ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums
Page 6 of 7 « First 45 6 7
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)
-   Serious Debates & News (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   UK Budget : 37p on Fags from 6PM (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198493)

Jesus. 22-03-2012 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieO (Post 5035341)
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 22-03-2012 10:26 AM
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 22-03-2012 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ (Post 5035373)
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 22-03-2012 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieO (Post 5035402)
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 22-03-2012 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukturtle (Post 5035302)
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 22-03-2012 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukturtle (Post 5035352)
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 22-03-2012 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieO (Post 5035353)
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 22-03-2012 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieO (Post 5035353)
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 22-03-2012 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kizzy (Post 5035523)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 5035530)
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 22-03-2012 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kizzy (Post 5035501)
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 22-03-2012 01:02 PM
I do think a luxury tax is a good idea

MTVN 22-03-2012 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieO (Post 5035545)
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 22-03-2012 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninastar (Post 5035557)
I do think a luxury tax is a good idea
VAT started out as a luxury tax.

Kizzy 22-03-2012 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieO (Post 5035548)
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 22-03-2012 02:52 PM
[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 22-03-2012 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukturtle (Post 5035308)
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 22-03-2012 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc (Post 5035686)
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 22-03-2012 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kizzy (Post 5035705)
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 22-03-2012 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kizzy (Post 5035662)
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 22-03-2012 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia (Post 5035726)
This is not a court of law. No one has to produce evidence to anyone.
Yeah charlie... :)

Kizzy 22-03-2012 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc (Post 5035709)
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 22-03-2012 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by arista (Post 5032841)
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. 22-03-2012 03:48 PM
http://www.anorak.co.uk/316701/money...-obesity.html/

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

Mrluvaluva 22-03-2012 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieO (Post 5035402)
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 22-03-2012 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael21 (Post 5035780)
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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:55 PM.
Page 6 of 7 « First 45 6 7
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.