| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? 22:14 - Jun 26 with 11333 views | Melford |
If you are paying a few quid more every month but things do actually improve a bit in terms of stuff like, NHS, housing, social care etc. then I think It's a fair trade-off. |  |
| |  |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 09:54 - Jun 27 with 2188 views | StokieBlue |
It should be relative, those with the greater resources should foot more of the tax bill and I would happily pay more tax.
The problem here is the disenfranchisement of the populace. Nobody really believes it will be well spent but if for example they said we will charge higher rate tax payers and extra 2p for 3 years and that will be ringfenced and fund X then I that is a clear goal that they could be judged against.
One could also make an argument for increasing VAT on a lot of non-essentials/luxury goods thus taxing which would also likely fall on those who can afford the most. I would need to look into studies about this though to confirm it would be of benefit.
SB |  | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 10:06 - Jun 27 with 2160 views | Swansea_Blue |
Indeed. Although that is only part of the story. Disposable income is a useful comparator, as it gives a better indication of the affordability of taxation. So take France for example, who are probably the nearest of those countries to us in terms of GDP, and they have a much higher tax burden in the chart that you linked, yet they still have an average annual disposable income after taxes of about €3k more per household - https://www.statista.com/statistics/725764/oecd-household-disposable-income-per-
And then when you factor in how that income needs to be spent - average house prices in France are about £135k compared to about £200k in the UK and mortgage rates are lower in France too. So the higher disposable income also stretches further on average.
And they have more than double the number of hospital beds per capita, retire a bit earlier, etc.
It depends what we want as a society. We prioritise investment returns (not least from property and company profits) for the few over social security for the many. |  |
| |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 10:51 - Jun 27 with 2116 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 10:06 - Jun 27 by Swansea_Blue |
Indeed. Although that is only part of the story. Disposable income is a useful comparator, as it gives a better indication of the affordability of taxation. So take France for example, who are probably the nearest of those countries to us in terms of GDP, and they have a much higher tax burden in the chart that you linked, yet they still have an average annual disposable income after taxes of about €3k more per household - https://www.statista.com/statistics/725764/oecd-household-disposable-income-per-
And then when you factor in how that income needs to be spent - average house prices in France are about £135k compared to about £200k in the UK and mortgage rates are lower in France too. So the higher disposable income also stretches further on average.
And they have more than double the number of hospital beds per capita, retire a bit earlier, etc.
It depends what we want as a society. We prioritise investment returns (not least from property and company profits) for the few over social security for the many. |
Where have you got those stats from. UK average house price is close to 300k? Point stands though, housing costs are horrendous in the UK. They will only get worse with our rapid population growth, we’ve started from a position of not enough housing, even with hundred’s of thousands of new homes a year, the shortage is being compounded to an ever bigger deficit. No party wants to address this.
BTW - for context mortgage rates are lower in France is because the Eurozone came from a lower baseline pre-inflationary environment. It’s not due to some great political management from the government in France, the ECB set interest rates below zero for years in order to stimulate some growth (not a sign of a healthy economy). |  | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:11 - Jun 27 with 2099 views | norfsufblue |
Been saying that for years... people want all the services but don't want to pay any taxes for them... just don't waste it is all anyone asks and spend it on the important stuff first! |  | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:13 - Jun 27 with 2100 views | chicoazul |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 08:47 - Jun 27 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
I dunno, not to watch a loved one on a trolley for 18 hours before getting on a ward? |
But why do you think things will be different regardless of how much tax you pay? We pay historically enormous levels already. Why do you think your loved one would be treated any differently from now? I’m genuinely interested in this phenomenon and I see it a lot here and elsewhere. |  |
| |
| The new lot are gonna…. on 11:14 - Jun 27 with 2089 views | Leaky |
| The new lot are gonna…. on 09:00 - Jun 27 by Bloots |
….come in and change everything.
They are gonna be different.
You watch!
Honest. |
Your hoping aren't you. You have more confidence in our politicians than I have. |  | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:18 - Jun 27 with 2078 views | chicoazul |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 09:02 - Jun 27 by Churchman |
Running the country into the ground on the basis that if you want literally anything, you pay for it. The pre-Victorian way of doing things. That was a political choice. They set about dismantling the social structure of this country because they didn’t care and thought it unimportant.
I do not want to ‘give them more money’. What I want is more money spent rebuilding this country and provide what I think are the basic necessities of a civilised country. A welfare state that’s properly funded (and run properly), properly funded non political education at all levels in all its forms, defence internally (a decent police force and justice system that isn’t broken through budget cuts and external defence against animals like Putin (3% GDP).
Is this too much to ask or at least strive for? First order of business - sweep out the scum that have done nothing but harm for fourteen years. |
BUT WE ALREADY PAY FOR IT. Why is this simple point beyond so many people?
Why do people think the solution to the problem is, we must give them yet more of our earned money? When the proof is in the pudding; they can’t govern properly.
As Bloots alludes to above I think a lot of people are going to be very disappointed in the next five years. | |
| |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:18 - Jun 27 with 2080 views | Herbivore |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:13 - Jun 27 by chicoazul |
But why do you think things will be different regardless of how much tax you pay? We pay historically enormous levels already. Why do you think your loved one would be treated any differently from now? I’m genuinely interested in this phenomenon and I see it a lot here and elsewhere. |
The elephant in the room is that we have a larger proportion than ever of the population being retired. They are therefore economically inactive and more likely to require support from the NHS, involvement with social care, and being in receipt of a state pension. To service this ageing population requires money, lots of it, unless we start euthanising people when they hit 70, which seems a bit harsh. It's the same reason we need relatively high levels of migration, we need more working people than we have in order to keep the economy growing and to increase tax take. Comparing where we are now to 50 years ago isn't helpful, 50 years ago the average life expectancy was only a few years above retirement age for men, now it's a lot higher so people not only receive a pension for longer they also tend to live longer with complex and costly health and social care needs. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:22 - Jun 27 with 2070 views | chicoazul |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:18 - Jun 27 by Herbivore |
The elephant in the room is that we have a larger proportion than ever of the population being retired. They are therefore economically inactive and more likely to require support from the NHS, involvement with social care, and being in receipt of a state pension. To service this ageing population requires money, lots of it, unless we start euthanising people when they hit 70, which seems a bit harsh. It's the same reason we need relatively high levels of migration, we need more working people than we have in order to keep the economy growing and to increase tax take. Comparing where we are now to 50 years ago isn't helpful, 50 years ago the average life expectancy was only a few years above retirement age for men, now it's a lot higher so people not only receive a pension for longer they also tend to live longer with complex and costly health and social care needs. |
I agree with all of this but disagree about the nature and identity of the elephant. For me the elephant is we need much much better politicians who can spend our money properly.
Although I expect assisted dying will be legalised under the new mob so I guess that might help, maybe that’s the point. | |
| |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:26 - Jun 27 with 2047 views | Herbivore |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:22 - Jun 27 by chicoazul |
I agree with all of this but disagree about the nature and identity of the elephant. For me the elephant is we need much much better politicians who can spend our money properly.
Although I expect assisted dying will be legalised under the new mob so I guess that might help, maybe that’s the point. |
Better politicians can't make the problem of an ageing population disappear. They could be more honest about it and the challenges it creates though. | |
| |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:29 - Jun 27 with 2036 views | Leaky |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 09:54 - Jun 27 by StokieBlue |
It should be relative, those with the greater resources should foot more of the tax bill and I would happily pay more tax.
The problem here is the disenfranchisement of the populace. Nobody really believes it will be well spent but if for example they said we will charge higher rate tax payers and extra 2p for 3 years and that will be ringfenced and fund X then I that is a clear goal that they could be judged against.
One could also make an argument for increasing VAT on a lot of non-essentials/luxury goods thus taxing which would also likely fall on those who can afford the most. I would need to look into studies about this though to confirm it would be of benefit.
SB |
Problem with increasing vat is that it would increase people wanting to pay cash in hand
You then lose the Vat &income tax. | | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:31 - Jun 27 with 2027 views | Prominent_Blue |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 09:28 - Jun 27 by Churchman |
Re those on benefits, who are they? Why are they on benefits? Any of them in genuine need? Are the all making a lifestyle choice? I’ve no problem encouraging people to work, but before a blanket label is put on that 2.5m we need to know what they are and why they are not working.
NHS? Yes, it probably needs running better but not having worked in it or understand how it works and is structured, I couldn’t comment on the who or the how. You clearly have better knowledge so I’d be interested in your thoughts. As an aside, I do know NHS England has a poor reputation and there were thoughts about dismantling it more than five years ago (I worked with one or two ex NHS England people for a short while).
I guess what I’m trying to do is avoid the lazy Telegraph/Mail rhetoric line on this. |
As I said we need to look at the benefit system and the NHS which is what your post is agreeing with. Thanks for confirming !!
And I disagree it's a lazy Telegraph / Mail rhetoric because it's not rhetoric it's common sense !! | | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:41 - Jun 27 with 2005 views | StokieBlue |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:29 - Jun 27 by Leaky |
Problem with increasing vat is that it would increase people wanting to pay cash in hand
You then lose the Vat &income tax. |
Maybe people should be a bit more honest then?
If people want to actively avoid paying something that should help the whole then nothing can be done.
SB [Post edited 27 Jun 2024 11:41]
| | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:50 - Jun 27 with 1983 views | NthQldITFC |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 08:39 - Jun 27 by chicoazul |
Tax is not a moral issue. |
That's a very simple statement that avoids the important principles behind the meaning. Tax and specific taxes are one high level solution to a low level (fundamental) issue. Are we happy to share and contribute to support a balanced society or is it everyone for themselves and fk the weakest? What other high level ways of sharing are there? |  |
| |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:13 - Jun 27 with 1939 views | Churchman |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:31 - Jun 27 by Prominent_Blue |
As I said we need to look at the benefit system and the NHS which is what your post is agreeing with. Thanks for confirming !!
And I disagree it's a lazy Telegraph / Mail rhetoric because it's not rhetoric it's common sense !! |
It’s only common sense if it’s true. If it’s not, it’s rhetoric and since we’ve seen what policy looks like based on rhetoric for 14 years I believe it’s time to adopt a more evidenced based approach. So yes, look at these things, but don’t pre judge them.
In terms of Chico’s we already pay for it comment, we spend less on healthcare per person than our peers in Europe. Does that produce a better or worse service? Again, with regard to waste and inefficiency, I don’t work in that area so I don’t know what the truth of it is. There are posters on here who do and I’d be interested in their views.
Regarding waste, how efficient is it to have sold off your utilities and housing stock (already owned by you and me) for £2.50 and a packet of cheeselets, plus presumably a seat on various boards for the tories that flogged them off?
We are now paying through the nose for them, witnessed decades of under investment and are seeing the beautiful countryside, coast and rivers turned into sewage dumps. How about fining these companies out of business and buying the utilities back for a nominal sum and running them for the benefit of the people?
This country’s economic post war failure was because of grotesque incompetence and under investment. Nothing else. Yet still cuts are politicians, companies and peoples default setting. If you want people and things to be more efficient, you need to invest in them. It’s possible. After WW2, the country was exhausted and bankrupt. Yet the most significant sign of civilisation, the welfare state, was created. The money was found, despite a defence spend of 6%.
Let's face it, the Tories found plenty of money to fill there friends’ pockets during the pandemic. They also found plenty of money to try and avoid Brexit armageddon when they began to panic with the truth.
One last thing, pensioners do contribute to the economy. They spend the money they’ve earned. Lots of it. As the cliche goes, one man’s spending is another man’s income. The people that don’t contribute to the economy in a spending/income sense are the wealthy. Most of their money disappears abroad or elsewhere. |  | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:18 - Jun 27 with 1926 views | HarleydavidsonBlue |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:18 - Jun 27 by Herbivore |
The elephant in the room is that we have a larger proportion than ever of the population being retired. They are therefore economically inactive and more likely to require support from the NHS, involvement with social care, and being in receipt of a state pension. To service this ageing population requires money, lots of it, unless we start euthanising people when they hit 70, which seems a bit harsh. It's the same reason we need relatively high levels of migration, we need more working people than we have in order to keep the economy growing and to increase tax take. Comparing where we are now to 50 years ago isn't helpful, 50 years ago the average life expectancy was only a few years above retirement age for men, now it's a lot higher so people not only receive a pension for longer they also tend to live longer with complex and costly health and social care needs. |
Before you start to blame the old folk in this country for the state of the economy, please note the following.
I worked from the age of 15yrs to 67 yrs (52 years) paid Tax, NI.
I have been retired for 4 years now.
I have a Military Pension (Served 15 Yrs)
I have a state pension.
I have 3 private pensions (All of which I paid into whilst I was working).
As at today I am still paying income tax.(£1710.00) per year.
Since 2018 127364 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel, the cost Approx
£6.8 million per day.
This year to date 13019 have crossed the channel
This has placed such a burden on the asylum system, that asylum seekers are often having to be accommodated in hotels because local authorities do not have any social housing capacity to spare. In 2022, it emerged that the cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels has risen to £5.6 million a day (plus a further £1.2 million for Afghan evacuees). This is equivalent to the cost of 73,000 basic visits to an Accident and Emergency unit,
Take into account the number of persons/families who are claiming benifits.
53% of household in the UK are receiving benifits.
I think you will find that these two statistics alone represent the elephant in the room. !! |  | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:29 - Jun 27 with 1905 views | Herbivore |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:18 - Jun 27 by HarleydavidsonBlue |
Before you start to blame the old folk in this country for the state of the economy, please note the following.
I worked from the age of 15yrs to 67 yrs (52 years) paid Tax, NI.
I have been retired for 4 years now.
I have a Military Pension (Served 15 Yrs)
I have a state pension.
I have 3 private pensions (All of which I paid into whilst I was working).
As at today I am still paying income tax.(£1710.00) per year.
Since 2018 127364 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel, the cost Approx
£6.8 million per day.
This year to date 13019 have crossed the channel
This has placed such a burden on the asylum system, that asylum seekers are often having to be accommodated in hotels because local authorities do not have any social housing capacity to spare. In 2022, it emerged that the cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels has risen to £5.6 million a day (plus a further £1.2 million for Afghan evacuees). This is equivalent to the cost of 73,000 basic visits to an Accident and Emergency unit,
Take into account the number of persons/families who are claiming benifits.
53% of household in the UK are receiving benifits.
I think you will find that these two statistics alone represent the elephant in the room. !! |
I'm not blaming older people, I'm pointing out facts about our ageing population and the extra costs that comes with that. Unfortunately, the taxes you paid whilst you were working don't cover you in retirement, they've already been spent during your working years. And that's fine, that's how taxes work, but as the proportion of the population that is no longer working increases that is going to cause extra strain. That is not blaming people, people can't help getting older, it's a fact that nobody wants to acknowledge.
If we had a functioning asylum system we wouldn't be spending so much on hotels, that is an easy fix but one the government doesn't implement for political reasons. The reason many households receive some form of benefit (state pension is a benefit by the way) is because many households include children, so their parents will receive child benefit and tax credits. Another reason is that we frequently don't pay people a living wage in this country, and so people need benefits to top up their income. A large proportion of universal credit claimants are in work, nearly 40% of them. Those not in work are mostly unable to work. 2.7% of the benefit budget is lost to people claiming benefits they shouldn't be. That can be improved but it's still relatively small potatoes. Again, the government could choose to resource the DWP appropriately to go after fraud and could also ensure employers pay a genuine living wage so that people in work aren't reliant on benefits. These are political choices and issues that can be fixed.
There isn't really an equivalent for providing adequate support for an ageing population. There is no political decision or quick fix that means we can provide a good standard of health and social care, and a decent state pension, to an increasing number of retired people. It will cost money and blaming asylum seekers and people on benefits won't change that. | |
| |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:33 - Jun 27 with 1895 views | Ryorry |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:18 - Jun 27 by HarleydavidsonBlue |
Before you start to blame the old folk in this country for the state of the economy, please note the following.
I worked from the age of 15yrs to 67 yrs (52 years) paid Tax, NI.
I have been retired for 4 years now.
I have a Military Pension (Served 15 Yrs)
I have a state pension.
I have 3 private pensions (All of which I paid into whilst I was working).
As at today I am still paying income tax.(£1710.00) per year.
Since 2018 127364 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel, the cost Approx
£6.8 million per day.
This year to date 13019 have crossed the channel
This has placed such a burden on the asylum system, that asylum seekers are often having to be accommodated in hotels because local authorities do not have any social housing capacity to spare. In 2022, it emerged that the cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels has risen to £5.6 million a day (plus a further £1.2 million for Afghan evacuees). This is equivalent to the cost of 73,000 basic visits to an Accident and Emergency unit,
Take into account the number of persons/families who are claiming benifits.
53% of household in the UK are receiving benifits.
I think you will find that these two statistics alone represent the elephant in the room. !! |
As I'm just off out, I'll keep it brief -
Your first para - great.
Your second para - appalling. Do some basic bluddy research pls - it's this government's persistent refusal to provide safe legal routes for those seeking asylum, and then the same govt.'s failure to have competent processing for those who do arrive, which is the problem (their policy being "let's just lay off more civil servants, or fly asylum seekers to an unsafe destination at vast expense, instead"). |  |
| |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:37 - Jun 27 with 1881 views | Pendejo |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:29 - Jun 27 by Leaky |
Problem with increasing vat is that it would increase people wanting to pay cash in hand
You then lose the Vat &income tax. |
OP said "non-essentials" / luxury goods"
At that level, say over £10k, cash transactions are reportable under money laundering laws aren't they? I'm which case both parties face jeopardy, not just the "discount for cash" tradesmen.
FWIW
I think we already raise sufficient tax to pay for everything we "NEED" it's just there's a helluva lot of inefficiencies and no-one seems to be able deal with it or want to take responsibility for it.
Witness that PPE over order which recently got destroyed, over £1bn worth. |  |
| |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:48 - Jun 27 with 1864 views | Leaky |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 11:41 - Jun 27 by StokieBlue |
Maybe people should be a bit more honest then?
If people want to actively avoid paying something that should help the whole then nothing can be done.
SB [Post edited 27 Jun 2024 11:41]
|
The problem is
A lot of posters on this forum seem live in a Academic world, not the real one. If for instance your having a £60k extension on your property £10k of that will be vat. A lot of people will be tempted | | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:55 - Jun 27 with 1852 views | StokieBlue |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:48 - Jun 27 by Leaky |
The problem is
A lot of posters on this forum seem live in a Academic world, not the real one. If for instance your having a £60k extension on your property £10k of that will be vat. A lot of people will be tempted |
If one is having an extension added then paying VAT is just part of the cost you need to budget for, you're essentially excusing people breaking the law. How can people complain about things being cut if they want to avoid paying money which can be used to maintain them?
As was pointed out by another poster, I also explicitly said luxury goods which will affect a certain demographic.
SB [Post edited 27 Jun 2024 13:00]
| | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 13:25 - Jun 27 with 1820 views | Leaky |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:55 - Jun 27 by StokieBlue |
If one is having an extension added then paying VAT is just part of the cost you need to budget for, you're essentially excusing people breaking the law. How can people complain about things being cut if they want to avoid paying money which can be used to maintain them?
As was pointed out by another poster, I also explicitly said luxury goods which will affect a certain demographic.
SB [Post edited 27 Jun 2024 13:00]
|
I suppose it's how you define luxury goods. If you buy £20k car or or £200k car ones a luxury car one is bog standard both will attract car tax & vat do you charge a different rate of vat based on the price. | | | |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 21:47 - Jun 28 with 1704 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 12:33 - Jun 27 by Ryorry |
As I'm just off out, I'll keep it brief -
Your first para - great.
Your second para - appalling. Do some basic bluddy research pls - it's this government's persistent refusal to provide safe legal routes for those seeking asylum, and then the same govt.'s failure to have competent processing for those who do arrive, which is the problem (their policy being "let's just lay off more civil servants, or fly asylum seekers to an unsafe destination at vast expense, instead"). |
Awful isn’t it. Blaming asylum seekers for our failings to process their claims efficiently. And there you could have the explanation for why we’re not processing claims efficiently… They make very convenient scapegoats. | |
| |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 22:02 - Jun 28 with 1688 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 10:51 - Jun 27 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Where have you got those stats from. UK average house price is close to 300k? Point stands though, housing costs are horrendous in the UK. They will only get worse with our rapid population growth, we’ve started from a position of not enough housing, even with hundred’s of thousands of new homes a year, the shortage is being compounded to an ever bigger deficit. No party wants to address this.
BTW - for context mortgage rates are lower in France is because the Eurozone came from a lower baseline pre-inflationary environment. It’s not due to some great political management from the government in France, the ECB set interest rates below zero for years in order to stimulate some growth (not a sign of a healthy economy). |
Googled it, but was a bit sloppy and those figures came from a 2022 article. Oops. You’re right - nearer £300k in the UK now. I can’t find an up to date France figure, but prices there are falling, so the gap will be bigger than I suggested. The point’s the same - we have less income available after taxes and essential costs, so are more sensitive to tax rises even if we’re not taxed as highly as them.
Re. Mortgage rates; France is a bit unique. It’s French law changes in 2022 that are having the biggest effect now, as they’ve reduced the maximum term and lowered the LVT limits ( https://www.longtermrentalsinfrance.com/living-in-france/south-france-property/h More people failing to get mortgages and so lenders are dropping rates to attract a smaller pool of applicants. Apparently. The things you learn looking stuff up for TWTD! That’s probably on top of the ECB stuff you mentioned.
It’d be a good time to relocate to France if only some numpties hadn’t make that impossible fo many. | |
| |
| Am I naive and stupid to not mind if taxes do go up a bit? on 22:34 - Jun 28 with 1654 views | guestlinger |
IF the extra tax was used effectively then yes I agree. However it's absolutely certain it will be wasted. There's more than enough money paid to the governemnt in taxes but they are totally inept at using it wisely. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
