We do need to cull wild Deer by millions for the good of the environment so that is a positive but I doubt it will go far enough. It isn't a food strategy though.
National News Boris Johnson
- Thread starter Northstandboy
- Start date
We do need to cull wild Deer by millions for the good of the environment so that is a positive but I doubt it will go far enough. It isn't a food strategy though.
Marston Road yellow
Active member
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 916
I didn’t ask if you were bothered as I knew you wouldn’t be. I asked you what the reason behind it was. It is because this government want ordinary hard working tax payers to suffer. Nothing more nothing less.
werthersoriginal
Well-known member
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 13,212
‘Let them eat deer’
Sheik djibouti
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 6,325
Protecting the rich, protecting their pensions.
The Tories next election slogan writes itself!
OUFCGav
Well-known member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,318
Indeed. That and increasing fish farming are the only really substantive things in a 29 page document - if they can't even match the number of pages in an OUFC programme it's pretty poor.
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,218
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,218
Eat seasonal foods. Reduces the reliance on imported food and reduces CO2 produced by transport & packaging as well as saving a rainforest and the wildlife therein.
Eat less - eat better. I`ll go with Venison or any other form of game - low fat, locally sourced and tasty.
Grow some veg - most folk can plant a seed in a patio pot etc, if you have a garden or allotment all the better. Can even trade with the neighbours, nothing like food you`ve grown yourself.
Don`t eat processed
its not "cheap" and its not good for you.
LowerSouth
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 7,561
Course they do - it’s a tax break
Same tax rules apply to everyone.Course they do - it’s a tax break
Don’t you have a pension ?
chuckbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 6,740
I don’t know about typical Uk supannuation, but I can choose ethical investments which don’t include fossil fuels and for the last couple of years have performed better than the balanced portfolio.
So - no - you don’t have to invest your pension in shell etc.
Sheik djibouti
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 6,325
Too rich to need a pension, me [emoji6]
No, I do have one and it is divested of fossil fuel investment.[emoji846]
I don't think anyone is happy with the obscene profits the oil companies are making are they, unless of course they are blinded by the £ signs before their eyes.
And as someone already pointed out, the government is already making more in tax than it has graciously taken off, due to price rises in the interim.
Must do better, but don't hold your breath (Boris' current election slogan).
Last edited:
People certainly can make a choice, but I would hazard a guess that the variety of ethical funds is still very limited (I may be wrong) compared to long established funds. No doubt this will continue to improve though.
But the comments about pensions tax breaks being for the rich are clearly wrong and many who bemoan “rich” shareholders will themselves indirectly be shareholders.
No doubt many who criticise the profits of BP and Shell still drive a petrol or diesel car rather than electric. People may say they can’t afford to buy electric yet, so have to suck it up. That same principal could apply to share investors.
I can’t afford not to miss out on investment opportunities for my impending retirement, so when the share price of the likes of BP only 18 months ago was on its a**e at £1.95 (now £4.37) I was not letting that opportunity go. I am not going to apologise for that because my investment makes no difference to the bigger picture, but makes a big impact on my life personally.
So yes, slate the government for inaction over windfall taxes etc etc, but for the smaller investor who is just trying to forge a comfortable retirement, I find it a bit harsh that we seem to be tarred with the same brush as the super rich.
Last edited:
chuckbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 6,740
You are wrong. There are plenty and they can perform very well.
I didn’t say anything about independent shareholders, but people investing indirectly have a choice - as I said before, ethical funds can perform better.
Osei Yaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,322
I agree wholeheartedly on this, and this is where the divide and conquer approach pays off.
It's like comparing the self employed person who knows that their office stationery is tax deductible with the companies that register in tax havens to avoid paying billions in tax. The two are not the same. The super rich (and the treatment of them) is the issue.
chuckbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 6,740
I think EY has a point, though, that super funds act like the super rich on behalf of more normal mortals. Many people who complain about unethical companies benefit from them via their super. My point was that they don’t have to, they can divest and force the massive super funds to avoid investments they consider unethical.
Osei Yaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,322
Yes that's true and I don't really disagree at all. The will and actions of the people can change the status quo. But I'm not sure many people are that interested in their pension fund (even if they probably should be). I think the best hope for your average Joe is to play the game in front of them. IF governments closed loopholes and taxed the richest and/or most unethical companies out there as a way of offsetting their unethical-ness(?), making them less profitable in the process, then I think it'd help direct people towards other investments too.
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,218
Sue Gray, that independent bastion of reports....................... oh, true colours and all that.....
news.sky.com
Johnson allies claim partygate was 'a Labour stitch up' after Starmer appoints Sue Gray to top role
The civil servant came to public prominence when she led the inquiry into the partygate scandal. Her appointment has been widely criticised by Conservative MPs since being revealed by Sky News.
news.sky.com
38yearsofpain
Well-known member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,112
Just shows how incompetent Boris was, he gets a Labour sympathiser to head up the key enquiry that would destroy his reign as PM.Sue Gray, that independent bastion of reports....................... oh, true colours and all that.....
Johnson allies claim partygate was 'a Labour stitch up' after Starmer appoints Sue Gray to top role
The civil servant came to public prominence when she led the inquiry into the partygate scandal. Her appointment has been widely criticised by Conservative MPs since being revealed by Sky News.
Last edited:
At least he didn’t appoint one of his mates.
Can you imagine the accusations of a rigged enquiry?
