The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
You never said philistine.
you squalid peasant, 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.
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.
I'm not the only person in the country who thinks that the government spends far too much public money on advertising its own achievements.
Money spent on government advertising in 1997/8: £110.7m
Money spent on government advertising in 2001/2: £272.9m
If you think this money is being used to make us all better informed citizens, then fine. I don't: I think the money is being cynically misused to make us into citizens better informed about how great the government is.
Money spent on government advertising in 1997/8: £110.7m
Money spent on government advertising in 2001/2: £272.9m
If you think this money is being used to make us all better informed citizens, then fine. I don't: I think the money is being cynically misused to make us into citizens better informed about how great the government is.
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.
I tihnk it's best if you drop your media scare stories and just admit that you're wrong...
I tihnk it's best if you drop your media scare stories and just admit that you're wrong...
Mr. Happy wrote:
> Oh and unknown kernal, if the government wants to advertise itself, ie
> New Labour, that money has to come from New Labour's budget. The money
> it spent on advertising was things like public safety campaigns and
> police force recruitment ads.
That's pretty naive. Campaign finance is the party's own responsibility - I'm talking about how they use 'government' advertising as a campaign tool. The fact is that what is called 'public information' is indistinguishable from party political broadcasts. Adverts for policemen, nurses and teachers don't attract policemen, nurses and teachers - they just project the image that the government is doing it's job. There was a Panorama investigation that showed how government advertising spending peaked at election time. And how things like the benefit fraud campaign targeted middle class audiences, rather than the working class audiences they were supposedly encouraging to grass each other up.
Things like the 'electronic rapid rebuttal system' are also used for party political purposes - but are funded with public money. The fact is that large parts of the supposedly neutral civil service are now used to put a nice shine on the government. When Saddam does it, it's propaganda; when Blair does it, he's just keeping the masses educated.
> Oh and unknown kernal, if the government wants to advertise itself, ie
> New Labour, that money has to come from New Labour's budget. The money
> it spent on advertising was things like public safety campaigns and
> police force recruitment ads.
That's pretty naive. Campaign finance is the party's own responsibility - I'm talking about how they use 'government' advertising as a campaign tool. The fact is that what is called 'public information' is indistinguishable from party political broadcasts. Adverts for policemen, nurses and teachers don't attract policemen, nurses and teachers - they just project the image that the government is doing it's job. There was a Panorama investigation that showed how government advertising spending peaked at election time. And how things like the benefit fraud campaign targeted middle class audiences, rather than the working class audiences they were supposedly encouraging to grass each other up.
Things like the 'electronic rapid rebuttal system' are also used for party political purposes - but are funded with public money. The fact is that large parts of the supposedly neutral civil service are now used to put a nice shine on the government. When Saddam does it, it's propaganda; when Blair does it, he's just keeping the masses educated.
2 million is nothing. Give it to a man, and it'll make a difference, give it to 60million, and no-one cares. And the government IS doing things in the countries best interest. Paying off the national debt will help people hundreds of years from now, it'll free up some money in every budget from now until infinity. extra money to spend on all the precious things, that people demand and get, and then demand something else.
No matter what the government spends its money on, people like you won't be happy. The government can't please everyone, it's pleased me though. Sure, I got peeved when they started screwing students around by taking away their grants and stuff. But at the end of the day I know now that I don't actually NEED a degree. Teenagers today are fooled into thinking that the only way forward is a degree. This is absolute nonsense. There are many FAR more useful qualifications out there. Degrees are actually not particularly useful at all. Probably why so many people with degrees still work behind shop counters.
You just don't understand the budget process, nor the governments goals. Do you REALLY think the government takes a few million quid and decides to blow it on things no-one cares about? If that's what you think, you need therapy.
At the end of the day, you're just someone under the influence of the media - something I try to avoid because it's mostly just a load of utterly biased crap. Believe what you will, I won't be able to change your mind, because you'll only believe what you read in the paper, or what you see on TV, because that has to be what's right, doesn't it? heh.
No matter what the government spends its money on, people like you won't be happy. The government can't please everyone, it's pleased me though. Sure, I got peeved when they started screwing students around by taking away their grants and stuff. But at the end of the day I know now that I don't actually NEED a degree. Teenagers today are fooled into thinking that the only way forward is a degree. This is absolute nonsense. There are many FAR more useful qualifications out there. Degrees are actually not particularly useful at all. Probably why so many people with degrees still work behind shop counters.
You just don't understand the budget process, nor the governments goals. Do you REALLY think the government takes a few million quid and decides to blow it on things no-one cares about? If that's what you think, you need therapy.
At the end of the day, you're just someone under the influence of the media - something I try to avoid because it's mostly just a load of utterly biased crap. Believe what you will, I won't be able to change your mind, because you'll only believe what you read in the paper, or what you see on TV, because that has to be what's right, doesn't it? heh.
Insane Bartender wrote:
so. the government are doing their best, and then squeezing a few million out to spend on something that is not with the country's best interests is fine because in the scheme of things 2 mill is nothing.
no. 2 mill is a lot of money wether you compare it to 20p or all the money in the world. adding 50p to a single mums income isn't going to save them, true. but taking another 50p from them so they can fund another thing that isn't necessary is not in the best interests of the country. 275 mill on advertising? think about it. what could you do with that amount of money. advertise or build, furnish and staff a new hospital wing? how about using that 2 mill to staff and equip day-care centres so the single mums can get out and work?
blame the papers? if the media was actually lying, the government would shut them down (it's happened before). the media may be saying what they want you to hear, and leaving out details that don't support their biasedness, but it's all based on the facts and because of this, the government can do nothing.
No. perhaps you really should be a politician. You can talk as much guff as they can, and would fit right in.
so. the government are doing their best, and then squeezing a few million out to spend on something that is not with the country's best interests is fine because in the scheme of things 2 mill is nothing.
no. 2 mill is a lot of money wether you compare it to 20p or all the money in the world. adding 50p to a single mums income isn't going to save them, true. but taking another 50p from them so they can fund another thing that isn't necessary is not in the best interests of the country. 275 mill on advertising? think about it. what could you do with that amount of money. advertise or build, furnish and staff a new hospital wing? how about using that 2 mill to staff and equip day-care centres so the single mums can get out and work?
blame the papers? if the media was actually lying, the government would shut them down (it's happened before). the media may be saying what they want you to hear, and leaving out details that don't support their biasedness, but it's all based on the facts and because of this, the government can do nothing.
No. perhaps you really should be a politician. You can talk as much guff as they can, and would fit right in.
The dome was actually funded by lottery money.
Yes the lottery does constitute a voluntary tax for debs and plebs, but no, it doesn't represent grounds on which to criticise the government's fiscal policy.
Oh and unknown kernal, if the government wants to advertise itself, ie New Labour, that money has to come from New Labour's budget. The money it spent on advertising was things like public safety campaigns and police force recruitment ads.
Yes the lottery does constitute a voluntary tax for debs and plebs, but no, it doesn't represent grounds on which to criticise the government's fiscal policy.
Oh and unknown kernal, if the government wants to advertise itself, ie New Labour, that money has to come from New Labour's budget. The money it spent on advertising was things like public safety campaigns and police force recruitment ads.
Slaveunit wrote:
> and you think that just giving a homeless guy a grand is the best and
> only solution to homelessness? no. Youre right there. it would just
> kill them off. how about setting up residence for them? how about
> implementing a contribution scheme towards income? think of that? No?
> you surprise me.
The majority of homeless people are homeless through choice. Sure, there are a few really unlucky types who need a break, but these people are few, far between, and haven't sought the help they require and COULD have anyway. They don't need accomodation, they don't WANT accomodation, they just want to drink themselves to death.
AExcept of course for those "homeless people" who beg all day and drive home in their mercedes.
These people don't deserve help, only contempt.
> This figure was quoted from the conservative party when they were
> arguing against the dome. It might be flawed through mathmatical
> manipulation, but i'd imagine they are closer the the actual figure
> than you are. Do a bit of maths yourself and you'll find that it's
> actually quite close.
If there were a million pensioners, that would mean they each get £900 stretched over 26 years or whatever it was, which gives them £34.62 per year.
Maybe it's just me, but that figure seems utterly ludicrous.
> Better having a well paid, happy emergency service than a tent with
> holes in it.
Heh, another of the folly ridden excuses used by the firefighters union. Fact is, if you're not getting paid enough, leave. There is a huge waiting list of people willing to be firefighters on the wage they already earn.
> It diddn't have the support of the people because the people knew how
> much it cost, and what else could have been done with the money. The
> press brought this to the peoples attention.
What the press did was despicable. If they'd just kept their mouths shut, or GOD forbid even tried to support the idea, it could have been a great success, and easilly made back the money invested in it. As it is, it was unjustly slated until there was no interest left in the project.
The government didn't waste 900 million, the media did.
> You are completely missing the point here. The point of this entire
> topic is that the government are taking nearly half your income and
> weeing it up the wall. You are arguing this by saying that you are
> happy to pay such a high amount, especially when it's spent on flawed
> tourist attractions instead of making this country a better, safer
> place to live.
If paying pensions, wages for emergency services like police, NHS etc and things like that is "p*****g" it up the wall, then I say pee away. Ordinary people aren't able to correctly digest information given to them.
People get told "Government spends 2 million pounds on pointless endeavour", and people cry bloody murder, when in reality, what do they think the government can do with it? Lower taxes? Don't make me laugh. Give more benefits to single mothers? They'd get about 50p each. woohoo, thanks mr blair. such amounts of money are drops in the proverbial ocean of the budget, and while it's all very well for you to sit there and say the government is crap, it's actually doing it's damndest to invest in the future of the country, wrestling an inconceivably large budget for demands of higher wages here, more investment there, higher benefits over that way, more staff on this, more housing on that. It squeezes out a few quid to spend on a project, and it's automatically doomed to failure because of a combination of an idiotic press determined to stamp on anything the government does in order to vote in another government that they can do the same to, and a gullible public desperate to swallow up scandals.
Simple fact is, you quite obviously have no grasp of economics or accountancy, especially on the scale that the government has to handle.
If the government listened to the press every day, they' have invested a fortune it doesn't have and the national debt would be swallowing the country. As it is, we not so long ago paid a chunk of it off, lowering our interest payments for future years, which will slowly reap benefits for generations to come. But what do the press say? Oh, government wastes money on paying back national debt when it could have done rarrarara. They don't have any vision, any idea of what will happen to the future of the country, and to be frank, if the press were the government, the coutry would be in ruins.
>
> Perhaps you should get into politics, ib. then the world would really
> be safe.
> and you think that just giving a homeless guy a grand is the best and
> only solution to homelessness? no. Youre right there. it would just
> kill them off. how about setting up residence for them? how about
> implementing a contribution scheme towards income? think of that? No?
> you surprise me.
The majority of homeless people are homeless through choice. Sure, there are a few really unlucky types who need a break, but these people are few, far between, and haven't sought the help they require and COULD have anyway. They don't need accomodation, they don't WANT accomodation, they just want to drink themselves to death.
AExcept of course for those "homeless people" who beg all day and drive home in their mercedes.
These people don't deserve help, only contempt.
> This figure was quoted from the conservative party when they were
> arguing against the dome. It might be flawed through mathmatical
> manipulation, but i'd imagine they are closer the the actual figure
> than you are. Do a bit of maths yourself and you'll find that it's
> actually quite close.
If there were a million pensioners, that would mean they each get £900 stretched over 26 years or whatever it was, which gives them £34.62 per year.
Maybe it's just me, but that figure seems utterly ludicrous.
> Better having a well paid, happy emergency service than a tent with
> holes in it.
Heh, another of the folly ridden excuses used by the firefighters union. Fact is, if you're not getting paid enough, leave. There is a huge waiting list of people willing to be firefighters on the wage they already earn.
> It diddn't have the support of the people because the people knew how
> much it cost, and what else could have been done with the money. The
> press brought this to the peoples attention.
What the press did was despicable. If they'd just kept their mouths shut, or GOD forbid even tried to support the idea, it could have been a great success, and easilly made back the money invested in it. As it is, it was unjustly slated until there was no interest left in the project.
The government didn't waste 900 million, the media did.
> You are completely missing the point here. The point of this entire
> topic is that the government are taking nearly half your income and
> weeing it up the wall. You are arguing this by saying that you are
> happy to pay such a high amount, especially when it's spent on flawed
> tourist attractions instead of making this country a better, safer
> place to live.
If paying pensions, wages for emergency services like police, NHS etc and things like that is "p*****g" it up the wall, then I say pee away. Ordinary people aren't able to correctly digest information given to them.
People get told "Government spends 2 million pounds on pointless endeavour", and people cry bloody murder, when in reality, what do they think the government can do with it? Lower taxes? Don't make me laugh. Give more benefits to single mothers? They'd get about 50p each. woohoo, thanks mr blair. such amounts of money are drops in the proverbial ocean of the budget, and while it's all very well for you to sit there and say the government is crap, it's actually doing it's damndest to invest in the future of the country, wrestling an inconceivably large budget for demands of higher wages here, more investment there, higher benefits over that way, more staff on this, more housing on that. It squeezes out a few quid to spend on a project, and it's automatically doomed to failure because of a combination of an idiotic press determined to stamp on anything the government does in order to vote in another government that they can do the same to, and a gullible public desperate to swallow up scandals.
Simple fact is, you quite obviously have no grasp of economics or accountancy, especially on the scale that the government has to handle.
If the government listened to the press every day, they' have invested a fortune it doesn't have and the national debt would be swallowing the country. As it is, we not so long ago paid a chunk of it off, lowering our interest payments for future years, which will slowly reap benefits for generations to come. But what do the press say? Oh, government wastes money on paying back national debt when it could have done rarrarara. They don't have any vision, any idea of what will happen to the future of the country, and to be frank, if the press were the government, the coutry would be in ruins.
>
> Perhaps you should get into politics, ib. then the world would really
> be safe.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> there are hundreds of thousands of homeless people, giving them all a
> grand each will hardly solved the problem, in fact, it'll probably
> kill half of them off.
and you think that just giving a homeless guy a grand is the best and only solution to homelessness? no. Youre right there. it would just kill them off. how about setting up residence for them? how about implementing a contribution scheme towards income? think of that? No? you surprise me.
> As for state pensions, unless pensioners get about 20p a week, your
> figure is just incredibly flawed.
This figure was quoted from the conservative party when they were arguing against the dome. It might be flawed through mathmatical manipulation, but i'd imagine they are closer the the actual figure than you are. Do a bit of maths yourself and you'll find that it's actually quite close.
> It would pay for the firefighters payrise for a few years, sure, but
> then their hightened pensions would kick in, and that 900mill will
> drop off real quickly.
Better having a well paid, happy emergency service than a tent with holes in it.
> Either way, it failed because it didn't have the support of the
> people, which can be blamed on the press, nothing else.
It diddn't have the support of the people because the people knew how much it cost, and what else could have been done with the money. The press brought this to the peoples attention.
You are completely missing the point here. The point of this entire topic is that the government are taking nearly half your income and weeing it up the wall. You are arguing this by saying that you are happy to pay such a high amount, especially when it's spent on flawed tourist attractions instead of making this country a better, safer place to live.
Perhaps you should get into politics, ib. then the world would really be safe.
> there are hundreds of thousands of homeless people, giving them all a
> grand each will hardly solved the problem, in fact, it'll probably
> kill half of them off.
and you think that just giving a homeless guy a grand is the best and only solution to homelessness? no. Youre right there. it would just kill them off. how about setting up residence for them? how about implementing a contribution scheme towards income? think of that? No? you surprise me.
> As for state pensions, unless pensioners get about 20p a week, your
> figure is just incredibly flawed.
This figure was quoted from the conservative party when they were arguing against the dome. It might be flawed through mathmatical manipulation, but i'd imagine they are closer the the actual figure than you are. Do a bit of maths yourself and you'll find that it's actually quite close.
> It would pay for the firefighters payrise for a few years, sure, but
> then their hightened pensions would kick in, and that 900mill will
> drop off real quickly.
Better having a well paid, happy emergency service than a tent with holes in it.
> Either way, it failed because it didn't have the support of the
> people, which can be blamed on the press, nothing else.
It diddn't have the support of the people because the people knew how much it cost, and what else could have been done with the money. The press brought this to the peoples attention.
You are completely missing the point here. The point of this entire topic is that the government are taking nearly half your income and weeing it up the wall. You are arguing this by saying that you are happy to pay such a high amount, especially when it's spent on flawed tourist attractions instead of making this country a better, safer place to live.
Perhaps you should get into politics, ib. then the world would really be safe.
Page: