Whitey Grandad

LIke!

The difference between headline and nett figures.

Two offside goals and one fluke. What was there for them to get excited about?

Very flattering and reassuring. Perhaps we should remember this when we have a temporary dip in form.

They bought a house; they've still got the same house. What they don't have is a bankful of money. If you want a new tax to raise money then you should tax money.

It would be nice to have another option but who do you leave out?

All right, I'll bite. What's his user name on here?

The subject is well worth discussing but I was referring to the name of the tax in question and I was quoting another poster anyway. Even the government call it car tax: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax 'Help With Car Tax' and many other instances. I have never understood the reason for exempting old vehicles and in general those vehicles subject to tax are also used regularly. Fuel duty would have the merit of being proportional to road usage.

We all know it as that. It may not be the formal name but who do you know that calls it Vehicle Excise Duty, or whatever? Hardly worth mentioning, don't you think?

They got away lightly.

I tend to agree with you. The problem with charging CGT on cars is that they'd have to give allowances for losses, which would be losing a lot more than they gained. http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/classic-cars-can-be-the-route-to-escaping-tax-while-motoring-to-soaring-profits-8536935.html Fuel duty instead of car tax seems too sensible and obvious to ever be implemented

You could equally say 'anything that's not a necessity'. One advantage of VAT is that the rich have to pay it too.

If I can't have Myleene I'll have to settle for Suzanne.

You know perfectly well the full version: '...and there's nobody there to hear it.' No witnesses; it didn't happen. Honest guv'nor

But who are you (or we) to judge their need? The same applies to those on low incomes. Do they need to drink and smoke , for example? If somebody genuinely earns their money then how they spend it should be up to them.

You've actually touched on the basic philosophy there. Nobody knows if it actually made any noise because nobody was there as a first-hand witness. Still, we digress and I think we've exhausted this subject. Have a good evening

I've got a couple.

But did it make any noise?

Is it too much to ask for both?

There'll be others. Something will turn up

Angry? Who, me? My mum (95 by the way) didn't receive a full pension until my dad died, and she had plenty of contemporaries who paid in but never collected. That's what an insurance type system is all about. My anger is directed at reckless government overspending in the last few decades.

What cuts are these specifically? You seem to have equated not receiving as much with not paying quite as much extra, one is receiving state money, the other is giving it. Yes, making it 'fair' for everybody is very tricky. Once again, it all depends what you mean by 'burden'. For some it's not receiving as much as they wanted, for others it's paying out more than they want to.

But what form should this 'caring' take? This is the fundamental difference in poitical philosophy. Do you help people by giving them handouts or is is better to give them opportunities.

So we're blaming the old now, are we, and not the feckless (I include governments in that)? It didn't have to be like this, interest payments alone are £60bn. If only this nation had had some giant alternative pension industry that working people could have contributed to without the government dipping into it.

LOL Can we do the same with the candidates?