Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Britain's middle class faces £30 billion tax raid to pay for coronavirus bailout


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Warlord said:

Police and ,lower court judges are corrupt and should be ignored. I will examine rulings from the higher courts on rights particularly freedom of speech.

As I Said just because you have a heavy handed copper who goes around misinterpreting the law does mean you do not have rights guaranteed.  Often the higher courts will reverse their decisions and award compensation ! !! Its happened numerous times over the years.

 

Alright, but this lady went to ECHR and it upheld the sentence.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/574174/

Please explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 315
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, flb said:

Alright, but this lady went to ECHR and it upheld the sentence.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/574174/

Please explain.

I cannot explain EVERY case in EVERY European country. 

In the UK we have affirmed freedom of speech otherwise I wouldn't be able to visit porn sites. They have tried to ban porn but can't because its legally protected speech . If the Tories could ban it they would of! 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Warlord said:

I cannot explain EVERY case in EVERY European country. 

In the UK we have affirmed freedom of speech otherwise I wouldn't be able to visit porn sites. They have tried to ban porn but can't because its legally protected speech . If the Tories could ban it they would of! 

 

 

Are you saying that the ECHR would have ruled differently if the lady had been British? Would her European rights change then?

Porn again? Really?

Edited by flb
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, flb said:

Are you saying that the ECHR would have ruled differently if the lady had been British? Would her European rights change then?

Porn again? Really?

They take it on a case by case basis.

Yes, porn is important because it's an example where politicians have tried to stamp it out but can;t because its legally protected and if they tried to ban it by statute they would be sued out of existence by the industry and would LOSE he case. Why do you think that is? I'm using the porn example to get you thinking about this subject differently.

 

Edited by Warlord
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Warlord said:

They take it on a case by case basis.

Yes, porn is important because it's an example where politicians have tried to stamp it out but can;t because its legally protected and if they tried to ban it by statute they would be sued out of existence by the industry and would LOSE he case. Why do you think that is? I'm using the porn example to get you thinking about this subject differently.

 

You seem to be an expert?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Warlord said:

I'm using the porn example to get you thinking about this subject different.

Unfortunately, I'm simply not interested in porn. Markus Meechan's conviction (I'm not a fan) was upheld by the Supreme Court recently (this is the guy who taught his girlfriend's pug (yes, a dog) to do what's supposedly a "nazi salute").

The fact that we can watch people (hopefully) f*cking does not change anything.

There is NO freedom of speech in the UK. Anyone claiming otherwise should try leaving the house from time to time. 

You have the "freedom" to speak your mind, as long as it doesn't bother anyone. If it does, you're f*cked - and nobody's recording.

As for the ECHR and the law in general, judges tend to use precedents. Once that Austrian woman's conviction has been upheld, future trials will use the same judgement, i.e "you've got freedom of speech, but don't say things that offend religions, races or anything we deem to be dangerous under 10(2)".

That's how it works.

Edited by flb
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, flb said:

Unfortunately, I'm simply not interested in porn. Markus Meechan's conviction (I'm not a fan) was upheld by the Supreme Court recently.

The fact that we can watch people (hopefully) f*cking does not change anything.

Well you should be because when it comes to censorship and restrictions on freedom of speech and expression porn has been at the vanguard for decades .  The fact that it's legal despite attempts by politicians is a  big F U to all those would be censors the latest being Mrs May who tried and failed to introduce an age verification system.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Warlord said:

Well you should

Well, I'm simply not young enough anymore to care about porn. I'm not a "oh, no, not me, I wouldn't watch that", I used to be quite interested in Aria Giovanni and Tania Russoff back in the day, but it's not what we're discussing here.

We were discussing FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

I showed you people getting fired and/or arrested in the UK over SAYING things - in one case, quoting Winston Churchill.

You told me "blahblah, Supreme Court and EHCR, coppers don't know the law".

Alright. So I showed you how the Supreme Court upheld Markus Meechan's conviction in the UK over teaching his girlfriend's dog a "nazi salute".

I also showed you how the ECHR ruled that insulting that prophet is not freedom of speech and upheld the Austrian woman's conviction.

Your answer to everything has been "but porn". Jesus Christ, man, I'll rub your pecker myself if it helps you focus a bit.

Edited by flb
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, flb said:

I also showed you how the ECHR ruled that insulting that prophet is not freedom of speech and upheld the Austrian woman's conviction.

 

I told you  i dont have time to research it thoroughly but it's not all one way traffic..  It might seem like it but it's really not especially if you get it to the right judge(s)

As for speech in the literal sense just exercise common sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Warlord said:

I told you  i dont have time to research it thoroughly but it's not all one way traffic

What, you've had time to post "but porn is ok" for one ******ing hour, but not time to read the case I highlighted - with a link - for a bloody minute? Riiiight.

1 minute ago, Warlord said:

As for speech in the literal sense just exercise common sense. 

i.e don't say anything that might offend anyone.

But we've got freedom of speech. Because we can watch porn. Got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, flb said:

i.e don't say anything that might offend anyone.

 

I have strong views on illegal immigration which I have expressed here and elsewhere and could be easily misinterpreted. If the plod knock at my door i would absolutely fight it all the way .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the huge cost of congestion and the drag it imposes on the economy a logical target would be fuel duty.  

30p a litre on that would raise £15bn (nearly £20bn including VAT) a year, while reducing both, while reducing both congestion and pollution plus encouraging the move to electric.   

Seems like a Win Win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Given the huge cost of congestion and the drag it imposes on the economy a logical target would be fuel duty.  

30p a litre on that would raise £15bn (nearly £20bn including VAT) a year, while reducing both, while reducing both congestion and pollution plus encouraging the move to electric.   

Seems like a Win Win.

Petrol is already taxed the most here in the western world.I dont see how adding more tax will do anything other than hit those who can least afford it 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, “Nasty Piece of work” said:

Without reading the link, they won’t do anything that endangers re-election - that includes a tax hike.

The election is a long way, away.  Look for the chancellor to sneak in some tax rises

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Warlord said:

Petrol is already taxed the most here in the western world.I dont see how adding more tax will do anything other than hit those who can least afford it 

Any tax raise on the scale being talked about will have negative effects, but this at least will have large positives on top of raising cash. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Given the huge cost of congestion and the drag it imposes on the economy a logical target would be fuel duty.  

30p a litre on that would raise £15bn (nearly £20bn including VAT) a year, while reducing both, while reducing both congestion and pollution plus encouraging the move to electric.   

Seems like a Win Win.

It's a regressive tax. Poor workers are likely to drive just as much as rich. They are more likely to holiday by car in the UK, rather than fly long haul. They are more likely to drive older petrol and diesel cars rather than expensive hybrids or electric vehicles.

Rising fuel costs permeate the whole economy forcing up inflation. Deliveries, anyone with a van, rural people, any fossil fuel using engineering activity, will all have to pay more. This afternoon, I have been looking at council employed workmen relaying the road outside my house with rollers,  trucks and tar heating/laying equipment. They will all cost more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Confusion of VIs said:

Any tax raise on the scale being talked about will have negative effects, but this at least will have large positives on top of raising cash. 

 

I'm not sure it does because tax on petrol is regressive. it hits your single mum harder than your executive in a Bentley.  I think the chancellor is going to have to have a long think about who he is going to hit and whether he can get it through Parliament.

Of course the preference should be to CUT government down to size, which we have discussed before but due to VI they never do this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax burden in the UK is now at a 50-year high: taxes reached 34.6 per cent as a proportion of GDP in 2018-19, the highest level since 1969-70.

https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_tax_burden_on_households_2019

There is little room on taxes I'm afraid and anything he does is likely to be controversial and may be subject to rebellion from the normally placid MPs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warlord said:

I cannot explain EVERY case in EVERY European country. 

In the UK we have affirmed freedom of speech otherwise I wouldn't be able to visit porn sites. They have tried to ban porn but can't because its legally protected speech . If the Tories could ban it they would of! 

 

 

I was once told the Lords and the Commons (I personally love how crap our antiquated chamber terms are!), are flashpoints of porn watching and some REALLY dodgy stuff.

You can well believe it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.