Exactly and everyone who has commented says it will make sod all difference to their spending habits, whereas if the money had been given to the poor they would have spent it. Not enough poor? Well as long as your not one of them I suppose that's the case.
There's nowt wrong with a bit of fun either.
Look at this for fun
Tank about a shit eating grin ;)
How come? The definition of efficiency here is cost verses investment by HMR&C. The cost to the chain is irrelevant.
Ah no, I don't think this is one of those, this is one designed to help people spend cash, as this time it's the economy that needs help!
It doesn't need to make a difference to an individual's spending habits, the money is still there, even if no-one changes their spending habits the businesses will have a bit more cash, so their income won't get hit so hard, so they won't be as likely to lay people off and all that. It sloshes around even if you're not spending 2.5% more.
And just beacause the poor don't figure in this scenario doesn't mean I'm trying to make some comment about them, they just don't figure in this scenario 'cos there's not enough of them. They may not have spent it either.
So you've countered it with "ya boo sucks" ?
My thesis is every major, successful car company is headed by someone who has a technical background, usually in engineering. I then listed the backgrounds of 7 major car company bosses. I also listed three current also-rans. It certainly looks like to be successful in manufacturing cars it helps to understand how you make them.
Like British Steel, whose directors didn't see a blast furnace until they died, much of British manufacturing was led by people who believed it didn't matter what they made or how they did it, so long as the numbers looked good, assuming they cared.
Disprove it with some countervailing facts for a change, instead of opinions ?
Steve
It's not about who gets the money, it's all about who doesn't get the money. The one person who doesn't get the 2.5% is chancellor/taxman therefore the money keeps circulating and generating income for businesses. How it circulates and who spends it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
On or around Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:39:05 -0000, "JacobH" enlightened us thusly:
HMR&C get everyone else to collect the VAT for them and present it in a nice neat package and if you get it wrong they fine you.
They also get a good majority of people to fill in their own tax returns and even do their own tax calculation.
I reckon they're doing pretty well, considering that they don't pay me to do their work...
On or around Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:34:50 -0000, "Nige" enlightened us thusly:
I've never seen the attraction meself.
On or around Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:37:04 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:
and all the poor sods who can't afford to heat their home can die of hyptohermia.
but yeah, you're right, it's not about helping individuals. What annoyed me was the implication at the outset that it might be.
In the long term it may well prove better for the country to help the economy and let the individuals sort their own troubles, but in the short term if you're on a fixed, low income and facing a fuel bill 2 or 3 times what you had last year, then a one-off payment of (IIRC) 60 quid looks a bit like an insult. Our bill for heating oil (which admittedly will be close on a year's supply) is likely to be 300 or more quid higher than last year: we're lucky, we have equity and can borrow money on it, if needed.
"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
Which is exactly why I keep my turnover well below the VAT threshold - I refuse to become an unpaid tax clooector, lol. Badger.
"clooector"???? oops, meant collector!
I thought it was Gaelic :-)
I thought it was gibberish.
I was right.
On or around Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:36:01 -0000, "Rich B" enlightened us thusly:
same thing, innit :->
In message , JacobH writes
Well that may be your definition, but you should look at the overall administrative burden on everyone involved. It all creates a cost over and above the actual tax.
In message , Austin Shackles writes
And they ask you to pay your tax up front in advance on an estimate of what you might earn in future.
No, pointed out that your standard of proof is extremely low. There's no causal link between someone having mention of an engineering discipline on their CV and their success in that company, and no causal link with the opposite being true. Who started the companies, who got them to where they are, what has the person you're focussing on actually done for the company, what does their supposed engineering bent actually amount to, and has it been of any benefit in their running of the company, and did it offer insights that were only gained via that. And that's just scraping the surface.
My mention of the water diviner standard of proof comes from a visit to the barbers, where the barber said a farmer friend of his wanted to find some water in a field, so hired a water diviner. The water diviner found some water and so the water diviner succeeded and water divining works. They then all had a go and found that they were all able to find water using a whole mixture of different divining objects, proving that water divining really works and is dead easy! Marvellous! Never occurred to any of them that the likelihood is that digging anywhere in the field at random would have found water.
Your thesis!
It's your thesis, if you knew what a thesis was, you'd realise that it's your claim and yours to prove. I've asked for the proof, and you're not providing it.
In message , Oily writes
I thought it was Burns night come early.
In message , Austin Shackles writes
Nah, you're thinking of Welsh
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.