are essential in order for us to continue living in the society we do.

I assume you're not arguing that we should change our entire system dramatically - as I'm sure I don't need to explain how unpractical that is...

As I stated, it's an ideal as I'm not a fan of government intervention into various parts of our life nor am I a fan of high taxes (even though I'm currently not an income tax payer) but it is not practical due to our societal makeup.
 
Mr Jack said:
Because countries with smaller governments have historically had fairer societies.... oh, wait, that's not true is it?
Click to expand...

The problem is that in those places they have small governments and lack of regulation (or bad regulation), what we need is a government (and thus FSA, and so on) that regulates industry (well), but does not run things it does not need to.
 
Biohazard said:
Haha. Yes, way to go with the argument of renewals. Can't stand being shown to be talking utter drivel on a public messaging board so resort to emotive arguments.

That is down to opinion, but feel free to persue your MP about the matter.

Either which way it is clear to see that Scotland is going to completely show up the rest of the United Kingdom when it comes to energy, yet again.
Click to expand...

When has Scotland shown the rest of the UK up with regards to energy?

If you're talking about oil and gas well you are sadly mistaken. Scotland has only a small amount of the Oil and Gas in the UK, The shetlands (a seperate entity) and the north of England have most of the oil and Gas in the British isles. Just because a lot of it ends up going through Scotland doesn't make it yours ;).
 
Ahleckz said:
Because we live in a social democracy.
We have signed up for certain things already which need a certain level of taxation in order to provide. By drastically lowering these rates it would be impossible for us to provide funds to essential services.

Also, who is going to decide what are "essential" services? I'm also sure that the EU would like to have a word with you.
There are many, many different things happening that many people don't understand. 'High' taxes are essential in order for us to continue living in the society we do.

I assume you're not arguing that we should change our entire system dramatically - as I'm sure I don't need to explain how unpractical that is...

As I stated, it's an ideal as I'm not a fan of government intervention into various parts of our life nor am I a fan of high taxes (even though I'm currently not an income tax payer) but it is not practical due to our societal makeup.
Click to expand...

Yes I am arguing that the entire system needs to be changed, from the ground up.
The world changes rapidly, but the political systems are still all based on what worked centuries ago and they are no longer what is needed now
 
rypt said:
The first projectile weapon was the spear and that was used for hunting.
As was the bow that followed it.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the stone was the first...

Nonetheless, the biggest development was arguably the longbow which was used primilarily for warfare and 'murder' if you wish to take that stance.
Even gunpowder, invented by the Chinese, wasn't developed as the authorities believed (correctly) that it was a threat to the established order.

But we digress, this isn't important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom