ThePRGuy From United Kingdom (England), joined Aug 2006, 1943 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1077 times:
I think what Gozza is doing is pouring petrol on a house fire - he is lashing out at Iceland in times of crisis - I don't think he reacted the same way with Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley.
we are going to Iceland on Saturday 18th and they have withdrawn all currency from outside of iceland! On the plus side, our car and hotel which was £1k a month ago has now been paid for and cost us £650.
Alex
Heathrow has been described as the only building site to have its own airport.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13401 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1077 times:
Quoting Cumulus (Reply 2): Children starving etc and there's £11m for Cats - not right.
The economist perspective that Adam Smith would probably argue, is that if private individuals see fit to donate a portion of their wealth to cat charities then so be it.
Perhaps saying not enough people care for children starving would be sounder argument than de facto condemning people who have money and care about cats donating to a cat charity
OA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 11827 posts, RR: 22 Reply 5, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1055 times:
Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 4): Perhaps saying not enough people care for children starving would be sounder argument than de facto condemning people who have money and care about cats donating to a cat charityÂ
Exactly. We could use it for everything !! Cumulus instead of taking a holiday next year why not donate it to the starving children??
Cumulus From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1317 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1046 times:
Quoting OA260 (Reply 5): Cumulus instead of taking a holiday next year why not donate it to the starving children??
Couldn't afford a holiday this year, I'm a Single Dad and spend a fortune bringing my Daughter up, but if I had surplus income I would happily donate it to starving children and certainly not Cats.
What Goes Up Must Come Down, Hopefully In One Piece!
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 1938 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1035 times:
Quoting Cumulus (Reply 2): Because they're Cats!! Children starving etc and there's £11m for Cats - not right.
Why spend it on children? Why not on cancer?
Fact is, there is always going to be some causes you think are more worthy than others. Following your logic, we should just spend $8 trillion or whatever in the cause you think is more worthy (which would not solve it, by the way) and then only move out of it once it had been resolved. In the meantime bridges would crumble, hospitals would stop operating, etc.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
DL021 From United States, joined May 2004, 10983 posts, RR: 89 Reply 11, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1008 times:
Quoting Cumulus (Reply 2): Because they're Cats!! Children starving etc and there's £11m for Cats - not right.
Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 4): The economist perspective that Adam Smith would probably argue, is that if private individuals see fit to donate a portion of their wealth to cat charities then so be it.
Basic economic freedom means we can spend our own money on anything we desire. If we want to spend our money on insect husbandry for recreation and fun then that's ok. The money gets into the economy and is spent on something. As long as it's not in someones mattress it's being spent, jobs are created, homes are purchased, tax revenues are collected and people grow. It's cyclical but there it is.
plus...who is anyone to tell me how to spend my money? This isn't the USSR or Peoples Republic of anywhere....is it?
Quoting OA260 (Reply 5): Exactly. We could use it for everything !! Cumulus instead of taking a holiday next year why not donate it to the starving children??
Well, to be fair, instead of spending money on a television license, or on desserts, couldn't you donate that money to the salvation army? Once again we're into the realm of who's standards are we going to use?
Oa260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 11827 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1008 times:
Quoting Cumulus (Reply 9): Exactly, infact anything which benefits Humans.
Not true. Alot of these charities are looking after animals that are thrown out and mis treated and I totally agree with anyone that does anything to prevent cruelty to all animals. Everyone supports their own charities. I give to Cancer/Aids/RSPCA thats my choice.
Cumulus From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1317 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 961 times:
Quoting Oa260 (Reply 12): Not true. Alot of these charities are looking after animals that are thrown out and mis treated and I totally agree with anyone that does anything to prevent cruelty to all animals. Everyone supports their own charities.
Granted, but priorities should be established along the lines of Communism. If someone leaves money to Cats, their mental state should be questioned when they made the donation (or Bequest), the Government should then seize the cash and spend it on AIDS/Cancer/Children etc and just have the Cats put down.
What Goes Up Must Come Down, Hopefully In One Piece!
777236ER From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 12706 posts, RR: 51 Reply 14, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 947 times:
People can spend money on whatever they want. However, a cat "charity" shouldn't be registered as a charity. Donations should be taxed, so the general (sensible) population don't lose out on the whim of a few morons.
OA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 11827 posts, RR: 22 Reply 16, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 926 times:
Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14): People can spend money on whatever they want. However, a cat "charity" shouldn't be registered as a charity. Donations should be taxed, so the general (sensible) population don't lose out on the whim of a few morons.
So in that logic the government has the right to tell you where you should spend your money and who your leave you estate to ?
TransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 1531 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 917 times:
Quoting Cumulus (Reply 13): Granted, but priorities should be established along the lines of Communism. If someone leaves money to Cats, their mental state should be questioned when they made the donation (or Bequest), the Government should then seize the cash and spend it on AIDS/Cancer/Children etc and just have the Cats put down.
Quoting Cumulus (Reply 13): People can spend money on whatever they want. However, a cat "charity" shouldn't be registered as a charity. Donations should be taxed, so the general (sensible) population don't lose out on the whim of a few morons.
Scary. After hearing these opinions from the extreme left, I am now waiting for the opposite side claiming that HIV/AIDS is the big guy's wrath punishing homosexuals for their immoral behaviour, and demanding that those charities be taxed...
I don't know what you think Humane Societies do, but their work benefits all of society, and your attitudes have just won my local Humane Society a donation.
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
LTBEWR From United States, joined Jan 2004, 8576 posts, RR: 16 Reply 18, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 916 times:
The bigger losers with the Iceland banking meltdown may be some regional and municipal governments in the UK, with maybe 200 Million Pounds at risk.
Yes, it does seem silly that a cat charity has 11 million pounds in it's kitty, but many millions of people love their cats too, despise cruelty to animals and recognize the positive power of cats as pets on peoples lives. Besides some cats are good to get rid of rodents. Too bad there were not bigger cats, but not 'fat cats' to go after the 'rats' in the financial services industry that has caught us in this tangled ball of junk.
777236ER From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 12706 posts, RR: 51 Reply 19, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 908 times:
Quoting OA260 (Reply 16): So in that logic the government has the right to tell you where you should spend your money and who your leave you estate to ?
No, as I said you have a right to spend money wherever you like. However, some things are given preferential tax status, including charities. These are dictated by governments and are a function of societal will. The government has every right to say what is taxed, and money given to cat foundations should be taxed.
OA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 11827 posts, RR: 22 Reply 20, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 888 times:
Quoting 777236ER (Reply 19): The government has every right to say what is taxed, and money given to cat foundations should be taxed.
You are either a registered charity or not . You have to meet certain criteria. The argument could go down to every little detail. People donate money to their chosen cause and its their right. If Cat charities were to be taxed then the argument would come up that Aids/Cancer and other charities should be taxed.
Indeed I have heard the argument that Christian Aid in the UK should be taxed as it is money taken out of the country and not a charity that helps British people within the country. Charity begins at home I keep hearing. I dont totally agree with it but where will it all end ??
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1317 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 11827 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Aug 2006, 1943 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 1938 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4314 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2004, 10983 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 1531 posts,