UK Budget : 37p on Fags from 6PM

[arista]

InOne
get to the store before 6PM

[Jesus.]

Are you a smoker, Arista?

[Kate!]

Thank crunchie I don't smoke. Robbing swines.

[arista]

Are you a smoker, Arista?

No it Stinks


Even 2nd hand CD's can have the Smokers Stinch on them

[arista]

Thank crunchie I don't smoke. Robbing swines.


No it helps Stop Smokers
Less Deaths

[Iceman]

How much to a 20 pack cost in the UK?

[MTVN]

They're just putting them up every single budget now :bored:

[Smithy]

How much to a 20 pack cost in the UK?

Around £6, depends on the brand though

saying that tho L&B 20 pack will be > £7 now

[Kate!]

How much to a 20 pack cost in the UK?

My mum smokes Benson and Hedges, they vary atm from between £6.15 to £6.45 depending on where she buys them.

[arista]

Around £6, depends on the brand though

saying that tho L&B 20 pack will be > £7 now


Yes and from 6PM today
£6.37

[Kizzy]

Wowee! i had no idea they were so expensive...When i quit they were £4.85 i think it was 2002-3

[MTVN]

Marlboro's can be as much as £7/7.50 now too

[Livia]

Pretty soon everyone will give up smoking and the £11 billion or so they raise in tax on tobacco will have to come from somewhere...

[Mrluvaluva]

Benson and Hedges are currently £7 for a pack of 20.

[arista]

Wowee! i had no idea they were so expensive...When i quit they were £4.85 i think it was 2002-3

You are most wise

[CharlieO]

They're just putting them up every single budget now :bored:

Indeed, and for good reason. They are a negative externality and therefore the government tax the production to lower consumption. The inelastic nature of their demand is what causes the price to fall mainly on the consumer rather than the producer.

[Kizzy]

Pretty soon everyone will give up smoking and the £11 billion or so they raise in tax on tobacco will have to come from somewhere...

Always looking on the bright side livia, hopefully the NHS will save something by not having to treat as many patients for lung cancer and other smoking related illnesses?

[MTVN]

Indeed, and for good reason. They are a negative externality and therefore the government tax the production to lower consumption. The inelastic nature of their demand is what causes the price to fall mainly on the consumer rather than the producer.

Well the inelastic demand means they won't lower consumption that much, although it might for some who are really struggling financially. I understand why they do it but people are still entitled to moan about it :p

[Vicky.]

Its ok. They will just tempt more people to buy ones from abroad.

I still only pay £3.20 for my fags so I'm fine :)

[Vicky.]

Always looking on the bright side livia, hopefully the NHS will save something by not having to treat as many patients for lung cancer and other smoking related illnesses?

Not nearly as much as they would lose if everyone did stop smoking...

[Livia]

Always looking on the bright side livia, hopefully the NHS will save something by not having to treat as many patients for lung cancer and other smoking related illnesses?

Always looking on the bright side? Are you insinuating that I am a misery?

Well lets hope they stick a massive tax on sugary, fatty foods sometime soon then, because obesity is overtaking smoking as the biggest drain on the NHS.

[Kizzy]

Im not insinuating anything. whatever they lose on fags they can stick on something else can't they?
How about instead of scrapping the 50p tax rate for those earning above £150,000 they raise it?...
Or scrap large organisations based in th UK using offshore accounts to avoid tax?

[arista]

Its ok. They will just tempt more people to buy ones from abroad.

I still only pay £3.20 for my fags so I'm fine :)


Spiffing

[thesheriff443]

it wont matter if they put them up to 20 pounds a packet, smoking is an addiction,

[InOne]

****

Looks like I'll have to start getting from abroad. Have they put beer in pubs up too?

[Smithy]

or you could just quit :joker:

[Mrluvaluva]

****

Looks like I'll have to start getting from abroad. Have they put beer in pubs up too?

"the governemnt will shortly publish its strategy on alcohol pricing but today there are no further changes to the rate".

[Vicky.]

****

Looks like I'll have to start getting from abroad. Have they put beer in pubs up too?

They will be soon no doubt, dont remember hearing much about that though...just the usual 'binge drinking is bad' stuff. You know, because people cant go buy a crate from the supermarket for next to nothing and binge drink in the house then cause trouble :joker:

[Kizzy]

No change on alcohol...tories love a few quiet drinks in the bar....;)

[Livia]

Im not insinuating anything. whatever they lose on fags they can stick on something else can't they?
How about instead of scrapping the 50p tax rate for those earning above £150,000 they raise it?...
Or scrap large organisations based in th UK using offshore accounts to avoid tax?

You should maybe read your post again and see if you can think why I would think you were insinuating something. The clue, you see, was in the words.

Yeah, they could raise the top rate of tax and make it impossible for rich people and banks to operate in the UK. Then they can all move to another country, taking their business with them. There'd be no one left to invest in anything or employ anyone... and we can all come and work for the local authority.

Or... they could make overweight people pay for their own obesity-related illnesses through taxing their food, the same way that they've taxed the smoker almost out of existance.

[arista]

No change on alcohol...tories love a few quiet drinks in the bar....;)


Yes also Head Butting Labour MPs

[Vicky.]

No change on alcohol...tories love a few quiet drinks in the bar....;)

On this note, is it true that there is no smoking ban in the house of commons bar?

Someone was saying this to me at the weekend when ranting on about having to go outside for a fag :S

[fruit_cake]

Yeah, they could raise the top rate of tax and make it impossible for rich people and banks to operate in the UK. Then they can all move to another country, taking their business with them. There'd be no one left to invest in anything or employ anyone... and we can all come and work for the local authority.



let.them.leave.

[Kizzy]

Yes also Head Butting Labour MPs

Arista whats wrong, you are particularly reactionary today?
Here...:hug:....better?

[Livia]

No change on alcohol...tories love a few quiet drinks in the bar....;)

Knock it off Kizzy.

[Livia]

On this note, is it true that there is no smoking ban in the house of commons bar?

Someone was saying this to me at the weekend when ranting on about having to go outside for a fag :S

Legally, there is no smoking ban in Parliament. But... everyone agreed at the time the ban came in the rest of the country that there will be no smoking anywhere in the Houses of Parliament. There are smoking areas, but they are all outside the building.

[Mrluvaluva]

No change on alcohol...tories love a few quiet drinks in the bar....;)

It will all be subsidised for them anyway...

[Vicky.]

Legally, there is no smoking ban in Parliament. But... everyone agreed at the time the ban came in the rest of the country that there will be no smoking anywhere in the Houses of Parliament. There are smoking areas, but they are all outside the building.

Ah k thanks. Was just wondering because people have a tendency to make things up when they get pissed off about something :joker:

[Kizzy]

You should maybe read your post again and see if you can think why I would think you were insinuating something. The clue, you see, was in the words.

Yeah, they could raise the top rate of tax and make it impossible for rich people and banks to operate in the UK. Then they can all move to another country, taking their business with them. There'd be no one left to invest in anything or employ anyone... and we can all come and work for the local authority.

Or... they could make overweight people pay for their own obesity-related illnesses through taxing their food, the same way that they've taxed the smoker almost out of existance.

Well no need to worry the 50p tax rate is now 45p and corporate tax is down from 24% to 22%.
So low income families cant afford to buy a home, save, and you are suggesting taxing food too now?

[InOne]

or you could just quit :joker:

I don't smoke too much anyway lol I'd be getting worried if I was on like 20 a day or something

[InOne]

"the governemnt will shortly publish its strategy on alcohol pricing but today there are no further changes to the rate".

They will be soon no doubt, dont remember hearing much about that though...just the usual 'binge drinking is bad' stuff. You know, because people cant go buy a crate from the supermarket for next to nothing and binge drink in the house then cause trouble :joker:

Yeah I've heard it's in the near future. That's why I like this whole real ale thing that's taking off. Cheap and nice beer, and usually local.

[Livia]

Well no need to worry the 50p tax rate is now 45p and corporate tax is down from 24% to 22%.
So low income families cant afford to buy a home, save, and you are suggesting taxing food too now?

I'm suggesting taxing fatty, sugary foods, yes. If taxing fags is okay because they're bad for you, surely by the same token it's a good thing to tax stuff that makes people fat and keeps them fat.

You talk like I don't know anything about low income families and you know everything. I come from one of the poorest boroughs in London. I'm proud to be working class... but I don't suffer from it.

[Kizzy]

Knock it off Kizzy.

knock what off?

[Vicky.]

Yeah I've heard it's in the near future. That's why I like this whole real ale thing that's taking off. Cheap and nice beer, and usually local.

Well the bar I work in doesnt put its prices up when others do. I'm not quite sure if they are breaking the law by doing this but they are by far the busiest bar in the area because their pints of everything are only £2 where everywhere else is like £2.40+

[Livia]

knock what off?

I feel sure you won't be able to guess.

[InOne]

Well the bar I work in doesnt put its prices up when others do. I'm not quite sure if they are breaking the law by doing this but they are by far the busiest bar in the area because their pints of everything are only £2 where everywhere else is like £2.40+

I don't think they're breaking the law or anything, more taking a gamble. But if they're busy all the time it's probably worth not putting the prices up, cos that will be the known place that's cheap and everyone will go there.

[Kizzy]

I'm suggesting taxing fatty, sugary foods, yes. If taxing fags is okay because they're bad for you, surely by the same token it's a good thing to tax stuff that makes people fat and keeps them fat.

You talk like I don't know anything about low income families and you know everything. I come from one of the poorest boroughs in London. I'm proud to be working class... but I don't suffer from it.

'Luxury' food items such as confectionary is already taxed.
I dont talk like anything, I state my opinion just like you do.

[Kizzy]

I feel sure you won't be able to guess.

I couldn't possibly guess what you have chosen to be offended at today.

[Livia]

'Luxury' food items such as confectionary is already taxed.
I dont talk like anything, I state my opinion just like you do.

Then it's not being taxed enough. A walk around the local supermarket will show you that you can buy all kinds of high-calorie, empty-carb items for next to nothing. I'm surprised the same hysteria doesn't surround obesity that surrounded smoking.

[Vicky.]

Then it's not being taxed enough. A walk around the local supermarket will show you that you can buy all kinds of high-calorie, empty-carb items for next to nothing. I'm surprised the same hysteria doesn't surround obesity that surrounded smoking.

Thats because these demon smokers are the root of all evil whereas obesity is not. If you listen to the media anyway.

A lot of people seem to get quite hysterical whenever smoking is mentioned. I find it quite amusing tbh :laugh:

[InOne]

Thank god for lock-ins

[Kizzy]

You are joking? there is loads of media attention surrounding obesity at the moment...
Child obesity in particular, why are supermarkets promoting these goods in such an aggressive way is a better question than why are people buying them?
Anyhoo its a bit off topic and im off out, ttfn :)

[arista]

I don't smoke too much anyway lol I'd be getting worried if I was on like 20 a day or something

Get to the Store before 6PM today

[InOne]

http://www.day-tripper.net/xzi/xmap2011eutobaccoprices.gif

Look at the differences!! My god! Only Ireland is worse than us

[Smithy]

90p in Ukraine :conf2:

dodgy cigs thur

[Kate!]

Off topic, so apologies. If the Goevernment are so concerned about promoting health issues then why not make fruit a lot cheaper and as someone mentioned raise tax on foodstuffs with no nutritional value. I love fruit and would buy much more if it wasn't so expensive.

[InOne]

Off topic, so apologies. If the Goevernment are so concerned about promoting health issues then why not make fruit a lot cheaper and as someone mentioned raise tax on foodstuffs with no nutritional value. I love fruit and would buy much more if it wasn't so expensive.

Because they want as much money out of you as possible. They don't actually care about your health.

[MTVN]

http://www.day-tripper.net/xzi/xmap2011eutobaccoprices.gif

Look at the differences!! My god! Only Ireland is worse than us

Tis ridiculous, apart from Scandinavia France is the only European country where they're over a fiver and here we are putting them up to £7.50 :bored:

[Vicky.]

Because they want as much money out of you as possible. They don't actually care about your health.

Spot on

[fruit_cake]

Because they want as much money out of you as possible. They don't actually care about your health.

this

[Mrluvaluva]

In 1990 the average RRP for a pack of 20 cigs was £1.65. :conf2:

I actually was not aware you could buy cigarettes for online delivery from Tesco etc.

[Kizzy]

Off topic, so apologies. If the Goevernment are so concerned about promoting health issues then why not make fruit a lot cheaper and as someone mentioned raise tax on foodstuffs with no nutritional value. I love fruit and would buy much more if it wasn't so expensive.

Exactly kate the major companies, coca cola, nestle, want you to stay addicted to their crap so they allow supermarkets to do bogof, and other promotions.
They dont give a rats left testicle for anyones health, they want to make money. And as these are 'luxury' items you pay VAT on them so everyones a winner....except your waistline.
Even a bag of carrots is a quid now, a family sized bag of apples £2 a cauli £1.50....fruit and veg has never been so expensive.
Im seriously looking into growing my own :)

[Z]

The government doesn't want to wipe out smoking, it makes so much money out of taxing it, fact.

[Iceman]

90p in Ukraine :conf2:

dodgy cigs thur

€9.10 here for 20 :bawling:

[Vicky.]

Exactly kate the major companies, coca cola, nestle, want you to stay addicted to their crap so they allow supermarkets to do bogof, and other promotions.
They dont give a rats left testicle for anyones health, they want to make money. And as these are 'luxury' items you pay VAT on them so everyones a winner....except your waistline.
Even a bag of carrots is a quid now, a family sized bag of apples £2 a cauli £1.50....fruit and veg has never been so expensive.
Im seriously looking into growing my own :)

This is why I buy my fruit and veg at the fruiters instead of supermarkets.

We get 2 big bags full of various fruit/veg for a fiver. If we bought the same stuff in morrisons or something it would probably be nearly 20 quid :laugh:

[CharlieO]

Spot on

this

Because you guys know exactly why the government make all their decisions. :rolleyes:
They care for health but they know the inelastic demand and addictive nature of the product means that consumption will not likely decline due to price rises so they may as well tax it rather than legislating an entire ban. That way it is a compromise, smokers can smoke but have to pay for the social costs that they cause. It is a pretty fair deal.

[CharlieO]

Exactly kate the major companies, coca cola, nestle, want you to stay addicted to their crap so they allow supermarkets to do bogof, and other promotions.
They dont give a rats left testicle for anyones health, they want to make money. And as these are 'luxury' items you pay VAT on them so everyones a winner....except your waistline.
Even a bag of carrots is a quid now, a family sized bag of apples £2 a cauli £1.50....fruit and veg has never been so expensive.
Im seriously looking into growing my own :)

Prices are rising because consumption is causing aggregate demand in the economy to shift outward at a pace that aggregate supply cannot contend with.
It is our fault the majority of prices are rising, we are consuming too much.

Oh and btw coca cola, nestle and other TNC's have no control at the price that supermarkets offer their goods for. It is entirely down to the supermarket.

[Kizzy]

Prices are rising because consumption is causing aggregate demand in the economy to shift outward at a pace that aggregate supply cannot contend with.
It is our fault the majority of prices are rising, we are consuming too much.

Oh and btw coca cola, nestle and other TNC's have no control at the price that supermarkets offer their goods for. It is entirely down to the supermarket.


I have no idea what any of that means....:bawling:

[MTVN]

It's AS Economics all over again :laugh:

[Vicky.]

Because you guys know exactly why the government make all their decisions. :rolleyes:
They care for health but they know the inelastic demand and addictive nature of the product means that consumption will not likely decline due to price rises so they may as well tax it rather than legislating an entire ban. That way it is a compromise, smokers can smoke but have to pay for the social costs that they cause. It is a pretty fair deal.

Well we know just as much as you do tbh :laugh:

'If the Goevernment are so concerned about promoting health issues then why not make fruit a lot cheaper and as someone mentioned raise tax on foodstuffs with no nutritional value. I love fruit and would buy much more if it wasn't so expensive. '

Is what was replied to. If they really did care about health, they would do exactly that. Make healthy food cheaper and junk more expensive. Of course it wouldnt stop everyone eating junk...but it would allow those who WANT to eat healthy to do so...as at the moment its a lot cheaper to buy a giant bag of chicken nuggets and a bag of chips than it is to buy the fresh ingredients for a healthy meal, and thats not right at all.

At the same time we would be cutting NHS bills too. As if more people ate healthy there would be less obesity related illnesses.

[Vicky.]

Also, smokers pay for a LOT more than just the costs they cause.

The NHS would collapse without smokers.

[Kizzy]

This is why I buy my fruit and veg at the fruiters instead of supermarkets.

We get 2 big bags full of various fruit/veg for a fiver. If we bought the same stuff in morrisons or something it would probably be nearly 20 quid :laugh:

Our nearest grocers is 5 miles away, but it just shows you how much profit they are making if small independant shops can afford to supply at an affordable price and still make a profit?

[Bollo]

I guess I'm kind of resigned to it now and I only buy 10 packs so I don't really notice the hike. I chose to smoke anyhow.

But I do think what a couple of people have said about lowering the price of healthy and/ or basic foods and increasing the price/tax on luxury sugary/fatty foods sounds sensible to me. Obesity related illnesses are probably costing more than smokers now.

[Marc]

Good, smoking is bad.

[Vicky.]

Our nearest grocers is 5 miles away, but it just shows you how much profit they are making if small independant shops can afford to supply at an affordable price and still make a profit?

I know. Its ridiculous

[joeysteele]

I think 37p in one swoop is too much, I don't and never have smoked but I like being around people who do, it doesn't bother me in the slightest and I have heard of many lung cancer cases and deaths from it too that have been non-smokers.
I am aware there is debate as to passive smoking being harmful to non-smokers however.

Any Govt though would be in big hole if all the smokers stopped smoking at all,it's just smokers and cigarettes are easy targets for Governments.
Also, as to the NHS treating smokers ailments, watch how many staff from Consultants right down through the staffing scale smoke, it would really amaze people.

[Bollo]

Any Govt though would be in big hole if all the smokers stopped smoking at all,it's just smokers and cigarettes are easy targets for Governments.
Also, as to the NHS treating smokers ailments, watch how many staff from Consultants right down through the staffing scale smoke, it would really amaze people.

So true joeysteele, my mum was a nurse both in a regular hosptial and in a psychiatric one, I did work experience in both and almost all of the staff went out to 'count the bricks' (have a fag) as they called it...

Going off topic slightly I remember her telling me at the time that the doctor/ nurse profession had the highest amount of alcoholics/drug addicts than any other profession, apart from acting bizzarely enough

[CharlieO]

Well we know just as much as you do tbh :laugh:

'If the Goevernment are so concerned about promoting health issues then why not make fruit a lot cheaper and as someone mentioned raise tax on foodstuffs with no nutritional value. I love fruit and would buy much more if it wasn't so expensive. '

Is what was replied to. If they really did care about health, they would do exactly that. Make healthy food cheaper and junk more expensive. Of course it wouldnt stop everyone eating junk...but it would allow those who WANT to eat healthy to do so...as at the moment its a lot cheaper to buy a giant bag of chicken nuggets and a bag of chips than it is to buy the fresh ingredients for a healthy meal, and thats not right at all.

At the same time we would be cutting NHS bills too. As if more people ate healthy there would be less obesity related illnesses.

The government do subsidise agricultural production but they do not have the money to just 'make healthy food cheaper'.
They do not have the control over food prices, the free market does. It really has nothing to do with the government and the fact you say they should just make it cheaper is laughable because it is not like they possess a magic wand and can just change the prices of goods.
The whole idea of the market economy is that people who cannot afford goods get excluded from purchasing them. If one want the 'healthier more expensive' goods, one has to earn more money. It is a pretty good scheme in honesty, it can give one the incentive to work.

They are however considering a 'fat-tax' where by food goods with above a certain level of saturated fat will have extra tax implemented. This is because they do care about the disgustingly high obesity levels in the UK in comparison with the rest of Europe. Fatty food has a relatively elastic demand due to the high number of substitutes or alternatives so the tax will end up not generating a huge amount of revenue but more so reducing the weight issues. So the healthier food may well become the cheaper kind in the future.

[Kizzy]

The government do subsidise agricultural production but they do not have the money to just 'make healthy food cheaper'.
They do not have the control over food prices, the free market does. It really has nothing to do with the government and the fact you say they should just make it cheaper is laughable because it is not like they possess a magic wand and can just change the prices of goods.
The whole idea of the market economy is that people who cannot afford goods get excluded from purchasing them. If one want the 'healthier more expensive' goods, one has to earn more money. It is a pretty good scheme in honesty, it can give one the incentive to work.

Someone ring Joseph Rowntree quick!...;)

[Vicky.]

If one want the 'healthier more expensive' goods, one has to earn more money. It is a pretty good scheme in honesty, it can give one the incentive to work.

Yeah, fantastic scheme. Cause the less well off even more problems than they have already, lets add health problems to the list. I get ya. Great :D

[Vicky.]

They are however considering a 'fat-tax' where by food goods with above a certain level of saturated fat will have extra tax implemented. This is because they do care about the disgustingly high obesity levels in the UK in comparison with the rest of Europe.Fatty food has a relatively elastic demand due to the high number of substitutes or alternatives so the tax will end up not generating a huge amount of revenue but more so reducing the weight issues. So the healthier food may well become the cheaper kind in the future.
Well this would be all well and good if it works out like this. However the way I imagine just adding a fat-tax will work out is that everything else stays the same, fatty foods go up, leaving low income families(who currently buy this fatty crap because its all they can afford) struggling to buy anything :S

[CharlieO]

Well this would be all well and good if it works out like this. However the way I imagine just adding a fat-tax will work out is that everything else stays the same, fatty foods go up, leaving low income families(who currently buy this fatty crap because its all they can afford) struggling to buy anything :S

No because the economy doesn't work like that. The reason prices are rising; inflation, is because incomes are rising. It will all work it self out soon enough and we will find that prices are very cheap. However if you actually work out how much food is got from this fatty rubbish in comparison to healthier food it is not very different. It just seems different as generally the unhealthier stuff is nearer to a meal than fresh food is. It is more people being lazy and not being bothered to make the most out of fresh ingredients and wasting a lot of it.

[Smithy]

I think lancaster must the skinniest place in the UK coz i've only seen like 3 people here who i'd class as obese

[Kizzy]

Well this would be all well and good if it works out like this. However the way I imagine just adding a fat-tax will work out is that everything else stays the same, fatty foods go up, leaving low income families(who currently buy this fatty crap because its all they can afford) struggling to buy anything :S

Stuff it im growing my own... i have a huge garden and more than enough room for veg and chickens. All I have to do is watch a few re-runs of the 70s sitcom 'The Good Life' and im sorted! :D

[Vicky.]

Stuff it im growing my own... i have a huge garden and more than enough room for veg and chickens. All I have to do is watch a few re-runs of the 70s sitcom 'The Good Life' and im sorted! :D

I would actually seriously do this is I had a proper garden/allotment :laugh:

My grandad used to grow all his own veg and it tastes a lot better than the stuff you get from the shops too.

[Bollo]

Stuff it im growing my own... i have a huge garden and more than enough room for veg and chickens. All I have to do is watch a few re-runs of the 70s sitcom 'The Good Life' and im sorted! :D

I would love to be able to do that, but unfortunately I'm allergic to all forms of gardening..

[CharlieO]

Vicky, the government cannot focus all their efforts on low-income groups. Everyone in the economy is treated the same in terms of prices and spending and the government has to factor in everyone and make a decision that spreads the benefits as evenly as possible. People on low incomes are most of the time on them for a reason of their own doing and shouldn't be excused because of that. Plus people on higher incomes are taxed more which some would argue as far more unjust than implementing a 'fat-tax'.

[Vicky.]

Vicky, the government cannot focus all their efforts on low-income groups. Everyone in the economy is treated the same in terms of prices and spending and the government has to factor in everyone and make a decision that spreads the benefits as evenly as possible. People on low incomes are most of the time on them for a reason of their own doing and shouldn't be excused because of that. Plus people on higher incomes are taxed more which some would argue as far more unjust than implementing a 'fat-tax'.

LOL. OK.

I think I will leave this now. Your ignorance is astounding.

[Kizzy]

Vicky, the government cannot focus all their efforts on low-income groups. Everyone in the economy is treated the same in terms of prices and spending and the government has to factor in everyone and make a decision that spreads the benefits as evenly as possible. People on low incomes are most of the time on them for a reason of their own doing and shouldn't be excused because of that. Plus people on higher incomes are taxed more which some would argue as far more unjust than implementing a 'fat-tax'.

Thus endeth the socio-economic debate....

[Mrluvaluva]

Vicky, the government cannot focus all their efforts on low-income groups. Everyone in the economy is treated the same in terms of prices and spending and the government has to factor in everyone and make a decision that spreads the benefits as evenly as possible. People on low incomes are most of the time on them for a reason of their own doing and shouldn't be excused because of that. Plus people on higher incomes are taxed more which some would argue as far more unjust than implementing a 'fat-tax'.

How do you work that one out?

[CharlieO]

LOL. OK.

I think I will leave this now. Your ignorance is astounding.

People who work hard and have worked hard at their education generally get higher paid jobs. Education up to 18 is offered free in this country and you will find that generally people on lower incomes did not commit to schooling and got worse qualifications. It is most of the time their own doing. It is not like you (plural) are just selected to be on a low income and did nothing to cause that and did nothing to change that. Yes people may be in too deep to change their qualifications etc but it is down to them as an individual.

[CharlieO]

How do you work that one out?

Pretty simple, people who do not take education seriously find it hard to get a well paid job. Their fault, especially when education is offered free thanks to the tax payers.

[Kizzy]

People who work hard and have worked hard at their education generally get higher paid jobs. Education up to 18 is offered free in this country and you will find that generally people on lower incomes did not commit to schooling and got worse qualifications. It is most of the time their own doing. It is not like you (plural) are just selected to be on a low income and did nothing to cause that and did nothing to change that. Yes people may be in too deep to change their qualifications etc but it is down to them as an individual.

Wow charlie...someones done a right number on you kid :(

[Mrluvaluva]

Pretty simple, people who do not take education seriously find it hard to get a well paid job. Their fault, especially when education is offered free thanks to the tax payers.

I think that is a very narrow minded view as there are lots of people in situations which are not their own fault and not necessarily from a lack of education.

[Niall]

Vicky, the government cannot focus all their efforts on low-income groups. Everyone in the economy is treated the same in terms of prices and spending and the government has to factor in everyone and make a decision that spreads the benefits as evenly as possible. People on low incomes are most of the time on them for a reason of their own doing and shouldn't be excused because of that. Plus people on higher incomes are taxed more which some would argue as far more unjust than implementing a 'fat-tax'.

I don't even know where to start with the incorrectness of this post..

[CharlieO]

I think that is a very narrow minded view as there are lots of people in situations which are not there own fault and not necessarily from a lack of education.

Examples?

[Mrluvaluva]

Examples?

People who have lost their jobs due to the state of the current climate, people who have become ill and cannot work, people with learning difficulties..... I am sure I could think of many more.

[CharlieO]

People who have lost their jobs due to the state of the current climate, people who have become ill and cannot work, people with learning difficulties..... I am sure I could think of many more.

First one fair enough, but in-time that is likely to correct itself. The others may be not from own doing but in both cases they can receive benefits, yes maybe not to the degree they would want but that is just a unfortunate truth. Anyway that forms a hugely minor sector of the population and doesn't really change the fact I was making. I will however state a rephrasement and I will say healthy people on low incomes.

Plus most people on low incomes obtain cars, satellite television and lots of other goods that are considered wants rather than needs. They have not a leg to stand on to complain about not being able to afford food until they give up the majority of goods considered 'luxury'. We were given legs for a reason but the majority of people drive everywhere.

[Mrluvaluva]

First one fair enough, but in-time that is likely to correct itself. The others may be not from own doing but in both cases they can receive benefits, yes maybe not to the degree they would want but that is just a unfortunate truth. Anyway that forms a hugely minor sector of the population and doesn't really change the fact I was making. I will however state a rephrasement and I will say healthy people on low incomes.

Plus most people on low incomes obtain cars, satellite television and lots of other goods that are considered wants rather than needs. They have not a leg to stand on to complain about not being able to afford food until they give up the majority of goods considered 'luxury'. We were given legs for a reason but the majority of people drive everywhere.

Do you have facts and figures or is that supposition?

[CharlieO]

Do you have facts and figures or is that supposition?

Supposition but it is the truth. I bet that well over 90% of low income households own at least one relatively expensive good that could be deemed unnecessary or 'luxury'.

[arista]

Supposition but it is the truth. I bet that well over 90% of low income households own at least one relatively expensive good that could be deemed unnecessary or 'luxury'.

Yes Charlie
Good points


They can Downsize.



Life In The Fast Lane

[Marc]

Charlie a lot of your views are not backed by facts and you can't try to sell them to us as correct if you don't have the facts. It sort of comes across ignorant

[Benjamin]

I actually think this is one of the best budgets to happen for a while. Everyone has been effected, and it is for the greater good. I'm glad the rich have not been hit harder like some want. Just because they earn more does not mean that the budget should penalise them more than the rest. It's not their fault England got into debt, just a few elitists fault. Also, as a smoker, I have no issue with the mass increase in price as I already cut down, this just gives me a reason to cut down further.

[Marc]

I think the main idea behind the increase in the cost of cigarettes is a good thing, people should cut down because it is unhealthy for them. Thats proven. I know it's an addiction and upping the price will make a lot of people either spend more than they usually do or force them to quit.

They should quit. For their own health

[Benjamin]

I think the main idea behind the increase in the cost of cigarettes is a good thing, people should cut down because it is unhealthy for them. Thats proven. I know it's an addiction and upping the price will make a lot of people either spend more than they usually do or force them to quit.

They should quit. For their own health

Indeed, I don't even know why I smoke tbh. It's more habit than enjoyment.

On the child allowance subject (I am not very knowledgeable with that area) but somebody I was speaking too was annoyed that their child benefits would be cut, despite them earning over the 60k barrier. I agree it should be cut. They earn enough and why should they be given money because they decided to have children? They don't need it. It's like me, I'm entitled to working tax credits, but I don't take it as I don't need the money as I earn enough through my own merit. I see a lot of people in our country who expect money for nothing but are not prepared to work hard for it.

[CharlieO]

Charlie a lot of your views are not backed by facts and you can't try to sell them to us as correct if you don't have the facts. It sort of comes across ignorant

They are not backed by facts because the facts have not been gathered or published. But these days people see things as standard or necessary goods when they are in no way that sort. Food, Water, Shelter and Heating are what I would class as important but the fact is the majority of people on low incomes do not spend their money on just those things, they have TV's, iPods, Cars and many more luxury goods which they waste their money on and then they complain that they cannot afford food.

[Jesus.]

It's a typical Torie budget, strip money from the services that affect the poorest in society, but ease the burden on the top bracket.

It's a classic Reagan-esque trickle down economic budget plan. By easing the burden on the top, they make a giant assumption that all these people are in the business of job creation, and by doing so, the only thing preventing the rich from creating jobs is an unfair taxation.

This has been proved numerous times to be false. Entrepreneurs don't work like this. I have my own business, and I've taken a 50% cut in my current income, in order that I can take on 2 staff members. I've taken a short term hit to my salary, because I know in 2/3 years time, they would have paid for themselves, and I'll then me earning around 60% more (based on basic targets).

Everywhere in the country we are asking people to sacrifice, yet this government don't believe that businesses should take a short term hit. How can we take food off the poorest tables, but insist that the top can keep the most expensive caviar?

[Kizzy]

I actually think this is one of the best budgets to happen for a while. Everyone has been effected, and it is for the greater good. I'm glad the rich have not been hit harder like some want. Just because they earn more does not mean that the budget should penalise them more than the rest. It's not their fault England got into debt, just a few elitists fault. Also, as a smoker, I have no issue with the mass increase in price as I already cut down, this just gives me a reason to cut down further.


Who wants that? Personally I don't want anyone to suffer from the outcome of the budget. It just seems strange to me that the country is in such a dire financial situation, how could the government relieve that? ...Tax, why then have they reduced the rate of tax for those earning over £150.000pa?
A 5% drop will cost the country millions and millions, where are they going to recover that money from?
Those on low very low incomes are fine with the rise in personal allowance, its those on a middle income earning over £35'000 pa I feel sorry for those on middle incomes 40% tax rate ....how can that be representative of a fair system...how is it proportional?

[Benjamin]

Who wants that?

Quite a lot of people.

[Jesus.]

Supposition but it is the truth. I bet that well over 90% of low income households own at least one relatively expensive good that could be deemed unnecessary or 'luxury'.

Like what? A playstation? A fridge? A cooker?

What kind of existence asks someone to sit inside a square box? Why don't we lock up all poor people? That way, we can ensure they get 3 square meals a day, but don't have access to an x-box.

I hate this myth that all poor people are sitting on their arses just waiting for government money. Some people are like that, of course. But it's completely ludicrous to suggest that our fellow brothers and sisters are all scroungers.

[joeysteele]

Supposition but it is the truth. I bet that well over 90% of low income households own at least one relatively expensive good that could be deemed unnecessary or 'luxury'.

I don't actually see anything wrong with that if they have an item/s of what could be termed luxury.

The item/s could have been acquired in better times for those concerned or even been gifts from others helping out, often for speople struggling, some people find it easier to give expensive gifts rather than financial help, they may even be items passed on from relatives as they upgrade.

If they are buying such items they will likely be paying heavy interest for them and paying weekly for them,as the only way to have them rather than buying them outright.

I certainly don't begrudge those on low incomes having some 'special' items.

[CharlieO]

Who wants that? Personally I don't want anyone to suffer from the outcome of the budget. It just seems strange to me that the country is in such a dire financial situation, how could the government relieve that? ...Tax, why then have they reduced the rate of tax for those earning over £150.000pa?
A 5% drop will cost the country millions and millions, where are they going to recover that money from?
Those on low very low incomes are fine with the rise in personal allowance, its those on a middle income earning over £35'000 pa I feel sorry for those on middle incomes 40% tax rate ....how can that be representative of a fair system...how is it proportional?

The fact is that one group will always suffer more or benefit more than the other, one decision cannot effect everyone the exact same way otherwise we could be communist.
They will have reduced the rate of tax for the higher income groups because they have the means to dramatically increase spending and cause economic growth which will create more jobs in the future. The government are doing the best they can and it is just annoying when people feel they are targeted by the government when actually all the government is trying to do is fix it for everyone in the long run.

[CharlieO]

I don't actually see anything wrong with that if they have an item/s of what could be termed luxury.

The item/s could have been acquired in better times for those concerned or even been gifts from others helping out, often for speople struggling, some people find it easier to give expensive gifts rather than financial help, they may even be items passed on from relatives as they upgrade.

If they are buying such items they will likely be paying heavy interest for them and paying weekly for them,as the only way to have them rather than buying them outright.

I certainly don't begrudge those on low incomes having some 'special' items.

Well I do when they complain about not being able to afford food. Gifts are another matter, I meant purchasing them for themselves.

[Jesus.]

Well I do when they complain about not being able to afford food. Gifts are another matter, I meant purchasing them for themselves.

Give examples of these luxury items that the poor shouldn't have.

[Kizzy]

Quite a lot of people.

who? I bet theres more on middle incomes want their rate lowered...It should have stayed the same. My dads words keep coming back to me, tories look after their own...the rich.
I think he is right, no matter how many years have gone by between governments their changes always benefit the richest in society, and project a Laissez Faire approach to the poorest in society.

[CharlieO]

Like what? A playstation? A fridge? A cooker?

What kind of existence asks someone to sit inside a square box? Why don't we lock up all poor people? That way, we can ensure they get 3 square meals a day, but don't have access to an x-box.

I hate this myth that all poor people are sitting on their arses just waiting for government money. Some people are like that, of course. But it's completely ludicrous to suggest that our fellow brothers and sisters are all scroungers.

A fridge and a cooker are fair enough as they could be argued both essential and luxury. But a playstation is by no means necessary and if they do not have sufficient money for food then they should not be acquiring those sorts of goods in my opinion.

People in the Uk on supposedly low incomes/benefits are extremely fortunate in comparison to people in LEDC's, who live off less than one US$ a day. Benefit receivers are so incredibly lucky that the government pays them for doing nothing and millions of people round the would would kill to get roughly £10 a day to live off.

[Kazanne]

They are not backed by facts because the facts have not been gathered or published. But these days people see things as standard or necessary goods when they are in no way that sort. Food, Water, Shelter and Heating are what I would class as important but the fact is the majority of people on low incomes do not spend their money on just those things, they have TV's, iPods, Cars and many more luxury goods which they waste their money on and then they complain that they cannot afford food.

Got to say I agree with this :xyxwave:most people i see on benefits etc are usually strolling around smoking,holding a can and using a mobile,none of which are essentials.

[CharlieO]

Give examples of these luxury items that the poor shouldn't have.

Cars (we have legs for a reason), televisions, games consoles, mobile phones, and computers. To name a few.

[Benjamin]

who?


Of course there are people who believe the rich should be hit harder. People on a low income for example. Not all of them, but quite a few. Would you like me to go into the street and find actual respondents for you?

[Kizzy]

The fact is that one group will always suffer more or benefit more than the other, one decision cannot effect everyone the exact same way otherwise we could be communist.
They will have reduced the rate of tax for the higher income groups because they have the means to dramatically increase spending and cause economic growth which will create more jobs in the future. The government are doing the best they can and it is just annoying when people feel they are targeted by the government when actually all the government is trying to do is fix it for everyone in the long run.


What! charlie for someone so young your views really scare me.
How about suggesting they reduce the 40% tax rate to 35%?.....Give them a bit more money to spend eh?

[Kizzy]

Of course there are people who believe the rich should be hit harder. People on a low income for example. Not all of them, but quite a few. Would you like me to go into the street and find actual respondents for you?

Again you ignore 99% of what i said... Yes go out into the street right now, ask everyone you meet if they think reducing the 50p rate was a good idea. Do you know many people who earn over £150,000?

[Jesus.]

Of course there are people who believe the rich should be hit harder. People on a low income for example. Not all of them, but quite a few. Would you like me to go into the street and find actual respondents for you?

It's not just people on low income, to be fair. Many people (including myself) believe in paying our fair share.

Warren Buffet is pushing for his taxes to be raised to help ease the burden in the US.

[Benjamin]

Again you ignore 99% of what i said... Yes go out into the street right now, ask everyone you meet if they think reducing the 50p rate was a good idea. Do you know many people who earn over £150,000?

I'm choosing to ignore the rest of your post because I said some people want the rich hit harder, you asked who, I told you. There are clearly people who do want the rich hit harder, why you feel the need to question that when it's clear some people do.

As for the rest of your post I don't want to discuss it, I really don't have much else to say to you.

[CharlieO]

What! charlie for someone so young your views really scare me.
How about suggesting they reduce the 40% tax rate to 35%?.....Give them a bit more money to spend eh?

Why do they scare you?

They cannot reduce that tax rate because then we will go further into a fiscal deficit and end up like Greece and not be able to pay back our borrowing.
The people who make these decisions are incredibly qualified to do so and make the best possible decision for all. The people who complain just see a very narrow view of it and are often only concerned about the affect it has on them personally.

[Benjamin]

It's not just people on low income, to be fair. Many people (including myself) believe in paying our fair share.

Warren Buffet is pushing for his taxes to be raised to help ease the burden in the US.

Oh, I know. I was just giving her one example.

[Jesus.]

Cars (we have legs for a reason), televisions, games consoles, mobile phones, and computers. To name a few.

Cars can be a necessity, not a luxury.

Do you seriously think that people shouldn't have access to TV's/x-box's or computers? So what exactly would they be doing on a daily basis if they have no access to entertainment?

How do you think that would affect their mental health? Many times these items are bought from catalogs. Aren't clothes a luxury item, too?

[HBB1508]

Being a heavy smoker I'm quite miffed at the increase but it happens every budget so I'm used to it - after 40 years it might be time to contemplate giving up, maybe!!

[CharlieO]

Cars can be a necessity, not a luxury.

Do you seriously think that people shouldn't have access to TV's/x-box's or computers? So what exactly would they be doing on a daily basis if they have no access to entertainment?

How do you think that would affect their mental health? Many times these items are bought from catalogs. Aren't clothes a luxury item, too?

Cars are not a necessity. Humans survived for a very long time without them and there is public transport available.
Once again, humans lived fine without television before the 20th century so why can they not now? Humans in LEDC's continue to live without television in places such as Africa and Asia. It is laughable that you asked what would they be doing throughout the day without 'entertainment', maybe they should be working in that time to try earn more money.

Clothes are a necessity as it is against the law to be naked, but excessive amounts of clothes are luxury.

[Kazanne]

Cars are not a necessity. Humans survived for a very long time without them and there is public transport available.
Once again, humans lived fine without television before the 20th century so why can they not now? Humans in LEDC's continue to live without television in places such as Africa and Asia. It is laughable that you asked what would they be doing throughout the day without 'entertainment', maybe they should be working in that time to try earn more money.

Clothes are a necessity as it is against the law to be naked, but excessive amounts of clothes are luxury.

Can't really argue with this post as I agree,we have had so much over the the years all we want is more,we think we are entitalled to have what we want,and think we are hard done by if we don't have all the things on offer,that is why we hate the budget taking stuff off us,it's akin to taking a toy off a child.

[arista]

I actually think this is one of the best budgets to happen for a while. Everyone has been effected, and it is for the greater good. I'm glad the rich have not been hit harder like some want. Just because they earn more does not mean that the budget should penalise them more than the rest. It's not their fault England got into debt, just a few elitists fault. Also, as a smoker, I have no issue with the mass increase in price as I already cut down, this just gives me a reason to cut down further.


Yes Clever Budget.

Feel The Force.

[Kizzy]

I'm choosing to ignore the rest of your post because I said some people want the rich hit harder, you asked who, I told you. There are clearly people who do want the rich hit harder, why you feel the need to question that when it's clear some people do.

As for the rest of your post I don't want to discuss it, I really don't have much else to say to you.

You have no proof that people on low incomes want the rich to pay more, how is it clear? You have shown me no facts or statistics, it's just your opinion untill you can.

[Kizzy]

Why do they scare you?

They cannot reduce that tax rate because then we will go further into a fiscal deficit and end up like Greece and not be able to pay back our borrowing.
The people who make these decisions are incredibly qualified to do so and make the best possible decision for all. The people who complain just see a very narrow view of it and are often only concerned about the affect it has on them personally.

Any reduction in tax rates is going to affect the economy, I am aware that they are qualified, however it is clear that it does not sit well with certain members of the coalition, why is that do you think,that it divides opinion?
They are educated and informed, therefore their view is not narrow.
I wonder too what the IFS thinks?
http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/375

[MTVN]

Why do they scare you?

They cannot reduce that tax rate because then we will go further into a fiscal deficit and end up like Greece and not be able to pay back our borrowing.
The people who make these decisions are incredibly qualified to do so and make the best possible decision for all. The people who complain just see a very narrow view of it and are often only concerned about the affect it has on them personally.

You think that will happen from reducing the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p?

[CharlieO]

Any reduction in tax rates is going to affect the economy, I am aware that they are qualified, however it is clear that it does not sit well with certain members of the coalition, why is that do you think,that it divides opinion?
They are educated and informed, therefore their view is not narrow.
I wonder too what the IFS thinks?
http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/375

But the people who work for the government are more so and that is why they have that position. Lower income people tend to feel they are victims or are ignored by budget changes. This is not the case, they are bloody lucky to have what they have and really have no reason to complain.

You think that will happen from reducing the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p?

Not necessarily put them into deficit but it will indeed reduce the amount of tax revenue they receive and therefore could spiral into that.

[CharlieO]

You have no proof that people on low incomes want the rich to pay more, how is it clear? You have shown me no facts or statistics, it's just your opinion untill you can.

and you have given him no proof that they don't want that?

[Ninastar]

I do think a luxury tax is a good idea

[MTVN]

Not necessarily put them into deficit but it will indeed reduce the amount of tax revenue they receive and therefore could spiral into that.

Well Osborne did it yesterday after research showed the 50p raises very little extra tax revenue because he argues people find ways to prevent their taxable income creeping into that highest tax bracket, and it also discourages entrepreneurship and success from people who are relied on to create wealth

To be honest I agree with him even though it seems unfair at first glance, there will be a point where increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will just damage the economy instead of helping it

[Livia]

I do think a luxury tax is a good idea

VAT started out as a luxury tax.

[Kizzy]

and you have given him no proof that they don't want that?

Its not down to me to disprove his point, its is his to prove it.

[Kizzy]

[QUOTE=CharlieO;5035545]But the people who work for the government are more so and that is why they have that position. Lower income people tend to feel they are victims or are ignored by budget changes. This is not the case, they are bloody lucky to have what they have and really have no reason to complain.

On the contrary, the lowest earners are better off by raising their personal allowance. its the 40% tax bracket i feel sorry for another 300'000 will be affected next year when the rate is lowered to £41'450 .
Is this fair... Do they have reason to complain?

[Marc]

Indeed, I don't even know why I smoke tbh. It's more habit than enjoyment.

On the child allowance subject (I am not very knowledgeable with that area) but somebody I was speaking too was annoyed that their child benefits would be cut, despite them earning over the 60k barrier. I agree it should be cut. They earn enough and why should they be given money because they decided to have children? They don't need it. It's like me, I'm entitled to working tax credits, but I don't take it as I don't need the money as I earn enough through my own merit. I see a lot of people in our country who expect money for nothing but are not prepared to work hard for it.

Totally agree with child care tax, 60k is a ridiculous amount of money to be earning

[Kizzy]

Totally agree with child care tax, 60k is a ridiculous amount of money to be earning

Its referring to child benefit the government capped it at £42'000ish
anyone earning over that did not qualify. Now i think its been raised to £50'000 1% reduction for every £100 above that amount. With a full cap at £60'000

[Marc]

Its referring to child benefit the government capped it at £42'000ish
anyone earning over that did not qualify. Now i think its been raised to £50'000 1% reduction for every £100 above that amount. With a full cap at £60'000

Yeah I got that, I think earning £60,000 is a lot! I think if you have 60k then you'd be able to pay for stuff that your child needs.

[Livia]

Its not down to me to disprove his point, its is his to prove it.

This is not a court of law. No one has to produce evidence to anyone.

[Kizzy]

This is not a court of law. No one has to produce evidence to anyone.

Yeah charlie... :)

[Kizzy]

Yeah I got that, I think earning £60,000 is a lot! I think if you have 60k then you'd be able to pay for stuff that your child needs.

You would think so eh mark?
And the cut in the 50p rate is just an apeasement measure for all the high earners with 'creative accountants' who evade paying tax.

[michael21]

No it helps Stop Smokers
Less Deaths

the only think is smokers will bye them before 6pm big pay day for the shops you should changes the thread title as it is now out of date :hmph:

[Vicky.]

http://www.anorak.co.uk/316701/money/smoking-does-not-cost-the-nhs-money-nor-does-obesity.html/

Just came up on my FB feed. Interesting :laugh:

[Mrluvaluva]

Cars are not a necessity. Humans survived for a very long time without them and there is public transport available.
Once again, humans lived fine without television before the 20th century so why can they not now? Humans in LEDC's continue to live without television in places such as Africa and Asia. It is laughable that you asked what would they be doing throughout the day without 'entertainment', maybe they should be working in that time to try earn more money.

Clothes are a necessity as it is against the law to be naked, but excessive amounts of clothes are luxury.

They actually are for some people who depend on them for getting around and who otherwise be confined to their homes. And please don't tell me they can utilise public transport.

In regards to the comment "Once again, humans lived fine without television before the 20th century so why can they not now? Humans in LEDC's continue to live without television in places such as Africa and Asia. It is laughable that you asked what would they be doing throughout the day without 'entertainment', maybe they should be working in that time to try earn more money."

I don't actually think it was asked what would people do for entertainment "throughout the day" but actually "on a daily basis". People on low incomes can work during the day and watch tv in the evening, or vice versa. I would not begrudge anyone for having a standard tv. Maybe they could work day and night though to accommodate such a luxury though...

[arista]

the only think is smokers will bye them before 6pm big pay day for the shops you should changes the thread title as it is now out of date


Think as in thinking


Bye as in Bye Bye.

[Kizzy]

Lol! very interesting vicky:D
was just skimming through th budget again and it seems they have done what livia suggested...An obesity tax (i agree its a good thing) I would maybe call it a satfat tax though. Fast food outlets and GREGGS are to put the 20% VAT rate on their goods....

[michael21]

Think as in thinking


Bye as in Bye Bye.

yes no go a pay your tax :nono:

[CharlieO]

Its not down to me to disprove his point, its is his to prove it.

Says who?

Yeah charlie... :)

Oh yes because who was it who asked for proof first?? Was it me.... no. Was it you.... oh yea that's who it was, it was you. :rolleyes:

[Kizzy]

Says who?



Oh yes because who was it who asked for proof first?? Was it me.... no. Was it you.... oh yea that's who it was, it was you. :rolleyes:

Don't get cross charlie :bawling:

[CharlieO]

They actually are for some people who depend on them for getting around and who otherwise be confined to their homes. And please don't tell me they can utilise public transport.

In regards to the comment "Once again, humans lived fine without television before the 20th century so why can they not now? Humans in LEDC's continue to live without television in places such as Africa and Asia. It is laughable that you asked what would they be doing throughout the day without 'entertainment', maybe they should be working in that time to try earn more money."

I don't actually think it was asked what would people do for entertainment "throughout the day" but actually "on a daily basis". People on low incomes can work during the day and watch tv in the evening, or vice versa. I would not begrudge anyone for having a standard tv. Maybe they could work day and night though to accommodate such a luxury though...

It is still an unnecessary good. They can dance, they can make up stories, they can sing, they can do anything else the millions of people in the world do who don't own a bloody tv. For people to even think tv is necessary is so absolutely ridiculous it is unreal, is that really the culture we are in, that life is only deemed liveable if we have TV. For gods sake, really.

[CharlieO]

Don't get cross charlie :bawling:

I am in no way cross. :crazy:

[Benjamin]

You have no proof that people on low incomes want the rich to pay more, how is it clear? You have shown me no facts or statistics, it's just your opinion untill you can.

Well, I cannot get the people I talk to to speak on here, so you be as idle as you want. I did also state that NOT ALL felt like that. I would search online to find people who felt like that, but I really don't care enough. I offered my opinion on this subject, if you don't like it or disagree with it, then I'm afraid that is tough.

[Kizzy]

I am in no way cross. :crazy:

Im in no way crazy charlie...Not today anyway..:)

[Kizzy]

Well, I cannot get the people I talk to to speak on here, so you be as idle as you want. I did also state that NOT ALL felt like that. I would search online to find people who felt like that, but I really don't care enough. I offered my opinion on this subject, if you don't like it or disagree with it, then I'm afraid that is tough.


Ok, i understand it is your opinion. I will ask you to explain this comment in your post though, who can be as idle as they want?....

[Mrluvaluva]

It is still an unnecessary good. They can dance, they can make up stories, they can sing, they can do anything else the millions of people in the world do who don't own a bloody tv. For people to even think tv is necessary is so absolutely ridiculous it is unreal, is that really the culture we are in, that life is only deemed liveable if we have TV. For gods sake, really.

I never said it was a necessity if you read my post? Same as a washing machine isn't necessary. Or many other items. Maybe they could read, but I suppose books are deemed as luxuries. Maybe listen to music, but then again stereos, mp3 players and cd's are again luxuries. Dancing, singing and making up stories? Hmm. Interesting. Do you mean in their own homes? I don't know about you but I would not fancy singing to myself all night and telling myself stories.

[Kizzy]

It is still an unnecessary good. They can dance, they can make up stories, they can sing, they can do anything else the millions of people in the world do who don't own a bloody tv. For people to even think tv is necessary is so absolutely ridiculous it is unreal, is that really the culture we are in, that life is only deemed liveable if we have TV. For gods sake, really.

Charlie i appreciate you are very young, alongside economics can i suggest you look into sociology?
It may, or may not give you a different perspective on this topic.

[joeysteele]

I doubt personally that even the most hard hearted politician would begrudge anyone on low incomes having a TV.
Of course people didn't have one and other things decades ago but times change and things progress.
We all have things we couldn't have ages ago.

[Mrluvaluva]

I stocked up last week with a couple of packets, but was surprised when I went into Asda today and my cigarettes are still the same price, where as they have gone up in other outlets. No idea why?

[MTVN]

I stocked up last week with a couple of packets, but was surprised when I went into Asda today and my cigarettes are still the same price, where as they have gone up in other outlets. No idea why?

Hmm they might have reduced the price that they sell them at so the tax increase makes no change to the price, would mean they make less profit themselves though

[InOne]

Pall Mall are still the same for me

[Smithy]

They will be till the new ones are in production properly

[Mrluvaluva]

All the other supermarkets have gone up though Smithy?

[Kizzy]

right..im sick of all you smokers now...I demand you stop! ok?

[MTVN]

Don't think it would be anything to do with not having new ones, they were all supposed to go up in price 6pm the day it was announced in the budget I think

[Mrluvaluva]

Sorry Kizzy it did not work. Was worth a try though.

Prices compared....

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t277/avulavulrm/fags-1.jpg

[MTVN]

Even the fags at Waitrose are more expensive

[Mrluvaluva]

I know. It's cheaper to get them delivered than it is to buy them instore!