I object!

[Nick]

And like I said before but which you ignored, if you include NI, VAT and all other taxes the overall proportions are not so different.I never claimed to. You are inventing things to criticise as you always do in your defence of those poor struggling unfairly treated rich people. What I said was that the proportion of overall taxes paid by the wealthy was much less top heavy if you included NI and all other taxes, some of which like Council Tax bear down proportionally far more heavily on poorer people. Also the NI rate is 13.25 percent for lower earners and only 3.25 percent for higher earners, a fact which you conveniently ignore.

Your sympathies are entirely with the rich whom you seem to think should have even more, and your contempt for the poor whom you seem to think have too much. Yet you laughably come here talking about fairness.

The figures I mentioned are inclusive Tax and NIC's so your point is voided and now you're moving the goalposts to who struggles the most, which has never been disputed.
My sympathies are with the rich, correct, because on the whole they have worked harder to get rich, are still working harder and or smarter than the poor. You constantly mention the long hours you do when in reality you don't, and I understand you don't for a reason but that doesn't make them long.

I've now been in India for almost 3 months, baring 6 days at home, doing 70+ hrs every week. My next project I have to oversee will be in St Petersburg Russia, I earn the right to keep as much of my tax as I can without you telling me I must constantly level up.

BTW, when have I said I think the rich should have more? NEVER! I have said, they should not pay anymore tax as you advocate to keep the great unwashed on the dole. Just to be clear I'll layout below what I believe

1. If you can work you should work, if you choose not to you get benefits that just about keep you going and no more
2. If you are working, you work to the level you choose to live your life, if you want more you work harder or work smarter.
3. If you can't work or can't work a full time job you get a level of state aid, but you will be vetted and constantly checked. Any one found pulling the wool over the DWP's eyes will be made to repay double what they stole from the state.
4. 20% income tax and 10% NI across the board. This will encourage the people who set their hours to be just under the 40% tax bracket to work more.
5. Anyone who is unemployed will be put to good use: Picking up litter, cutting the grass of common areas, scrubbing off graffiti etc. Anyone who refuses will have their benefits cut until they comply.
6. Anyone committing sexual crimes or violent crimes for a second time will be made infertile. Pedophiles likewise.

[srb7677]

Earns 6 times more but pays 20 times more tax. 34% of his wage compared to 10%.

And like I said before but which you ignored, if you include NI, VAT and all other taxes the overall proportions are not so different.

So tell me how you pay a greater proportion??

I never claimed to. You are inventing things to criticise as you always do in your defence of those poor struggling unfairly treated rich people. What I said was that the proportion of overall taxes paid by the wealthy was much less top heavy if you included NI and all other taxes, some of which like Council Tax bear down proportionally far more heavily on poorer people. Also the NI rate is 13.25 percent for lower earners and only 3.25 percent for higher earners, a fact which you conveniently ignore.

Your sympathies are entirely with the rich whom you seem to think should have even more, and your contempt for the poor whom you seem to think have too much. Yet you laughably come here talking about fairness.

[Nick]

Don't bore on about this again with your deliberate obtuseness. [highlight]You ought to know damned well I am talking about proportions of incomes and not total amounts.[/highlight] We have gone round this circle countless times before. Someone on 100k pays more tax than me because they earn more than me. You seem to find that objectionable.

Which ever way you put it you don't pay more tax.
17K pays £1700 in tax, 100K pays £35000.

Earns 6 times more but pays 20 times more tax. 34% of his wage compared to 10%.

You ought to know damned well I am talking about proportions of incomes

Your statement /\ /\ /\. So tell me how you pay a greater proportion??  You are now going to try and use some perverted notion that when you buy something for £10 + VAT, the £2 VAT represents a higher proportion of your wage than theirs: this still doesn't work because even if you spent the whole of your wage on VATable products and the other fella none you would still pay less as a percentage of your wage on tax. 28% compared to 34%.

Like I keep saying, tell me the scenario you pay more / higher percentage?

[srb7677]

Explain to me in what situation you pay more tax than someone earning £100K?

Don't bore on about this again with your deliberate obtuseness. You ought to know damned well I am talking about proportions of incomes and not total amounts. We have gone round this circle countless times before. Someone on 100k pays more tax than me because they earn more than me. You seem to find that objectionable.

[Nick]

Not if you take NI and other taxes into account they don't.

Explain to me in what situation you pay more tax than someone earning £100K?

[srb7677]

No they are not, someone who earns 8 times what you earn pays 20 times more, but you still want more.

Not if you take NI and other taxes into account they don't.

[Nick]

They are paid more than 25 times what I am paid so why not?

No they are not, someone who earns 8 times what you earn pays 20 times more, but you still want more. Like I said, the system in not fair.

[srb7677]

And your notion of fair is increasing the tax that the top 10% pay even though it's already 25 times higher than what you pay.

They are paid more than 25 times what I am paid so why not?

[Nick]

Yet your perverted notion of fairness is one in which those who earn most pay less than now, paid for by those who earn least paying more.

Try putting that in a manifesto and winning an election on it.

You see most people struggling to make ends meet do not buy into your concept of poor, exploited and hard done by, badly treated millionaires.

Most would simply laugh at your notions of supposed fairness.

And your notion of fair is increasing the tax that the top 10% pay even though it's already 25 times higher than what you pay. And you call my notion perverse 😂. 
Where do you suppose Tory voters come from Steve? A steel works in Middlesbrough or the like?

[srb7677]

I support a fairer tax system to, this one is totally unfair.

Yet your perverted notion of fairness is one in which those who earn most pay less than now, paid for by those who earn least paying more.

Try putting that in a manifesto and winning an election on it.

You see most people struggling to make ends meet do not buy into your concept of poor, exploited and hard done by, badly treated millionaires.

Most would simply laugh at your notions of supposed fairness.

[Nick]

I don't claim to be anything Sheepy. I just support nationalising key services, high wages, unions, a fairer tax system, the closing of loopholes, investment in transport, putting oil/gas profits into pensions, actually owning the gas and oils we have, a social safety net, unemployment benefits that are livable and all in all a fairer economic system than a low tax haven for the rich which the UK has become. You know, I support the Nordic model.

I support a fairer tax system to, this one is totally unfair. 

[Nick]

Yes I hated Maggie for what she did to working communities,however I'm human enough not to celebrate her death as some did.

I voted Mays govt purely on brexit she was a disappointment which you got around to saying too,and please point out where I called Truss a llizard though she is imo cold blooded,none of the above comments are regarding misogyny purely on actions.

How do you explain your straight from school to pregnant on Rayner is that misogyny a.

She didn't do anything, they did it to them selves by following Scargill and murdering innocent people. 

[Nick]

Good luck with that Boycey.
I think Nick had a name for her, too.
Wrong-Daily was it? Sorry Nick, if it wasn't you.

Yep, that was me. Rebecca Wrong-Daily. 

[Barry]

... granny shagging ...

Erm, at our age, JoG, that's not really an insult. 

[Sheepy]

Let's make clear what I think right now.

As long as it is not racist, homophobic or whatever, a bit of name calling when it comes to our politicians is par for the course. So what if opponents want to call Corbyn Wurzel? Or Truss a reptile? It is a healthy way of expressing contempt for someone.

Yes there is a line we should not cross. Calling Corbyn a kiddy fiddler or Truss a sexual pervert would be a gross example of crossing that line and utterly unacceptable.

But I don't think that line should be too restrictive. I have called Johnson Bozo, Bozo the Clown, Spaffwaffle, to name but three. I have called Starmer Sir Wet Lettuce in the past.  Essentially where is the harm?

Aye, well if any of them were an advert for running a country very badly they would be it, or even show intent to run a country very badly. Name calling is just pure frustration but I notice a few here don't like some of it back.