VAT is going up to 20% say government

Hatter The Mad · 17 May 2010 at 11:33

Just to put Labour supporters' screaming and pant-wetting about the £6bn wasteful spending savings into perspective.

I get around · 17 May 2010 at 12:25

This is what you get when you elect a rich toff with no concept of money or reality and policies to support the rich, a man who ****'s on everyone but the upper classes.

Cosimo · 17 May 2010 at 12:29

I get around said:
This is what you get when you elect a rich toff with no concept of money or reality and policies to support the rich, a man who ****'s on everyone but the upper classes.

Do you often spout nonsense or does it just come naturally?

meghatronic · 17 May 2010 at 12:30

I get around said:
This is what you get when you elect a rich toff with no concept of money or reality and policies to support the rich, a man who ****'s on everyone but the upper classes.

Are you being deliberately inflammatory (trolling) or are you, how do you say..... retarded?

Pate · 17 May 2010 at 12:43

As long as people are fairly taxed I don't have an issue. It's when poorer people get breaks and the rich have to make up for them that I have an issue.

meghatronic · 17 May 2010 at 12:50

kenmare said:
As long as people are fairly taxed I don't have an issue. It's when poorer people get breaks and the rich have to make up for them that I have an issue.

Well that's the world we live in. The rich pay more through % and pay more through the disproportionate brackets. But a poor person will tell you they can "afford" it. Meh.

Captain_Slick · 17 May 2010 at 12:55

NathanE said:
Or, they aren't able to fix the budget deficit to that extent so we're stuck with that huge debt on us for generations to come.

We, and most other countries, have been debt for most of history. This isn't something new.

robgmun · 17 May 2010 at 12:59

I get around said:
This is what you get when you elect a rich toff with no concept of money or reality and policies to support the rich, a man who ****'s on everyone but the upper classes.

I agree, but one fact wrong, Gordon Brown was never elected

Captain_Slick · 17 May 2010 at 13:04

robgmun said:
I agree, but one fact wrong, Gordon Brown was never elected

So? You never elect a PM. :rolleyes:

scorza · 17 May 2010 at 13:06

robgmun said:
I agree, but one fact wrong, Gordon Brown was never elected

Sorry but that just doesn't work.

meghatronic · 17 May 2010 at 13:11

Captain_Slick said:
So? You never elect a PM.

The public never chose GB, that was his point.

Don't spurt some BS about how the public didn't 'choose' Blair etc... you know people aren't sensible with their votes and treat it like a presidential election.

Some people are so petty.

robgmun · 17 May 2010 at 13:14

loved that all the socialists jumped on me at once, i've never seen such a bunch of sore losers in my life

D.Roberts · 17 May 2010 at 13:14

hi i have not read the whole thread but is this likely to happen if so well im buggered its hard enough as it is.

Captain_Slick · 17 May 2010 at 13:15

meghatronic said:
The public never chose GB, that was his point.

Don't spurt some BS about how the public didn't 'choose' Blair etc... you know people aren't sensible with their votes and treat it like a presidential election.

Some people are so petty.

By the same argument then, the public never chose David Cameron... It doesn't alter the fact that the point of GB never being elected is completely irrelevant.

EDIT: Moi? A socialist? Aú contraire!

vincent1989 · 17 May 2010 at 13:17

Skyfall said:
Also known as the: "Why should 20 poles living in the same house pay the same tax as a bachelor when they're producing 20x more rubbish to be picked up?" conundrum.

as it stands my family of 5 (4 adults, 1 child) produce less waste than the family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) next door, why is it fair to charge us more for less of a service?

it's quite possible for more people to produce less waste than fewer people and yet under poll tax we would all be charged the same. rubbish.

fornowagain · 17 May 2010 at 13:28

Its not just about waste. As far as services go, being charged per head seems fairer to me. Maybe we should just go back to being charging on how many windows you've got?

vincent1989 · 17 May 2010 at 13:42

fornowagain said:
Its not just about waste. As far as services go, being charged per head seems fairer to me. Maybe we should just go back to being charging on how many windows you've got?

of course it's not just about waste. take policing, we must waste a bit of police time, we're an end house on a terrace with many avenues of exit, the house is frequently the target of stone throwing, it's not our fault damage is caused, but we'd have to pay the same as those causing the damage.

perhaps we should tax based on actual usage as opposed to perceived?

fornowagain · 17 May 2010 at 13:53

Yeah and then someone's got to measure it all and that costs more money. Not to mention all the disputes over how much of this and that, nightmare. Sounds like a big spiralling mess. For me - On average, more people = more services = you pay more.

meghatronic · 17 May 2010 at 14:00

Captain_Slick said:
By the same argument then, the public never chose David Cameron... It doesn't alter the fact that the point of GB never being elected is completely irrelevant.

Did you even read my post? Please reread.

vincent1989 · 17 May 2010 at 14:03

fornowagain said:
Yeah and then someone's got to measure it all and that costs more money. Not to mention all the disputes over how much of this and that, nightmare. Sounds like a big spiralling mess. For me - On average, more people = more services = you pay more.

it's a bad system, we proved it in the 90s, do we really want it back? any PM backing anything like a 'poll tax' would be committing career suicide.

it penalises those on lower incomes by dint of the fact that they don't/can't do a skilled job.