Tories study plans for 20pc VAT

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What do you reccomend. I'm quite partial to a pair of skrotum shades as the moment.

Dunno. I always end up either sitting on mine, leaving them in a cafe / bar / restaurant or putting them somewhere at home and am never able to find them again.

So my shades always come from Topman, H&M or somwhere similar for about £8.

I like aviators so I can do impressions of the pilots in Top Gun. "You can be my wingman anytime."

Edit: can I just add that when I said "I always end up sitting on them", I meant my sunglasses, not my scrotum. Ahem.

StevieJ

wxmlad wrote: »

great so fuel will go up again!

im sick of this im spending £200 a month on fuel just to get to work- i only earn £900!, i live in a remote area with a sh!te no existant bus service, and dont have any money to change my car as im spending so much on bloody petrol!

You must be living on Hope mountain

movingforward2010

StevieJ wrote: »

You must be living on Hope mountain

further away

ad9898_3

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I'm in favour of it. A tax on consumption is exactly what we need.

How does that sit with the Labour Party line that we have reduced IR's to practically zero so that consumers go out and spend to kick start the recovery ?

amcluesent

Buy bullion gold in Swiss vaults before they impose a super-tax and/or impose export controls on buying assets abroad.

tomterm8

StevieJ wrote: »

With didums footstamping like that, you must live in the South

I live in the south, and I have also lived in Manchester and Blackburn.

StevieJ wrote: »

Every problem has a solution - Move to Burnley

That's not really a solution for most people, is it Steve? In any case, my solution is better... tax anyone buying a house, wherever they are, at the same rate.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's a fair point, and something I remember being bought up on Question Time some time ago. Think the general concensus was that the London and South prices means changing it to a proportional percentage would mean a lot of lost revenue for the treasury.

I don't really understand that answer, surely you just set the percentage at the correct level so you neither gain additional tax revenue, or lose it?

Fella

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Kaletski suggested it months ago, and Sweden has just gone to a negative interest rate.

You don't read much, do you?.......


If you are going to use words such as despised, it would probably have more impact if you learned to spell them properly first.

Lolol

If you're going to name-drop Anatole Kaletsky it would probably have more impact if you learned to spell his name properly first....

vivatifosi

Fella wrote: »

Lolol

If you're going to name-drop Anatole Kaletsky it would probably have more impact if you learned to spell his name properly first....

As a rule I don't like posts where people get one over on others by pointing to their spelling, but that one - in that context - is a corker.

Tim_Nicholas

Its 19% out here in Germany... Would make us in line as already mentioned

If they were to clamp down on the number of people avoiding tax, then that would raise masses too..

Masomnia

Either ending is acceptable in the transliteration of Russian to English, I'm sure that's where Hamish is getting confused. You see Dostoevsky written in lots of different ways for example.

I do agree though that nit-picking on spelling is a bit of poor rebuttal.