Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Banjax on 04 January 2011, 10:19:12
-
buy tortilla chips (no VAT) instead of crisps (VAT)
buy unshelled peanuts (no VAT) instead of shelled (VAT)
buy "millionaires shortbread"-shortbread covered in caramel and chocolate (no VAT, ironically) rather than chocolate covered shortbread (VAT)
fresh fruit and veg has no VAT, processed food generally does so if you buy oranges and squeeze them yourself for juice, then theres no VAT, if you buy a carton of freshly squeezed orange juice you do pay VAT
buy flapjacks (no VAT) instead of cereal bars (VAT)
buy fish for eating (no VAT)
buy butchered or complete carcasses of Beef, Lamb, Pork, Chicken, Horse, Ostrich, Kangaroo or Crocodile (no VAT)
buy live Fish (no VAT) but not Koi Carp (VAT)
buy live animals like cows, pigs, sheep (no VAT) but not horses (VAT)
hope this helps :y
-
I chuckled this morning at the radio when they were saying how the VAT increase would 'hit the poorest the hardest' and then pointed out that staple foods and children's clothing has no VAT..
So if you're poor, shouldn't most of your money be going on .. staple foods and clothes for your kids, anyway? ;)
-
I think my neighbours will be mightily impressed when I've finished converting my garage into an abattoir so I can have VAT free steak. ;D
Kevin
-
I chuckled this morning at the radio when they were saying how the VAT increase would 'hit the poorest the hardest' and then pointed out that staple foods and children's clothing has no VAT..
So if you're poor, shouldn't most of your money be going on .. staple foods and clothes for your kids, anyway? ;)
Often booze and fags are higher priority, sadly.
Kevin
-
I chuckled this morning at the radio when they were saying how the VAT increase would 'hit the poorest the hardest' and then pointed out that staple foods and children's clothing has no VAT..
So if you're poor, shouldn't most of your money be going on .. staple foods and clothes for your kids, anyway? ;)
it might reduce spending money on processed junk and have more people buying fresh fruit 'n' veg - but probably not :o
trouble with VAT increases are that its a regressive tax, it cares not whether you're a billionaire or on benefits, it won't change the way people shop, it'll just mean that theres less money left at the end of the month, or you run out of money sooner - either way there'll be less money spent in shops and hence its of little good to the economy and raising £13bn from this seems a tad optimistic if you ask me :(
-
But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.
As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.
-
But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.
As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.
but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion :o
-
But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.
As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.
but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion :o
How very true and relevant.
Nice OP BTW BJ.
-
But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.
As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.
but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion :o
Yeah. Like the cleaner will pay £10 a week out of £200 (10%) and Sugar will pay £80,000 out of a million (8%). What a load of crap is talked at times.
And, of course, if this cleaner happens to have a sprog or two, they will get more tax back than they pay.
'Proportionally' is great in theory. But you could probably build a new hospital wing on what Sir Alan pays each year. You'd be lucky to build a sandcastle on what his cleaner pays.
-
buy tortilla chips (no VAT) instead of crisps (VAT)
buy unshelled peanuts (no VAT) instead of shelled (VAT)
buy "millionaires shortbread"-shortbread covered in caramel and chocolate (no VAT, ironically) rather than chocolate covered shortbread (VAT)
fresh fruit and veg has no VAT, processed food generally does so if you buy oranges and squeeze them yourself for juice, then theres no VAT, if you buy a carton of freshly squeezed orange juice you do pay VAT
buy flapjacks (no VAT) instead of cereal bars (VAT)
buy fish for eating (no VAT)
buy butchered or complete carcasses of Beef, Lamb, Pork, Chicken, Horse, Ostrich, Kangaroo or Crocodile (no VAT)
buy live Fish (no VAT) but not Koi Carp (VAT)
buy live animals like cows, pigs, sheep (no VAT) but not horses (VAT)
hope this helps :y
Why buy whole or live animals unless you have an enormous appetite! There is no VAT on meat, fish, and most non-processed food items ;) ;)
-
But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.
As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.
but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion :o
Yeah. Like the cleaner will pay £10 a week out of £200 (10%) and Sugar will pay £80,000 out of a million (8%). What a load of crap is talked at times.
And, of course, if this cleaner happens to have a sprog or two, they will get more tax back than they pay.
'Proportionally' is great in theory. But you could probably build a new hospital wing on what Sir Alan pays each year. You'd be lucky to build a sandcastle on what his cleaner pays.
so if i have £10 to my name and give it to charity thats the equivalent of Lord Sugar giving £10 then? :o
not picking on Sugar - i like the fellow - any super rich person will do :y
-
But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.
As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.
but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion :o
How very true and relevant.
Nice OP BTW BJ.
thanks :y
what does OP mean again? ;D
-
Original post :question
-
But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.
As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.
but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion :o
Yeah. Like the cleaner will pay £10 a week out of £200 (10%) and Sugar will pay £80,000 out of a million (8%). What a load of crap is talked at times.
And, of course, if this cleaner happens to have a sprog or two, they will get more tax back than they pay.
'Proportionally' is great in theory. But you could probably build a new hospital wing on what Sir Alan pays each year. You'd be lucky to build a sandcastle on what his cleaner pays.
so if i have £10 to my name and give it to charity thats the equivalent of Lord Sugar giving £10 then? :o
not picking on Sugar - i like the fellow - any super rich person will do :y
I thought you weren't religious. You sound just like a quote from the bible about the poor person and the rich person in the temple.
Anyhow, I've stated what I believe to be true. No good harping on.
-
But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.
As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.
but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion :o
I think you are picking out certain parts of what I saying again and twisting it. Yes I am well aware that many in society work the hardest, for the least and are looked down on.
I'm not knocking anyone, every worker makes a valuable contribution to our great society, but you mention a cleaner. General cleaning is unskilled light work that the vast majority of people can do. Therefore due to the way our society works, supply and demand, the wages are low. This is not a judgement or approval/disapproval, just an observation.
You mention that Alan Sugar pays less tax proportionally than his cleaner. I don't know the ins and outs of Amstrad, but what I do know is that yes, large organisations pay lots of money to clever accountants to find tax loopholes. Is that not because the feel aggrieved at being taxed at a higher rate tha lower earners?
The country needs this small amount of people with entrepenerial (I think that's how you spell it - probably not!) skills to generate wealth. They can then employ the rest of us.
I'm not saying that's right or that's the way it should be, nor am I knocking it, but that's the way it is. There are many systems we could use to run our society, and they all have their faults, as does capitalism, but I believe that is the best system we have found so far.
Also, you mentioned about not living in a meritocracy. Well I touched on it earlier, but again I'm not knocking anyone, but you could argue that a business man at the top of his game who is generally unstressed at work, merits more than a cleaner, despite the fact the cleaner might do back breaking and unpleasant work all week. As said, most people can do that, not everyone has the skills like money makers do, and like them or not, we all need them.
So as in my example, the businessman would earn more, which would suggest we do live in a meritocracy.
-
But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.
As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.
but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion :o
Yeah. Like the cleaner will pay £10 a week out of £200 (10%) and Sugar will pay £80,000 out of a million (8%). What a load of crap is talked at times.
And, of course, if this cleaner happens to have a sprog or two, they will get more tax back than they pay.
'Proportionally' is great in theory. But you could probably build a new hospital wing on what Sir Alan pays each year. You'd be lucky to build a sandcastle on what his cleaner pays.
so if i have £10 to my name and give it to charity thats the equivalent of Lord Sugar giving £10 then? :o
not picking on Sugar - i like the fellow - any super rich person will do :y
I thought you weren't religious. You sound just like a quote from the bible about the poor person and the rich person in the temple.
Anyhow, I've stated what I believe to be true. No good harping on.
I don't really know what the bible has got to do with this discussion.
-
But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.
As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.
but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion :o
Yeah. Like the cleaner will pay £10 a week out of £200 (10%) and Sugar will pay £80,000 out of a million (8%). What a load of crap is talked at times.
And, of course, if this cleaner happens to have a sprog or two, they will get more tax back than they pay.
'Proportionally' is great in theory. But you could probably build a new hospital wing on what Sir Alan pays each year. You'd be lucky to build a sandcastle on what his cleaner pays.
so if i have £10 to my name and give it to charity thats the equivalent of Lord Sugar giving £10 then? :o
not picking on Sugar - i like the fellow - any super rich person will do :y
I thought you weren't religious. You sound just like a quote from the bible about the poor person and the rich person in the temple.
Anyhow, I've stated what I believe to be true. No good harping on.
I don't really know what the bible has got to do with this discussion.
I wasn't talking to you, butt out.
-
You butt out
-
You butt out
Na na na na na :P :P
-
Well there are plenty of people who do very well out of our benefits system, which is paid for by hard working tax paying people. I think the spotlight should beturned on these people first.
-
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=509002&in_page_id=2
We have had it good for a long time, its gonna cost and services will be cut.
Thats life and the standard legacy of a Labour government
-
I have just filled the tank this morning at only £1.279 per litre.
Did I just say "ONLY"!!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Well it is the cheapest around here this morning, even cheaper than Sainsbury's. But it seems like yesterday I was paying £1.159 and thinking I had a bargain!! ::) ::)
Madness, utter madness! :o :o :o :o
But I will not swap my V6 for any 'Noddy' car!! ;)
-
I have just filled the tank this morning at only £1.279 per litre.
Did I just say "ONLY"!!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Well it is the cheapest around here this morning, even cheaper than Sainsbury's. But it seems like yesterday I was paying £1.159 and thinking I had a bargain!! ::) ::)
Madness, utter madness! :o :o :o :o
But I will not swap my V6 for any 'Noddy' car!! ;)
Ah....senility....bliss ;D
-
I have just filled the tank this morning at only £1.279 per litre.
Did I just say "ONLY"!!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Well it is the cheapest around here this morning, even cheaper than Sainsbury's. But it seems like yesterday I was paying £1.159 and thinking I had a bargain!! ::) ::)
Madness, utter madness! :o :o :o :o
But I will not swap my V6 for any 'Noddy' car!! ;)
Ah....senility....bliss ;D
Do you know Steve the more the world's madness spreads the more I look forward to arriving at that condition.............where nice young men, in their lovely white coats bring me tea and every want, after they've come to take me away today, ha ha, he he.............. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
I have just filled the tank this morning at only £1.279 per litre.
Did I just say "ONLY"!!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Well it is the cheapest around here this morning, even cheaper than Sainsbury's. But it seems like yesterday I was paying £1.159 and thinking I had a bargain!! ::) ::)
Madness, utter madness! :o :o :o :o
But I will not swap my V6 for any 'Noddy' car!! ;)
Ah....senility....bliss ;D
Do you know Steve the more the world's madness spreads the more I look forward to arriving at that condition.............where nice young men, in their lovely white coats bring me tea and every want, after they've come to take me away today, ha ha, he he.............. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Haven't you heard about the cuts Lizzie? They just tie you to a chair until you die nowadays. Sweet dreams.
-
I have just filled the tank this morning at only £1.279 per litre.
Did I just say "ONLY"!!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Well it is the cheapest around here this morning, even cheaper than Sainsbury's. But it seems like yesterday I was paying £1.159 and thinking I had a bargain!! ::) ::)
Madness, utter madness! :o :o :o :o
But I will not swap my V6 for any 'Noddy' car!! ;)
Ah....senility....bliss ;D
Do you know Steve the more the world's madness spreads the more I look forward to arriving at that condition.............where nice young men, in their lovely white coats bring me tea and every want, after they've come to take me away today, ha ha, he he.............. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Haven't you heard about the cuts Lizzie? They just tie you to a chair until you die nowadays. Sweet dreams.
Oh yes Steve, that would be my blooming luck!! ::) ::) ::) ;D
-
Maybe Lizzie wants tying to a chair......
-
Maybe Lizzie wants tying to a chair......
It all depends to do what Mark! ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.
As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.
but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion :o
Yeah. Like the cleaner will pay £10 a week out of £200 (10%) and Sugar will pay £80,000 out of a million (8%). What a load of crap is talked at times.
And, of course, if this cleaner happens to have a sprog or two, they will get more tax back than they pay.
'Proportionally' is great in theory. But you could probably build a new hospital wing on what Sir Alan pays each year. You'd be lucky to build a sandcastle on what his cleaner pays.
so if i have £10 to my name and give it to charity thats the equivalent of Lord Sugar giving £10 then? :o
not picking on Sugar - i like the fellow - any super rich person will do :y
I thought you weren't religious. You sound just like a quote from the bible about the poor person and the rich person in the temple.
Anyhow, I've stated what I believe to be true. No good harping on.
i'm not religious at all, so....you think......only people of.....religion....have.......values....then? interesting theory - i shall investigate this new phenonemon at once - thanks for the heads up ;D
-
Remember also that the cost of affected goods are going to increase by 2.1% and not 2.5%
-
It's poundland I feel sorry for. ;D
-
they will just have to rename themselves 1.02p land
-
Personally I dont agree with the rise in VAT. I believe they should be cutting taxation in order to generate disposable income and therefore stimulate spending.
This Tory party is the most left wing version we have ever seen though, so expect more stupidity and Govt. by gimmick to come.
The spending cuts are largely a myth in many respects. Govt borrowing hit a new record last month, and even in the medium term they are only aiming to reduce the rate of increase in spending rather than actual spending.
-
Personally I dont agree with the rise in VAT. I believe they should be cutting taxation in order to generate disposable income and therefore stimulate spending.
This Tory party is the most left wing version we have ever seen though, so expect more stupidity and Govt. by gimmick to come.The spending cuts are largely a myth in many respects. Govt borrowing hit a new record last month, and even in the medium term they are only aiming to reduce the rate of increase in spending rather than actual spending.
Yes and more lib dem dirty trick exposures.
-
I think they are doing ok, the alternatives of running up yet more debts are unthinkable.
The stupid levels of cash spent by the last useless lot in order to get the votes of those who dont understand economics now needs to be sorted out and that means tax rises and cost cutting.....you cant live beyond your means forever.
-
I'm past caring. I don't drink or smoke. My car is very frugal. I haven't bought any clothes since 2003. break 'em all.
I'll turn the lights off and sit in an overcoat before I'll let the b@st@rds grind me down. ;D
-
I think they are doing ok, the alternatives of running up yet more debts are unthinkable.
The stupid levels of cash spent by the last useless lot in order to get the votes of those who dont understand economics now needs to be sorted out and that means tax rises and cost cutting.....you cant live beyond your means forever.
The fact is they have done almost no cost cutting, they are currently borrowing more than the last lot did.
I can see the argument about tax rises, but we are already being taxed till the pips squeak.
I believe that if they had the guts to cut the taxes of people in work - particularily higher middle income earners - it would do more to stimulate the economy ( and produce more tax revenue as a result) than simply taking the lazy socialist route of taking more of peoples earnings from them. ;)
The fact is that they are sh1t scared of being thought off as right wing.
-
Cutting taxes wont help, all it does is encourage spending on luxury items none of which are made here so its cash out the countries gates, it would not stimulate uk jobs. The proposed NI increase was totaly stupid as that would only affect Uk companies so the VAT approach is the best of the bad options.
Taxes are to low, VAT for one is still only average when compared to the euro zone.
The cuts will come and have already started but, taxes MUST also go up.
They cant counter the deficit created by the last muppets in such a short time, they need to stop it getting worse and start chipping away at it.
They cant cut education and health becasue the last bucnh of gits committed so much to Private-Public financing that if we did it would have an adverse affect.
-
had to go to the supermarket yerterday for a few bits for work I thought it would be a breeze after peoples food spending excesses on Christmas and new year, WRONG It was grid lock :o I couldn't believe how many peoples trollies were stuffed to the gunnels with food. I would have thought that peoples food cupboards would have been creaking with products from the Xmas overshop. Then it ocurred to me, how many people actually know that food is zero rated as fer as VAT is concerned? My thoughts are that this behaviour is typical of the greed of a lot of modern day society. :(
-
You all have your points to make, fair go but much as i hate to admit it ...oh god i really hate to admit it....really but i ....oh no....agree with STMO....there i said it!!!! I've reached the "what the hell" train of thought more than once regarding which party gets elected & how the balls it up, find another way of making us pay for said mess while blaming it on the previous party...see a pattern emerging? Like Steve i've developed the approach of, i'll still do my little job & live in my little house & simply ignore current affairs.
Nothing they do will have any real effect on me so let 'em get on with it. It hardly merits discussion in my book. Guy. :y
-
I think they are doing ok, the alternatives of running up yet more debts are unthinkable.
The stupid levels of cash spent by the last useless lot in order to get the votes of those who dont understand economics now needs to be sorted out and that means tax rises and cost cutting.....you cant live beyond your means forever.
stupid levels of cash that Cameron stated publicly he would match pound for pound when it suited him in opposition - watch this guy like a hawk - the cuts are hugely unwise and are more about the tories obsession with wanting to reduce the public sector than sound fiscal policy :o
-
what about the 99p shop,,,
who is going to do a dell boy, no income tax no v.a.t no money back no guarentee. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
we pay they take, we pay agian they lose it, shouldnt they be members of gamblers anonymous or are they and its not working (anonymous)....
-
I think they are doing ok, the alternatives of running up yet more debts are unthinkable.
The stupid levels of cash spent by the last useless lot in order to get the votes of those who dont understand economics now needs to be sorted out and that means tax rises and cost cutting.....you cant live beyond your means forever.
stupid levels of cash that Cameron stated publicly he would match pound for pound when it suited him in opposition - watch this guy like a hawk - the cuts are hugely unwise and are more about the tories obsession with wanting to reduce the public sector than sound fiscal policy :o
Basics, the piublic sector is bigger than we can afford.
Either it has to get smaller or we have to pay more.