Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by syciprider, Mar 13, 2008.
He did not quote the Sun. The headline from the Sun article only was quoted in the AP story.
Back on topic: It's sad to see this type of Puritanism in effect, regardless of country. Even sadder is the number of people that will find a way to rationalize this type of tax, be it "for the common good" or "hey, it's just a minor increase."
I'd reply, but I'd get banned for sure. So I'm not replying.
The same criticism applies - uncritical use of poor sources!
Quoting a humorous headline does not constitute using the newspaper as a "source." You should also note that it was the AP, not the OP, that used that headline.
Another way to look at it is we have socialised medicine, where alcohol causes quite a strain on the system. And it is just a minor increase, its a drop in the bucket overall.
You Americans moan and complain whenever anyone disagrees with anything about your country, yet its fair game to look down your noses at everyone elses?
Wow, such a general ignorance of the way countries differing tax bases operates is unexpected from you. Consumption taxes are far from uncommon (have a look at the OECD tax base information), nor is the taxing of "luxury" items such as cigarettes, alcohol, cars etc. To fund the government projects / works / social services, the government needs to collect tax. Some choose to do it through consumption tax, some through income tax, some through inheritance tax, property tax, duties on imports etc. Placing a tax on luxury items is nothing new, its been done for years. Adjusting tax rates to fund governements needs is nothing new. Rationalising this is easy - its a rational decision. Not getting sucked in by the "talk-back" radio crowd, by the looks of things in this thread, is the difficult part.
Makes no difference to me!
You Brits drink.....alot. Maybe even more than than us. Is beer consider a luxury?
Your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the OTHER reason for taxes: social engineering. There are always groups of people that would like to limit, or eliminate certain behaviors, like drinking, smoking and the use of gas guzzling cars. Knowing that an outright ban would raise the ire of citizens everywhere, they take the next logical step: tax. The plan is simple: slowly increase the taxes on the behavior you desire to change until the behavior becomes so expensive that the majority decide to cease that behavior. Since you don't want to make people aware of your plan, you claim to use the funds for something no one can disagree with: childern and the elderly.
Here's the beautiful part of the plan. Not only will the puritans support it, but the sheeple will simply nod their heads, dismiss the tax as a minor inconvenience, and continue on with their lives. Years later, when the tax on those "luxury items" has become unbearable, the same sheeple will whine and complain about the outrageous level of taxes, and ponder how "the government" got them into that situation.
Sure, those tax dollars may be used to fund the stated programs, but there is no correlation between the behavior being taxed and the program that will benefit from it. Furthermore, there are much more direct and efficient ways to increases taxes to support those programs, but that would ignore the social engineering plan that underlies the tax scheme. Ever notice that these taxes are rarely used for a corresponding social program, like smoking cessation programs, AA groups, healthcare for those suffering from behavior related issues or green research?
Using taxes for social engineering purposes has been used since the dawn of civilization. The only thing I find amazing is that people continue to fall for the rhetoric every time.
Of course not.
True. ESPN Radio has absolutely corrupted my outlook on life. Mark, I'll speak for myself on this one (take note, those who are quick to lump opposing viewpoints into one basket) and give my opinion on taxes in general.
They are necessary. Adjusting them to fund government needs is a no-brainer, too. My issue is that the cart is going before the horse. I'd like to see a little efficiency with the money we have before more is taken. How about spending less on the stupid and not-so-wise **** and using THAT money before you raise taxes?
I'd have thought you would be lobbying for the same thing. Isn't your governemnt spending a lot of money on a very unpopular foreign excursion? Wouldn't it make more sense to "defund" that disaster and use the saved money to buy whatever the alcohol/tobacco tax was going to?
When I see people so eager to support a new tax, I honestly have to wonder how much thought they put into it. Is it just a knee jerk "smokes bad, tax more" thing? It sure seems like it. I mean, you argument is a bit more intelligent than that, but it still seems to be missing a huge gap. How about asking that your money be spent more wisely before you pile onto another tax? Why are people so willing to throw money into a pit without any appreciable increase in quality of life or government?
"Social engineering" is part of thte rationalisation I was talking about. Its not really "falling for it" when it's part of the stated purpose is it? Here's an analogy to this situation, there's a doorway with a giant sign saying "watch your step", someone trips over the door. Were they tricked in falling over, or were they just stupid. Your post is acting like there isn't a giant sign there, unfortunately in this case, there's a giant neon flashing sign saying what the rationalisation is - you're just pretending its not there!
Alsohol has always been highly taxed in the UK as a way of social engineering and revenue, ever since William III (late 17th century). Its nothing new - excise on alcohol is one of the oldest forms of taxation in the world. But let the "OMG the government" crowd run around with their hands in the air. Its what they do best!
Those of us who are required to pay attention to things like the Annual Budget as part of their employment actually do know where all the money is going and how its getting used - it is largely transparent. The problem is to go into it would become way too political. Lets just say I agree with the "saving" you propose in principle, but the reality is that cutting costs there means putting peoples lives at risk who don't deserve it.
Here is the actual budget statement which explains how the additional money raised will be used :
"And I hope all parties will support and match these new plans when I explain where the additional money is going.
The Budget proposed that investment in education and skills will rise to £74 billion in 2010, increasing education spending as a share of national income rising from 4.5 per cent ten years ago to 5.6 per cent.
Today I can also announce, in addition, further investment providing a quarter of a billion fund to ensure all children at school are ready to learn and benefit from personalised support.
And I can do more on the NHS. Over the next three years the money we spend will rise again by more than its historic rate: on average, by 4 per cent above inflation.
This new investment will allow us to ensure a maximum wait of 18 weeks from referral to hospital, increased access to GP services and cleaner hospitals.
With the additional £2 billion of money I have available, I can now announce that investment in health in England will rise from £90 billion this year to a total of £110 billion in 2010.
I could have spent that £2 billion on an inheritance tax reduction for the few wealthiest estates.
Instead I am able to raise the inheritance tax allowance and invest more in schools and hospitals for all the British people.
This means in education to help build a new primary school in every local area by 2010.
And in health, when added to its budget, this will deliver over 20 new hospitals, 150 new walk-in centres open 7 days a week, 100 new GP practices, and aim to ensure a regular check up for every adult by the NHS – improving the quality of patient care across the country.
Not unaffordable tax cuts which deprive public services of the money they need; But an affordable tax cut, improved investment in health and education, founded on economic stability.
I commend this statement to the House."
Just to establish the facts...
My point is that no matter how transparent a budget is, the application of funding is riddled with inefficiency. In a previous professional life, I had the "pleasure" of access to the annual budget of 2 million and where every penny went and the "pleasure" of watching sizeable chunks of it get blown in areas that could have done with much less.
I guess I'm saying transparency doesn't equal efficiency. You're right that my previous suggestion of saving money is a little complicated. I'm sure there are other areas that could be "defunded" with less fanfare and loss of life. God knows there are plenty here. It just blows my mind the way people are willing to throw their money at an organization that has consistently shown that it can't spend money right. The idea that those same people are happy to throw more of their neighbor's money into the same cluster**** is mind numbingly stupid.
Here's the "hidden social engineering". They did such a good job of hiding it, its in the middle of the Chancellors speech! Who would ever think to look for information about the "secret governemnt hidden social engineering program" in the middle of the public speech made by the Chancellor to Parliament about the Budget. Hell, they must all be patting themselves on teh back about how well hidden their motives were! Hoorah!
Watch out....they are a crafty bunch!
I'll commend them on the actual appropriation of the funds into the areas declared in 2010. Same as I do with our dolts.
LOL, what a rib.........you start talking about unnecessary spending and total wastes of money, and a John McCain ad shows up at the bottom of the page.
I'm not sure that it is as inefficient as you think. Could it be improved? Absolutely - by a long shot- , but the services provided by the Governments I have lived under have not been as broken as people would want them to be for the purposes of their arguments. Certainly, with the size of the services that need to be run, they do a reasonably good job (whatever size of the politcal spectrum is in power). I think this conversation would otherwise turn too political to continue any further.
Entirely possible, but I return (and hopefully end on) to my original point: No one should be applauding a tax increase while their government hemorrhages the last increase you applauded.