Why is the British government so obsessed with taxes? They have

>>134457348
heh, that's just a few. Here we even went and put a tax on fat. The only one, as far as I know, that ever got repealed the others stay in effect piling one on top of the other. Gibs don't come from nothing.

File: what.jpg (147KB, 2048x1228px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 2048x1228px

>>134457774
Tax on fat? Explain now.

File: suburban freak trump voter.webm (1MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 854x480px

>>134457903
America's budget problems solved with one fat tax. Can you imagine the tax revenues.

>>134458443
Actually a fat tax is a kinda good idea...

Keeps the base level of living standard from sinking too much like in America where a lot of people live in literal developing country conditions. Average Americans also pay more in taxes than I do (I've lived in both countries).

America doesn't have weird niche taxes like the Brits do but it's a far more beurocratic and poorly managed system over there. You've got way more homeless, crime and people in prison. Here if someone loses their job with no fault of their own they get job seekers allowance and can pay rent buy food etc while looking for a new job for a couple of months. In American if you lose your job you can become homeless real quick where crime looks like a good option. There is crime in Britain as well but most of it is done by non British that are not entitled to benefits.

The lowest level in America is extremely bad while in Britain it's no where near as bad and still comfy. The highest level is better in America but do you really think you're going to become some multi millionare or have much chance of becoming one? I'd rather pay for weird niche taxes (less of which come from my income than they would in America) and live a comfy stable life rather than fantasise I will become a millionare while living in a trailer after getting out of prison for robbing a bank because I couldn't pay the hospital $10000 for catching a cold like in America.

>>134459845
Alright, yet can the taxes be less niche?

>>134458443
No no, not on fat people...
>>134457903
same as extra taxes on tobacco and alcohol, you already do that don't you?
>>134459324
The only real reason ours was repealed was that it was difficult/expensive to enforce and it didn't really make people ingest less fat. Because all of the sudden, if someone had fried something, they'd use the frying fat for the gravy instead of tossing it and going with a lean alternative (just one example) simply because, otherwise we'd be tossing tax money in the bin.

>>134460037
I don't think so. They can change all the time which can be good or bad. It's better to change and adapt rather than keep the same thing going way past it's sell by date. That's the problem with US is that things are so beaurocratic and people are so fearful of change that people will keep going with them even if they are a failure and not working. The bipartisan president elect system is a perfect example.

So? Its worth it for the healthcare

>>134460670
Man we also get 4 weeks mandatory paid holiday, JSA, state and auto enrolment mandatory private pensions from our employers. We're way better off as common people in Britain than common people in the states. Only benefit to America to live there is if you're really rich but if you're really rich in Britain you can just move to the channel islands and live at an even higher standard than what the states offer.