[Marc]

Good, smoking is bad.

[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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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

[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

[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.]

Originally Posted by 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'.

LOL. OK.

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

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 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'.

Thus endeth the socio-economic debate....

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by 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'.

How do you work that one out?

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

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.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

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.

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

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?

[Niall]

Originally Posted by 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'.

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

[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

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

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 most people i see on benefits etc are usually strolling around smoking,holding a can and using a mobile,none of which are essentials.

[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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

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]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Who wants that?

Quite a lot of people.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

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.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by kizzy

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?

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by kizzy

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

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?

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by kizzy

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.