Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBoy]

And please include why next month I am going to be paying I am going to be paying 12% more for my diesel ( it has already rocketed since the ill conceived Trump war) in a country not interested in the I’ll conceived madman’s war.

Whilst what the media refers to as the "current conflict/war" impacts the timing, the current situation was always inevitable.

Iran and its funded proxies have been positioning to have more direct control of oil for decades.  I'm sure you recall the Suez being effectively closed a few years back when the Ansar Allah (aka Houthi) made the Bab al-Mandab Strait impassible (and have done so again this week).

Also, remember that the Iranian regime has been spending decades developing nuclear weapons, and I think the fact they were getting close to succeeded spooked the American administration into acting when they did.


I don't think leftie western governments are too concerned about fuel pump prices, as it plays into their hands anyway. Lets face it, most western governments, if there was the desire, have the flexibility to hugely reduce fuel prices.

[Doctor Gollum]

Price of fuel varies significantly across the US and diesel is traditionally a third more expensive than petrol regardless of the state or local prices. Don't forget that different States and counties apply different taxes percentages to various things, so the headline price isn't necessarily a fair reflection of the actual cost.

But assuming an average in Texas of $5.75 a gallon, that's still only £1.08 a litre. Petrol is less than 60p a litre.

Locally, petrol is £1.75 and diesel £1.95.

US fuel prices are higher because they're selling more for exportà due to the kerfuffle in the Middle East, simple supply and demand, not being helped by California closing several refineries this year. All in all, there's as much fuel available as there was a year ago, it just comes from different sources.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Go on then let’s hear the argument.

And please include why next month I am going to be paying I am going to be paying 12% more for my diesel ( it has already rocketed since the ill conceived Trump war) in a country not interested in the I’ll conceived madman’s war.

Quite simply, America First doesn't give a shit about the price of fuel in Spain or the UK.

Once you accept this as the current reality you'll sleep easier because everything will make sense.

Whether you or I agree with it or not is largely irrelevant and doesn't change anything, so instead of getting all high and mighty about it, start shouting at the leadership in Spain or the UK as to why they aren't putting their country first. In the case of Spain, being part of the EU will be a large reason why and at least the Spanish government has that excuse. As to Westminster, they've got no excuse.

Instead of saying "look what Donald is doing to our country" the question should be "how can we benefit from this". Almost a million now unemployed Canadians will be asking Carney how his position has helped Canada. He won't have an answer because it's his doing, not Trumps.

Trump doesn’t give a shit about the price of fuel in America. Diesel is what? 6 dollars a gallon now. Boom

“ How can we benefit from this” ?  Hard to see how how a country could benefit short of becoming a new US state.

As for Spain. You clearly do not follow the news. Sanchez has stood up to Trump over numerous issues putting Spain before the US. It is still a country that puts its people first rather than money first. Hey ho! Lots more Americans emigrating to Spain now than ever before. I wonder if there is a connection

Dirty Sanchez doesn't seem to be putting the people of Ceuta first? 

He did put the 500,000 illegals first though when he gave them all amnesty and regularised their staus in Spain. 

Yeah...  Putting the Spanish people first!     

[Varche]

Go on then let’s hear the argument.

And please include why next month I am going to be paying I am going to be paying 12% more for my diesel ( it has already rocketed since the ill conceived Trump war) in a country not interested in the I’ll conceived madman’s war.

Quite simply, America First doesn't give a shit about the price of fuel in Spain or the UK.

Once you accept this as the current reality you'll sleep easier because everything will make sense.

Whether you or I agree with it or not is largely irrelevant and doesn't change anything, so instead of getting all high and mighty about it, start shouting at the leadership in Spain or the UK as to why they aren't putting their country first. In the case of Spain, being part of the EU will be a large reason why and at least the Spanish government has that excuse. As to Westminster, they've got no excuse.

Instead of saying "look what Donald is doing to our country" the question should be "how can we benefit from this". Almost a million now unemployed Canadians will be asking Carney how his position has helped Canada. He won't have an answer because it's his doing, not Trumps.

Trump doesn’t give a shit about the price of fuel in America. Diesel is what? 6 dollars a gallon now. Boom

“ How can we benefit from this” ?  Hard to see how how a country could benefit short of becoming a new US state.

As for Spain. You clearly do not follow the news. Sanchez has stood up to Trump over numerous issues putting Spain before the US. It is still a country that puts its people first rather than money first. Hey ho! Lots more Americans emigrating to Spain now than ever before. I wonder if there is a connection

Dirty Sanchez doesn't seem to be putting the people of Ceuta first? 

He did put the 500,000 illegals first though when he gave them all amnesty and regularised their staus in Spain. 

Yeah...  Putting the Spanish people first!     

I suspect you have never been and lived in Spain. People here work to live. UK is live to work. Huge difference. Our local town of 20,000 puts on a five course dinner with entertainment for 1550: people each year. Free ( comes out of rates etc) we went to a flamenco evening the other day. Free. It was excellent.

I am divided on the legalisation of immigrants. Spain needs them to tend the plastic untrue to feed North Europe, including Britain. Does Spain need its culture diluting? Does Britain? Has Britain got enough workers to harvest fruit and veg?


A far far bigger problem is the overwhelming drugs trade. Coke is half the price it was last year and the volumes coming in are huge. Separate subject though

[Doctor Gollum]

Do you actually believe that all these 'immigrants' actually work?

If you do you're deluding yourself.

.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Apparently, over 70% of those who came to the UK in the last few years are living on benefits.
Its quite different to the invasion of Eastern Europeans we had around the turn of the century.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Apparently, over 70% of those who came to the UK in the last few years are living on benefits.
Its quite different to the invasion of Eastern Europeans we had around the turn of the century.

......and most of those who  who do work are on low pay, so will pay very little tax, and therefore make very little financial contribution to the UK.

Do we really want to encourage a 'low wage' economy.

[Doctor Gollum]

Apparently, over 70% of those who came to the UK in the last few years are living on benefits.
Its quite different to the invasion of Eastern Europeans we had around the turn of the century.

Those eastern Europeans were not afraid of working for a living. The current bunch of coconuts see benefits as a career choice. Cut of the money and they'd soon piss off back home.

It would also get the workshy back to being productive all of a sudden. Obviously that would be unethical for the so Labourless party as it's easier to tax the working into poverty than develop opportunities.

Let's say the average person earns 40k and donates 5k to the communist dream by way of income tax.

If you reduce the rates by a quarter those same people would pay 3750 but they would be incentivise to earn more because it would be cost effective to do so so if they went to 48k, they would now pay 4800 in tax. Yes this is less than 5k, but what the illustrious monkeys fail to see, and that the right at least understands, is that family earning 40k only had the spending power of 32k after tax and NI, whereas on the new, lower rates, they would be about 9k better off. Alot of this 9k would be spent creating jobs and ultimately revenue. It funds itself.

The US Deficit dropped by $8 Billion last year, so regardless of what the media likes to tell you about Donald, the changes he has implemented actually work. However, one thing the US has that we don't is individual responsibility.

Additionally, by slashing benefit spending, they're going to save money which means more available for the things we actually need such as food and fuel security.

[TheBoy]

Benefits should only ever be a short term solution to people who have paid into the insurance scheme to get over unexpected changes in their life, such as being made redundant, and whilst looking for work.

Some sections of society believe it is a right, and a valid career choice.


So, my solution, seeing as Lizzie Zoom won't let me shoot people to cure the problem, is to make the changes to the benefit system that the Labour mob were too scared to do last year:
a) Non UK people aren't entitled to it, and get SFA (for legal reasons, those that only know the word asylum can get enough to almost survive until they are sent home next week)
b) Its short term, say 6 months, and can't be claimed again for a set period.
c) Child benefit and state funded childcare is capped again - if you can't afford it, get your balls between 2 bricks.  The country is massively overpopulated anyway.


Lets see what the lefties think of that!

[Rangie]

Benefits should only ever be a short term solution to people who have paid into the insurance scheme to get over unexpected changes in their life, such as being made redundant, and whilst looking for work.

Some sections of society believe it is a right, and a valid career choice.


So, my solution, seeing as Lizzie Zoom won't let me shoot people to cure the problem, is to make the changes to the benefit system that the Labour mob were too scared to do last year:
a) Non UK people aren't entitled to it, and get SFA (for legal reasons, those that only know the word asylum can get enough to almost survive until they are sent home next week)
b) Its short term, say 6 months, and can't be claimed again for a set period.
c) Child benefit and state funded childcare is capped again - if you can't afford it, get your balls between 2 bricks.  The country is massively overpopulated anyway.


Lets see what the lefties think of that!

. 


I'm all for that 100 percent 👍

[Doctor Gollum]

Apparently, over 70% of those who came to the UK in the last few years are living on benefits.
Its quite different to the invasion of Eastern Europeans we had around the turn of the century.

......and most of those who  who do work are on low pay, so will pay very little tax, and therefore make very little financial contribution to the UK.

Do we really want to encourage a 'low wage' economy.

That's communist maths at it's finest. Why have 30 million people paying tax when you can get 10,000 rich people to pay instead.

If everyone paid personal income tax at 20% on anything over 20k regardless then the country would be in much better financial shape.

If people only ever earned 20k then the minimum tax income would be £4000 x 34.4 million people working. That's £137.6 billion as a guaranteed starting point. And as the average income in the UK is double that, it would be reasonable to assume that the revenue would also double. And knowing that you would only ever pay 20%, there's financial incentive to earn more because you're not getting screwed by each subsequent tax bracket.

Tax all businesses at 20% and that's another £120 trillion (based on £600 trillion). And as the current budget is £136 trillion, it doesn't take a genius to see that cutting £4.36 million from the asylum budget, ie the whole thing and adding in £24 billion in fuel duty revenue and hey presto, the budget is actually in profit.

Opening up North Sea oil and gas fields to become less energy dependent and watch the corporate income revenue grow.

But who would vote for any of that...

[LC0112G]

Opening up North Sea oil and gas fields to become less energy dependent and watch the corporate income revenue grow.

This bit is codswallop. The oil companies own the oil/gas that comes out of holes in the north seabed. They can and will sell it to the highest bidder. The only way we become less energy dependent is if HMG nationalises north sea oil - Is that what you're suggesting, coz it's full on communist rubbish!

However, I agree that HMG should allow the exploitation of the North sea oil/gas reserves to the fullest extent. It does nothing to reduce prices or decrease dependency, but it does bring in extra tax and licence revenues.

[LC0112G]

If everyone paid personal income tax at 20% on anything over 20k regardless then the country would be in much better financial shape.

If people only ever earned 20k then the minimum tax income would be £4000 x 34.4 million people working. That's £137.6 billion as a guaranteed starting point.

Huh? Not sure I understand what you're getting at. If you only paid 20% on income above £20K, and if 34.4 million people only ever earnt £20K p/a then there would be no tax paid?

Did you mean if 34.4 million people only ever earnt £40K?

[Doctor Gollum]

If everyone paid personal income tax at 20% on anything over 20k regardless then the country would be in much better financial shape.

If people only ever earned 20k then the minimum tax income would be £4000 x 34.4 million people working. That's £137.6 billion as a guaranteed starting point.

Huh? Not sure I understand what you're getting at. If you only paid 20% on income above £20K, and if 34.4 million people only ever earnt £20K p/a then there would be no tax paid?

Did you mean if 34.4 million people only ever earnt £40K?

It was man maths, but probably. Point being that you wouldn't keep hitting brackets every time you tried to improve matters.

[Doctor Gollum]

Opening up North Sea oil and gas fields to become less energy dependent and watch the corporate income revenue grow.

This bit is codswallop. The oil companies own the oil/gas that comes out of holes in the north seabed. They can and will sell it to the highest bidder. The only way we become less energy dependent is if HMG nationalises north sea oil - Is that what you're suggesting, coz it's full on communist rubbish!

However, I agree that HMG should allow the exploitation of the North sea oil/gas reserves to the fullest extent. It does nothing to reduce prices or decrease dependency, but it does bring in extra tax and licence revenues.

Allowing the resume of production would would create jobs and the companies creating those jobs would be contributing to the economy at the same 20% as everyone else

Mancchester Council can't run an airport, I would trust the self proclaimed king of Mancchester or his government capable of running the national tiddlywinks Christmas social, let alone anything important. Nationalisation doesn't work. So to.your question, no, absolutely not.