Jump to content


Gold Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by vikingTON

  1. The same could be said, if not more so, for Queens' Park. Montrose and Cove wouldn't be far off that either. I've no idea why you think that merely having 6-7 Championship-ready players in your squad is sufficient to win the league below, never mind 'scoosh' it. You'd think that year after year of midtable mediocrity would have taught you that lesson by now.
  2. Here was me thinking you had taken Moomintroll's advice and had left the thread. That lasted long. As it is, I've no idea what your point is any more. You've used Wikipedia quotes to argue that duties are imposed for public health purposes to control consumption of alcohol and booze; I've demonstrated how the system actually works in practice. The Treasury sets duties and there is absolutely no evidence to show that whoever is in charge - whether that is George Osborne or not - respond to public health mewling when setting duties. It is a straightforward extension of government tax policy and nothing more. We also know that duties aren't linked to public health policy on alcohol because there are, err, purpose-built pressure groups calling for exactly that change to be implemented: https://ahauk.org/what-we-do/our-priorities/alcohol-duty-reform/ I'm sure that they'll be willing to hear non-sequitur quotations you've lifted off Wikipedia though, so feel free to take your gormless bodying to that platform.
  3. Well no, I really don't think Inverness were sitting in the dressing room at half time saying 'well it was only sliced crosses and slack passes that caused those chances, so let's get the cigars out lads'. It's completely irrelevant how those earlier chances were caused. They just went out and were duly gifted a second goal regardless.
  4. I've no idea what this mewling is supposed to achieve, considering the absolute nick of a goal that actually opened the scoring. It doesn't matter how and why a chance to score is presented to a team. Morton did have a couple of good chances to score at 0-0. As a point of fact, that is simply correct. It is also a point of fact that we didn't take them, which was entirely predictable given the toothless nature of our forward line. Then we got rightly punished for our own sheer incompetence with the opening goal, that gave ICT a comfortable position to control the game from and deservedly win. Those are not mutually exclusive statements.
  5. I was meaning anyone who doesn't pay income tax as I stated. That includes millions of pensioners, students, folk unable to work, not just the unemployed. It's a bat shit mental scheme he's proposing. Pensioners being of course the key demographic for the large donner kebab market as you outlined in your original example. You're fooling nobody champ. Best to just 'fess up to your open resentment at pesky students and the poor not having to pay a fat tax, while you waddle your way through this grave social injustice.
  6. ^^^ verge of tears George Osborne did not reduce duty on alcohol in the interests of public health. He couldn't give a shite about the latter. In the same way that Rishi Sunak, Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown and every other Chancellor in the UK's history didn't give a single, shiny shite about public health concerns when choosing how to levy indirect taxes for the greatest political effect.
  7. No team looks in danger of giving their lead away against a Gus McPherson side.
  8. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26644768 Presumably that renowned public health moralist, err, George Osborne, must have got together with the guys and concluded that the British public just weren't drinking enough alcohol back in 2014. What other possible public health explanation could there be for a government scrapping automatic excise raises put in place by the former governing party? Answers on a postcard please to WeeBully (include your bank account details and he'll probably wire you his savings as well!)
  9. If excise duties were genuinely levied to encourage correct social behaviour, then fuel duties would not have been frozen in the UK since 2009 - in the middle of political and societal caterwauling about climate change and decarbonising the UK economy. Despite the argument for punishing private car use having gained enormous momentum in the past decade, it has actually become far cheaper in real terms to drive rather than use public transport in the UK because of the fuel duty freeze. The explanation for this is entirely straightforward. The reason why fuel duties have not been increased is because it was politically undesirable to do so. That issue remains toxic in UK politics to this day. So fuel duty is frozen for an entire decade despite the UK Government and the media and everyone else expressing their concern about the polar bears and the Amazon rainforest and the China's CO2 emissions. The idea of using duties to actually change fuel consumption, or alcohol consumption, or tobacco consumption is nothing but sanctimonious window dressing. What matters is whether a government needs more money, and whether it thinks that it can get that money by raising indirect taxes without causing a political backlash. The demands of government tax policy drive the morality play about tobacco and alcohol consumption; not the other way round. And if you think that it has been anything otherwise then your appointment with the wallet inspector will be an enlightening one.
  10. It would absolutely have the outcomes that I want from it. By giving people a direct financial incentive to live a healthy lifestyle, this will raise funds for the public health service in almost direct relationship to the number of puffing, fat slobs that it has to care for within society. The lower the rate of obesity, the less tax that gets paid while the burden on healthcare resources also drops. It also acheives the second outcome of being a socially progressive measure, by making sure that those with the most wealth available to them pay the most in taxes for their behaviour. While ensuring that those who are living in poverty do not face an extra burden on their everyday consumption, based on middle class concern trolling on their behalf. Those are the only two legitimate outcomes of a public health policy and it fits both of them. Thanks for playing anyway.
  11. It is 'clear'... based on an 18th century treatise, by someone who didn't actually set excise policy, which you dredged up from Wikipedia. Another word for that would be 'bollocks' then.
  12. If there's no win on board by the end of the month then you're as well putting 'can win promotion from the seaside leagues' on the call for applications. McPherson has done nothing to deserve being entrusted with those three matches. He should be emptied now before the damage is too great to be overcome by a replacement.
  13. Erm no, I simply interpreted exactly what you meant by the harrumphing chicanery below: It's quite fucking clear that you were alluding to those below the income tax threshold. Given that non-doms are not exactly known for getting a large donner delivered to their superyacht to 'soak up' the Dom Perignon. Punching down on the poorest in society because you don't want to pay more tax than them for being an unfit slob. You stay classy.
  14. Just so we're clear about this, your argument now is that it is unfair to set up a direct and straightforward incentive link between having a healthy lifestyle and paying less tax, which in turn tracks with the burden placed on the NHS by the level of unhealthy, fat messes in society. Because it would be unfair on the poor to have access to a better-resourced state healthcare system; whereas an American style nation of fatties is the benchmark of equality and social justice. There are no words to fully describe the idiot hole you've descended into.
  15. The working population aren't being taxed on purchasing alcohol or unhealthy foods under my scheme champ. They would only be taxed on the outcomes of excessive, unhealthy consumption: such as being a bloated, fat mess and a drain on public health resources. If someone wants to have a fish supper every other night but is working and exercising hard enough to stay fit and healthy, then they pay absolutely nothing. It is only the MUP and 'junk food' tax' policies that force everyone to pay at point of consumption, by setting a floor on minimum prices that disproportionately affect the poor while not affecting the consumption of the rich in any way whatsoever. Your own, gammon-faced mewling about 'thae folk on benefits eating and drinking to their hearts content' has been duly noted. This quite clearly has got nothing to do with your concern about public health and everything to do with punching down at the 'scum' beneath you in society. Which neatly summarises the entire premise of public health interventionism in Scotland today.
  16. Adam Smith did not actually set UK excise policy, but thanks for dredging up your Wikipedia-level analysis anyway. The reason why we have excise taxes on fags and alcohol is that they are an easy source of indirect taxation for the government: in the exact same way that governments also used to tax salt or having windows. Unless you think that the window tax was also an intervention based on legitimate public health concerns, then you are tilting at windmills. Indeed we can see exactly how this process works, by noting that the level of UK excise duties on alcohol and tobacco are not and have never been related to levels of public consumption. The government does not raise duties because people are drinking or smoking more, nor has that money ever gone to protecting public health. They do so as part of their annual Budget, and the money raises goes into the general pot for completely separate purposes. The same goes for fuel duty, which is also not and has never been set to try and stop people using cars. Governments tax consumption because it is politically easier for them to do so than to raise direct taxation. The rest of the explanation offered is simply window dressing.
  17. Why should McPherson be given the next three games? His performance has been useless from start to finish and there is no sign of an upward trajectory; if the team continues on the same level of performance between now and the end of this month, then it will be a steep uphill task for any replacement to get the squad out of trouble. The correct time to act is now, so that either a replacement or even a caretaker can put in place fresh ideas for those games.
  18. Yet our resident simp can't explain what that reason actually is!
  19. Speaking of flailing, I'd simply like you to set out 'the reason why we use excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol'. Be extremely specific.
  20. You weren't 'comfortably the better side' at all (this appears to be a running theme of your fanbase's rolling, Liverpool-esque sense of injustice) and the second goal wasn't ruled out. In any other week, we wouldn't have had a penalty awarded against us in our last home match against Arbroath. That's just how football works. Few other fanbases peddle this laughable spin and simply accept that they are where they are for perfectly explicable reasons.
  21. What do you think the reason is that excise taxes are used on fags and booze 'at the moment'? Once you provide your utterly gormless answer, be sure to wait for the wallet inspector to check in on you as well.
  22. Queens' win at Cappielow was hardly convincing either, so this has a distinct rose tint to events. Bonus mewling point for mentioning how young your team is, as the rest of the division of course resembles 92/93 Serie A in having seasoned international veterans all over the park.
  23. The only surprises from our team performance in the first quarter of the season are that we're not bottom of the table yet and that we've actually put together the nucleus of a decent team. Our problem is that we handed a two year deal in the summer to a slaphead dinosaur for heroically beating a crap Airdrie side in the playoffs. If the board need to suck it up and cut their losses on that then we stand a fair chance; if they don't, then we don't either. Adding Oksanen and McEntee to our previously weak lineup should be enough to have scrapping in and around 7th-10th. Despite the current table, we're actually doing no such thing under McPherson. Four of our six points were in the opening fortnight of the season. The huge individual surprise so far is that Jack Hamilton has actually been by some distance our most consistent and effective performer. Which doesn't exactly bode well for what might happen if he starts flapping about, given that we're already in a total nick of a position while he's playing well.
  • Create New...