this is where YOUR suger tax is being spent. (if its true) and needs to be changed. rant over. :smileys:
Could someone tell me why starving a kid = child neglect by the parents but letting the the little buggers forage too much in the chip shop or the Aldi sweet counter is somehow society's fault? Some daft bint of a dentist on local radio was trying to tell the Presenter that somehow it was partly my fault she'd just had to extract all the teeth from a 2 year old kid! I mean WTF? Because I'm a member of the "society",that she blames,as are all of you... (As proof of her brainlessness,she went on to say that a pensioner who bought 2 litres of fizzy pop a month would not suffer financially...where did this fool go to school for crying out loud???) If letting your sprog become overweight was child neglect there would be less of it.End of. So stop giving your kid so much to eat,don't give them pocket money to spend on sweets,leave the keys to the 4x4 on the hook and march them to the school gate and back again you feckless feckers and take responsibility for your own offspring. And fat adults,here's a tip: STOP EATING SO MUCH OR MOVE ABOUT A BIT MORE!!!!
Every penny, except for the borrowed £26,000 upon which interest would be payable, has been earned by the subject. Allowing people to keep more of their hard earned by reducing tax is not giving them money from other people, there may be less to spend on other people but that is a separate issue. Also for someone on PAYE the initial £14,000 would have come out of income that has already been taxed and it is also entirely legal. So this is NOT how sugar tax is being spent
so a tax brake for one group hasn't resulted in a tax hike for another? IDS disagrees also. just depends where your priorities are i guess. but i aint so dumb that i dont realize that a certain group of individuals have to be catered for to help maintain this low tax low pay policies but ffs.
Oh yeah,and if you're a porky Doris do not think you can wander into Chelsea Girl and buy/wear the same stuff as your attractive and sensible-eating friend...no red-blooded male should have the misfortune to look at you in a skirt the size of a postage stamp,all right? You have your own attractions and fan club,no doubt,but for many of us,lifes too short to dance with fat chicks...
I see "poor" families every day shopping Some have tokens which they HAVE to buy milk and fresh vegetables and fruit for their kids These kids aren't fat they are skinny as they are often to be found running around outside as the parents have sent them out. Many of the kids come in to buy stuff with their pound say a packet of biscuits or some sweets or crisps I will have another look to see how much fizzy drinks they buy I have seen obese adults with a trolley full of fizzy drinks I was gob smacked!!
Many diet products are full of sugar They claim to be good for you but they have empty calories Sugar free it might be but drinks are given aspartame and other chemicals Liquid glucose is another
I am not defending tax breaks for the rich or benefit cuts for the disabled and I think IDS is right. What I am saying is that allowing people to keep more of what they have earned is NOT giving them money FROM someone else and a tax cut for one group doesn't DIRECTLY equate to a tax increase for another. We are taxed, it goes into a big pot and the government spends it on our behalf. Turning it into a one taxpayers gain is another taxpayers loss argument is missing the point and pitting people against people, something I thought you would have been against .
100% against. reporting it as it is is not setting people against each other.. the policies and the ideology does that for me. down at work today working on my bikes, got radio Scotland on. fiercely pro labour and otherwise gets me raging. but the sports pundits are Hilarius. the music between 6.30 and 9 is superb. there is a comedy show on between 11.30 and 12 noon. its in a HIGNFU style. there was an English jurno on , he commented on the suger tax and called it the Scottish tax . (irn bru, Gin) he suggested if anything would bring on the next indireff. it would be that tax alone. :Hilarious:. the place erupted. laughs, clapping, big cheers. that i am glad to say was a far more representative audience than QT could manage last week. every time labour was mentioned. big laugs also. but more at than for. :smileys:
For a bunch of Ducati owners we do seem to spend a lot of time talking about money. Clearly we....."BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH" from Microsoft has just caused me to loose my MOJO.
Nah...been a Microsoft man since version 3..... I don't like the bolted down locked in feeling you have with MACS /Apples. But I do suffer for it.
It is too easy to play to the audience. Which is what George Osborne is doing with this sugar tax, it won't address the problems but it will allow him to stand up and say he is doing the right thing for the children of the UK. I have to say I am becoming more disenchanted with our government as time goes by, but I don't see a viable alternative.
Osborne is another Gordon Brown. He's a political chancellor who uses the treasury as a fiefdom and pursues policies that further his personal political ambitions rather than making pragmatic decisions for the benefit of the economy and the country. And like Brown he's been put in the job in a pre-election pact with a Prime Minister who wants to keep him close and neutralise him as a competitor by lining him up as a favoured successor, not because he know's what he's doing. What the country needs in number 11 is another Geoffrey Howe but we've got Gordon Junior.
How much sugar in an apple though, and is it taxed. Where does one put the tax disk on an apple.......?
