What would you put a Tax on?

Biggins · 08-11-2008 12:27am

Deleted User wrote: »

Id have an asshole tax.

....its about time Fianna Fail paid up! :rolleyes:

Nightwish · 08-11-2008 1:32am

Chick Lit tax, Urban SUV motorist tax, children tax, Busker tax, the-wearing-of-tracksuits-for-fashion tax, Argos jewellery tax and finally chugger tax.

mumhaabu · 08-11-2008 1:35am

Introduce a tax on the gheyness plus wide exhausts, hoodies and scooter cds.

Havermeyer · 08-11-2008 1:36am

I'm with the tax on stupid pointless threads. We'd easily get through the recession if they were taxed.

Xavi6 · 08-11-2008 1:36am

Definitely ugg boots. Sure Daddy could so like totally afford to pay it anyway....like.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 08-11-2008 1:40am

Unreasonable Bouncer Tax. Grey sweat pants with ugg boot tax. Pissing me off tax. Not having your card out when you get to the top of the ATM queue tax.

DanGerMus · 08-11-2008 1:43am

hopalong85 wrote: »

we couldn't have that! you can't deny dacent human beings da privilege of 6 dutchies per day at da taxpayers expense!

Fixed that for ye

sijoco · 08-11-2008 1:47am

how about taxing women for every child they have out of wedlock. Now there's a thought! draconian as it may sound, it'd solve a few problems.....no doubt it would improve the gene pool? what about the social housing issue? we seem to be a nation that commends rather than penalises.

rossie1977 · 08-11-2008 2:18am

sijoco wrote: »

how about taxing women for every child they have out of wedlock.

beaten to the punch

tax on children in general :P

tax cigs more, makes no difference anyway people will complain for a while but still buy em no matter what price

Sharpshooter · 08-11-2008 2:25am

sijoco wrote: »

how about taxing women for every child they have out of wedlock.

How about taxing men for every child they have since they discovered how to use it.;)/TAXi

Ruu_Old · 08-11-2008 4:26am

Slow moving checkout lines caused by auld wans rooting in their purse tax.

IvySlayer · 08-11-2008 8:30am

The internet.

Wouldn't be surprised if they actually did it.....

luckat · 08-11-2008 9:57am

As suggested before, legalise drugs and tax them.

Seriously, though, if we did what Portugal did, and had drugs available from the government legally - but only if the fiends then go to counselling and doctors to help them get off the stuff, get help to find a job, training, etc - we'd save a fortune on all kinds of state bills.

The policing bill would drop like a stone, and the Gardai could concentrate on burglary, battery, murder, etc.

The jails would be three-quarters empty.

The health system would suddenly have spare resources.

The fiends would have proper drugs of a consistent strength, and would face much lower health risks (bad as heroin and cocaine are, Sanilav is worse).

Toiletroll · 08-11-2008 10:19am

Weed...

HollyB · 08-11-2008 12:30pm

sijoco wrote: »

how about taxing women for every child they have out of wedlock. Now there's a thought! draconian as it may sound, it'd solve a few problems.....no doubt it would improve the gene pool? what about the social housing issue? we seem to be a nation that commends rather than penalises.

We don't need to tax women for children born out of wedlock - and, in some cases, unmarried women who have children also have good jobs and are well able to support them, certainly better able than a married couple on the dole. What we really need is a drastic reduction in state handouts, and not just for parents.

Unless somebody is genuinely disabled - and this should be certified by doctors hired by the state, whose job it is to determine whether somebody's disability is serious enough to prevent them from taking on any employment, a determination that would have to be made independently by three doctors; somebody's GP certifying that they've got a bad back shouldn't qualify - then there is no possible reason why they should be on the dole long-term. This is a country that has had to import workers in recent years, so there is no reason for people to be allowed to claim the dole for years on end.

In cases where people won't work - as opposed to can't - why on Earth should the tax payers have to pick up the bill for feeding, clothing and housing them, providing them with their utilities, television and spending money?

If people have children, it is their job to take financial responsibility for them, not the rest of the country's. I don't have a problem with some assistance being provided, like Child Benefit payments, and obviously the government should provide free education, etc, to children, but other than that, parents should foot the bill. If their circumstances are such that they can't afford to have a child, then that's what birth control (and I would support that being supplied by the HSE) is for.

It's not so much that we need to increase taxes, we need to take a serious look at what our tax revenues are being spent on.

Toiletroll · 08-11-2008 12:31pm

HollyB wrote: »

We don't need to tax women for children born out of wedlock - and, in some cases, unmarried women who have children also have good jobs and are well able to support them, certainly better able than a married couple on the dole. What we really need is a drastic reduction in state handouts, and not just for parents.

Unless somebody is genuinely disabled - and this should be certified by doctors hired by the state, whose job it is to determine whether somebody's disability is serious enough to prevent them from taking on any employment, a determination that would have to be made independently by three doctors; somebody's GP certifying that they've got a bad back shouldn't qualify - then there is no possible reason why they should be on the dole long-term. This is a country that has had to import workers in recent years, so there is no reason for people to be allowed to claim the dole for years on end.

In cases where people won't work - as opposed to can't - why on Earth should the tax payers have to pick up the bill for feeding, clothing and housing them, providing them with their utilities, television and spending money?

If people have children, it is their job to take financial responsibility for them, not the rest of the country's. I don't have a problem with some assistance being provided, like Child Benefit payments, and obviously the government should provide free education, etc, to children, but other than that, parents should foot the bill. If their circumstances are such that they can't afford to have a child, then that's what birth control (and I would support that being supplied by the HSE) is for.

It's not so much that we need to increase taxes, we need to take a serious look at what our tax revenues are being spent on.

Very true

AckwelFoley · 08-11-2008 1:36pm

Id tax toilet roll just to see flutteringbantam cry.

marcsignal · 08-11-2008 1:54pm

Designer wear tax

65% tax on earnings over 200K

bringing your brats to the school down the road in an SUV tax

75% tax on 'dividents'

Tax on second homes

extra tax on booze served in 'cafe en sein' (and such places)

tiger prawns tax

nepotism tax (i'm lookin at you Ceilia Ahern)

Tax on special decoder required to watch Xpose on TV3

wearing pyjamas in public tax

boy band tax

Political Correctness tax (for the PC)

'baby on board' sticker tax

and

taking up valuable space in the beer garden if you don't smoke tax