Just to say I did read it and fully understood your frustrationOriginally Posted by cheekee
The kind of environment you outlined completely enveloped my wife and nearly broke her.
Thank goodness she had the strength and the opportunity to recognise it and make changes in both our lives.
Phil, be sure to give the needed priority to your mahal
To be honest Jamie, I work in Birmingham and it would be a wasted vote. Most parts of Birmingham will stay Labour because of the ethnic minority vote. But it's your choice mate
No, I was correct, I said the lead would shrink, and it has. Next year will see the gap get less.
Andy, you are using a cop out - not fooling me. You dare not take the bet because - despite being sure Labour WILL get in - you won't take easy money.
I believed Man Utd would finish top 4 so I backed it up and paid when wrong.
As Biff would say to Mcfly, you're CHICKEN
Latest YouGov / The Sun results 23nd Oct - Con 34%, Lab 34%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%; APP -21
That's fine, Europe but first take your own trash back
I fully agree, best suggestion yet!
These so called multi millionaires have already been hit with stamp duty though, and then get hit again with a 50% tax bandThe Tory voters will defect to UKIP and Labour will win.
Rightly so, as Cameron saidThese so called multi millionaires have already been hit with stamp duty though, and then get hit again with a 50% tax band“We need to ask those with the broadest shoulders to contribute the most.”
No problem with that Joe.
Mansion Tax etc:-
Those with the biggest houses are likely to be the highest earners, so highest income tax payers, and pay the highest band council tax. Overall they are more likely to be an asset to the area. Just by having the largest house they will probably employ people, cleaners, gardeners, drivers, etc. They will also have hi-tech burglary protection, sprinklers, private medical insurance, send their children to fee paying school, etc., so, as I said, an asset to the area. Paying out and taking almost nothing back.
However, the poorest people (probably unthinking Labour voters) will probably claim all the benefits available, so will be the biggest drain on the services, paid for by those paying the highest taxes (more likely to be Conservative voters).
Just a thought.
But as I no longer have a vote in UK, just the ‘privilege’ of paying tax on my Crown Pension, I don’t have any say.
Cameron will have no problem paying the £1.7B, he'll just take it off the poor and disabled.
Keith - Administrator
Maybe he could have lunch with Blair and ask his opinion, no one else wants to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ony-Blair.html
Cameron will have no problem paying the £1.7B, he'll just take it off the poor and disabled.
Maybe he would if he could, but it just occurred to me, the poor and the disabled don't pay tax.
My mother was one such when she became an OAP. She paid no tax, got top-up benefits, sufficient to live a reasonable, whilst not luxurious, life. And she, brought up in an orphanage, having started work as a scullery maid and the domestic, eventually becoming a vegetable chef in a restaurant in a commercial building, voted Tory all her life.
Of course they pay tax. Everything has tax on it.
Keith - Administrator
Easy solution........vote LabourCameron will have no problem paying the £1.7B, he'll just take it off the poor and disabled.
They get in, the Economy will go down the pan and then we can get a rebate
Seems to be some hypocrisy here Joe
Surely that's exactly what Europe are doing to us, taxing the rich to support the poor
But if they use all or in part benefit money they are hardly the ones paying the indirect tax, unlike a person who not on benefits, who is paying all the indirect tax with their already taxed income .Of course they pay tax. Everything has tax on it
Seems to me that Germany and France have got some dodgy accountants.Seems to be some hypocrisy here Joe
Surely that's exactly what Europe are doing to us, taxing the rich to support the poor
Even some of those are fed up with the influx of Eastern Europeans etc.To be honest Jamie, I work in Birmingham and it would be a wasted vote. Most parts of Birmingham will stay Labour because of the ethnic minority vote. But it's your choice mate
Not enough though Jamie. You only have to take a look at the councilors to see which way the vote will go.
Is that all?These so called multi millionaires have already been hit with stamp duty though, and then get hit again with a 50% tax band
Exactly how it is ..Well said..
Mind you, as millionaires they will probably end up moving away at some point and employ local people and pay far less taxes in another country where it doesn't rain as much!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-EU-exit.html
I will just post this as I know Ded won't. It's from his Tory rag. What a mess and Osborne didn't even tell Cameron.
Farage on Friday: 'The British taxpayers are the real losers' after new EU cash demand
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...EU-cash-demand
How much do you think high earners should pay Jamie?
Ever read the analogy between taxes and mates paying for beer the same way?
I just had a look at income tax. Never having been in the top bands I had not realised that those earning over £120,000 p.a. appear to get no personal allowance, thus pay tax on all their income..
Simon's point:-
That being so, the mates drinking beer, means that one pays say £3 to £4 a pint and the other £4.35 to £5.80 i.e. 45% more, and that applies to everything they buy.
Here's the beer analogy to save anyone looking it up
Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this..
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
So long as they have £53 each week to support themselves just like Iain Duncan-Smith reckons an individual needs, the rest should go to the taxman, obviously.How much do you think high earners should pay Jamie?
Ever read the analogy between taxes and mates paying for beer the same way?
So you would like it to stay as it is, Simon?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Quote Reply
