Loz

OK, agreed. Sometimes factual inaccuracies like this are a red rag to a bull for me (as you might have noticed...), but I'll let this one drop for everyone's sanity.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > Hang on! Where did the bit about 'less tax liable' go from Murphy's figures? It disappeared! > > How convenient! You can bet it won't be the only place this has happened in the document. > > Loz, your 'less tax liable' argument is pretty much irrelevant to debate. Richard Murphy was > quite right to exclude the tax liability because he was discussing how the taxpayer is funding > pension schemes where ultimately only the well off private sector workers are benefitting. Bearing in > mind that the least well off private sector workers are least likely to participate in a > pension scheme. So in the good old Murphy tradition you are going to count all the outgoings, yet not the incomings? Convenient, UDT, but utterly dishonest.

I'll give you credit, UDT. In the face of absolute proof you are still trying to bluster your way through. Hugo calls it bullshitting, but it's somehow more earnest and naive than that. Anyway, to answer your latest tries: 1) SC has you nailed here. The debate is 'does Sweden have higher income tax', not does it spend it differently. 2) Ha! Even though I let you have the maximum possible allowance (which almost certainly would not apply to a ?25K salary) you are still arguing this one? If you'd like to send a link to the correct figure for such a salary I'd be happy to recalculate - but you will almost certainly make the figures worse for Sweden and your argument even more wrong. 3) Hiding behind 'it's too complex to compare' now? Yet, you were the one that wanted to compare! Cute. 4) Council tax isn't an income based tax. If you want to start doing a total tax burden comparison, then you will really lose out as that nasty little VAT rate will bite you. Hard. Anyway, here's a little graph. It shows quite clearly that Sweden has a much higher mean personal income tax than the UK. What is actually surprising (given the supposed socialist leanings of the Nordics) is that mean corporate taxation in Sweden is slightly lower than in the UK. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/450px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png It is from 2005, but if you can find a more recent version then post it up. Anyway, game, set and match... and the championship. Taa-daah!

ibilly99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's called capitalism supply and demand. Next you'll be telling me Christmas is commercialised...

You're safe with me ibilly99. I don't waste my money voting full stop.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JLS were often off key with their xfactor performances but have done very well for themselves since. JLS got lucky when Cowell pulled out on agreement to sign them and they were picked up by Epic. Otherwise they would have been churning out Westlife-style dross and on the scrapheap by now.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > I don't think Richard Murphy made up the numbers as he gave reference to where the numbers come > from. Unlike you, with your number for Sweden's personal allowance. ;-) *Still* trying to win this one, UDT? You are the master of the lost cause, aren't you? But, in this case, you may have a small win. Followed by a bigger loss... I can't find that figure again, but I have found some others here which say personal allowances range between SEK12,500 (?1180) and 32,700 (?3088). So I'm happy to go with that. But, as you've kindly pointed out, my figures also forgot to include the 7% Basic Pension Contribution, the equivalent to our NI. So, new figures (in which I have, rather kindly, given you the full Swedish personal allowance)... [pre] Sweden: someone on ?25K = (?25000-?3088)*38.560% = ?8480.11 UK: someone on ?25K = (?25000-7475)*32% = ?5608.00[/pre] So someone on ?25K in Sweden would pay 51.2% more tax than their UK counterpart. And again, don't forget the huge 25% VAT in Sweden. Game. Set. Match.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm sorry, but ANY document by Richard Murphy is just not acceptable. The bloke just make numbers up. > > > > Any credible source for these numbers? > > I don't think Richard Murphy made up the numbers as he gave reference to where the numbers come > from. Unlike you, with your number for Sweden's > personal allowance. ;-) Let me clarify. Murphy seems to have two ways of making an argument: 1) Referencing his own work as a 'credible' source (which, to be fair, he didn't do this time) 2) Ignoring numbers that don't fit his premise. Take this little gem. Murphy managed to put together an argument to increase the public sector spending by calculating that a ?25K public sector job was a net gain of ?9140 to the government. How did he do this? By ignoring the ?25K salary! And he's done something similar here. (It looks like this document is the source of Chippy's article's ?37bn, so sorry Chippy, UDT has just undermined your source.) From Murphy's document, P17... [pre] Relief for ? billions (2007/08) Occupational Scheme Contributions By Employees 4.4 By Employers 13.2 Personal Pension Scheme Contributions By Employees 2.1 By Employers 2.0 PP and RAC Contributions by self employed 1.3 National Insurance rebates to PPs 0.1 Tax free investment income of funds 5.9 Lump sum payments from unfunded schemes 0.4 National Insurance relief on employer contributions 8.2 Total 37.6 [/pre] But lets have a look at the source referenced in the document... [pre] Relief for Occupational Scheme Contributions (2007-08) By Employees 4,400 By Employers 12,900 Personal Pension Scheme Contributions By Employees 1,950 By Employers 2,460 PP and RACs Contributions by self employed 1,400 National Insurance rebates to PPs 140 Investment income of funds 5,900 Lump sum payments from unfunded schemes 450 Less tax liable on Pension payments 10,200 Refunds by funds to employers 1 Total (rounded to nearest ?100 million) 19,500 Memorandum item National Insurance relief on employer contributions 8,500 [/pre] Hang on! Where did the bit about 'less tax liable' go from Murphy's figures? It disappeared! How convenient! You can bet it won't be the only place this has happened in the document. So yes, he does reference his numbers, but that just makes it a bit easier to work out what he's left out.

ibilly99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just heard Misha's exit song on Sky Plus - best performance of the comp so far - I fear the second > rate Spice Girls Little Mix are a show in now - what a farago. You reckon? I'd rate it as one of her less good performances (and that pre-song rap was cringe-worthy). She's quite average with a dreary ballad. That attempt at Whitney Houston a few weeks back was sleep inducing. Give her something with an R&B kick that she can belt out and it's a different story. Her version of 'Proud Mary' a few weeks ago was pretty damn good and she's the only person I've heard that's even come close to Adele with 'Rollin in the Deep'.

Good lord - who'd have though a mumsnet article would use the word 'brickable'. Bet there's a few people out there scratching their head about that one.

It may not be draining properly. Your manual should tell you how to manually drain it. Having said that, it's almost impossible to do without getting water all over the place. Have a mop and bucket handy.

Fabricio the Guido Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For example, turning to the free speech argument: you cannot use your enjoyment of the right to free > speech to endanger my life or the right to life of others. Where rights conflict there has to be a > priority between rights. So not all rights are absolutes, some rights must be qualified. > Incitement to racial hatred is a crime for that reason. Although, judging by your first post, you seem to think that only some racial hatred is a crime?

At least that is a credible source, Chippy. I would like to get to the bottom of his wording, though. Though I would not call it a subsidy, ?37bn in tax relief on pension contributions sounds about right - given a workforce of 30mn of which 80% are private sector that works out at about an average of ?1500 tax relief per person in the workforce. (And he notes this has come down markedly in following years with caps on pension relief.) But he changes his wording for the comparison. "... the net cost of public sector pensions was ?4 billion". Why *net* cost? What is the gross cost and what has he deducted? I'm not sure he is comparing like with like. Does he take public sector relief into account? Even with the PS smaller contributions, I'd expect there to be significant relief costs there as well. Where did they go?

Zappa: Sainburys: five min walk ED Station: five minute walk Denmark Hill: ten minute walk Buses: 40, 176, 185, 484, P13. With the 37 (to Brixton/Clapham) stop about 8-10 mins walk away. Nice (and cheap!) gym in the Dulwich Hamlets FC. Short walk to Lordship Lane. Short walk to Bellenden Road area. Good fish and chippie, Dominos nearby. Really, the St Francis Estate (Abbotswood/Talbot/Shaw/Burrow ) is lovely. All the houses are modern, about 15 years old and good value for ED. You'll pay a bit more to live on St Francis Road itself, but the houses are of older stock.

Fabricio the Guido Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. The is no equivalence between white racists and other types of racism. > 2. This is because other minority groups live in a predominantly white society where power is held by > the white majority. > 3. Therefore, whilst it is possible to have a minority person who acts in a racist manner, this > is a reactive type of racism which is qualitatively different from the sort practiced by > majority groups. I am not saying a member of a minority group cannot be racist, I am saying > racism and power is more dangerous than mere ignorance without power. And, for the record, sorry Fabricio but that is bullc**p of the highest order. Racism is racism. Hate is hate. Your three points are all racist in their own right.

I am a huge believer in free speech. I think people should have a right to express their opinions, no matter how much I disagree with them. for instance, although I dislike what they say, I think the BNP have a right to exist in a free society. But, there is a point where letting people know what you think of them in their face becomes harassment. Both the man and the woman on the trains/trams crossed that line. I'll defend their right to have that opinion, however distasteful, but harassing people by shouting it at them in a public place is crossing the line. 'Get out of my country' and 'I want to kill white people' are not opinions - they are threats.

Have a look at Abbotswood/Talbot/Shaw/Burrow Roads as well. I've lived on Abbotswood Road (at the top of St Francis Road) for nearly 12 years and loved it. Quiet and convenient. Really nice area.

I'm sorry, but ANY document by Richard Murphy is just not acceptable. The bloke just make numbers up. Any credible source for these numbers?

I think it depends. If you are marking loss from a terrible event, like war, then silence is appropriate. On the other hand if, like with Speed, you are celebrating the life he had then applause seems a fitting way to see him off.

I'd rather live in East Dulwich than define myself by the fact you drive a slightly souped-up Vaushall Vectra salesman's car. Let's face it - the only thing fast about them is how fast their value depreciates. You've probably lost ?200 in the time it took to type this post. Shouldn't you be living in Chigwell, anyway?

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Those that have to pay bill" - what, you mean the > taxpayer? > > Let's not forget, the taxpayer subsidises private > sector pensions far, far more than is paid to > public sector pensions. I'd like a link to that one, too. Or I'm missing out on a subsidy somewhere.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The best act by a million miles went, because her face didn't fit with Sun readers. I really hope that's not the argument I think you are making.

I thought Kings College was the freeholder?

Race to the bottom. I can see the bankers adopting that one. Oi, Banker - give up your million pound bonus. No, no. Everyone should be aiming to get their own million pound bonus. Anything else is just a race to the bottom...

Did anyone take photographs of the police photographing those taking photographs?