kidlewis

I have always done this sticker book for the world cups since 1990. Anyone else collected these through the years? I have unfortunately never got one 100% complete. I am not sure on the release date but it is surely going to be soon. Cannot wait. It's the moment I start getting truly excited. 64 days until the world cup starts. AWESOME!

You assume wrong on my part. I mean more money in my pocket, to spend on what I wish, bills, food, drink, clothes and petrol. All of which has tax on it. There are plenty of other ways of raising £6bn than just a blanket NI rise. Which will also be passed onto the consumer in increased prices anyway.

6 billion is chicken feed when it comes to government spending. Adonis said it was nearly half of his transport budget. According to 2009 figures of £23bn for transport, how is 6 half of 23? is he retarded? or has the transport budget been slashed since 2008? I agree with Awol that keeping money in the economy rather than in treasury coffers is the way forward. Unless it's new start up businesses and sectors (e.g. like the growing green energy sector) where government investment, even if it is small can kick start something positive. and remember that government investment, that creates jobs more often than not gives them a rebate in the form of PAYE and NI of about 20%. Adonis now trying to get out of the fact that they have recycled yet another red herring referendum in their manifesto, which they said they would do in 1997. Referendum + Labour = nothing.

Shouldn't personal responsibility also be advocated for many of the rich to pay their taxes and not move money abroad to fund their selfish, greedy lifestyles? If they move their money abroad then yes. If they move abroad as well then it's fair enough.

Personal responsibility is one thing, judging it on ones fiscal status is quite another. It's complete bollocks. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter what social class you are from. But if apathy leads you to not working and therefore living off benefits because it's the lazy option, and then you decide to have children as well. Then you're an idiot. If however you cannot find work and never have been able to, then there is not really much choice in terms of whether you can provide for a family or not.

well Labour have failed in that department as well.

what about....Cabdurys? wonder what that would look like? perhaps the new owners to try and get some local PR behind them?

i'd be half inclined to drive to their HQ and give them the cash if they want to be pedantic.

on the same arguemnt if you have no cash you shouldn't be having children and thus we can scrap child benefit and save a few quid So are you saying all these people shouldn't use council services because they can't afford to pay their council tax? Is this a choice? I think he is saying don't have kids if you can't afford/support them. and certainly don't allow the government to throw a cheque at you when you do. Child benefit goes to all - so what (if you take his words literally) he is saying is that the poor shouldn't breed. I meant the Child Trust Fund. That shouldn't exist.

That's not an asset tax - that's called road tax as I tried to break out above. An asset tax would be a tax on everything you own. If the state protects your assets, then those with more assets should pay more. but I argue people who use the services more should also pay an increased amount. I.e. if you work and smoke heavily, then your NI goes up. It should also be linked to how you behave to a certain degree.

'Simply gets taken away'? Okay, it might appear that we haven't moved too far from feudal times in that the really wealthy are still getting away with paying little or no taxes and the ordinary people are bearing the burden of paying for foreign wars (or, as they always have been, the foibles of our leaders) but that really isn't the essence of taxation policy in the modern world. ok well perhaps not taken away but I certainly don't feel there is ANY point in me getting a pay increase to over the £37,401 40% band unless I am heading way over it. Why is it OK for someone earning 30k to pay 30% yet someone earning £7k more to pay double? I can certainly see why people try and get round it when they are around that threshold figure. I understand people on moster salaries trying to get round it is more of an injustice, but certainly if I am lucky enough to earn £37k or even up to £45k per year, I', going to try and get round that extra 20% if I can. Yes If I am super lucky and the company goes sky high and I end up somehow getting £70k-100k a year then most certainly will be happy to pay the 40%. I'm sorry if you know this, but your post doesn't make it clear. You only pay the 40% on the amount you earn over the higher rate threshold, as it's a marginal tax. You don't get to £40K then pay 40% on the whole amount. Yeah I did know it was on earnings over £40k but why should I work hard to try and get paid more when I know more will go out of my pocket? I certainly think in the future I will try and get my car and various personal purchases through the company to save myself 17.5% VAT and also a few "nights out entertaining clients" too.

on the same arguemnt if you have no cash you shouldn't be having children and thus we can scrap child benefit and save a few quid So are you saying all these people shouldn't use council services because they can't afford to pay their council tax? Is this a choice? I think he is saying don't have kids if you can't afford/support them. and certainly don't allow the government to throw a cheque at you when you do.

No mention of road tax in my thread - it was regarding asset tax. So instead of the car example, let's say your house. You pay for the police and the fire services to protect your house from burglary and arson or even mishap, and the army exists to protect your house from being overrun with goths and anarchists; so your surrey mansion is worth £1m and my northfield 2 bed is worth £140k, so you should pay 7 times more in tax - as the state exists to preserve your asset value. Go on explain how you envisage a fair tax - in numbers. everyone pays the same percentage of tax. for income. as for asset tax. As Tony says you keep road tax the same and you use fuel duty to hit the more fuel hungry cars. If you want to tax cars damage to the environment then you make people pay a lump sum when they buy the car. Not every year. If you want a mansion tax based on your system then council tax has to go. I would argue though that if I live in a million pound house but never call the fire, police, army and have private health care. And someone living in a small cheaper house, commits crime, puts people (and themselves) in hospital more than the norm, smokes and drinks excessively, then they should pay more than I do.

'Simply gets taken away'? Okay, it might appear that we haven't moved too far from feudal times in that the really wealthy are still getting away with paying little or no taxes and the ordinary people are bearing the burden of paying for foreign wars (or, as they always have been, the foibles of our leaders) but that really isn't the essence of taxation policy in the modern world. ok well perhaps not taken away but I certainly don't feel there is ANY point in me getting a pay increase to over the £37,401 40% band unless I am heading way over it. Why is it OK for someone earning 30k to pay 30% yet someone earning £7k more to pay double? I can certainly see why people try and get round it when they are around that threshold figure. I understand people on moster salaries trying to get round it is more of an injustice, but certainly if I am lucky enough to earn £37k or even up to £45k per year, I', going to try and get round that extra 20% if I can. Yes If I am super lucky and the company goes sky high and I end up somehow getting £70k-100k a year then most certainly will be happy to pay the 40%.

except you wouldn't set it like that the cap is on the total amount of tax you pay not a flat tax rate for all Spookily enough that is exactly what the above example does - no one pays more than £40k tax. I think that's what you call a cap. I say again, how would you structure such an offering. unwashed students protesting about a tax that the underlying principle of was fairer than the current council tax system of today . If council tax is indeed a tax on services, surely it should be in proportion to their use ? in theroy the poll tax epitomised fairness and equality something which New Labour are obsessed with ..wonder how all those protesters voted the past few times out ? In theory the poll tax was a regressive middle ages tax regime which was laughed out of existence in th e 90s. So let's try again, if we're looking for fair - let's go for the Levi option of an asset tax. The state exists to protect people and their assets - ie someone doesn't rob your bently vs robbing my punto. Your asset is worth more than mine therefore as any insurance policy goes, the more you are protecting the more you pay. It's just an extenstion of the mansion tax idea and it means everyone pays their fair share in proportion to their use. but it should go on the value of it when purchased not the value it is now. Otherwise that IS an unfair mansion tax.

I've always been more in favour of a capped rate of tax which is fairer for all ..i.e you all pay the same , after all we do all use the same amount of resources on the country .. fine if you want to tax people more for buying a big house or a big car (petrol duty etc) as they are lifestyle choices take them or leave them so to speak So what's the CAP? Say we set it at 40% of all earnings capped at £40k So someone earning £10k pays £4k tax (40%) So someone earning £25k pays £10k tax (40%) So someone earning £50k pays £20k tax (40%) So someone earning £100k pays £40k tax (40%) So someone earning £200k pays £40k tax (20%) So someone earning £2,000k pays £40k tax (2%) Obviously fairer for all lol What was it that brought maggie down again? how about you close up all these loop holes then and charge people a flat 25% for anyone earning between £20,000 and a billion? I don't see why (if I am lucky enough) to move up to beyond the basic tax rate why another 20% should be taken out of my wage. I am working my ass off now to try and move up in the world and if it simply gets taken away through another 20% going onto government coffers then I will be a bit pi**ed in all honesty. No wonder people want to avoid this countries 50% tax by "living" elsewhere in order to avoid it. it's been proven by the current government that their stance on re-distribution of wealth is misguided and failing. Child Trust Fund is one such red herring pile of £500m turd. I should know because I got a £250 cheque about 7 months ago. Really bad idea I think. £500m much better spent on schools (in particular on a more varied education, Art, Music, Sport, Politics and computer science) because lets face it those lessons are going to be hit before maths, science, english.

Eon will be a good bet. Plenty of cash.

It's not like Sky are going to stage walkouts and critisise the Conservatives lack of support for their situation is it.

I don't think they really need to comment on it tbh.

I have to agree with Osbourne on the NI increase. If Darlings "so called" efficiency savings amount to £12bn (which I bet they don't) then why take more money from us first before stopping the waste? It was one of the few really good points Osbourne made to counter Darling. And he is right. Stop wasting our money, then you can ask for a bit more. Does anyone know how much revenue VAT brings to the government? and how much more would they get if they upped it to 18%? I never understood the randomness of 17.5% VAT. why not go the whole way and put it at £17.5469321%? EDIT: just checked 2008-2009 figures on Wiki. If sales would be the same for 2010 as for 2009 on VAT related items. a 0.5% increase to 18% would yield nearly £2.4bn. Not a bad start. chipping away nicely. I think upping it straight to 20% would be a mistake. I also think possibly looking at allowing somewhere like Blackpool to house a mega casino might be another welcomed chunk in further revenue. By the looks of things Inheritence tax doesn't bring in much at all. It's half the amount the government get in duty in fags so I think upping it won't do much to change things. Same goes for fuel duty, it only brought in £1.7bn for 2008-09. that seems awfully low for a country where the transport spine of the country is the road.

if the mansion tax was based on the price of the property when bought rather than current value, then I would say fair enough. after all if you are a codger who bought a house in 1950 and it's now worth £1m then it's unfair. If you turn up and buy a £1m house today then you can afford an extra £5k a year on your Council Tax or however it would be taken.

Well on that basis and the two results before that, I think out capitulation has begun. Perhaps if we win our last 7 games we can get 4th. But who really thinks we can win 7 in a row now?

well that is 4th over now. Oh well. I just hope we don't get ass f*cked as bad in the semi final.

I think if it's purely ascetics then Sony would be quite good. Perhaps SEAT considering they already sponsor a lot on the advertising boards. Their Logo isn't too bad.

Tin of Beef (Tenerife)