Why not just charge those who get took to A and E for Alcholic tratment, mainly the weekend town nutters. After all you get charged for an ambulance in a car crash.

Its a slightly different scenario - the car crash ambulance charges are only made because insurers are usually involved and where there is a company accepting liability then there are charges.

In the case of an individuals health choices you could make the same argument for so many extremes and abuses, cigarettes, diet, sports, etc, etc and the counter argument is that we've already paid for the NHS, you can't charge us again for using what we've already insured against (thats why its call National Insurance).

Take that on board mate. Next time Im at the Dentist and Opticians ill tell them Ive paid for the treatment in my NI.

In the case of my waste of space nephew and his fellow alky scrotebag mates, none of them have done a days work in their lives, but have been on expensive rehab treatments and within days are back on the pi$$. He received a nice increase in his benefits not so long back as his consultant said he was never likely to be fit enough to work and the DSS doctor agreed. The last thing he needs is more bloody money to kill himself with.

Theres no way a minimum price imposition for any goods including alcohol would be legal under EU law. It's entirely anti competitive. The only legal way they could increase the price across the board would be imposition of a duty per unit.

They tried that on me when I was injured in an RTA a few years ago. I flat out refused to pay and in the end they gave up.

I see people everyday who are paying an obvious fortune for what, in effect, is actually a pair of souped-up clinic glasses

There is a poster of the female persuasion on these very boards, who has personal experience of a family member drinking himself to death at an early age. It would be interesting to see if she reckons he possibly could have been effectively priced out of his habit

doubt it mate - it doesn't really work with fags & drugs for the majority IMO

if someone wants whatever 'fix' then that person will usually pay or the privilege

it's like petrol prices - people will always pay the price if it remains the practical way to get around,they will just keep their cars a bit longer or buy second hand each time instead of buying new

It would do us all a favour. He dies, benefits can be used for somebody else, one less 2@. Everyones a winner.

I would rather them remove his money so he cannot kill himself. Not everyone would win, my sister, his brother and his two kids would lose out.

Osborne has been clever. Scrapped the 50p tax before it bit - people who could having brought forward income to before it was intrduced and now announced its future reduction, meaning people will defer taking income until it goes down. The tax will flow in just before the next election allowing him to give away to the masses. The interim austerity allows for radical anti-poor, pro-rich policy to be introduced. He'll then hope a few pre-election giive aways will allow re-election on the grounds that he's managed the economy so well that things are getting beeter. The great bonus is that they apparently have demonstrated that high tax rates don't work - by drop in revenue after introduction and increase after reduction. So even Labour will buy into the matra for another generation. Genius at -taking.

And this is clever because?

Are you suggesting he simply wants to allow the rich to escape the effects of the 50p and 45p rates?

By the way, HMRC's own figures show £16bn - £18bn of income was taken early before the 50p tax rate came in and that cost the tax man £1bn. I guess we can expect similar figures when people defer their income as well so his "cleverness" will have cost about £2bn and that is before we consider what he would have taken in tax had he kept the 50p rate such that this kind of avoidance was no longer possible.



I don't see why the tax will flow in just before the next election. Rich people who have set up legal avoidance schemes have no incentive to shot them down just because the 50p rate has gone. They may as well save tax at 40% as 50%.

I have to say though Labour have been poor at dismissing the idea that the 50% rate was not effective. I watched question time the other night and Cable and Davies said this several times and it simply was left unchallenged for the most part.

It is obvious the two main justifications for scrapping the 50% tax rate are false. That it doesn't bring much money in and that those avoiding it will suddenly grow a conscience and start paying more tax now the rate has dropped are ridiculous ideas.