TwoPints

They're just quoting what's been in the UK media already but mixing the words up a bit to make it sound like a new story... Or that might just be Google translate!

You couldn't make it up could you. They're unbelievable.

Well they are milking the system aren't they as they openly admit that they don't attend and/or vote against everything in an attempt to disrupt the European parliament yet they continue to claim their 'allowance'.

Warm today wasn't it!

Tricky one that. On the one hand you have programmes like Question Time where they seemingly don't get to the meat of the parties policies by not getting down to the nitty gritty or you get someone like O'Brien whose approach is somewhat more adversarial and certainly put Farage on the spot. It's a tricky balance to get the right questions in without allowing the politician to just spout their party line in response but also without the questioner becoming too adversarial.

I wonder, do UKIP supporters not question why Farage chairs a committee of far right supporters in Europe?

I do ... Expenses are where (in theory) you have to have spent something whilst doing your job for which you can claim expenses. An allowance is where you're given s hit loads of cash but you don't actually have to do anything for it!

Well I'm certainly not disagreeing with any of that.

They all have and they all do so. They do so through legislation, taxation and education. It is naive to think that any government has allowed people behave as they like.

That's odd, I thought you'd just suggested that your plan might need modifying to put more meat on the bones when I asked about tax on alcohol and cigarettes. Apart from raising awareness **** loads of money those taxes are designed to modify behaviour, as was the extra tax on leaded petrol, as is lower car tax for low polluting cars. The government is there to govern and you vote for the party that you hope will make things better and sometimes that is achieved through higher taxes on certain things and tax breaks on others. Addiction is only one area that needs help, long term savings is another, pollution reduction is another. There are plenty to choose from.

Well you either have a flat rate of income tax for all with the abolition of the many other taxes imposed on us, whereby the government loses the ability to affect behaviour through taxation, ie reducing smoking, alcohol consumption, saving for retirement etc, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. As soon as you start putting limits on how much someone can save on their pension without paying tax the 'flat rate' is skewed, and it would be skewed in favour of those at the top of the pile.

... and presumably tax breaks to encourage people to save for retirement through pensions?

So your proposing the removal of tax on alcohol and cigarettes for example?

I wasn't narrowing any argument, I'll say again, I was answering the specific point made about a flat rate of income tax. If I'd responded by detailing my views of every piece of tax legislation from income tax, through inheritance tax, stamp duty to VAT and fuel tax then the point I was trying to make against the specific question would have been lost in pages of text.

Whatever you say pap. I was merely answering the point about a flat rate of income tax. If you want to read into that my opinion on the taxation system as a whole then you do so but really its rather ridiculous to do so. However if you want to gave a rant about something completely different to the point of discussion and make assumptions about people's views on completely different points then you go ahead.

I don't disagree with you pap but the question was about a flat rate of income tax. I'm not for one minute extolling the virtues of the other flat rate taxes that you refer to and I'm not sure why you would assume that I would be when I'm opposing a flat rate of income tax. Things are far from great but a flat rate of income tax would surely compound the problem. I think we're on the same page here.

It's also not quite correct to say that someone on £80k will be paying 40% whereas someone on £40k will only pay 20% as the £80k earner pays the same as the £40k earner until they get into the 40% tax rate at about £42k. So they're both paying the same rate of tax at the same levels of income.

So someone that earns £20000 paying 30% tax would be left with £14000 to live off. Someone earning £1000000 per annum would be left with £70000 per annum. Isn't it 'fair' for those that have more disposable income should spread some of that wealth to those that have very little? If the rate for the £1000000 earner was 40%, they would still have £600000 to spend and the extra £100000 would allow 50 people on £20000 to pay 20% meaning they have a whopping £16000 each to live on. I think I know which is fairer in a civilised society where those that are the weakest and less fortunate are not left to suffer at the expense of the super rich.

Yep, seems a bit mad. I appreciate that the likes of Fulham and Stoke might not attract quite the viewing figures of the likes of Liverpool but 8 v 28 doesn't sound right and only 10 for Saints after all the plaudits we've had for entertaining football!

Tried to renew mine and my daughters online but my daughter's doesn't appear even when I log in with her customer number and there's actually a message that says that you can renew friends and family online. They don't make it easy! Maybe they're after the extra booking fee for having to phone!

Looks like Boruc and the Poland tram are modeling next year's shirts!

Buy the club down the road, shut them down once and for all and use the remaining £46,999,000 to invest in new players.

I've just read a similar quote in response to an article about MoPo going... it was along the lines of 'my fiancee works at Staplewood and MoPo will sign a 2 year deal by the end of next week, Shaw and Lallana aren't going anywhere and they, along with some others, Jay Rod, Morgan and Jose I believe will be offered contracts prior to pre season. It's good that someone that 'works at Staplewood' has a managed to get all this information really and is so much itk! I'm sure it's not imaginary at all.

I don't have them but no doubt they can be Google'd. I haven't said that UKIP are a racist party.. I am merely trying to make the point that parading your entire population of 20 or 30 ethnic minority candidates as some sort of evidence that it's not a racist party doesn't prove anything, one way or the other. The BNP and EDL have had candidates from ethnic minorities in the past too so does that prove that they don't have racist views /policies I wonder?

I believe it's about 8-9% at the last count. Not representative I grant you that but 800-900% more representative that UKIP.