Loz

Nice try, but no. You are, of course, missing the important personal allowances. In the UK the first ?7,475 is tax free (rising to 8105 in 2012/3) whereas the Swede's allowance is about ?350. So, tax paid in the UK for someone on ?25K = (?25000-7475)*32% = ?5608. For Sweden, assuming an average of municipal tax of 31.56% (the average rate) then your ?25k earner will pay (?25000-?350)*31.560% = ?7779.54. Or, if you like, the Swede on ?25K pays a whopping 38.7% more in actual income taxation that the Brit. And then there is the not-very-small matter of the huge 25% Swedish VAT rate...

I initially thought he was following the current 'say nothing' Labour policy at the moment, but he then came out with some interesting observations. Which probably means his career is toast.

I know they were doing it a year or so ago, but I thought they'd been told not to now?

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There you go, Loz. The above article gives a lot > more details about Sweden's taxation system. Also > Municipal tax is just another form of Council Tax > but based on the ability to pay and appears to > take into account each person's personal > allowance. I stand by my original statement Loz. Based on your own article, municipal tax rate is 31.56%. I don't care how you skirt around it, it an income tax. Sweden has one of the highest tax rates in the world - your own article proves it!

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is no evidence to suggest Sweden have high taxation policies. For a start their first ?35k of > earnings are tax free. Now compare that to Britain where lowly paid workers are taxed more than their > Swedish counterparts? Nice try UDT. From the Swedish Taxation Department - Skatteverket - themselves... So, yes, 'state tax' starts at about ?35K, but by then you have already been slugged 29-35% plus 7% for pensions. Pretty high taxing in anyone's eyes.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But aren't they back because of new evidence? And surely if they are guilty then they should be convicted? From what they are reporting, I wouldn't get your hopes up. Sounds like a first class cockup on the evidence front.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sorry jeremy - that should have read "thin out" - as it cut out dead wood. On teh one hand we want a > leaner, more productive civil-service and on the other we want people to kick about after they have > been usefully productive? It seems a contradiction Not at all. They don't have to stay in the PS. Some of these unneeded people in the public sector may be useful enough to get a job in the private sector. ::o

SimonM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If "personality" was remotely a factor then Sarah Stevenson ought to have won by a street, never mind shortlisted I'm afraid she comes under the heading of 'never heard of her'. I think the person should be at least reasonably well know, else 'Mad Dave' from the local pub darts team would be in the running.

Couldn't you have rung me and told me this?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > New civil servants for the last 7 years have not been on a final salary pension. Did your union tell you that?

Gave actually said, "severe impact on schools across the country", which was the main area the strike was felt. Other areas hit by strike action were much less obviously effected. Indeed, border control at the airports seemed to be more efficient, by all accounts.

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, they will be furious with the actions of > the egotistical idiots at UKUncut in the Haymarket in the past hour. The Beeb reports it is OccupyLSX, not UKUncut. Though probably in reality the same people.

I was wondering at lunchtime what the unions would really want out of today... a huge knock on effect that would make big headlines but probably annoy the general public and lose support, or a decent turnout but not a big knock-on effect (as seems to be the case).

Join the Residential Landlords Association. They have an online library full of useful forms and contracts.

I used to have tintinitus. I got the urge to dye my hair blonde, buy a small dog and go on adventures.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you honestly believe that these moves by Osborne are not an attempt to fatally undermine > the public sector, its workers and its ethos? Do you really think these are simply pragmatic moves > to help paydown the deficit? Labour believes in big government, Tories in small government. Yes, Osbourne is using the deficit as an excuse to cut down the footprint of the public sector, but I don't think it is to 'fatally undermine' it, just shrink it.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You ought to come and work in the public sector Loz - it's amazing. We have chairs made of clouds > and desks of gold. Free beer and sausages for all and as much holiday as you want. No thanks. I worked with (note, not for) the PS for years. I know what it is like.

They're all over the bus stop anyway in that area. And there is a full sized billboard on the other side of the street. Besides, if they can make enough money from advertising, maybe they won't need to put the CPZ in...! B)

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A lot about how badly it is run, increase charges but no mention of wanting or wishing that the CPZ > was removed though is there gsirett....... No, but that would solve most of them.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On an aside, I'm sure there will be a similar > split of opinion on the Autumn statement by the > Chancellor today (following a previously announced > pay freeze) announcing that public sector pay > rises will be capped at 1% for two years... I *dream* of a 1% pay rise. I've had nowt for three years now.

Thanks James - it's that sort of info that can really swing things. From memory of the old Homebase application - isn't there also a covenant on the Greendale site?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unless of course the lease is up and they need to > vacate the site in which case building on > Metropolitian Open Land for this proposal will > result in the current football pitch being turned > into a more out of town shopping or housing. > > My fear is the latter. The former or the latter? I wouldn't have a problem with the current club ground being replaced with more St Francis Estate type housing. I would have a problem if the old Homebase idea (or similar) was dug up again.

nashoi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, you did read me right, I said an Australian, > so probably bullshit, but if not him then someone soon. Can I be the first from that fine country Down Under to take offence at this piece of casual racism?

DC, I agree. Lord Hutton is obviously a wise man. That's two quotes where he has spoken utter sense.

I hate to break it to you, but isn't fox hunting illegal? Personally, I'm not in favour, hare coursing especially. But you are off the mark with badger culling - it's not a 'blood sport'.