and I thought I was winding you up and thought it first so I still win.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
Printable View
and I thought I was winding you up and thought it first so I still win.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
I would suggest that this a little bit simplistic. When you say private property, what do you mean. Banks (or they mainly were) are plcs, as are the utility companies and most things that supply us all with material goods we need.Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
Are you suggesting that all property should be public as I'm querying on items like schools, emergency services, army etc. I'm not discounting your opinion on schools and NHS (both you believe should be private) but how will the rest work?
If your version of life was to exist, how would people actually pay? Isn't there going to be a large volume of people who would miss out big time as they have insufficient funds, not always through their own doing. I am generally of the opinion that all should work and all should pay for material goods / utilities but I'm not black or white on this subject!! Sorry, I'd have to say I'm very grey. :o
Sory you misunderstand, I was just using that as an example of how it is hotter in some parts this year. the Northern Atlantic area should have cold winters for the next decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
Southern Europe and many other areas (Aus) will still see the rises.
Your middle paragraph is nonsense. Noone has ever argued against natural cycles in temperature. You seem to have a poor understanding of climate change. The difficulty is working out the differing contributions of natural climate cycles and anthropogenic effects on the climate.
The problem is as soon as people talk like that, people like you, say 'Oh so it could all be natural'...
You've bowed out twice. Quitter. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Antisocial
But i had already won months ago, so I wasn't quitting. However as you seem to like having your failures highlighted how could I disappoint you by not responding ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
I will let you go back to your tirades with CL now, though I cannot shake the feeling that you are merely typing to yourself.
Enjoy the rest of your w/e
How it would work for me is that instead of me having to pay around 50% of my income in tax and have the State decide what is best to do with that money, even if it is not best for me, that I keep that tax and use it to fend for myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by biara
I pay for eduction, health, pension, refuse, security......
The way that the country is progressing, we will eventually have more tax taken from us and receive a food parcel every week, with the contents allocated by the State - as they always know best:rolleyes:
Orwell is well and truly here.
Yes I can see your point to a certain extent Chris, but there has to be a line somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
If I was to set up an extreamist group to wipe out all with the name 'Christopher Leigh', started protesting outside your house and insighting hatred towards you; would you just shrug your shoulders and still agree that the state was racist when I was arrested for it?
I'd knock up a membership form quick - you'll clean up :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Roy Scott
Bloody hell Anti. You really do get wound up don't you!? That's 3 times you've gone back on your word now and I wasn't even putting any effort into winding you up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antisocial
You've already admitted that I rile you in a way that no-one else on the forum does (and that was down to your misinterpretation of my posts!) so maybe you haven't "won" (what does that mean anyway?) after all. Think about it.
Consider this though, I responded to your PM and you replied without satisfactorily addressing any of the points raised because you know that you misinterpreted me and you're wrong.
The only valid point that you did raise was that you wouldn't like your kids reading some of the stuff on the forums (and I admitted going overboard). Since then, you've started a P*ssed thread and talked about your brother Sh*gging half of Northern Ireland which to borrow a phrase from CL, makes you a hypocrite.
I won't be responding to any replies as I've got my fingers in my ears and I'm shouting "La la la la la la la" at the top of my voice :rolleyes:. You're a weak debater and no amount of deflection (e.g the movie Shag) is gonna change that when your arguments are shown to be flawed.
Mostly true;) - have you not got the point of the "antisocial" moniker yet? Most people have by now and either respond in kind or ignore me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
This has got to be one of the funniest responses ever. Oh and I won't be commenting on this again!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
50% tax. That's exceptionally generous of you. I'd check my accountant if I were you. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
But seriously, I share some of your concerns.
And it's only going to get worse. Even the Conservatives had been saying that the public spending (and therefore the tax burden) would increase over the course of the next parliament if they were to be elected. They've only changed this due to the need to reduce our staggering level of national borrowing.
When you compare it to some other countries, the UK is not that bad (relatively of course - you may still think it's really bad). There's an article here saying that we pay 36% of the GDP in tax, whereas Denmark pay 48%. It's quite interesting as it says people in Sweden, which also pays a huge amount in tax, seem to trust their government to give that money back efficiently. It's an interesting concept.
If Witton earns over £150,000 the rate of higher rate tax is increasing to 50% from April coupled with the tiered removal of the personal allowance over £100,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Interesting fact: No British government has ever successfully cut public spending. That makes tax rises even more inevitable and the tories can blame it on Labour for getting the country in this mess.
Yes, but he would have to earn many millions for the average tax rate for his earnings to approach 50%. Are you a secret multimillionaire WP?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
True, but without knowing Witton's tax status then we couldn't say.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
If I asked you what rate of tax you pay, you wouldn't say that you pay 0% on £6475, 20% on £37,400, 40% on the next £106,125 and 50% above that would you?
He could (pretty sure he doesn't) derive his income from a Trust - the Trust rate is increasing to 50% with no personal allowance or tiered tax structure.
However, as Witton said 50% of his income, then you're right and I'm just being pedantic (no change there!)
I said 50% of my income is taken in tax.
Basic Rate Tax @ 20%
Higher Rate Tax @ 40% (over £34800)
National Insurance typically 11%
That's the direct taxation on income.
Then we have Council Tax, VAT, Tax on Fuel, Tax on Alcohol, Tax on Air Travel, Insurance Tax, Road Tax, Betting and Gaming Duties, Tobacco, Savings Tax.......
So work it out and 50% is about the typical tax take from an average earner.
Tax was forecast to be 37.3% of the GDP for 2008/9 but remember that the tax take is skewed because the 37.3 is not paid by everyone. The typical middle income earner is carrying proportionately more.
Of a UK adult population of around 50 million, it is estimated that there
will be 30.6 million taxpayers in 2008–09. Around 3.6 million of these will
pay tax at the higher rate, providing 55.8% of total revenue.
So if 3.6 million are accounting for 55.8% of revenue, that means that 27 million are only accounting for 44.2%.:eek:
Its not bad is it. Second best public tirade I have had, had a couple good PM's before now as well. I hope you appreciate how I have kept the pressure off you a bit recently - you owe me a pint of Radox!Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
Fair enough. I wasn't sure if you were including other taxes in your estimation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
To go back to one of the many debates we have had on this thread. This is a reason why having huge-salaried bankers in this country is useful for the economy. They pay huge amounts of tax on their bonuses, meaning that the rest of can get away with paying less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I've been in positions from Full Salary to Full commission/Bonus. I can tell you that when it is the latter you are relying on, there is a much greater tendancy to take risks and cut corners.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I think the main issue with the banks is not the huge Gross Income that can be gained, but that the proportion to be gained from bonuses is so high that the whole system was geared to risk taking.
As someone fully behind the free market, I have to question how any bankers, particularly at an organisation like RBS, can be in line for performance related bonuses in the current climate in view of their current situation.
That suggests to me that the contracts are ill thought out.
Absolutely. If you pay bonuses based on short-term profits with no provision for long-term growth or company stability, you'll end up with a very profitable company in the short-term that's sailing towards distaster in the long-term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I think the problem is that it's very hard to define how you would pay bonuses (based on individual performance) that reflect long-term stability. I'm sure the banks thought they had it right, and that more money today would equal more money tomorrow.
Anyway, this is straying onto CL's "get all your cash out of the bank" thread. Where were we with the BNP?
I wouldn't be happy about them being outside my house, because that is private property. If they were on the street I'd expect the police to move them on, because roads are for passage, not for hanging around on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Scott
As to your point about being arrested, I've already said inciting racial hatred shouldn't be a crime. Therefore I'd see your arrest as state suppression of free speech.
One last point. Making direct threats against a person should be an offense, but that isn't what is meant by 'inciting racial hatred.'
'State control of private property' is actually an oxymoron. I thought someone might have spotted it. That is the illusion fascism gives to people, making them think they're free.Quote:
Originally Posted by biara
If you want to know how it would work go on to the 'CL mandate' thread. It got a bit 'mad moment,' but you'll get the gist.
Guilty as charged. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
BTW. Do you realise CL, you just went back on thread. :eek: ;)
Why can't people 'hang around' on roads?
I mean as long as they are not actually in the road, like on the pavement?
No CL, you got me there. Didn't notice that one, look I teach science, and deal with symbols and numbers not much language if I can help it. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
You got that in a minute before me:rolleyes::DQuote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
Noel, I think you must be involved in the banking or finance sector to defend these people...unfortunately the better off financially you are the more you can pay to avoid paying tax.There is a industry dedicated to tax avoidance that employs the top brains, who can run rings round the Indland Revenue.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
One top City earner famously quipped his cleaner paid more tax than he did .When Philip Green sold the Arcadia group he avoided paying 400million in tax by registering his wife as a resident of Monaco! Then to add insult to injury in my eyes the old boys network made sure he got knighted.
I agree. This is an age-old issue and is infuriating. As soon as some loopholes are closed, others are found. However, this doesn't mean that people with high wages shouldn't be encouraged to live in the UK. Remember, it's not just income tax. VAT on goods worth 1 million is still a hefty amount for UK plc (and more than they get from me in a year).Quote:
Originally Posted by john doe
BTW. I can assure you I am not involved in the financial sector. I can only look on with disbelief and envy.
It was reported tonight that the BNP have got involved with a matter relating to the teaching of sex ed. to kids as young as 4 in a Sheffield school. Their angle is that the innocence of kids should be protected at all costs. They have warned the school that further action will follow if they don't change this non-compulsory part of their curriculum. I'm confused as to why the BNP have waded in on this in the first place, and what the hell are they going to do about it anyway? I've been waiting to see if they try a re-launch with some new agendas, is this the British National Party MkII?
Here comes Nicholas, fiddle in hand,
Dance, idiot, dance!
Into a world that he can't understand.
You can't keep pace with the master
Race, his feet they're going all over the place -
He can't see his moves cos
there's egg on his face.
Dance, idiot, dance!
His body's as stiff as a cold lasagne,
'Cos all he knows is 'Rule Brittannia'.
His rhythm's so bad that we're supposin' -
Maybe it's cos his legs are frozen?
Shouldn't be wearing lederhosen!
Dance, idiot, dance!
Messianical look in his eye,
Arms akimbo, slapping his thigh.
He wrinkles his snout at a likely wench
(We've censored her answer and
pardoned her French) -
It's hard for your average Ubermensch,
Dance, idiot, dance!
Poor old Nicholas got up today,
To Cecil Sharpe House he made his way.
Wore his uniform just to impress and said,
Tthis must be the place, I guess,
For joining the EFD-SS?"
Dance, idiot, dance!
Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Griffin?