Buy you new bikes now then!

Sorry - I'm only an engineer.

 

Ah, sorry.

There's a different between x and dy/dx.

 

Nice!

<breathes sigh of relief>

 

Perhaps a penny has just dropped. You equate libertarian principals with
Right Wing. Incomprehensible but I guess that's what it is.
I've never been able to figure out why you had me pigeonholed thus.

I guess you must consider the new administration to be a bunch of RWS then
because they seem to be pursuing a fairly common sense and libertarian
agenda. Which is nice.

That old OE against the world bugbear again. Get over it. It's just the way
it comes up sometimes.

Nobody was suggesting that the State should not fund education for all.

 

I should hope so. One's a kiss, the other is the designation for the
latest creation by wossname, makes the bagless vacuums with the
tropical storms in 'em, innit.

 

I don't think it's either-or. I'm rather disappointed that there
wasn't any increase
in tax rates, given that there is a lot of action on cutting spending
I think there
should also be some action on increasing income.

And I thought Hog gave an adequate explanation of how it could be
worked,
people already in receipt of benefits would receive these allowances.
I don't
think this implies a lot of additional bureaucracy, some certainly.

I don't deny that. I also agree with the tax statement. We should
have seen
higher rates of tax for most people, cutting benefits and the public
sector alone
is not the way to go forward.

 

Damn it.

 

I think this depends on your definition of 'better off' if you focus
on people earning
high salaries (say >100k pa) then the risk is that people move their
jobs off-shore, look
at deferred income mechanisms etc. etc.

I think there should have been more on tax raising than there was in
the budget.

I don't think we do. Isn't it a case of wiping out our current
account debt
in four years, i.e. stopping the debt level increasing?

Of course I've spent little time actually following the budget since
I'm
too busy working to feed the feckless.

 

But surely they're only obese because they can't afford organic
vegetables so have to survive on doughnuts, takeaways and coke.

 

Damn expensive way to eat is that.

Porridge, honey and milk. They don't need any more benefit money.

 

Honey is actually surprisingly expensive at the moment.

 

If only we knew a bee-keeper...

 

Don't you think we should allow them a little luxury

 

Better to make all luxuries cheap so everyone can afford them.

 

On 23/06/2010 10:54, Hog wrote:
snip.

Even if you try to build a reasonable retirement fund for yourself, the
average person would struggle to pay to get their man sized nappies
changed or the drool wiped from their mouth.

I've followed the recommendations of 10% from your twenties and even
added an extra 5% for the last 10 years but I'm still not convinced of
the miracle of compound growth.

Not that I should be too worried, my life expectancy is coming in at 68
according to some of these calculators and with the way the government
is screwing around with retirement age I'll probably be dead before I
can get at it ;-).

 

I'm waiting for my day in court over the BBC licence, when
TVL try to argue that because I have the "equiment" to receive live
internet TV, I have to pay the licence fee. My retort will be that
I have the equipment to father children, too, but that doesn't mean
I have to pay Child Support.

--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO#003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

 

Dunno. I'm mostly being currently baffled by his bladeless fan.

http://www.dyson.co.uk/store/productFan.asp?product=AM01-IRONSIL

 

Well it was worth a try.

 

Don't give them ideas!

 

Yersh, that's what I was implying.

Luxury!