that's probably a daily occurance, she is a dick

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 14:52, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

I'm not angry
I'm disappointed.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 14:55, Reply)

OHNOES! Worst of all the tellings off

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 14:56, Reply)

I'm not even disappointed
I'm unsurprised and depressed at the total lack of brain power the man has. Big businesses don't need extra help, they've got fucking loads of cash, and council tax freezes? Fuck that, £30 a year, yeah, that's gonna get the economy moving isn't it. Fucking spastic.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 14:56, Reply)

I agree with you here, I'm sure that £800bn could have been better spent

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 14:58, Reply)

But if it means that a load of people who work for Lewisham Council lose their jobs, then good!
£30 better in my pocket than theirs.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 14:58, Reply)

Call me a cynic
but my first response to the proposed increase in the speed limit was "I wonder how much more that will generate in fuel duty for the government?"
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:00, Reply)

I don't even think they have the intelligence to get there
they just went "Oooooooo, shiny law change to appease thick people with cars go VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!"
(Bazongaloid, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:02, Reply)

The Clarkson effect

( TGB checking Off Topic is still shit at, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:03, Reply)

I quite like the fact there is starting to be a divergance of ecconomic policy from the two main parties.
Not that I agree with either.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:01, Reply)

I was reading in the paper today how people are renting a place in Greenwich because the comute into london is going to get more expensive.
I was trying to work out the maths they were talking about in my head, but it made no sense what so ever.

Also, I was reading about the "freeze on council tax (terms and conditions apply: only counts on provision of counting inflation)" and thought "How the fuck is £70/year going to make the slightest possible diference to anyone strugggling."

It gave me a mental image of two stressed out parents sitting in their flat, with loads of recpits all over the dinning room table, with two calculators with those ticker-tapes, one saying "I can't belive it, we've got more out than we've got coming in, we can't continue to live here, we'll have to move" and the other going "If only we could make up this £70/year shortfall, then we would be OK".
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:02, Reply)

HAHA!
I love that idea.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:02, Reply)

There was a discussion about this on the radio this morning
and they had some party representative defending it. After being constantly challenged by the presenter about how it's not really going to make any discernable difference to the average UK family as it amounts to one tank full of petrol, all he could come up with was "It all helps".
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:07, Reply)

I reckon it's more to do with slapping local authorities down.

(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:09, Reply)

Which is rather silly given how they are desperate to push "localism"

(Bazongaloid, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:11, Reply)

They'd rather have people vote out their local councilors rather than MP's

(PsychoChomp, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:19, Reply)

It doesn't help that local authorities (Labour ones) are happy to make people redundant
rather than use their surplus funds. That doesn't get the national party votes.

I was staggered to read the levels of surplus cash and whatnot the authorities have.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:20, Reply)

That changes a lot during the year.
It's generally good to have surplus cash though, in case something unexpected happens.
And I'd rather they get rid of anyone they can do without rather than spend money on stuff they don't need.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:22, Reply)

Agreed.
But the local authority jobs are good, pensionable jobs where the people pay tax and national insurance. They are not McJobs.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:27, Reply)

I've had experience of a sort of localism through the programme I used to work on.
It was a bit of a mixed bag. Having group of people deciding on how to spend programme money isn't a bad idea when they are looking to support social enterprises or community services. Having them want to spend £7500 on paying an electricity bill so a railway bridge can have some pretty lights is a different kettle of trout.

Then again you can say that the State spends money on stupid things as well, so...
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:29, Reply)

I think the idea is that it's easier to hold local government to account
so it should shut down that sort of stupid spending.
That is if the voters bother to look into this shit, but they never do.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:36, Reply)

The problem with tax changes are
either you help everyone a little (£70 a year is fuck all but it's still something) or you target it specifically to the people you think need it and have a whole mess of admin.
You can't do both because it gets very expensive very quickly.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:05, Reply)

Thing is though, they're not giving everyone £70 a year, which is how they're acting.
They're just not taking an extra £70, which is different.

If they handed me £70, I'd say 'thanks, great, ill treat myself', but they're not, they're just not going to take £70 on top of the £1200 or soo they're already taking.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:09, Reply)

Yep, I know seems stupid to me that with all the cost cutting in local government.
They're even considering raising coucil tax at all. I know it's because they are getting less from central government but really. It's far too high at the moment.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:13, Reply)

It would be better to target tax cuts at lower earners as they are more likely to spend the money they aren't paying in tax
rather than saving it, which is what people on higher rates of tax do.

The simplest way to do this is to raise the income tax threshold.

All this shit about the 50p tax rate discouraging entrepreneurs is just that, utter shit.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:11, Reply)

Al, what do you do for a living?
You seem to have (gasp) quite knowledgeable opinions on the economy, yet appear to drive a white van, thus negating them
( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:14, Reply)

Little bit of this, little of that, know what I mean?
I get stuff, I move stuff, I can do things for you, if the price is right.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:23, Reply)

I'd happily scrap the 50p tax, but only when it's affordable and it shouldn't be put ahead of tax relief for lower earners.
I think that whole story was bollocks spun into a big story so the Tory's would look good to the middle classes for a week. It was just some shitty report from a think tank, dozens of those saying anything you like are released every week.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:16, Reply)

"Dropping the 50p tax rate will attract entrepreneurs who will grow the economy"
- not Osbourne but some cunt he apparently agrees with.

OH REALLY? FUCKING SHOW ME ONE. SHOW ME AN ENTREPRENEUR WHO *WOULD* INVEST IN BRITAIN IF ONLY WE WEREN'T TAKING AN EXTRA 10P OFF THE VERY TOP BIT OF HIS FUCKING INCOME.
( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:14, Reply)

And while I'm at it
Why do we have to fucking attract them? What's wrong with producing our own?

And how exactly are they going to grow the economy anyway?
( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:20, Reply)

Plus they aren't actually earning 150K+, they are running businesses
which pay far lower rates of corporation tax and then they pay themselves through share dividends which attract lower personal tax rates, they have pension schemes, which again lowers the amount of tax, and other stuff to boot.

The only people it really effects are a few people on the margins and even then to a pretty low degree.

I'm quite happy to say it's not a brilliant tax rate to have, but you would accrue more benefit in raising the lower threshold to exempt some people from tax to the amount the 50p rate brings in than you would in scrapping the 50p rate.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:26, Reply)

Not enough to justify scrapping the tax.
It's just insane to suggest that the people with the most money should pay less tax than they currently do! Most of these people don't pay much tax anyway because they have good accountants.

When INCOME tax is cust for everyone else then the 50p rate can be reduced by a commensurate amount.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:24, Reply)

And he would only be taxed on his INCOME if he is domiciled for tax, like.
Non-dom=no income tax or a one off annual payment.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:26, Reply)

The sad thing is these counter-arguments are blindingly obvious
but politicians still churn the shit out unchallenged.
( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:55, Reply)