L00b Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I was under the impression it was the BMA -not the Gvt- who wanted that extra 20%? Are all the news articles wrong about the source, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I was under the impression it was the BMA -not the Gvt- who wanted that extra 20%? It may have been Smarmy Dave or Gidiot but I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Easy, wednesday1: just click on 'news' on the Google search page and scroll down to 'health' at the bottom. All papers across the political spectrum are quite unanimous Far from me the idea of accusing you of bias, like, but... Bring on the 20% on champers, says I. I import it all direct anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Better still, why don't they tax the multi million pound fizzy drinks industry, as they can afford it, instead of taxing customers? And of course, they would just absorb the extra cost and not pass it on to customers? Another pasty tax imo - Instead of making things that are bad for you more expensive, why don't they make things that are good cheaper ? How exactly would that be done? Subsidies? Well the government is just rolling in the cash needed for that at the moment isn't it? Wave a magic wand and reduce the costs involved in food production globally? Even Harry Potter would have trouble with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 And of course, they would just absorb the extra cost and not pass it on to customers? As greed rules in our society, and seems to be rewarded and regarded as a virtue by our government, rather than a sin, it would never happen would it? But let's say it did, I presume there would be a lot of number crunching to see what would be the most profitable thing to do in terms of sales, percentages, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Better still, why don't they tax the multi million pound fizzy drinks industry, as they can afford it, instead of taxing customers? Let me think for all of a nanosecond - perhaps the tax increase might be passed on to the customers in a price increase. Just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted February 19, 2013 Author Share Posted February 19, 2013 Let me think for all of a nanosecond - perhaps the tax increase might be passed on to the customers in a price increase. Just a thought Let me think for all of a nanosecond - someone's already raised that and I responded above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Let me think for all of a nanosecond - someone's already raised that and I responded above. Body swerved it or side stepped it more like. So the tax increase will be passed on to the consumer - then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted February 19, 2013 Author Share Posted February 19, 2013 Body swerved it or side stepped it more like. So the tax increase will be passed on to the consumer - then what? As I thought I'd explained - not necessarily. Maybe the companies would absorb some of the cost. At least it should be tried. The poor shouldn't always be the first port of call when it comes to taxing, don't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 As I thought I'd explained - not necessarily. Maybe the companies would absorb some of the cost. At least it should be tried. The poor shouldn't always be the first port of call when it comes to taxing, don't you agree? It's a bit like the old spreadsheet "circular reference unresolved" conundrum - reduce companies profits so you reduce the dividends paid to shareholders. A great many of us are "shareholders" via our pensions / savings, our insurance etc. So our pensions/savings are worth less or our insurance goes up as a result. The "consumer" will end up paying one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.