The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Take all the tax you pay in a year and add it up. Tax you directly pay from your wages, then tax you pay on things like food, petrol, cds, etc. All the tax you will pay this year and add it up.
This figure, along with your annual salary figure, can calculate the Tax freedom day. The day after Jan 1st that you stop earning money to pay taxes and start earning for yourself.
This year, the Tax Freedom day was 12th June. Predicted at the 7th at the start of the year, through changes by Brown the figure has rose.
This means that the first 164 days of this year you earned nothing, and instead gave all your money to the government.
Great huh?
(www.taxfreedomday.co.uk - a website I maintain).
This figure, along with your annual salary figure, can calculate the Tax freedom day. The day after Jan 1st that you stop earning money to pay taxes and start earning for yourself.
This year, the Tax Freedom day was 12th June. Predicted at the 7th at the start of the year, through changes by Brown the figure has rose.
This means that the first 164 days of this year you earned nothing, and instead gave all your money to the government.
Great huh?
(www.taxfreedomday.co.uk - a website I maintain).
Page:
Mr. Happy wrote:
> You
> don't persuade him and others that you're not by carpet bombing
> Afghanistan and invading Iraq.
Indeed, you find him, and all who feel the way to express their anger is not through negotiation but by terrorist attacks, and you hunt them down, and capture or kill them. and you don't give in, you do not stop, you do not surrender, until they are destroyed.
Right, Millennium Dome was crap by the way, infinitely better tourist attractions can be found everywhere. Okay, if you lived in London fair enough, but the Natural History Museum is better. And didn't cost a small ton of cash to build in one go, and be useless after one year...
By the way, because I only work part time I've earned £8000 ish this year and paid about £12 income tax, and no national insurance...so I can't really moan, but it still sucks the amount the government taxes people in this country. I mean you've got NI and Income tax out of your wages, then council tax out of that, the road tax, tax on the petrol you need once you have road tax, VAT on that, it's a flipping miracle anyone in full time work has any money at all...
~~Belldandy~~
> You
> don't persuade him and others that you're not by carpet bombing
> Afghanistan and invading Iraq.
Indeed, you find him, and all who feel the way to express their anger is not through negotiation but by terrorist attacks, and you hunt them down, and capture or kill them. and you don't give in, you do not stop, you do not surrender, until they are destroyed.
Right, Millennium Dome was crap by the way, infinitely better tourist attractions can be found everywhere. Okay, if you lived in London fair enough, but the Natural History Museum is better. And didn't cost a small ton of cash to build in one go, and be useless after one year...
By the way, because I only work part time I've earned £8000 ish this year and paid about £12 income tax, and no national insurance...so I can't really moan, but it still sucks the amount the government taxes people in this country. I mean you've got NI and Income tax out of your wages, then council tax out of that, the road tax, tax on the petrol you need once you have road tax, VAT on that, it's a flipping miracle anyone in full time work has any money at all...
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Anyone who puts trust in any of these is nothing short of foolish.
Completely agree
> Indeed, nearly all newspapers carry out the agenda of their owners
Completely agree
*feels slightly dirty*
> And BTW (sorry to go off topic)...
A-ha! Something to disagree about :-P
Amnesty's point is valid. It sees that what the govrnment is doing is selectively picking up on information that has long been in the public domain to justify a short-term policy abjective. Amnesty has produced hundreds of reports into many different examples of countries with appalling human rights records. The difference is that Amnesty is againt all human rights breaches. It is against all despots. It doesn't pick and choose depending on the price of oil.
My problem with American foreign policy is that it is inherently hypocritical and never ever consistent. One minute they will back and arm a dictator for their short term goals (That's one thing Amnesty is rightly p*ssed off about - when it was reporting on human rights abuses, Iraq was being supplied with American and British weapons) and the next he will be public enemy number one. I agree that Saddam is an evil tyrant with an appalling human rights record, but I also care about who replaces him and the support that person receives in the future. (America already wants to withdraw from Afghanistan).
If America persistsin its belligerent, bellicose foreign policy then it will stir up even more anti-Western hatred in the middle-east and the war on terror will continue ad infinitum. The only way you can stop the violence is to change opinions. If Osama bin Laden is still alive then he is planning attacks because he sees America as a greedy, war-mongering, morally bankrupt symbol of Western decadence. You don't persuade him and others that you're not by carpet bombing Afghanistan and invading Iraq.
> Anyone who puts trust in any of these is nothing short of foolish.
Completely agree
> Indeed, nearly all newspapers carry out the agenda of their owners
Completely agree
*feels slightly dirty*
> And BTW (sorry to go off topic)...
A-ha! Something to disagree about :-P
Amnesty's point is valid. It sees that what the govrnment is doing is selectively picking up on information that has long been in the public domain to justify a short-term policy abjective. Amnesty has produced hundreds of reports into many different examples of countries with appalling human rights records. The difference is that Amnesty is againt all human rights breaches. It is against all despots. It doesn't pick and choose depending on the price of oil.
My problem with American foreign policy is that it is inherently hypocritical and never ever consistent. One minute they will back and arm a dictator for their short term goals (That's one thing Amnesty is rightly p*ssed off about - when it was reporting on human rights abuses, Iraq was being supplied with American and British weapons) and the next he will be public enemy number one. I agree that Saddam is an evil tyrant with an appalling human rights record, but I also care about who replaces him and the support that person receives in the future. (America already wants to withdraw from Afghanistan).
If America persistsin its belligerent, bellicose foreign policy then it will stir up even more anti-Western hatred in the middle-east and the war on terror will continue ad infinitum. The only way you can stop the violence is to change opinions. If Osama bin Laden is still alive then he is planning attacks because he sees America as a greedy, war-mongering, morally bankrupt symbol of Western decadence. You don't persuade him and others that you're not by carpet bombing Afghanistan and invading Iraq.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> The fact that these documentaries are often filmed by crews determined
> to deface the government, and the audiences for news discussions are
> hand picked to do similar work makes them completely unreliable
> sources of information.
Exactly, if Panorama was tried in some countries the whole crew would be dead after one program. They intentionally set out to show only the evidence they want to find to prove their own point - which has been decided on long before any investigation starts for real. News discussions are blatant fixes, as IB points out anyone can easily fix the type of person in them with ease.
> Anyone who puts trust in any of these is nothing short of foolish.
Indeed, nearly all newspapers carry out the agenda of their owners, and run opinions and stories in line with these owners own views, no matter how daft they are.
And BTW (sorry to go off topic) did anyone else think it was politics gone mad when Amnesty criticised the document detailing abuses in Iraq on the basis that no one listened to Amnesty back in the 80's ? I mean for ****'s sake what is Amnesty's problem here ? "We don't want a war so we're going to blindly ignore everything no matter what. Bad war. nasty war. We are Amnesty and our massive intelligence means we know better than several sovereign nations combined intelligence" Give me a break, Amnesty wouldn't know an Iraqi from a chinese person, nor could it point out Iraq on a map.
*Rant over*
Okay get back to the topic everyone :)
~~Belldandy~~
> The fact that these documentaries are often filmed by crews determined
> to deface the government, and the audiences for news discussions are
> hand picked to do similar work makes them completely unreliable
> sources of information.
Exactly, if Panorama was tried in some countries the whole crew would be dead after one program. They intentionally set out to show only the evidence they want to find to prove their own point - which has been decided on long before any investigation starts for real. News discussions are blatant fixes, as IB points out anyone can easily fix the type of person in them with ease.
> Anyone who puts trust in any of these is nothing short of foolish.
Indeed, nearly all newspapers carry out the agenda of their owners, and run opinions and stories in line with these owners own views, no matter how daft they are.
And BTW (sorry to go off topic) did anyone else think it was politics gone mad when Amnesty criticised the document detailing abuses in Iraq on the basis that no one listened to Amnesty back in the 80's ? I mean for ****'s sake what is Amnesty's problem here ? "We don't want a war so we're going to blindly ignore everything no matter what. Bad war. nasty war. We are Amnesty and our massive intelligence means we know better than several sovereign nations combined intelligence" Give me a break, Amnesty wouldn't know an Iraqi from a chinese person, nor could it point out Iraq on a map.
*Rant over*
Okay get back to the topic everyone :)
~~Belldandy~~
Slaveunit wrote:
> the cost of the dome would have had the firefighters on their
> requested 40% for 58 years. all of them.
The Dome was one of the best tourist attactions I've ever been to!
> the cost of the dome would have had the firefighters on their
> requested 40% for 58 years. all of them.
The Dome was one of the best tourist attactions I've ever been to!
only one sugar - enough to provide energy without rotting your teeth.
Be sure to jog for at least 10 minutes this evening as well.
Be sure to jog for at least 10 minutes this evening as well.
I'm about to have a cup of tea. Is it alright if I have sugar?
Insane Bartender wrote:
> you do know that if blair was actually using public service
> advertising as a party political tool, it would be fraud, and he and
> his cabinet would be put on trial.
The cabinet couldn't because it only exists by constitutional convention, and the courts aren't supposed to recognise conventions.
> you do know that if blair was actually using public service
> advertising as a party political tool, it would be fraud, and he and
> his cabinet would be put on trial.
The cabinet couldn't because it only exists by constitutional convention, and the courts aren't supposed to recognise conventions.
excellent. another one sees the light.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> you squalid peasant
Nice.
> you have absolutely no clue as to how the
> government is run except for what you read in foul and repulsive
> "news"papers and biased, cretinous "documentaries"
> and what are supposed to be informative news discussions.
>
> The fact that these documentaries are often filmed by crews determined
> to deface the government, and the audiences for news discussions are
> hand picked to do similar work makes them completely unreliable
> sources of information.
>
> Anyone who puts trust in any of these is nothing short of foolish.
All I did was quote the government's own figures. I am sorry that this offends you. I also apologise for taking some of my information from newspapers and documentaries. I now realise that this was foolish and misguided. In future, before opening my squalid peasant mouth, I will consult the only reliable source on affairs of government and the ways of the world: you. For a second I had quite forgotten that you were the fount of all knowledge on every subject under the sun.
> you squalid peasant
Nice.
> you have absolutely no clue as to how the
> government is run except for what you read in foul and repulsive
> "news"papers and biased, cretinous "documentaries"
> and what are supposed to be informative news discussions.
>
> The fact that these documentaries are often filmed by crews determined
> to deface the government, and the audiences for news discussions are
> hand picked to do similar work makes them completely unreliable
> sources of information.
>
> Anyone who puts trust in any of these is nothing short of foolish.
All I did was quote the government's own figures. I am sorry that this offends you. I also apologise for taking some of my information from newspapers and documentaries. I now realise that this was foolish and misguided. In future, before opening my squalid peasant mouth, I will consult the only reliable source on affairs of government and the ways of the world: you. For a second I had quite forgotten that you were the fount of all knowledge on every subject under the sun.
I am trying to expand my vocabulary...
Page: