Summations Only

Most items for sale, including services, incur a 20% VAT, this is already included in the "Sticker Price" in shops.
Food does not incur any VAT. (Think of it a bit like like sales tax in the US only it is added at the shelf, not at the checkout).
If you employ the services of a tradesman, and they are VAT registered, they will add 20% VAT onto their labour costs. (And the tradesman in turn has to pay VAT to HMRC, usually at a slightly lower rate, on his earnings) The tenant will register with the council as being resident and then directly pay council tax to the local council on a monthly basis. over a period of 10 months per year. no. council tax is completely separate to mortgage payments. If you are the owner/occupier you register with the council for council tax. It is intended to fund local policing, rubbish/recycling collection and such like.

Specifically, isn't that what National insurance is/was intended for?

I'm loathe to get into another pointless discussion with you, but your own points provide the best evidence for gun control.Cars have power and speed limitations
Cars are designed to PROTECT occupants and pedestrians as much as possible in case of accidents, so much so that new cars are being produced with EXTERNAL airbags.
You must be over a certain age to drive, hold a valid licence, and hold valid insurance.
You must take eyesight tests to drive a car.
you must be free of any medical condition that may impede or restrict your ability to drive.how many of these requirements apply to gun ownership?In your "Guns for All" universe, the gun lobby are against gun control. allowing the most lethal, most dangerous weapons to be available to all but those with a violent criminal record.This is equivalent to having a NASCAR which has been sharpened, filled with explosives and dipped in anthrax careening around the streets driven by an untrained, short sighted manic depressive.The "mere statistics" presented in this thread are overwhelming and irrefutable. They show that having a gun in the house makes you LESS, NOT MORE safe.If you have a shred of honestly left in your body you can see the gun control is necessary. But you don't. You refuse to acknowledge the most obvious and blatant evidence put before you.If I said I was surprised I'd be lying, it's sad, and frightening, that your preference is to endanger life, innocent life in the name of some idealogical right to carry at all times, and indeed ensure that as many people as possible carry, a murderous weapon whose sole purpose and sole design principal is injury and death.You blind yourself to facts because your mindset requires absolutes, whether it be the bible, or the 2nd amendment rights.. whatever. you see these things as eternally correct and necessary. any doubt on these things will likely cause you to become even more unhinged, and I guess then, you'll be the one, walking into an elementary school armed to the teeth.I truly hope you are trolling here because your mindset is terrifying.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

Do you believe there should be more restrictions on driving a car than purchasing an assault rifle?

edited, misread Theo's response.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

are you channelling Jar?

So.. Gun proponents..In the interest of an "Armed Civilian militia" or whatever the hell it it is you think you need, I assume you would support the availability of the plans for 3D printable guns?If not, why not?
Downloads for 3D-printed Liberator gun reach 100,000 - BBC News

So. It seems you feel the death penalty is suitable punishment for:
-Burgalry
-Shoplifting
-Dangerous driving
-Carjacking
-Threatening violenceWith such an effective deterrent, these crimes must almost unknown... no?

What you have in these cases is someone being shot dead for:
-Burgalry
-Shoplifting
-Dangerous driving
-Carjacking
-Threatening violenceDo you think death is a suitable punishment for these crimes?If So, I expect you would want this punishment written into lawIf Not, do you believe allowing the victim(s) of such a crime decide whether or not the perpetrator should die is a good system?

You listed a bunch of cases where people were shot dead, by gun carrying civilians. It seems to me that the person with the gun acted as judge, jury and executioner.
They determined the guilt and handed out the punishment. So do you think lethal force (i.e. Death) is suitable punishment for
-Burgalry
-Shoplifting
-Dangerous driving
-Carjacking
-Threatening violenceIf so, why don't you campaign for it to bee written into law?
If not, You must be against Joe Public having the capacity to administer this punishment

you've completely missed, or chosen to ignore my point.others have responded to clarify, I'll avoid repeating what they said to allow you to focus and attempt an honest answer.

Correct, Do you think that everyone should have that capacity/power?
(given that you cited a bunch of cases where "the average person" administered the death penalty for crimes such as Shoplifting, burgalry, dangerous driving etc.)

I disagree, Gun control will take the guns away from (at least some of) the idiots with guns.
This leaves just idiots, who are far less dangerous than idiots with guns.

I even think that it is unreasonable to be shot dead for walking through the wrong neighbourhood, and actually being up to no good.

It pretty clear that that is not what I am suggesting.
If you're going to continue to misrepresent my posts, I'll leave you to it.the list of examples you provided some time ago, (and the issue you are studiously avoiding), showed cases where the armed "victim" administered the death penalty (i.e. killed he perpetrator) where the crimes included (And I'm sure you're as tired reading this list as I am posting it, but I'll give it one more go):-Burgalry
-Shoplifting
-Dangerous driving
-Carjacking
-Threatening violenceNow, I'll ask you again, one last time,- Do you think that a person deserves to die for committing these crimes?
- Do you think that in these cases the person pulling the trigger made a sound judgement about the level of threat against them?- If "yes" do you think that that punishment should be written into law?
- If "no" Do you think that arming people who show bad judgement like this is a good idea? The problem is that the people in your examples (which i believe are fairly representative) have shown that they have no grasp of when "lethal force" is required. So you think the only form of self defence is lethal force?
You think that without a gun, a person's ability to defend themselves, against say a burglar, has been eliminated?Do you think that the only course of action to take against a burglar is to shoot him/her dead?Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.