Tallisman Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 No, he's been proven wrong now, so he and the others will scuttle away rather than man up and admit they were wrong. But this is about yet another new tax being introduced by the ConDems. There is no mention of Labour in the OP. This thread has much to do with Labour as it has to do with the 1966 Football World Cup Final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 But this is about yet another new tax being introduced by the ConDems.It is not. The 'ConDems' have said precisely zilch so far about this new 20% tax, which has been requested by doctors (I first pointed it out on page 1, thought it was the BMA, turns out it was the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, same-o). This thread has much to do with Labour as it has to do with the 1966 Football World Cup Final.Well, some of the posts have to do with posters who will try and spin just about whatever crosses the news radar into yet another anti-ConDem argument, regardless of how wrong they could be when doing so. Rarely has it been clearer than in this thread, tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 It is not. The 'ConDems' have said precisely zilch so far about this new 20% tax, which has been requested by doctors (I first pointed it out on page 1, thought it was the BMA, turns out it was the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, same-o). Well, some of the posts have to do with posters who will try and spin just about whatever crosses the news radar into yet another anti-ConDem argument, regardless of how wrong they could be when doing so. Rarely has it been clearer than in this thread, tbh. I have to agree with you here. Some people are more interested in flinging mud at their political opponents then looking at the issue properly. And it's not just the anti-Tory brigade guilty of that on this thread. Personally, I don't think the proposals will be a cure all. Obesity is quite a complex issue as it happens. The thing that I notice with regard to obesity is how sedentary many people's life styles are now what with internet shopping and so forth. If people are not active that will have an effect here, regardless on taxes on drinks deemed to be too sugary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallisman Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 It is not. The 'ConDems' have said precisely zilch so far about this new 20% tax, which has been requested by doctors (I first pointed it out on page 1, thought it was the BMA, turns out it was the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, same-o). Well, some of the posts have to do with posters who will try and spin just about whatever crosses the news radar into yet another anti-ConDem argument, regardless of how wrong they could be when doing so. Rarely has it been clearer than in this thread, tbh. You must be looking at a different thread. This thread IS about a new possible ConDem tax and someone DID attempt to hijack the thread and talk about Labour, who have absolutely nothing to do with the tax. That is the truth whether you like it or not!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 You must be looking at a different thread. This thread IS about a new possible ConDem tax and someone DID attempt to hijack the thread and talk about Labour, who have absolutely nothing to do with the tax. That is the truth whether you like it or not!!!The thread posts, the links and the source info are as clear as they need to be. So, really...whatever mate. If it makes you feel important/better/big/etc. Personally, I don't think the proposals will be a cure all.Seconded. Precious few national problems can be taxed away, if any. 'Solving' obesity must begin by education, first and foremost (and mostly), to be accompanied by some mild Gvt/statutory meddling in base food prices (ring fence basics) and fatty foods/sugary drinks compositions (e.g. max permissible satfat/sugar/etc. levels per unit of whatever) and conditions placed on access to NHS resources (carrot and stick, basically). Not going to happen in a million years, requires for too much pro-activity and concertation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallisman Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 The thread posts, the links and the source info are as clear as they need to be. So, really...whatever mate. If it makes you feel important/better/big/etc. I am merely defending the truth. That is being noble, which is nothing to do with the adjectives that you wrongly attributed to my statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I am merely defending the truth. That is being noble, which is nothing to do with the adjectives that you wrongly attributed to my statements. Seriously, some people on this forum are the dumbest I have come across. You are lieing, big fat lies, it is not a possible ConDem tax at all, it is a group of doctors recommending soft drinks be taxed, as far as I can see no, none, zero, zilch politicians from either side have said it is a good idea. ---------- Post added 19-02-2013 at 13:23 ---------- You must be looking at a different thread. This thread IS about a new possible ConDem tax and someone DID attempt to hijack the thread and talk about Labour, who have absolutely nothing to do with the tax. That is the truth whether you like it or not!!! The Conservatives nor the LDs have anything to do with this tax either as has been pointed out umpteen times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 So, the ConDems want to put an extra 20% tax on fizzy drinks. Another tax on the poor. Will this also bite them in the arse like the pasty and caravan tax? I wonder if they'll put an extra 20% on one of their regular drinks, after all champagne is fizzy, isnt' it? Better still, why don't they tax the multi million pound fizzy drinks industry, as they can afford it, instead of taxing customers? I thought it was a doctors' group that was asking for this tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Oh look age old attack the rich. So many armchair socialists see this as an attack on the poor. Are the rich all fat, costing the country billions of pounds a year in NHS costs and dying young? Nope, that would be what are being called the poor, but the only aspect of them that is poor is their judgement and knowledge of healthy living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallisman Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Seriously, some people on this forum are the dumbest I have come across. You are lieing, big fat lies, it is not a possible ConDem tax at all, it is a group of doctors recommending soft drinks be taxed, as far as I can see no, none, zero, zilch politicians from either side have said it is a good idea. ---------- Post added 19-02-2013 at 13:23 ---------- The Conservatives nor the LDs have anything to do with this tax either as has been pointed out umpteen times. You are so gullible. The doctors and ConDems are conspiring to introduce a new tax on the poor. You have very limited understanding and simply choose to abuse people who are vastly more knowledgeable than you. Also if the tax was introduced it WOULD be a ConDem tax as they are in power....nincompoop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.