The "Free World" (or...pass the Burka)

Stuart* · Sun 15 Jul, 2007 01.02

I have been thinking of this for a while and wonder how we claim to be champions of the "free world":

The government decide that for my interest they tax things I shouldn't do, they want to be an "all controlling state machine" that governs me in England (yes, we are governed by someone who isn't elected by, or under the legistlature he creates for England).

I can't SMOKE (even in my own home sometimes), but they want tax on the products I buy.

I shouldn't DRIVE, but they want tax on my car, the petrol, the road and in some places the ability to drive there after everything else.

I should DRINK less alcohol, and the conservatives say they will tax me more for doing so (even though I can't afford to go out and do anything else)

I have to eat less SALT (a new Salt Tax perhaps)

I have to get MARRIED (according to Conservative proposals) whether I find someone I want to live with or not, I have to marry them or pay extra taxes to compensate those who do.

Perhaps the world has gone mad. I'm paying for MOD personnel to be killed to defend the way of life I described above!

Pass me a Burka!

Jamez · Sun 15 Jul, 2007 01.40

I suggest you look up something called the Illuminati. Basically, there's a massive conspiracy theory (and its been around for decades) that the world is increasingly moving towards a 'single state' government.

You've got to remember who controls the western world right now. The fact that power is vested in the hallowed government halls of Whitehall, Washington DC, Canberra, Berlin, Paris etc., is a lie.

The real rulers are the CEO's of huge multi-national corporations such as banks, pharmaceutical companies etc.

Read up on it - it's amazingly interesting. I must stress that a lot of it is speculation. However, it at least provokes the mind into objectively questioning what we accept as 'normal'.

As usual, jews and zionists seem to be the main focus of suspicion.

A one world government? Inevitable? Something we as citizens of the world must unite to stop? The Muslims would have to be suppressed - and you can't say that Britain and America aren't trying their damnedest to quell their antics.

Stuart* · Sun 15 Jul, 2007 02.25

Thanks Jamez,
I read it, and actually what it reveals is that I live on a "world" not in a country. Stu

marksi · Sun 15 Jul, 2007 09.59

The Conservative tax proposals on marrige make me cross.

They were justified on TV by some sanctimonius wanker (who may or may not have been Oliver Letwin) by saying that if you move in with someone your costs increase. Well yes, they do. But they don't more than double, and presumably they'll be bringing a salary with them.

Don't suggest it's because you would have more costs associated with children. If you can't afford them you shouldn't be having them. I'm not here to subsidise them, I already do that with maternity/paternity leave, family allowance and tax credits, not to mention paying for education.

I haven't heard whether they are only for male/female partnerships, but if they are they would probably be thrown out by the equality laws.

That said, even if they were to apply to marriages and civil partnerships, I see no reason why this should result in a tax break. What that creates is a TAX on single people.

Stuart* · Sun 15 Jul, 2007 10.33

Well said Marksi. You captured my thoughts very eloquently. Perhaps you should move in!

Jamez · Sun 15 Jul, 2007 13.41

marksi wrote:
If you can't afford them you shouldn't be having them. I'm not here to subsidise them, I already do that with maternity/paternity leave, family allowance and tax credits, not to mention paying for education.

Ahh but then only well-off, educated people would only be able to afford kids. That's not what socialism is about.

Look upon Labour/socialism as a large bureaucratic deity which follows similar principles to those of Robin Hood. Take from the rich or even moderately comfortable, and give it to the poor, disabled and bone idle.

Capitalism/Conservatism, even with its many faults, is the only way as far as I can see.

Sput · Sun 15 Jul, 2007 14.38

Giving money to disabled people isn't ok? Damnit. I Was going to claim aspies pay! Also Jamez, half the problems cited in the original post would only BE problems if the conservatives were voted in! The others are just Stu being whingey because he's a salty booze-ridden chimney

And stu, you can't afford to do anything other than drink? *really*? I'm a perpetual student and that's not even true for me and my shitty-as-tumble-tower venues!

Anonymous · Sun 15 Jul, 2007 15.11

I doubt it.

I have to say that Britain under Blair has been the closest thing this country's had to a dictatorship.

jrothwell97 · Sun 15 Jul, 2007 15.15

Ron Owen wrote:I doubt it.

I have to say that Britain under Blair has been the closest thing this country's had to a dictatorship.

Shut up James Martin. He wasn't a very good PM but was hardly a dictator.

Anonymous · Sun 15 Jul, 2007 15.32

jrothwell97 wrote:
Ron Owen wrote:I doubt it.

I have to say that Britain under Blair has been the closest thing this country's had to a dictatorship.
Shut up James Martin. He wasn't a very good PM but was hardly a dictator.

Then why have you quoted me instead, JTroll97?

marksi · Sun 15 Jul, 2007 15.40

Jamez wrote:
marksi wrote:
If you can't afford them you shouldn't be having them. I'm not here to subsidise them, I already do that with maternity/paternity leave, family allowance and tax credits, not to mention paying for education.

Ahh but then only well-off, educated people would only be able to afford kids. That's not what socialism is about.

Look upon Labour/socialism as a large bureaucratic deity which follows similar principles to those of Robin Hood. Take from the rich or even moderately comfortable, and give it to the poor, disabled and bone idle.

Capitalism/Conservatism, even with its many faults, is the only way as far as I can see.

The proposed policy is a Conservative one. What has socialism got to do with the present Labour party?