Nero
Re: Tired
CHAVS?
The Premiership of Mary Elizabeth Truss.Sept 2022 - Oct 2022
- Thread starter TheDecameron
- Start date
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Should Shirley be Robbin’ Bitch
wulbert
pfm Member
From allowing big business to influence government, to them actually being the government.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Yes, government of the people, for the people and by the people is further away than it ever.
wulbert
pfm Member
alanbeeb
pfm Member
Yes. I don't disagree.
But.... when I look at the CalMac ferries fiasco, and a load of other things.... I worry it will just end up being a different shade of brown.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Demo in Glasgow yesterday:
Were the Broons there?
paulfromcamden
Baffled
Sign of the times.
billo
pfm Member
My own theory is that he was p***ing himself at the thought of how much he would make on shorting the pound
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I heard that, but didn’t hear who said it. I’m a bit relieved it was an MP, not one of the membership who could be assumed to believe what he was saying.
Ponty
pfm Member
Although I disagree with the 45p tax cut, I am reminded of this…
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 decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and they proceeded to work out the amounts 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!
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 decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and they proceeded to work out the amounts 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!
droodzilla
pfm Member
What a pile of shit.
Nick_G
pfm Member
An example of a Tory dumping metaphorical sewage in the river of humanity?
Ponty
pfm Member
Maybe those who consider this a complete pile of tripe, or ‘unfair’ could explain why.
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) – an economic think tank – has analysed how much households pay in tax.21 Jun 2022
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/
The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) – an economic think tank – has analysed how much households pay in tax.21 Jun 2022
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/