Loz

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I'm not rich by any calculation on here. But I'm envious! That's the only reason I could think > it right to tax those at the top end more, right? Thanks for that damning personality assessment, > Loz. Well, if such a tax raises virtually zero money for the exchequer, what other conclusion could be made? Why else have the tax? It works at both ends of the spectrum. Why are we taxing people under 15K when most of them get all the money back again in the form of benefits and tax credits? Entirely pointless exercise that just employs civil servants to shuffle papers around.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that was the original application rather > than the new one, no? Damn - DC is correct. The old one, 11/AP/1705 was rejected. The new one, 11-AP-2953, is not yet on the Southwark planning site. Back to the barricades, people...

My point is that a 50% rate is pretty much based in the politics of envy. It gains little - in fact it allegedly gains almost nothing. And if the top 10% of earners start at 45K then they *are* the highest earners. These top 10 percent already contribute 45% of the total income tax take. It goes back to a post I made on a different thread a few months ago. A lot of people saying 'tax the rich' are probably not aware that they actually *are* the rich.

Yep, all the recycling I chucked in my shiny new blue bin was untouched by the recyclers yesterday.

Is he not?

Just looked the application up on the Southwark site - the application was refused. Good.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Liverpool. Not if you like your hubcaps.

But if it is 1.379% then the point is there are not very many of them. Even if it had worked as planned, the tax band would have only brought in an extra ?2.7bn - useful money in a recession, but hardly enough to make a real dent in the deficit. Which is why you need to lower the bar of defining 'the rich' if you are going to make any sort of revenue out of them. The top 10 percentile of income falls at about ?45K. So, if you are going to get enough people to comprise 'the rich' to make such a tax bring in enough income, that is probably about where the point should fall.

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Politicians need to be more honest and transparent and the coalition I > mean the Tory government needs to tackle the issues at home I wonder what the world must be > thinking after the riots Britain not so great. Not really sure what you are trying to say here, Ridgely. Cameron should have announced a new 'honest' tourism campaign along the lines of "Britain: Yes, We're In The S*** But Come Visit Us Anyway". Or are you saying that Cameron shouldn't be spending time with one of the country's big money generators? I really don't follow what you are saying here.

Nimbys are people that want the facility, but not in their 'back yard'. I don't want it, nor would I wish that hideous thing on anyone.

I would have though the helmet would provide its main protection from downward forces (i.e. head hitting the road) than horizontal forces, so your road speed would not be the primary factor.

Netbooks are underpowered laptops. Considering the minimal price difference, I'd go for a laptop.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but isn't that just bad driving? > > If people aren't expecting a changed layout, or > find it awkward, how do they cope when something > more serious (like a child appearing from behind a > parked car) happens Why is it when roads change and causes issues it is the driver's fault, but when they made changes to the bus stop at Denmark Hill that 'forced' commuters to cross the road in a dangerous place (i.e. take a short cut and not use the crossing) it is TFL's fault?

So, given the 40% tax bracket comes in ?35K this year, do you consider that a good indicator of the line marking 'the rich'?

Ladygooner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone got their kitchen compost bins yet? There should have been one inside the small brown bin.

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nice to see the traffic calming is already working > - the new central reservation lamppost by the > junction with Melbourne Grove is at a crazy angle, > dented with vehicle debris and glass around the > base, in addition to the lorry scrape on the other > side. > > Still, at least it's keeping people in a job, > replacing the damaged street furniture. I saw the aftermath of that last night at about midnight. A VW polo hit the central reservation and it looked like it hit it hard. Ambulance and police in attendance. I suspect it won't be the last.

Thomas Micklewright Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a great deal of evidence to suggest testing on animals is not the best practice for > finding soltions to human diseases. Now there is a statement that has to be challenged. Drug effects involve complex interactions with living organisms and these need to be tested. There is *no* true alternative currently to testing on animals. Yes, they are trying to reduce the amount of testing and introduce simulations and other methods where they can, but there is a very good reason that law says that every drug sold in the UK must be fully animal tested. Animal testing is expensive. If drug companies could do the necessary testing in a cheaper non-animal way, they would. But they can't.

A well aimed size nine should do the trick...

I thought the people at Old Trafford would welcome me with open arms, LM. I mean, I'm solidly middle-class, know bugger-all about soccer and I've had pretty much nothing to do with Manchester for my entire life. I must fit the normal profile perfectly. I could even bring my own M&S prawn sandwiches, you know.

Question: what do you do with, say, greasy pizza boxes. I imagine they are unsuitable for recycling as paper, but I suppose they could be composted.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How you can claim someone who earns approx 7x the > average salary isn't rich is beyond me? They aren't 'rich' at all. They are very, very comfortably off, but rich is David Beckham, Duke of Westminster, Richard Branson. > It's more than the vast majority will ever earn in their careers. Actually, by your own logic, it is about what the average wage earner will earn in 7 years. (Though it's actually about 5, as average salary in the UK is about ?30K now). > To suggest that they might be struggling to get by due to some punative tax measure is absurd. Bit of a strawman - no one ever said they would struggle. It is just establishing a tax system that is based on a fair levy across the board, not about establishing who has lots of money and slugging them for it. Given the state of the countries finances, taking the personal allowance up to ?15K and then adding 1% to both the 20% and 40% bands: fair Deciding that 'the rich' should just pay more: unfair. Also, DC, where would you draw the line between 'the rich' and 'not the rich'? Top 10% of incomes? 20%? 25%? Care to define what you think are 'the rich'?

I think they should turn that into allotments.

Sadly, being a bit geeky I suspect the 5v and 500 milliamps from a USB plug will mean your toast may be some time.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am considering letting my membership of AsthmaUK lapse because they admit they use animals. Will you be sending your animal-tested inhalers and other medication back as well?

The Arctic Monkeys and Susanne Vega spring immediately to mind.