Minichan

Topic: Sugar tax may be introduced in the UK.

Green started this discussion 12 years ago #33,928

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26442420
Fucking hell. They should tax McDonalds and KFC not fucking sugar. And it would be stupid to punish people who this doesn't effect.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #468,802

They having a giggle?

Catherine !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #468,804

Sugar is used in almost every fucking thing.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #468,807

@previous (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
It's odd seeing you swear.

Metæ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #468,811

@OP
But taxes are necessary to fund the UK's generous safety net.

Catherine !TGirlYJKXM replied with this 12 years ago, 3 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #468,813

@468,807 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Really? I could have sweared that I sweared before.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #468,818

@468,811 (Metæ)
Are you taking the piss? I can't tell.

@previous (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
Shit...

Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #468,829

@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Just stating a truism.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 13 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #468,839

@previous (Metæ)
No, but, I mean, was it your intent to take the piss? To mock?

Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #468,854

@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
No, being dead serious. If UK tax revenues remain constant or increase, it will help Green. I know your government is having to cut back on such things and this will help stop cutbacks on social spending.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 46 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #468,858

@468,829 (Metæ)
Well, they actually pour the tax revenue back into things aimed at making their citizens healthy members of the workforce rather than military spending and wartime profiteering, so it's a bit different than in the US.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 8 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #468,859

@468,854 (Metæ)
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. I am pretty sure that you're being nice. So thanks!

Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #468,860

@468,858 (E)
I don't like or support foreign intervention or wartime profiteering but you're right: we could have a European-grade welfare state if we trimmed the Department of --regime change-- Defense down to a reasonable level. I've often wondered if the Europeans are able to afford so much welfare because they don't have to expend any significant amount on defense due to the pax Americana.

Anonymous E replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #468,864

@previous (Metæ)
> Department of --regime change-- Defense
Nice. I'm referring to it as this IRL from now on.

Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #468,866

@previous (E)
It used to be the War Department which was much more honest. It's almost Orwellian to call it the department of "defense" when since 1812 it's really just been involved in waging foreign wars of choice for dubious reasons. (Even Pearl Harbor only happened because we deliberately provoked the Japanese and goaded them into it).
:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.