06/25/2010: "Budget - give it a rest"

just been watching question time, where an eighteen year old lass, with a posh accent told everyone "VAT is such a regressive tax that will only hit the poorest hardest, it is unfair!"
what a load of bollocks.

im getting sick to the back teeth of hearing this tripe being spouted.
FACT: VAT is a form of indirect taxation.... ie, you only pay it when you buy things!
- petrol, cigarettes and alcohol duty is being FROZEN
- VAT is not put on food or childrens clothes

VAT is put on snacks, sweets, soft drinks, etc... so if a "poor" person stops buying crap, and starts hitting their local markets buying fresh fruit and veg, then they will not pay any VAT in their food bill.

we have had labour's direct taxation, years of it, where taxes are taken from source, ie, peoples income BEFORE they receive it, they have no choice but to pay it.
a system that takes taxes from income before people get it, only benefits those with wealth that can pay for financial advisors to find ways to avoid paying it.... for the "poor" there is no way out of it!
THATS REGRESSIVE, not progressive.
indirect taxation allows me to choose if i wish to pay the extra tax, buy something, if not, dont buy it... it really is that simple.

the VAT increase brought in through the budget raises taxes by just 2.5p for each pound spent, before you jump on the labour election bandwagon, you might want to aim your fire at the businesses who will raise prices by more than inflation (due to lack of a labour government's regulation and control) and blame the government's VAT rise for the increase, because half wits like you cannot do basic maths and spot that price rises are supposed to be just 2.5p per pound spent!

talking of half wits.......
ED BALLS... for years you were asked to appear on question time and other tv shows, where the public could ask you direct unscripted questions... for years you were "too busy" or unavailable... now hes on every show on every channel.

how he has the cheek to attack the coalition about people being allowed to apply to set up their own schools outside of education authority control, when ed balls himself, was elected on a policy opposing grant maintained schools, then after 5 years re introduced them under a different name, "city academies" then later just "academies" with ed balls himself then ending the requirement to only be able to set one up if Ł2 million in funding was raised from the private sector - ie, businesses - and he now tells anyone that will listen, that...

- its wrong for businesses to be involved in setting up schools
- its unfair for schools to take funding from local education authorities
- its wrong to have funding provided by the private sector (ie, businesses) for schools outside of education authority control

so what exactly is an academy school, that ED BALLS brought in (after spending 5 years getting rid of grant maintained schools)?

"... Schools have to raise Ł2m to become an academy - from private organisations such as business, faith or voluntary groups. But universities, high performing colleges and schools will now be exempt from that requirement, after schools secretary Ed Balls called for more universities to get involved in running academies.

The [labour]government contributes typically about Ł25m. The private organisation runs the school outside of the local education authority's (LEA) funding control, but still operates it within all the national requirements for curriculum and standards."

the labour government gave around Ł25 million of taxpayer's money to each academy set up, pray tell ED BALLS where did this money come from?
thats right.... straight out of the education budget which state run schools depend upon!

still... not to worry..... no harm done in being misled by a labour MP, isnt that right ED BALLS, you hypocrit!