egafd.com

I have translated certain points of Muppet Man's 'budget' into plain English

To provide certainty, the chancellor said he is writing to the governor of the Bank of England to keep a 2% target on inflation.
- Prices will continue to rise, but what 'defines' inflation will keep interest rates low and pay rises minimal

From 2009, major reform of the vehicle excise duty. For new cars from 2010, the lowest polluting cars will pay no road tax in the first year. Higher polluting cars will pay more.
- think about it! The main cause of pollution by cars is in the manufacture of cars. So, here's what we'll do, we'll convince everyone to throw away their old cars that produce a fraction more Co2 and rush out to buy these fantastic new disposable blandmobiles on credit on the premise they'll save ?120 or therabouts... Ingenuis for the car and credit industry but makes no environmental sense at all.

There will be a capital fund of ?12.5m to encourage more women entrepreneurs
- Surely this inverse sexism shouldn't be allowed, I thought we all worked on a level playing field? Females can get subsidies if they want to go into business, men can go whistle?

?26m to help make homes greener.
- does this mean we're all going to get free green paint? Are the makers of UPVC windows, doors, soffits, facias etc all going to produce a cheaper range in green?


at least he left vehicle exise license alone in the main

I see he's chucking money at the breeders again.

dynatech wrote:

>>>


Don't get me started on this. Fucking disgrace.

That women are discriminated against in the workplace is a total myth - there are equal opportunities for ALL to work and achieve to their full potential, this is enshrined in law and has been for 30 years or more.

If employers discriminate on the basis of gender, they can (and often do) find themselves hauled before employment tribunals.

That women may not be as (what's the phrase?) "well represented" in certain areas and professions has got fuck-all to do with discrimination and everything to do with biology - not least the fact that women are the ones who have babies - hence inevitable career interruptions.

The female brain is also 'wired' differently to the male brain. This means that women have certain natural aptitudes and skills that men lack - and vice versa. So naturally, there are certain careers that men gravitate more towards (engineering, technical etc.), while more women can be found in others (languages, nursing etc.).

You can't legislate against biology - much as a lot of "wimmin" apparantly would like to.

We're often bombarded with sweeping statements like "women's salaries are 25% lower than mens" - which are invariably crass over-generalisations based on selective statistics that give a false impression of widespread and systematic discrimination against women.

Sure, a "lot of men may earn more than a lot of women" - but what about all those women who earn a lot more than a lot of men?

It cuts both ways.

Funny also how any form of discrimination against females (real or perceived) is regarded by the politically-correct fuckwits who run the system as a social evil that must be rectified at all costs, whereas discrimination against men (which takes many & varied forms) doesn't seem to matter.

Notice how (just for example) there are always various "initiatives" and "moves" to "encourage more women & girls" into such-and-such a field of study or work. Whereas the under-representation of men in certain areas doesn't seem important at all.

There's even a "Minister for Women", for fuck's sake!!!!! So far from discrimination against women, what we actually have is massive and widespread discrimination against men - from the Halls of Westminster right down to Sheila's fucking Wheels!!

But that's not all - the "wimmins' lobby" aren't just after what they regard as "equality" with men. Their aim is in fact to achieve favourable treatment for women right across the board and turn men into second-class citizens. And politicians of all parties are only to happy to pander to them.

It's all bollocks.

- Eric

dynatech wrote:

> I have translated certain points of Muppet Man's 'budget' into
> plain English

Muppet Man? So no bias there then.


>
> To provide certainty, the chancellor said he is writing to the
> governor of the Bank of England to keep a 2% target on
> inflation.
> - Prices will continue to rise, but what 'defines' inflation
> will keep interest rates low and pay rises minimal

You have just passed Economics 101. Inflation is caused by international pressures, not domestic. The vulnerable are being cushioned by this Government- the Tories would make them suffer as usual.


>
> From 2009, major reform of the vehicle excise duty. For new
> cars from 2010, the lowest polluting cars will pay no road tax
> in the first year. Higher polluting cars will pay more.
> - think about it! The main cause of pollution by cars is in the
> manufacture of cars. So, here's what we'll do, we'll convince
> everyone to throw away their old cars that produce a fraction
> more Co2 and rush out to buy these fantastic new disposable
> blandmobiles on credit on the premise they'll save ?120 or
> therabouts... Ingenuis for the car and credit industry but
> makes no environmental sense at all.

CO2 levels will be reduced in a switch from old gas-guzzlers to new greener cars.


>
> There will be a capital fund of ?12.5m to encourage more women
> entrepreneurs
> - Surely this inverse sexism shouldn't be allowed, I thought we
> all worked on a level playing field? Females can get subsidies
> if they want to go into business, men can go whistle?

Men have controlled business in Britain since time immemorial. This measure creates a more level playing-field.

>
> ?26m to help make homes greener.
> - does this mean we're all going to get free green paint? Are
> the makers of UPVC windows, doors, soffits, facias etc all
> going to produce a cheaper range in green?

Energy saving and better heat retention.
>
>
> at least he left vehicle exise license alone in the main
>

In English: f...k the small kids with asthma, I want to drive a big car.

I think you are the Muppet Man, dynatech. Sorry mate.

That is unforgivably misogynistic.

colonel wrote:

>>


We already have a level playing field (if anything, the checks, balances and legislation that already exist are more biased towards women).

Are you saying that as things stand, it's more difficult for a women to set up in business, and if so - why?

Was Anita Roddick discriminated against when she started up Body Shop all those years ago? And what about all the other female entrepreneurs and captains of industry? Are they "discriminated against" as well?

Do you believe that women should be rights make up 52% of all top managers / entrepreneurs simply because they make up 52% of the population?

- Eric

No, of course not. But I would be surprised if they made up 5.2% at the moment.

Name me 10 male entrepreneurs in Britain. And then name me 10 female ones.

colonel wrote:

>>>


They won't though.

Because someone who can afford to spend 30 or 40 Grand or more on a so-called "gas guzzler" isn't going to lose too much sleep over a couple of hundred quid more in road tax.

Same as adding a few pence to booze duty isn't going to miraculously see off the "binge drinking" culture.

Besides which, these cars cause only a tiny fraction of the country's total CO2 emissions - although the way the government bang on about it and the "environmental lobby" demonise them, you can be forgiven for believing the opposite.

Once again it's the government paying lip-service to environmental concerns by going for a soft yet high-profile target in an effort to be "seen to be doing something".

- Eric

Maybe it won't, but you can't decide to do nothing at all, or are you suggesting that only cheaper cars and cheaper booze be taxed?

A two-tier system is what we've been against for years, yet still we have dole cheats being targeted and shrewd, clever business people who use legal loopholes to avoid paying tax getting away with it.

colonel wrote:

>>


To be honest, off the top of my head I can't even name 10 males, LOL!! But it isn't about naming names. That's not important.

Why do you think that there isn't a "level playing field"?

Why do you believe that women are actively discriminated against when it comes to setting up a business, and what form do you believe this discrimination takes?

Why do you feel that it's justifiable for a government to spend taypayers' money on what amounts to reverse sexism? Because that's what it amounts to, however much they might try to dress it up as "creating opportunities".

- Eric