b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 1493929 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1

« Go Back | Popular

So I was just listening to Radio 4 because I'm cultured and intelligent.
They were talking about the Tax system, Tax evasion and Tax avoidance.

One of the interesting points made early on was for a flat tax rate the first £12,000 of income should be totally tax free everything else taxed at 25% no matter what you earn.

Thoughts opinions? I think it's a good idea. Never going to happen though.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:00, 164 replies, latest was 14 years ago)
Also kitten freaks
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-16474354
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:02, Reply)
Witchcraft
We should burn them.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:17, Reply)
I think these days
beating them with bars and then drowning them in a bath is how the hep cats deal with witches.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:47, Reply)
I meant burn the cats
All of them. Stupid scratchy little fucks.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:48, Reply)
But I'm happy for you to beat them with iron bars and drown them too.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:49, Reply)
it's OK
it was a topical joke that appears to have not worked. As you were.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:51, Reply)
I got it
The whole story made me feel a bit sick tbh
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:53, Reply)
Sorry
Sleep deprivation has made my usually slow uptake far worse.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:54, Reply)
Bonus retarded facebook update from my friend.
"Had a lovely ride on my horsey very forward going lol"

what does that even mean!
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:02, Reply)
It means absolutely fucking nothing. Nothing at all.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:15, Reply)
well the going refers to the softness of the ground
forward going means that the ground was good
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:24, Reply)
If it cuts down on tax avoidance it could work.
Like you say, it'll never happen, though.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:03, Reply)
I think the point is it'll make tax avoidance absolutely pointless.
The problem being is it'll be a tax on income only not on assets. So there will have to be something designed to sort that lot out.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:04, Reply)
Some people will always do their best to circumvent the system to protect their assets.
Perhaps we should just do more to tighten current systems.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:16, Reply)
Or start treating Tax avoidance like theft and sentencing appropriately

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:47, Reply)
Castration?

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:49, Reply)
While I would like to see this
I'd settle for Someone who evades £1m of tax getting the same prison sentence (in a proper prison, not a Jeffrey Archer country club) and someone who steals it, non violently from a little old lady.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:56, Reply)
See I didn't give the proles an oppertunity to either talk about themselves food or have a good moan.
So I get few replies.

Shame on you!
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:11, Reply)
I just don't know what the answer is Chompy
It seems fairer that rich people should pay more than poor people, but they always moan that it is unfair on them.
I'm rubbish at economics. Soz.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:14, Reply)
Well they will pay more, but the same percentage.
I think it could be sold to the population as fair and simple, but it wouldn't be sold to the massive accountancy and law firms that make millions by knowing what's going on.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:26, Reply)
I understand that
But someone with 25% taken off £100k is left with considerably more than someone with 25% taken off £12.5k
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:36, Reply)
Well yes but unless it's over a 100% tax that'll always be the case

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:42, Reply)
It is sad if the best solution to stopping the rich avoiding paying more is to make poor people poorer.
Whatever happened to philanthropy and altruism?
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:45, Reply)
It wouldn't make poorer people poorer.
It'll give the people paid less than £12,000 a tax level of 0% which is much better than the current system.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:49, Reply)
I stand by my original point about being rubbish at economics
There would be an interesting knock on effect on pay though - everyone earning £12,001-15,000 would surely want their pay reducing down to £12,000?
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:58, Reply)
nope, cos they'd only pay tax on the amount above £12000.
same as the current system
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:02, Reply)
Oh yeah
Rubbish at economics, you see?
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:03, Reply)
Is that with brown sauce or ketchup?

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:14, Reply)
if its meat, brown sauce
if its chips, ketchup

This broadcast was brought to you by the Quinten Oftiweak Party for Common Sense
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:30, Reply)
Why are you now Quinten and not Quentin?

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:31, Reply)
i kept spelling my name wrong when trying to log in

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:31, Reply)
Right

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:33, Reply)
LIES.
Brown sauce is proletarian and therefore inferior.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:42, Reply)
bacon and sausage are also proletarian
you wouldn't have brown sauce or ketchup on your roast duck would you?
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:43, Reply)
an interesting point.
But I'm afraid bacon and sausage are the class bridges that hold us together in these troubled times.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:45, Reply)
don't be afraid

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:47, Reply)
I'm always slightly afraid, Quenters.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:51, Reply)
i'm here for you
there, there
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:03, Reply)
My answer willl just get me hounded for unrealistic lefty pretensions, so I'm staying shtum.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:32, Reply)
What he said^
Only with more shooting of rich bastards
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:49, Reply)
Far more importantly:
www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jan/10/black-sabbath-tony-iommi-cancer
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:17, Reply)
Worthwhile input from Sebastian Bach there

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:18, Reply)
Ha beat me to it

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:18, Reply)
It's more relevant than anything Skid Row ever did.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:38, Reply)
"Best wishes for a full recovery," wrote Slash.
"FUCK YOU, cancer!" declared Sebastian Bach.


Fuck you, Sebastian Bach, declared Monty Boyce.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:18, Reply)
Was he the "dude" who Aerosmith thought looked like a lady?

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:19, Reply)
I have no idea, I'm afraid.
However he was certainly the inspiration behind 'Dude Looks and Sounds Like a Massive Tosser' by Electric Head Funk.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:21, Reply)
No, no reason why anyone should know what Tyler and co are singing about.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:22, Reply)
I like 'Sweet Emotion', but nothing else I've heard.
I did like the anecdote about Tyler from the nadir of his caning, when he apparently walked around for three days with a massive shit in his pants. that was pretty cool.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:24, Reply)
The peasants revolt?

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:24, Reply)
*fives*

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:24, Reply)
*Bows*
I expect a comment from Quentin saying he does not understand this.

Again.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:26, Reply)
dt44dek your all fucken pricks xdfbbn gv ggb

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:26, Reply)
Heehee.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:31, Reply)
i don't think my spelling's ever been that bad
lol
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:32, Reply)
I have exaggerated ever so slighty, I will give you that.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:34, Reply)
farming all those coca plants with yuor 2 year old boy is effecting your brain

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:39, Reply)
I'm so high I genuinely thought I had a daughter.
Maybe you've been right all along. It's time to seek help from Jesus or L Ron Hubbard.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:44, Reply)
I go with hubbard, he always has bones in his cupboard

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:47, Reply)
Its 'Which Tyler'
The Pedant's Revolt.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:31, Reply)
haha

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:33, Reply)
That is in my top two jokes.
The other being the Noddy Holder gag which Kroney hates so much.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:35, Reply)
It's a good one, isn't it?
I can't think of any others right now that you might like though.

Oh, hang on...how does Bob Marley like his donuts?
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:36, Reply)
I will slay you.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:37, Reply)
What's the Noddy Holder one, by the way?
If it's any good (and not the Cuppa Tea one) I promise never to mention the Bob Marley one again.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:38, Reply)
It is the Kipper Tie gag.
I do love it so, simply because I'm quite good at regional accents and can make the joke 'work' reasonably well when told aloud. All the other jokes I know are Ethiopian jokes from the 80s and ones about bad taste subjects like the Space Shuttle disaster. I am nothing if not a) hilarious and b) topical as HELL, me.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:41, Reply)
It also dates us, I think.
Because i first heard it in relation to Stan Collymore, of all people.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:43, Reply)
I will never date you, soz.
I like you too much as a friend etc.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:45, Reply)
oh, that's top work, sir.
It was a decent bouncer, Nasser, but he's played it late and lifted it over the slip cordon all the way for six. The crowd are on their feet.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:40, Reply)
Poor awld Tehrnai Eye-ermhai.
Ivver saow serrhai to 'ere of iz cancer.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:25, Reply)
Any system that takes more tax from people earning more than me, is a good idea.
Still, I may not have to worry about tax in a month or so. I've just been threatened with redundancy.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:29, Reply)
threatened in a nasty way
or informed of possible redundancies, which is in itself very scary?
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:32, Reply)
Very nasty indeed.
The first ploy was to get me to write a document saying how I would reach various targets and competance on some new software systems. When I fail to meet these targets, which I will as production work must take priority, I will have broken the agreement and sacked myself.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:37, Reply)
Devious cunts.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:38, Reply)
I read that as Devon cunts.
and I nodded my head thinking of Vipros
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:40, Reply)
Actual LOL here

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:42, Reply)
Is that even legal?

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:39, Reply)
No,
I prefaced my document "without prejudice to my existing letter of employment" and didn't give any fixed times for learning the new stuff.

The boss was rather annoyed, but fuck him.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:42, Reply)
Smart thinking.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:43, Reply)
It ruined my weekend.
I spent all of Saturday and Sunday, including missing Sherlock, writing it.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:45, Reply)
I missed Sherlock through the medium of passing out from booze.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:45, Reply)
its alright, he noticed somethings in slow motion, pretended he'd solved something and got it wrong
then got it right

The End
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:49, Reply)
Oh that Holmes.
He's so unpredictable.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:50, Reply)
Couldn't you give yourself a verbal warning instead?

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:40, Reply)
Yes, Bartleby you are an utter waster.
Reminds me of my old English teacher. He used to say that to me every week at least once.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:47, Reply)
Fucking hell how sly is that

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:40, Reply)
He is sly, but I is more sly.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:49, Reply)
Well you have to be don't you

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:51, Reply)
I'm not proud of it, but I've got to protect my position.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:52, Reply)
The cunting boss is doing the same
but in a very out-of-order way
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:55, Reply)
Sorry to hear that young Roota
I'm afraid few are good at being a boss. Most just use their power in a cuntish way.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:00, Reply)
Oh man that sounds shit.
Unlucky. There's a lot of it about.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:35, Reply)
well, we shall see. The boss is behaving like a right cunt at the moment, and he may see reason and keep me on.
I am having to prove my worth against the Indian girl who works with me. I've got loads more useful skills, but she is cheaper.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:39, Reply)
You could just murder her.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:41, Reply)
She has the nicest arse in the office.
I spend at least an hour a day looking at it, and wondering if it hairy.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:44, Reply)
hahaha!
Would that make it better?
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:45, Reply)
Cop a feel
at least then your sacking will be justified.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:46, Reply)
'Let's not turn this disciplinary into a rape trial'

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:49, Reply)
score.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:50, Reply)
'now show me your hairy arse'

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:52, Reply)
If she gets the boot, I may suggest she goes on the game.
She'd make a mint.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:59, Reply)
make sure you keep your pimping hand strong.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:01, Reply)
They really do come over here and steal our jobs, eh?
I bet she smells funny too. You know, what with all that weird food they eat.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:43, Reply)
She doesn't smell funny suprisingly.
I do though.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:48, Reply)
Off milk and wee-wee?
Me too, old boy.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:49, Reply)
Old age lols

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:51, Reply)
It does seem like a good idea in theory
In practice would this bring in less or more tax based on the incomes now?
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:48, Reply)
In practice it will cripple the economy
one of the few advantages of a complex taxation system is that it supports the careers of tens of thousands of tax accountants and lawyers. Whilst you can argue for ever about the relative merits of that, they then pay taxes, spend money in the country and so on and so forth.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:50, Reply)
I don't generally say this sort of thing
but fuck them, leeches.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:54, Reply)
like I said, that can be debated for ever
however, they are jobs. jobs mean taxes and money spent within our economy. Which is good. Losing them would be bad. Primary School Economics 101.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:57, Reply)
A tax lawyer earning £150k will be paying about £60k in tax
To be hired they'll be at least saving their clients more in tax than their wage so gain at least £150k lose £60k and the cost to put them on jobseekers. I could live with that.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:02, Reply)
I think the idea is that if it's streamlined simple and low
then it may bring in less money but it'll save on administration costs fraud and waste which will make up and keep the amount of tax revenue basically static.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:51, Reply)
Or, you know, they could just make Vodafone and the like pay what they really owe.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:52, Reply)
Careful, your principals are showing

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:54, Reply)
Fuck. I don't like to let than happen round these parts.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:00, Reply)
Stay strong brother, I'll take the heat on this one.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:03, Reply)
Well they don't legally owe anything because they've abused the loopholes in such a way they don't have to pay what they owe.
They've obeyed the letters of the law so any tax claim will be overturned in court.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:56, Reply)
I don't think that's strictly true.
They have a case to answer and for some unknown reason, no one is even trying to test it.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:00, Reply)
This is the difference between avoidance and evasion
if people can leaglly avoid, go for it, if I had the resources I would.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:13, Reply)
For the highest return from income tax you need to tax the low to middle earners more
There are far more of them than high income earners.
The downside of this being that it is incredibly unfair.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:52, Reply)
also, they are much less likely
to be able to afford to pay someone to work out how to get them out of it.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:53, Reply)
Not really true about 50% of income tax revenue comes from the top 10% of earners.
But you're not going to realistically squeeze much more out of them.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:57, Reply)
I'm sure* I read somewhere
that if you added 10% onto lower earners tax rates rather than higher earners you would generate more revenue.

*not entirely sure
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:01, Reply)
Have you been reading City AM again?

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:04, Reply)
Watching TVAM
Frank Bough and Anne Diamond taught me everything I know.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:10, Reply)
Which explains why you are a masochistic coke freak with a yo-yoing weight problem?

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:13, Reply)
And an early riser

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:14, Reply)
That paper is straight and true and in no way biased

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:11, Reply)
The yin to Darth's yang

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:15, Reply)
The poor get a huge amount more back from the state than they pay in
they should stop moaning and be glad of what they've got.

The rich recieve a tiny percentage of what they pay into the state back in services.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:58, Reply)
This is kind of the point of having a state, no?
Well part of it, I suppose mutual defence both internal and external too, but if the state does not help the weak/poor at the expenceof the strong/rich what is is good for? /socialist
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:02, Reply)
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! SAY IT AGAIN!
Oh, sorry....
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:12, Reply)
Thanks, I was waiting for that.
/anarchist
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:15, Reply)
Maybe personally
but the CEO of a company hiring 2000 people that make him money all those people have been kept healthy and been educated at the states expense.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:04, Reply)
there is no such thing as the states expense, it is our expense

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:06, Reply)
Sounds awful communist to me.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:08, Reply)
Sounds more like Libertarian Bull-shit to me.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:09, Reply)
Regardless it makes the point that the CEO benefits from tax-funded stuff in less obvious ways.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:08, Reply)
yes, but he paid part of the taxes that created that "tax-fund"
the governemnt don't make money and give it away for nothing, at least not before 2008
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:10, Reply)
Nope, sorry this makes no sense
Basically you said the rich get less back from the taxes they pay than the poor, Chompy pointed out a way in which they benefit more than you might think from a surface analysis, I've no idea if this levels it out or not but it's still a valid point.

Not sure what giving money away for nothing has to do with it or where anyone other then you, even mentioned it.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:15, Reply)
it was a side swipe at quantative easing
What we have here is;
truth - the richer you are the more tax you pay and the less you get back from that tax,
guesswork - somehow the fact that some of your taxes educate poeple, keep them healthy etc should be built into the the return that one gets on one's tax
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:18, Reply)
The thing is, and this is why I don't tend to have these conversations
is that there is just a fundamental disagreement over whether this is a) true and b) a just and good thing:

"the richer you are the more tax you pay and the less you get back from that tax,"

I would debate a and agree with b. I suspect, although I wouldn't want to put words into your mouth, that you would be the opposite.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:21, Reply)
There is a very good graph that shows the difference between taxes paid and services taken
it's terrifying really
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:22, Reply)
For the sake of argument, I'll ignore the possibility that the graph is inaccurate
I still think that it is just and right that the rich pay more, and it's not something I find 'terrifying' and no amount of debate will change my mind any more than I would be able to change yours.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:25, Reply)
Isn't that sort of the point of the welfare state?
Those who can afford to pay into it so that the poor can benefit.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:26, Reply)

www.b3ta.com/questions/offtopic/post1494096
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:27, Reply)
Yes and those people who have got rich got rich in the society that tax pays for
see them doing it in Somalia. Unless they're pirate leaders they wouldn't be able to do it.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:28, Reply)
here you go, I get less back than I pay in, brilliant
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:29, Reply)
Yup, based on that, so do I, quite considerably.
But I don't have any problem with that.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:31, Reply)
why not?
Fine the infirm, the old and the truely needy should have some support, otherwise they'll just cost more. But doesn't this show that those that are successful already pay more than their fair share?
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:32, Reply)
Really, this is why i don't have these conversations and actually I'm not sure why I waded in to this one.
There's no point to it. What does my 'why' have to do with anything? I am happy with this balance, you are not. Neither of us will change.


Edit: Just so it's clear, I'm not passing any sort of judgement on you, I just disagree with you funamentally about whether this is right or wrong.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:35, Reply)
Although I fully intend to take your 'Fine the infirm, the old and the truly needy' out of context and use it as a signature.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:37, Reply)
hahahaha

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:39, Reply)
s'bollocks
That thing claims I have 6K more in disposable income than I actually earn, so something somewhere is broken.

Edit, sorry got Tax and disposable income mixed up still broken.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:33, Reply)
It is spot on with in regards to income tax and NI
It also includes "stealth" taxes such as VAT, fuel duty etc, which will increase your bill
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:34, Reply)
See edit

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:35, Reply)
Again, somthing no one but you mentioned
What you list as "truth" is your contention which is being argued, trying to claim a win based on bald assertion = fail

What you list as "guesswork" is in fact the counter argument that you are disputing.

So basically you argument boils down to "nyah, I'm right and you're wrong!" I think this means I am within my rights to call you a "fucking moron who wouldn't know a rational argument if it bit him"

You, sir, are a fucking moron who wpouldn't know a rational argument if it bit him. Now fuck off and talk to some Americans or similar dullards, they might be impressed.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:22, Reply)
You've missed the point

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:30, Reply)
Nope, you've avoided one
I shall not be doing politics with you again Ape, it's really not worth the typing.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:36, Reply)
Ok, well the point about the balance sheet of "the rich" with regards to taxes paid and services recieved is well established fact
the intangible benefits will of course exist, a society that doesn't tear itself apart being one of them,however "the poor" enjoy these benefits as well so it is a moot point.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:42, Reply)
The police and fire service look after the area where their buildings are situated
the roads used to transport the good his company buy and sell.

ETC ETC.

Basically your argument is specious and one dimensional, Monty was right about you.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:06, Reply)
Why are you arguing with yourself?

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:10, Reply)
He'll call himself hitler in a minute

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:12, Reply)
That confused me too, but I got there in the end.

(, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:12, Reply)

« Go Back | Reply To This »

Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1