another day another innovative economy changing thread

Mistermeaner

Generali wrote: »

The problem the UK economy faces isn't too much tax it's too much spending.

Fundamentally the answer lies exactly where the Tories are looking, getting people off benefits and into work. Rotting away on the dole is no life yet it appears to be Labour's economic policy. If you look at Government spending, by far the biggest spend is on welfare and health. Working people have better mental and physical health and claim less in benefits.

People should work and work should pay.

all good valid points but doesn't help with the doggy doo problem though.

Rinoa

Anybody know when the school holidays finish?

Mistermeaner

September. Why?

antrobus

Of course, dog licensing was abolished in 1987. In Great Britain. But in that part of the UK known as Northern Ireland they still have dog licensing

By the sound of things; "the growing problem of strays and violent attacks on people and other pets"...."Official figures paint a picture of neglect and irresponsible owners" ...."Dog fouling is also still an issue in many areas".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8293563.stm

It does not appear to have made any difference.

antrobus

Mistermeaner wrote: »

...It's a great way to raise some extra tax....

That's right. It's only about 25% of UK households that have a dog. It's not like you were talking about a significant slice of the electorate.

onlyroz

Dogs are pure consumers. Owning a large pet is one of the most unenvironmental things you can do. I suggest imposing limits on a geographical basis, say a maximum of one dog per five households.

Generali

onlyroz wrote: »

Dogs are pure consumers. Owning a large pet is one of the most unenvironmental things you can do. I suggest imposing limits on a geographical basis, say a maximum of one dog per five households.

In that case surely the solution is to set a maximum cubic footage per district...? By your argument a smaller dog has less consumption so less environmental impact.

Mistermeaner

to ensure efficient volumetric measurement of pets they wil have to be liquified and compressed

remorseless

Generali wrote: »

In that case surely the solution is to set a maximum cubic footage per district...? By your argument a smaller dog has less consumption so less environmental impact.

hmmm could always do like in Japan


hopefully the turd is also proportional!

antrobus

onlyroz wrote: »

Dogs are pure consumers....

Not all dogs.

Some dogs have gainful employment. Drug sniffer dogs, cadaver dogs, guard dogs, sheep dogs, and guide dogs come to mind. And beagles. Both as subjects for drug testing and for chasing things.

Indeed you could argue that dogs in general provide an entertainment service, and whilst you might be able to categorise them as "pure consumers" you could say the same thing about actors, singers, TV presenters ....

And you don't have to pay them pensions and they are not a burden on the NHS.