Shock as 200 fire jobs face the axe (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Dontcha just love them caring sharing Tories and their cuts?
"Accidental fire deaths and injuries are at an all-time low" so we'll slash funding so they rise again. Brilliant!

If money has to be saved up and down the country, why not cut back on the pointless jobs such as diversity officers and climate change champions that are employed accross the country using public funds.

Keep the front line services like fire, police, nurses, etc whom actually save lives and make a difference.

EVIL TORY SCUMBAGS !

If more people worked and contributed to the overall pot of tax receipts, instead of scrounging of benefits perhaps we could afford
such niceties.

If we tackled alcohol abuse we could actually save £25 billion EVERY year.

http://www.metro.co.
uk/news/230760-25bil
lion-spent-on-alcoho
l-abuse

Just a few thoughts.

dannywho wrote:
If more people worked and contributed to the overall pot of tax receipts, instead of scrounging of benefits perhaps we could afford such niceties. If we tackled alcohol abuse we could actually save £25 billion EVERY year. http://www.metro.co. uk/news/230760-25bil lion-spent-on-alcoho l-abuse Just a few thoughts.

But it's like smoking they tell us how much drinking and smoking cost the country, but lets be realistic how much money does tax on drinking and smoking bring in.

You'll find it outweighs the cost.

Btw those figures just look made up. The £2.7bn cost on the NHS is realistic but where is the £15bn on crime coming from, it's just plucked out of thin air. £7.3bn on loss productivity.

I'm sure those who enjoy a few drinks put more into the pot than most regarding tax receipts or are we all to be like robots and just work and sleep.

If everyone stopped drinking and smoking this country would have the biggest tax blackhole ever seen but that rarely is mentioned in these reports as all these reports are taken from one viewpoint.

tax receipts from tobacco estimated at £8.2 billion per year

http://www.the-tma.o
rg.uk/tma-publicatio
ns-research/facts-fi
gures/tax-revenue-fr
om-tobacco/

alcohol tax receipts at £5.7 billion per year

beer and cider £3.4bn
spirits £2.3 bn
Total Alcohol Tax Revenue:- £5.7bn


Lost tax receipts from illicit drinking and smoking, £28 billion per year;

http://www.taxpayers
alliance.com/home/20
12/04/research-285-b
illion-lost-black-ma
rket-alcohol-tobacco
-diesel-years.html

Cost to taxpayer of alchohol abuse is £25 billion

Cost of smoking to nhs alone is £5.7 billion per year and £13.47 billion to UK.

http://info.cancerre
searchuk.org/news/ar
chive/cancernews/201
0-03-22-Tobacco-duty
-must-rise-to-reflec
t-cost-of-smoking-to
-society

http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/health/808614
2.stm

So thats still a considerable net loss to the exchequer £16 odd billion per year.

Just to add, my point is not that poeple should stop drinking or smoking, where still, thank god, a free country and within law poepel should be free to do what they like.

My point is that its no point blaming the govt. for making cuts if the activities of its citizens are affecting its ability to balance the books.

So before we start lambasting the tories and the nasty Government we should consider how eahc one of us could hellp by;

a) adding revenue to the taxman, working and being productive etc

b) minimisng the cost to our government (and they to have to ensure they keep their costs down, waging wars, legal and non-legal, costs money) by not unduly adding burdens to our nhs, police and other vital services.

dannywho wrote:
tax receipts from tobacco estimated at £8.2 billion per year http://www.the-tma.o rg.uk/tma-publicatio ns-research/facts-fi gures/tax-revenue-fr om-tobacco/ alcohol tax receipts at £5.7 billion per year beer and cider £3.4bn spirits £2.3 bn Total Alcohol Tax Revenue:- £5.7bn Lost tax receipts from illicit drinking and smoking, £28 billion per year; http://www.taxpayers alliance.com/home/20 12/04/research-285-b illion-lost-black-ma rket-alcohol-tobacco -diesel-years.html Cost to taxpayer of alchohol abuse is £25 billion Cost of smoking to nhs alone is £5.7 billion per year and £13.47 billion to UK. http://info.cancerre searchuk.org/news/ar chive/cancernews/201 0-03-22-Tobacco-duty -must-rise-to-reflec t-cost-of-smoking-to -society http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/health/808614 2.stm So thats still a considerable net loss to the exchequer £16 odd billion per year.

Firstly your link says tax revenues for tobacco are £12.1bn, not the £8.2bn you quoted.

There are also 5700 people directly employed by these companies, if they didn't exist these would be on the dole, there are also a further 80,000 jobs that were dependant on the tobacco industry according to your link.

All your link has done is backed up the statement than tobacco pays for itself.

Regarding alcohol, your figures appear to not match what is widely availible and appears to be at least half of what it should be. There are also all the pubs, clubs, nightclubs, etc which pay corporation tax, employ people and bring people into the towns and cities to spend money.

Care to share your link regarding alcohol sales?

This here on the BBC from 2 years ago states revenue was £14.6bn from Alcohol.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-11170814

alcohol slaes is your point, cant you even be bothered to backup your own point, i certainly wont be doing your homework for you.

dannywho wrote:
alcohol slaes is your point, cant you even be bothered to backup your own point, i certainly wont be doing your homework for you.

Lets not start throwing toys out of the pram because your being shown up.

Quote from my link,

"Beer contributes £5.5bn in duty and VAT and alcohol contributing £14.6bn in total to UK tax revenues."

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

dannywho wrote:
alcohol slaes is your point, cant you even be bothered to backup your own point, i certainly wont be doing your homework for you.

Lets not start throwing toys out of the pram because your being shown up.

Quote from my link,

"Beer contributes £5.5bn in duty and VAT and alcohol contributing £14.6bn in total to UK tax revenues."

hmm, shown up you say?

Total cost of alcohol and tobacco is still approx £30 billion per year, even with your figures we are still at a nest loss.

and that doesnt even cover the human cost, approx 100,000 deaths from smoking alone every year.

http://www.netdoctor
.co.uk/health_advice
/facts/smokehealth.h
tm

And your excuse is, well it keeps people employed, I'm sure the nazis kept gas fitters employed but that doesnt really make it right, does it?

Gosh, now i really do feel shown up, not!

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

dannywho wrote:
alcohol slaes is your point, cant you even be bothered to backup your own point, i certainly wont be doing your homework for you.

Lets not start throwing toys out of the pram because your being shown up.

Quote from my link,

"Beer contributes £5.5bn in duty and VAT and alcohol contributing £14.6bn in total to UK tax revenues."

okay, so we are at an approx net loss of £10 billion if we accept your figures, plus 100,000 deaths from smoking and just under 9,000 deatsh from alcohol abuse with predictions from medical experts of 210,000 deaths in the next 20 years.

http://www.nhs.uk/ne
ws/2012/02February/P
ages/uk-alcohol-deat
hs-predicted.aspx

dannywho wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

dannywho wrote: alcohol slaes is your point, cant you even be bothered to backup your own point, i certainly wont be doing your homework for you.

Lets not start throwing toys out of the pram because your being shown up. Quote from my link, "Beer contributes £5.5bn in duty and VAT and alcohol contributing £14.6bn in total to UK tax revenues."

hmm, shown up you say? Total cost of alcohol and tobacco is still approx £30 billion per year, even with your figures we are still at a nest loss. and that doesnt even cover the human cost, approx 100,000 deaths from smoking alone every year. http://www.netdoctor .co.uk/health_advice /facts/smokehealth.h tm And your excuse is, well it keeps people employed, I'm sure the nazis kept gas fitters employed but that doesnt really make it right, does it? Gosh, now i really do feel shown up, not!

The cost of £25bn per year like I said initially doesn't stack up. How can you put a cost on productivity? and quoting a crime cost of up to £15bn means very little.

My house costs upto £15bn. A bag of sweets costs upto £15bn.

Your figures have been shown up though as I found an extra £10bn on top of what you were initially quoting before looking at all the bar staff, that are employed and the tax they pay.

Like I said from the start, the tax receipts from drinking and smoking cover the costs incurred, your initial quote was it costs £25bn (which like I said is based on nothing as I'd like to know how the productivity and crime costs are calculated) with no regard for the tax revenue it raises.

do you not understand what crime is? One would dare to hazard a guest that it is the cost associated with policing drunken disorder, in any case thee are not my figured but independant ones and it does list all the costs.

Lets not get into the circular argument of well it supports this trade and that because you could equally argue the lost off 100,000 people every year will affect mental wellness of the loves ones left behind, the costs in dealing with all those deatsh etc etc.

Sufice it to say even being genorous with your figures, direct tax contribution is circa £20 bn and the cost diretcly in taxpayer expense is circa £30 bn.

Getting back to the point, we can all help in balalncing our national books and I am sure the decision to axe 200 frontline fire fighting personnel was not taken lightly.

No doubt this is a council tax issue as I believe, if my council tax breakdown is correct, that a portion of my council tax pays for the fire brigade service, and we all nkow council coffers are squeezed, either from unfair central govt. funding or as we know, a p iss poor ouncil that is unable to attract inward investment or find any meaningful way of moving bradford further, in fact as we know, it is going the other way and literally leaving gaping wie craters in our city centre.

Yes I do understand what crime is but the figure is one just plucked out of the air.

Loss of productivity, again a figure just plucked out of the air. How does that £7.3bn come about? Is it loss in tax receipts? Is it in the private sector, is it a cost to the public sector, what is it and how is it calculated?

These figures are just like those that the council used to push through the City Park, complete bias to get one side of the arguement across.

Not once in your initial link does it mention the money that is brought in just scary figures putting it;s agender across.

Your initial figures have been found wanting, £13.9bn in total when just the smallest of research has proven that to be £26.7bn.

Those figures are somewhat factual compared to the headline grabbing £25bn cost which is made up of estimated productivity loss and random police costs.

As far as I can see, the tax receipts are factual, the other figures are just media driven figures to shock, which is why they are never accompanied by tax revenue.

Only yesterday you were saying how the media stir up and give bias against muslims, yet you treat two bob reporting from the same media outlets as gospel.

I have linked to numerous sources and referance points including different media outlets and different organisations such as the nhs.

And I didnt invent the idea that some portions of the media deliberately invent ant-muslim stories, one of the guilty tabloids own journalist outing them for doing so,

Here read what he had to say;

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/media/2011/mar
/04/daily-star-repor
ter-quits-protest

The EDL story is one of a number of prominent articles published by the Star that Peppiatt claims were made up, including some of his own. The reporter was recently involved in stories claiming Rochdale council had spent taxypayers' money on "Muslim-only squat-hole loos". In fact, the toilets were neither paid for by the local authority or "Muslim-only".

"I was tasked with writing a gloating follow-up declaring our post-modern victory in 'blocking' the non-existent Islamic cisterns of evil," Peppiatt wrote. The Press Complaints Commission later ruled the story was inaccurate and misleading.

The reporter also quotes Kelly Brook, who recently complained about the number of fabricated stories she reads about herself on the internet. She said: "There was a story that I'd seen a hypnotherapist to help me cut down on the time I take to get ready to go out. Where do they get it from?"

Peppiatt wrote: "Maybe I should answer that one. I made it up. Not that it was my choice: I was told to." He said he had "plucked" the story about Brook's experimentation with hypnotherapy from his imagination, adding: "Not that it was all bad. I pocketed a £150 bonus."

--------

Please dont get upset with me if you are losing an argument, its not the end of the world is it?

Not once have I questioned the cost to the NHS, but I have said from the start the tax revenue more than covers the costs and nothing I have seen so far tells me otherwise.

It's the headline grabbing £15bn crime and £7.3bn productivity that I don't believe are factual figures but just figures to scare the public. Like I said what is the productivity loss refering too? Days off sick? Cost to the taxpayer? Total costs or Tax revenue cost? It means nothing just quoted as £7.3bn.

As for the media against muslims quote, I mentioned that based on how you used it as way to ignore a debate yesterday but now rely on figures as gospel today from the same media outlets.

I dont ignore debate, but i made a valid point that given the level of islamaphobic media hostility towards muslims, given that we know many of the gutter press tend to write for the masses, making up anti muslim stories just so they can sell more papers and make more money, that it is no wonder that I have found many on here get hysterial at the mere mention of muslims and I made an equally valid point in the GG story that he fixation by some of he posters in that story over GG faith was synptomatic of this, the were "accusing" him of being muslim, as if its a dirty word and being muslim is bad.

Can you not make the connection between a islamaphobic media and thereforea resultant islamaphobic wider public?

Do you think it is civilised and right that in this country we can allow some parts of the media to invent stories to alienate, intimidate and stir up hatred and hostility against other British citizens who make up roughly 4.6% of the population?

Do you think it is acceptable tah the media and other islamaphobes are relentlessly probing GG faith?

Would you ask him if he was Jewish?

Anyway, dont answer i dont really care, I was just making my point, I know many here are blinded by their ignorance and hate, and I won't pretend they could see the woods for the trees.

By all means get back to your usual tabloid rubbish, whats it today, "muslim man converts his cat"

LMFAO!

As the article states some stations are half as busy as before, that must be good as there must be alot less emergencies. If these people need to be still employed why don't we stop letting those idiots that get money from the government that dont deserve it!

dannywho wrote:
I dont ignore debate, but i made a valid point that given the level of islamaphobic media hostility towards muslims, given that we know many of the gutter press tend to write for the masses, making up anti muslim stories just so they can sell more papers and make more money, that it is no wonder that I have found many on here get hysterial at the mere mention of muslims and I made an equally valid point in the GG story that he fixation by some of he posters in that story over GG faith was synptomatic of this, the were "accusing" him of being muslim, as if its a dirty word and being muslim is bad. Can you not make the connection between a islamaphobic media and thereforea resultant islamaphobic wider public? Do you think it is civilised and right that in this country we can allow some parts of the media to invent stories to alienate, intimidate and stir up hatred and hostility against other British citizens who make up roughly 4.6% of the population? Do you think it is acceptable tah the media and other islamaphobes are relentlessly probing GG faith? Would you ask him if he was Jewish? Anyway, dont answer i dont really care, I was just making my point, I know many here are blinded by their ignorance and hate, and I won't pretend they could see the woods for the trees. By all means get back to your usual tabloid rubbish, whats it today, "muslim man converts his cat" LMFAO!

If you read my first post on yesterdays story in question you will see I asked what the agender was in hounding Mr Galloway.

I'm here am merely pointing out the similuarities between what you claim is media bias against muslims to the media bias towards smoking and drinking.

All stories appear to be reported in a fashion that are not neutral in their approach. I've said several times there are stories quoting smoking costs the country this, drinking costs the country that and I am yet to see any story give a balanced piece reporting on tax receipts generated by this two "evils".

I personally don't give a toss about Galloway, I'm just pointing out the same thing you said about the media bias yesterday is built into every story on drinking and smoking.

You forgot cakes and high fat saturated foods which cost the NHS too but are not anywhere near recouped through taxation, unlike alcohol and tobacco.

I'd love to see fatties crawling desperately towards Greggs or Salahs aching to get the next piece of fat soaked rubbish into their over expansive guts, at £7.50 a pie/piece of fried chicken.

Shove your quotd figures in your pipe.

"Thank you for your recent email to the Department of Health about the
revenue generated from tobacco sales. I have been asked to reply.

It is very difficult to establish an exact figure on what smoking related
ill-health costs the NHS. However, smoking is the largest single cause of
preventable illness and premature death in the UK. It kills 106,000
people every year and costs the British taxpayer more than -L-1.7billion a
year in treatment bills alone. It causes 84 per cent of deaths from lung
cancer and 83 per cent of deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease,
including bronchitis.

The revenue generated from tobacco products is a matter for HM Treasury.
However, it should be noted that the Government, as a whole, has made the
decision to reduce smoking rates in England. In 2004, the Government
agreed an overarching target to reduce smoking substantially from 25 per
cent in 2004 to 21 per cent or less by 2010 and to reduce smoking among
routine and manual groups to 26 per cent or less. The Government expects
that reducing smoking rates will lead to a loss of revenue to the
Exchequer. However, any loss to the Exchequer is balanced by the fact
that thousands of lives are saved through the Government's tobacco control strategy"

absolutely right, obesity costs the country too, and the many unhealthy takeways, fast food outlets and restaurants that seems to be on every corner in my ward contribute to this too.

And I certainly wouldnt argue that this is okay because the takeaways keep poeple employed.

In fact I have often written to the council eveytime some new takeaway pops up near my road, complaining that enough is enough, but surprisingly they never reply.

The council really should take an intereste in this in terms of ensuring a good mix of different business types and indeed, maybe insisting that a percentage of the menu is more healthy?

Like I said at the start, govt. job is to balance the books, you cant spend what you dont have? Or you could but then we'd be like Greece.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:
EVIL TORY SCUMBAGS !

Which part of the country is skint don't you understand?

dannywho wrote:
absolutely right, obesity costs the country too, and the many unhealthy takeways, fast food outlets and restaurants that seems to be on every corner in my ward contribute to this too.

And I certainly wouldnt argue that this is okay because the takeaways keep poeple employed.

In fact I have often written to the council eveytime some new takeaway pops up near my road, complaining that enough is enough, but surprisingly they never reply.

The council really should take an intereste in this in terms of ensuring a good mix of different business types and indeed, maybe insisting that a percentage of the menu is more healthy?

Like I said at the start, govt. job is to balance the books, you cant spend what you dont have? Or you could but then we'd be like Greece.

They can't ensure a mix of 'useful' retail/food outlets in the centre, we have no chance of them being pro-active in outlying suburbs.

There are differing schools of thoughts on the tobacco/alcohol costs to the taxpayer compared to the revenue generated by both. There is also the advancement of treatments for related illness which were pioneered and paid for by the revenue from the tax raised by both yet again. These treatments benefit populations worldwide, especially in the COPD and chest illness areas, which in many cases are non-related to any direct or indirect smoke inhalation.

It really is a circular argument because the metrics to try get a balanced view are never able to be compared fully and truthfully by any govt department. They scare tactic into forcing/making people go along with them.

DevonBull wrote:
As the article states some stations are half as busy as before, that must be good as there must be alot less emergencies. If these people need to be still employed why don't we stop letting those idiots that get money from the government that dont deserve it!

Which idiots are getting money that don't deserve it?

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

dannywho wrote:
absolutely right, obesity costs the country too, and the many unhealthy takeways, fast food outlets and restaurants that seems to be on every corner in my ward contribute to this too.

And I certainly wouldnt argue that this is okay because the takeaways keep poeple employed.

In fact I have often written to the council eveytime some new takeaway pops up near my road, complaining that enough is enough, but surprisingly they never reply.

The council really should take an intereste in this in terms of ensuring a good mix of different business types and indeed, maybe insisting that a percentage of the menu is more healthy?

Like I said at the start, govt. job is to balance the books, you cant spend what you dont have? Or you could but then we'd be like Greece.

They can't ensure a mix of 'useful' retail/food outlets in the centre, we have no chance of them being pro-active in outlying suburbs.

There are differing schools of thoughts on the tobacco/alcohol costs to the taxpayer compared to the revenue generated by both. There is also the advancement of treatments for related illness which were pioneered and paid for by the revenue from the tax raised by both yet again. These treatments benefit populations worldwide, especially in the COPD and chest illness areas, which in many cases are non-related to any direct or indirect smoke inhalation.

It really is a circular argument because the metrics to try get a balanced view are never able to be compared fully and truthfully by any govt department. They scare tactic into forcing/making people go along with them.

Perhaps I should add again, that I am not talking about stopping drinking, i am talking about alcohol abuse and dealing with that.

Many other countries have a very healthy habit with drink and so did England, once upon a time. However many agree that alcohol abuse and the related social and health problems is a fairly new / generational problem with women now equally as involved in drinking to excess, as well as alcohol abusers starting younger and younger.

I think tackling the endemic alcohol abuse would yeild the best of both worlds, a healthy drinking habit and money in the coffers.

Alcohol abuse is and always has been an endemic issue in British culture. Mainly dating back to the times when the water was not clean enough to drink and therefore the brewing processes used killing the bacterium which caused many deaths. Even children drank alcohol. There are plenty of illustrations(mainly Hogarth) which show gin soaked mothers languishing with babes in arms being dropped, all under the banner of pawnbrokers.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Alcohol abuse is and always has been an endemic issue in British culture. Mainly dating back to the times when the water was not clean enough to drink and therefore the brewing processes used killing the bacterium which caused many deaths. Even children drank alcohol. There are plenty of illustrations(mainly Hogarth) which show gin soaked mothers languishing with babes in arms being dropped, all under the banner of pawnbrokers.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

That is true, Gin was actually cheaper than beer until the government decided to try and make it more expensive, the French had exactly the same problem with Absinthe.

webess wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:
EVIL TORY SCUMBAGS !

Which part of the country is skint don't you understand?

No it's not. There is a wealthy elite who have pocketed all the money. Time to take it off them. Besides, public spending has actually INCREASED under the inept Tories! The spending cuts are just a smoke-screen for the Tories ideological drive to dismantle the State at any cost, and divert even more funds into private hands in the process.

dannywho wrote:
If more people worked and contributed to the overall pot of tax receipts, instead of scrounging of benefits perhaps we could afford
such niceties.

If we tackled alcohol abuse we could actually save £25 billion EVERY year.

http://www.metro.co.

uk/news/230760-25bil

lion-spent-on-alcoho

l-abuse

Just a few thoughts.

Then I suggest you think again, and try thinking a little harder this time.

It is not people on Benefits that are bankrupting the country, it is the rich individuals and the international companies who don't pay their taxes.

There is currently a conservative estimate of £13 Trillion owed globally in unpaid taxes by the super-rich. They are the scroungers. Benefits money is ours to begin with by right.

Or perhaps you're one of those idiotic contradictions, a Working Class Tory, who prefers to stick his head in the sand and his arsse in the air ready to take it. Bend over and be shafted like a good little peasant.