TOPIC:

Well, it was a rhetorical question. I thnk it's pretty clear they do! <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->

Rhetorical, eh?
Multinationals.

I was actually thinking recently, that considering the amount of leverage that vested interests in the area of alcohol laws have, it's genuinely scary to think of the other laws that are affected by the vested interests in those areas. After all, in this situation it boils down to a whole load of inconvenience, and rip-off costs to buy a couple of beers.

I fear for areas like health, housing and the legal system where people will be seriously affected as regards their quality of life if the systems they rely on have inherent bias in-built towards particular interests. If the government is so quick to roll over and let it's belly be tickled by people in the drinks trade, what are the chances it's not happening in other areas of public life too? Slim I'd wager.

[quote:25apdeuo]If the government is so quick to roll over and let it's belly be tickled by people in the drinks trade, what are the chances it's not happening in other areas of public life too? Slim I'd wager.[/quote:25apdeuo]And you can wager tax free thanks to the affectionate relationship between the bookies and an ex Minister for Finance <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->

&amp;quot;bigears&amp;quot;:145t0yaw wrote: And you can wager tax free thanks to the affectionate relationship between the bookies and an ex Minister for Finance <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->[/quote:145t0yaw]

And that's not the full story; there's also a huge subvention to the horse and greyhound racing industry that was supposed to be covered by the betting tax.* This was never abolished when the betting tax went, so in addition to boosting these industries by abolishing the betting tax it also hands them a big pile of money every year.


*This was one of Clown McCreevey's greats strokes. He picked the year the bill came out and fixed the subvention at the minimum of the betting tax that year, at a time when betting tax revenue was falling sharply, and ensured the subvention would be paid at that level no matter what the betting tax brought in. However he didn't make it a two-way street, any betting tax revenue above the threshold also went to the horses/dogs industry.

Thanks for the example bigears, perfectly illustrated the point I was trying to make. As well as doing a witty gag...

You're welcome. I enjoy reading your angry tirades so anything to keep the thread going...