FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

I’d be happy to pay double taxes for her

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

There was recently a tiktok sound going around about a platinum jubilee celebrator discussing how she’d be happy to ‘pay double taxes for her’ (her being the queen)

So…who would you be happy to pay double taxes for?

For me…British wise probably my meow meow Malcolm McDowell or Jane Birkin (tho I know she’s practically French now)

American wise it’s gotta be Joan Jett

So yes…who would you be happy to pay double taxes for?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lynJMan
over a year ago

Morden

No one. I pay enough tax as it is.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"No one. I pay enough tax as it is."

Just a joking post lol…tho if it meant a night with Malcolm McDowell I’d pay double taxes for him

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rwhowhatwherewhyMan
over a year ago

Aylesbury

That gorgeous gal known as the NHS

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"That gorgeous gal known as the NHS"

+1 for this!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acey_RedWoman
over a year ago

Liverpool

Hungry children

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"That gorgeous gal known as the NHS"

Me too so thankful for them even if I have had my bad experiences with them but without them i probably wouldn’t be here

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onb21Woman
over a year ago

Cardiff

Any services currently provided by charities.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

NHS, Police, Children's services

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice But Very NaughtyCouple
over a year ago

Swansea


"Any services currently provided by charities."

That's a tricky one. There are some charities that don't want to become government funded if it means being subject to bureaucracy. Being a volunteer means that some important areas of employment law don't count.

There's also the issue that people with a passion for certain charities arguably provide a better service with a few hours of their free time than a minimum wage employee would.

I do get where you're coming from and it always amazes me how many services are provided by charity in this country but the area I'm involved in strongly resists any suggestions of making it a paid job.

Mr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rwhowhatwherewhyMan
over a year ago

Aylesbury


"Any services currently provided by charities.

That's a tricky one. There are some charities that don't want to become government funded if it means being subject to bureaucracy. Being a volunteer means that some important areas of employment law don't count.

There's also the issue that people with a passion for certain charities arguably provide a better service with a few hours of their free time than a minimum wage employee would.

I do get where you're coming from and it always amazes me how many services are provided by charity in this country but the area I'm involved in strongly resists any suggestions of making it a paid job.

Mr"

I think the point is that these charities are only existing to fill the gap that government should be providing for

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Any services currently provided by charities.

That's a tricky one. There are some charities that don't want to become government funded if it means being subject to bureaucracy. Being a volunteer means that some important areas of employment law don't count.

There's also the issue that people with a passion for certain charities arguably provide a better service with a few hours of their free time than a minimum wage employee would.

I do get where you're coming from and it always amazes me how many services are provided by charity in this country but the area I'm involved in strongly resists any suggestions of making it a paid job.

Mr

I think the point is that these charities are only existing to fill the gap that government should be providing for"

I don’t understand why certain charities such as cancer research and air ambulances are charities and not funded by the government, surely in these cases tax payer money would be a lot better than relying on charity?

I for one would be happy for my tax money to go towards them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rwhowhatwherewhyMan
over a year ago

Aylesbury


"Any services currently provided by charities.

That's a tricky one. There are some charities that don't want to become government funded if it means being subject to bureaucracy. Being a volunteer means that some important areas of employment law don't count.

There's also the issue that people with a passion for certain charities arguably provide a better service with a few hours of their free time than a minimum wage employee would.

I do get where you're coming from and it always amazes me how many services are provided by charity in this country but the area I'm involved in strongly resists any suggestions of making it a paid job.

Mr

I think the point is that these charities are only existing to fill the gap that government should be providing for

I don’t understand why certain charities such as cancer research and air ambulances are charities and not funded by the government, surely in these cases tax payer money would be a lot better than relying on charity?

I for one would be happy for my tax money to go towards them "

This is one of my arguments for not giving to charity. That and I'm tighter than a ducks arse

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ooh a bit of politics in the thread, but to go back to the OPs thread, I’d pay double taxes to have Lucy Worsley dress up and role play as a historical serving wench for me. And then suck me off

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Ooh a bit of politics in the thread, but to go back to the OPs thread, I’d pay double taxes to have Lucy Worsley dress up and role play as a historical serving wench for me. And then suck me off "

I never thought I’d see ‘historical serving wench’ and ‘suck me off’ in the same sentence

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice But Very NaughtyCouple
over a year ago

Swansea


"Any services currently provided by charities.

That's a tricky one. There are some charities that don't want to become government funded if it means being subject to bureaucracy. Being a volunteer means that some important areas of employment law don't count.

There's also the issue that people with a passion for certain charities arguably provide a better service with a few hours of their free time than a minimum wage employee would.

I do get where you're coming from and it always amazes me how many services are provided by charity in this country but the area I'm involved in strongly resists any suggestions of making it a paid job.

Mr

I think the point is that these charities are only existing to fill the gap that government should be providing for

I don’t understand why certain charities such as cancer research and air ambulances are charities and not funded by the government, surely in these cases tax payer money would be a lot better than relying on charity?

I for one would be happy for my tax money to go towards them "

If the government said they were going to pay 600 million more towards cancer research (roughly the income of one large charity) would that negate the need for the charity? Surely a charity providing even more than the government can afford is a great thing?

I agree with your example of air ambulance - though the government does fund the coast guard helicopters that are used extensively to recover people who are injured away from road access. I also strongly agree we shouldn't need things like food banks or DV shelters paid for by charity though even in these cases, if the government did pay for a lot more than it does now there could/would still be charities providing more.

Other charities like for example the cats protection certainly don't fall in what the government should be providing.

I think charity is actually a really fulfilling activity to be involved in and while undoubtedly the government could do more in many areas I think huge harm would be fine if we said we should replace charitable work with government funded projects.

Mr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice But Very NaughtyCouple
over a year ago

Swansea

To add to that, this is a quote from an air ambulance charity - as I said earlier, they clearly cherish their independence from central government

All air ambulances in England are charity funded. We receive no money from the Government or NHS, but around half of our Specialist Paramedic costs are funded by South Western Ambulance Service. Our independence from Government means that we can ensure that the money we raise is spent directly on our local communities and in creating a service that is right for them, regardless of any changes in Government policy or priorities.

Mr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ad NannaWoman
over a year ago

East London

I'd pay triple tax for a week on a boat with Michele Morrone

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hi NBVN, in my ideal society charities would be a top up to government money, not the only source of income.

And I agree with you about food banks, the need for those and the fact that homelessness is still a thing today are in my mind a national disgrace!

I’ve been lucky that I’ve never needed or faced either and touchwood I’ll never in the future.

But with the way that modern society and the government seem to be focused on the individual and not the collective make me wonder what kind of future I’m raising my children into

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Are you working for the government, OP?

Finding the best excuse to raise the taxes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’d double my taxes to see Prince Andrew face a trial.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Are you working for the government, OP?

Finding the best excuse to raise the taxes. "

Hmmm…possibly *quickly closes notebook*

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport

The very last thing that I'd be willing to pay more taxes for is any single one of "our betters" who already have so much money that they will never know what it is to be cold or hungry. The royal family have one of the greatest wealth bases of anyone in the united kingdom, it is passed down through them with zero taxation, why the hell anyone in this country should pay a single penny towards their upkeep is beyond me.

Likewise people like Sunak and Mogg-Rees, who have so much money that they don't know what to do with it, who have inveigled themselves into political positions that they abuse to just make themselves more wealthy. Why the hell should they be paid a salary plus expenses plus subsidised meals plus more money to employ members of their own families as "assistants"? They should be paying for the opportunity to have that privileged position that allows them to make themselves even richer.

The people at the bottom get means tested if they ask the country for money. IMHO it is time that the people at the top of the system should also be means tested. Anybody that already has income of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, should not be paid a penny for working in influencial government positions. Above some level they should even have to pay to do it. If they say that they won't do the job for nothing, then good! Nobody is forcing them to do these jobs, let the jobs go to people who could do with the income.

Money that has been collected by taxing the poor should not be given to the independently wealthy under any circumstances. There is always a lot of talk about the poor being scroungers and milking the system - when the ones who are really milking the system are all those in "the ruling classes" that don't even need the money that they are as good as stealing from the hungry.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By * and R cple4Couple
over a year ago

swansea

I would pay double taxes if I could give Chris Hemsworth a Bj .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acey_RedWoman
over a year ago

Liverpool


"Any services currently provided by charities.

That's a tricky one. There are some charities that don't want to become government funded if it means being subject to bureaucracy. Being a volunteer means that some important areas of employment law don't count.

There's also the issue that people with a passion for certain charities arguably provide a better service with a few hours of their free time than a minimum wage employee would.

I do get where you're coming from and it always amazes me how many services are provided by charity in this country but the area I'm involved in strongly resists any suggestions of making it a paid job.

Mr

I think the point is that these charities are only existing to fill the gap that government should be providing for

I don’t understand why certain charities such as cancer research and air ambulances are charities and not funded by the government, surely in these cases tax payer money would be a lot better than relying on charity?

I for one would be happy for my tax money to go towards them "

In a way its better for certain industries such as healthcare providers to be a charity than a business. I'm employed by a charity and therefore it has to be not for profit. The NHS pays us to provide services though but what they pay us is calculated to pretty much just cover cost and any surpluses made have to be used transparently and tend to go into service improvement. We do take donations but they don't really fund the service. They mostly fund research and advocacy work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hoirCouple
over a year ago

Clacton/Bury St. Edmunds

It's impossible for anyone to pay double taxes in the UK outside of the absurdly rich.

I'd pay zero taxes for anyone. I don't agree with theft and extortion

C

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"The very last thing that I'd be willing to pay more taxes for is any single one of "our betters" who already have so much money that they will never know what it is to be cold or hungry. The royal family have one of the greatest wealth bases of anyone in the united kingdom, it is passed down through them with zero taxation, why the hell anyone in this country should pay a single penny towards their upkeep is beyond me.

Likewise people like Sunak and Mogg-Rees, who have so much money that they don't know what to do with it, who have inveigled themselves into political positions that they abuse to just make themselves more wealthy. Why the hell should they be paid a salary plus expenses plus subsidised meals plus more money to employ members of their own families as "assistants"? They should be paying for the opportunity to have that privileged position that allows them to make themselves even richer.

The people at the bottom get means tested if they ask the country for money. IMHO it is time that the people at the top of the system should also be means tested. Anybody that already has income of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, should not be paid a penny for working in influencial government positions. Above some level they should even have to pay to do it. If they say that they won't do the job for nothing, then good! Nobody is forcing them to do these jobs, let the jobs go to people who could do with the income.

Money that has been collected by taxing the poor should not be given to the independently wealthy under any circumstances. There is always a lot of talk about the poor being scroungers and milking the system - when the ones who are really milking the system are all those in "the ruling classes" that don't even need the money that they are as good as stealing from the hungry.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atnip make me purrWoman
over a year ago

Reading


"That gorgeous gal known as the NHS"

Yes totally. I don't want to live again in a country in which even with health insurance you are only one serious health incident away from bankruptcy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The very last thing that I'd be willing to pay more taxes for is any single one of "our betters" who already have so much money that they will never know what it is to be cold or hungry. The royal family have one of the greatest wealth bases of anyone in the united kingdom, it is passed down through them with zero taxation, why the hell anyone in this country should pay a single penny towards their upkeep is beyond me.

Likewise people like Sunak and Mogg-Rees, who have so much money that they don't know what to do with it, who have inveigled themselves into political positions that they abuse to just make themselves more wealthy. Why the hell should they be paid a salary plus expenses plus subsidised meals plus more money to employ members of their own families as "assistants"? They should be paying for the opportunity to have that privileged position that allows them to make themselves even richer.

The people at the bottom get means tested if they ask the country for money. IMHO it is time that the people at the top of the system should also be means tested. Anybody that already has income of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, should not be paid a penny for working in influencial government positions. Above some level they should even have to pay to do it. If they say that they won't do the job for nothing, then good! Nobody is forcing them to do these jobs, let the jobs go to people who could do with the income.

Money that has been collected by taxing the poor should not be given to the independently wealthy under any circumstances. There is always a lot of talk about the poor being scroungers and milking the system - when the ones who are really milking the system are all those in "the ruling classes" that don't even need the money that they are as good as stealing from the hungry.

"

To be fair, I think it’s just a “who would you like to shag” thread

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The very last thing that I'd be willing to pay more taxes for is any single one of "our betters" who already have so much money that they will never know what it is to be cold or hungry. The royal family have one of the greatest wealth bases of anyone in the united kingdom, it is passed down through them with zero taxation, why the hell anyone in this country should pay a single penny towards their upkeep is beyond me.

Likewise people like Sunak and Mogg-Rees, who have so much money that they don't know what to do with it, who have inveigled themselves into political positions that they abuse to just make themselves more wealthy. Why the hell should they be paid a salary plus expenses plus subsidised meals plus more money to employ members of their own families as "assistants"? They should be paying for the opportunity to have that privileged position that allows them to make themselves even richer.

The people at the bottom get means tested if they ask the country for money. IMHO it is time that the people at the top of the system should also be means tested. Anybody that already has income of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, should not be paid a penny for working in influencial government positions. Above some level they should even have to pay to do it. If they say that they won't do the job for nothing, then good! Nobody is forcing them to do these jobs, let the jobs go to people who could do with the income.

Money that has been collected by taxing the poor should not be given to the independently wealthy under any circumstances. There is always a lot of talk about the poor being scroungers and milking the system - when the ones who are really milking the system are all those in "the ruling classes" that don't even need the money that they are as good as stealing from the hungry.

To be fair, I think it’s just a “who would you like to shag” thread "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top