Paid Members CleetusVanDamme Posted March 21, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 21, 2012 I get 20 Mayfair superkings for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 21, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 21, 2012 Why were Greggs pasties not subject to VAT before? Â It's something to do with whether it's sold as hot food (like most takeaways), or whether it's something that's sold as cold but they will heat up for you upon request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Up Chuck Posted March 24, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 24, 2012 Apparently Margaret Thatcher has said in a Telegraph interview that if she had to do it all again, she'd never get into politics. Â I'll leave you all to dwell on that one for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Tommy! Posted March 24, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Apparently Margaret Thatcher has said in a Telegraph interview that if she had to do it all again, she'd never get into politics. I'll leave you all to dwell on that one for a bit.  Hows her health out of interest. I believe I read somewhere that she had a somewhat diminished mental capacity, is that right or was it duff info. Edited March 24, 2012 by Tommy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Up Chuck Posted March 24, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 24, 2012 I have no idea, and I'll just post this now before I say something unsavoury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Anyone following this Balwant Singh Rajoana situation, in India? From what I understand, Chief Minister Beant Singh was routing out Sikh militancy. That lead to the type of horrible excesses we're seeing now in the current so-called 'War On Terror'; innocent Sikhs were beaten, detained and murdered. Then, in 1995, Balwant Singh Rajoana set off an explosive that killed Beant Singh and 17 others. Now, Rajoana's been sentenced to death - he was supposed to be hanged on March 31st, but that's been deferred due to huge protests. Â I am Sikh, albiet a vaguely religious one, but I'm very much at odds with the coverage of the Sikh media and what seems to be the view of a lot of Sikhs. The grievances are most definitely there, but I'd never call an assassination something 'noble' or 'good', or call the perpetrator a 'living martyr'. This is the kind of situation that you can contextualize and look at the reasons behind, but I don't think it can be justified. Blowing up 18 people, even if you are targeting someone responsible for heinous acts, is not the kind of thing you should really be supporting, in my opinion. And I find it kind of hypocritical that people are seemingly saying murder was fine for Beant Singh because he was responsible for people's deaths, but then protest against Rajoana's hanging for killing 18 people. And I'm not defending Beant Singh or supporting Rajoana's hanging. I'm against both the death penalty and extrajudicial killings, no matter who it's against, except if in direct self-defense. Â Right now, Obama's drone strikes are killing loads of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does anyone think it'd be 'good' or 'noble' if someone from that part of the world decided to assassinate Obama in retaliation? Or if an Iraqi assassinated George Bush over his devastating, illegal war? Of course not, and nor should they. There's a big difference between revenge and justice. Edited March 29, 2012 by Vice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted May 15, 2012 Moderators Share Posted May 15, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 15, 2012 Author Share Posted May 15, 2012 Good old Tommy, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted May 16, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted May 16, 2012 Don't blame people for reducing their individual tax burden, blame the government for not closing the loopholes!This was one of the original suggestions for Booker T's new catchphrase in wCw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 Far be it for me to defend the super-rich, but if I earned, say, 150,000 a year and could spend 3 grand of it to pay someone to find legal ways of saving me 20 grand, I'd probably do it too.It's not like the HMRC don't know where the loopholes are. The "employing yourself and only paying corporation tax" is wide enough to sail the Titanic through. Don't blame people for reducing their individual tax burden, blame the government for not closing the loopholes!The very fact that this tax applied to people earning as little as Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 The thing with tax avoidance is that if you do it and it's legal then I suppose that's fair enough, albeit immoral (in my view). You've got to be a bit of a cunt, though, to then go on and complain about the tax rate you're meant to pay or to to take shots at anyone who games the system at the other end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 The thing with tax avoidance is that if you do it and it's legal then I suppose that's fair enough, albeit immoral (in my view). You've got to be a bit of a cunt, though, to then go on and complain about the tax rate you're meant to pay or to to take shots at anyone who games the system at the other end.Even if the people at the other end could be claiming disability when they don't need it, in essence doing absolutely fuck all and contributing just as much, whilst you're being asked to work almost a full six months every year for nothing? In my mind, if you've worked your arse off for years to build your business or profession to a point where you can earn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) If you're earning Edited May 16, 2012 by Kenny McBride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Why do people find it so hard to understand that the 50p rate only kicked in for income ABOVE a certain rate?As someone who certainly doesn't earn 150k I find it annoying that for any stock given to me by my employers, 50% is immediately taken by the government. I could really do with that extra money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I think a serious problem with our tax system is that different forms of income are taxed differently. We need a simple, straightforward tax on all income regardless of source along with a general anti-avoidance rule so that people don't get away with convoluted avoidance schemes.Also, I don't necessarily oppose tax cuts, but they should be done when business is good, not cutting the top rate (with no idea of whether it will show benefits to the actual tax take) when the Exchequer needs to bring in every penny it possibly can. In my ideal world, we'd slightly over-balance the budget, retaining a small amount (say 3-5%) for a contingency fund, with the tax rates we have now, then we'd cut from the bottom up. The first step would be to increase the basic allowance up to the level of the living wage then cut VAT. After that, I'd increase the basic allowance by a chunk every time you raise the threshold for the other taxes or cut the higher rates. Eventually, the only tax that would exist would be a basic rate of maybe 10% for people earning over about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts