You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Budget 2016
March 28 2024 3.23pm

Budget 2016

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

 

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 16 Mar 16 3.45pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

A good budget for business, the better off and the treasury.

Then I saw John McDonnell on TV and suddenly realised that it wasn't so bad after all.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (16 Mar 2016 3.14pm)

Almost a certainty. Although business will exclude the self employed.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View We are goin up!'s Profile We are goin up! Flag Coulsdon 16 Mar 16 3.48pm Send a Private Message to We are goin up! Add We are goin up! as a friend

Not surprised at all that he's cut corporation tax. If he's going to hike the living wage up, it makes sense to free up that shortfall for companies with a tax cut otherwise jobs would be lost. Makes sense to me, too, much better than taxing more then churning it back out through the state which is woefully inefficient.

Sugary drinks levy is a f*cking nonsense, though. If people want a can of coke they won't care if it's an extra 10p for god's sake the problem will not go away. Another example of a nanny state telling people what they can say, think, smoke and now eat and drink. F*ck off and leave us alone, please.

 


The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View JohnB's Profile JohnB Flag 16 Mar 16 3.54pm Send a Private Message to JohnB Add JohnB as a friend

Originally posted by We are goin up!

Not surprised at all that he's cut corporation tax. If he's going to hike the living wage up, it makes sense to free up that shortfall for companies with a tax cut otherwise jobs would be lost. Makes sense to me, too, much better than taxing more then churning it back out through the state which is woefully inefficient.

Sugary drinks levy is a f*cking nonsense, though. If people want a can of coke they won't care if it's an extra 10p for god's sake the problem will not go away. Another example of a nanny state telling people what they can say, think, smoke and now eat and drink. F*ck off and leave us alone, please.

Completely disagree with this. Britain is slowly but surely turning into a bunch a fat b@stards and anything that can be done to discourage people from consuming ridiculous amounts of sugar is a good thing. At least if they are going to drink it and pay the extra it will go towards promoting healthy lifestyles through physical activity in schools.

My missus is a nurse and then number of people that are in for major surgery due to the crap they eat and drink is ridiculous.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 16 Mar 16 4.00pm

Originally posted by We are goin up!

Not surprised at all that he's cut corporation tax. If he's going to hike the living wage up, it makes sense to free up that shortfall for companies with a tax cut otherwise jobs would be lost. Makes sense to me, too, much better than taxing more then churning it back out through the state which is woefully inefficient.

Sugary drinks levy is a f*cking nonsense, though. If people want a can of coke they won't care if it's an extra 10p for god's sake the problem will not go away. Another example of a nanny state telling people what they can say, think, smoke and now eat and drink. F*ck off and leave us alone, please.

I think its actually not a bad idea, given that their is a very large cost to the UK in terms of sugar driven obesity in the UK, the mistake is limiting it to just drinks. Secondly, sugar is an addictive substance, one of the most addictive known not man, which has implications similar to both smoking and alcohol in that they have a 'hidden cost' borne by society that isn't recouped.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View We are goin up!'s Profile We are goin up! Flag Coulsdon 16 Mar 16 4.05pm Send a Private Message to We are goin up! Add We are goin up! as a friend

Originally posted by JohnB

Completely disagree with this. Britain is slowly but surely turning into a bunch a fat b@stards and anything that can be done to discourage people from consuming ridiculous amounts of sugar is a good thing. At least if they are going to drink it and pay the extra it will go towards promoting healthy lifestyles through physical activity in schools.

My missus is a nurse and then number of people that are in for major surgery due to the crap they eat and drink is ridiculous.


All valid points, and you're probably right. I just hate the idea of a government telling me what I can and can't eat, drink, smoke, ingest... Anything that directly affects me should be up to me IMO. Besides, if all the fatties die early there's less pensions to pay so happy days.

Jamie Oliver is a c*nt as well.

 


The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View We are goin up!'s Profile We are goin up! Flag Coulsdon 16 Mar 16 4.07pm Send a Private Message to We are goin up! Add We are goin up! as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I think its actually not a bad idea, given that their is a very large cost to the UK in terms of sugar driven obesity in the UK, the mistake is limiting it to just drinks. Secondly, sugar is an addictive substance, one of the most addictive known not man, which has implications similar to both smoking and alcohol in that they have a 'hidden cost' borne by society that isn't recouped.


Got to save something for the next budget, where an announcement on a similar to tax on sugary foods can be expected. It's like when they say fuel duty will rise next year so that they can then subsequently freeze it again.

 


The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 16 Mar 16 4.10pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Almost a certainty. Although business will exclude the self employed.

Mine doesn't.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 16 Mar 16 4.32pm

Originally posted by We are goin up!


All valid points, and you're probably right. I just hate the idea of a government telling me what I can and can't eat, drink, smoke, ingest... Anything that directly affects me should be up to me IMO. Besides, if all the fatties die early there's less pensions to pay so happy days.

Jamie Oliver is a c*nt as well.

Actually I entirely agree with you on this, however I would suggest that isn't the case here. Its not a criminalisation of sugar, in say the way that cannabis or ecstasy are, but a levy to raise revenue on a substance that is harmful, and unregulated.

I also think a similar approach used with alcohol and tobacco to regulation of the recreational drug market would ultimately be in the best interests of society, drug users and non-users (where in the state or state licenced agents can provide recreational drugs for sale, through licenced outlets, from which the state takes fixed levy - just like with booze).

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 16 Mar 16 4.34pm

Originally posted by Stuk

Mine doesn't.

Having now been through the budget, I'm curiously better off than I was, at least on three aspects of the budget, which will probably offset changes made in the pervious one.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rushdeneagle's Profile Rushdeneagle Flag Gainsborough, Lincolnshire 16 Mar 16 4.39pm Send a Private Message to Rushdeneagle Add Rushdeneagle as a friend

The BBC had an accountant chappy on who explained why this is an election budget, Very interesting. The chancellor has brought forward capital expenditure so that he can spend virtually nill in 2020. He has let companies off corporation tax for three years, supposedly to give them time to adjust. What it does it saves up that income for him until 2020. This way he earns more and spends less, therefore being able to say that HE has got the country into the black.
This man has really learned his trade over the years. We have not had more of a magician as a chancellor, er, since the last one.
Politics, load of bollitics.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Cucking Funt's Profile Cucking Funt Flag Clapham on the Back 16 Mar 16 4.57pm Send a Private Message to Cucking Funt Add Cucking Funt as a friend

I hope Osborne gets bowel cancer and dies slowly and in agony. Vile c*nt.

 


Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 16 Mar 16 5.01pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

I hope Osborne gets bowel cancer and dies slowly and in agony. Vile c*nt.

Don't mince words.
Tell us how you really feel.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Budget 2016