Black People : Censorship in the UK?

Discussion in 'Black People Open Forum' started by Orisons, Oct 31, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Orisons

    Orisons Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    442
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
    Location:
    London in the United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +599
    Though Maths is very very obviously not your forte, you and I KNOW that that 131 times more assertion with regard to the upper 1% in comparison to the bottom 50%’s annual payment to the Exchequer is GARBAGE [£42 billion divided by £17,1 billion = 2.45] isn’t it, as underlined by the so pathetic “Creative Accounting” exercise above to so very very desperately stand up your crazy numbers [but you weren’t expecting anyone to challenge you on them, were YOU]?
    Don’t you mean headlong flight from REALITY is the only mode you KNOW as the factual basis of my rationale/questions is easily verifiable, isn’t it [or maybe this medium is too technical for YOU is it]?
    QUOTE=;27863471]What I will say is that my calculation stands correct. When looking at tax receipts you need to consider the per person contribution.
    If 1 person pays £50, and 50 people pay £1 each, the 1 person has contributed 50 times the amount that each of those others has. It is you that's applying creative accounting to suggest that the denominator in this calculation is irrelevant. [/QUOTE] So where have you factored in the number of people that make up the top 1% of taxpayers v the number of people that make up the bottom 50% and where did you get those statistics from?
    Aren’t YOU very very desperately clutching at straws/barely numerate or are you going to explain how the numerator/£42 billion divided by the denominator/£17.1 billion could EVER highlight that the UK’s top 1% of taxpayers are paying 131 times more into the Exchequer than the bottom 50% [whose contribution would have to be only £0.32 billion as opposed to the £17.1 your assertion creates for your numbers to work] when these very numbers totally undermine that assertion [be honest, you failed even GCSE Maths, didn’t YOU]?
    Willing yourself to be RIGHT worked well for Hitler for a while didn’t it, but don’t your own statistics very completely CRUSH your rationale in a similar manner to the way Stalin’s willingness to sacrifice 25 million USSR citizens destroyed the NAZIS?
    Though I’m not denying that the top 1% pay many times more individually than the bottom 50% aren’t THEY also the beneficiaries of a very diverse array of tax avoidance loopholes for example National Insurance contributions stop at a fixed figure so that someone on £300 a week is paying a higher percentage of NI on their wage {up to £42.475k 9%, then only 2% of income above that threshold} than someone on £3000 a week/WHY?
    In stark contrast are you denying that the bottom 50% trapped in the PAYE system having very few options with regard to escaping taxation?
    Isn't ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?

     
  2. Orisons

    Orisons Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    442
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
    Location:
    London in the United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +599
    This jumbled mess [below] is how my post [above] is appearing on the Daily Mail UK's message board.
    Originally Posted by onedayone
    If 1 person pays £42bn, and 50 people pay £16bnthen: £16bn/50 = 0.32. £42bn/0.32 = 131.
    Nice try, but you won't be getting a gold star in primary school maths.
    Though Maths is very veryobviously not your forte, you and I KNOW that that 131 times more assertionwith regard to the upper 1% in comparison to the bottom 50%’s annual payment tothe Exchequer is GARBAGE [£42 billion divided by £17,1 billion = 2.45]isn’t it, as underlined by the so pathetic “Creative Accounting” exercise aboveto so very very desperately stand up your crazy numbers [but you weren’texpecting anyone to challenge you on them, were YOU]?
    Originally Posted by ;27863471
    Unfortunately I don't have the time orpatience to respond to all your questions.
    Don’tyou mean headlong flight from REALITY is the only mode you KNOW as thefactual basis of my rationale/questions is easily verifiable, isn’t it [ormaybe this medium is too technical for YOU is it]?
    QUOTE=;27863471]What I will say isthat my calculation stands correct. When looking at tax receipts you need toconsider the per person contribution.
    If 1 person pays £50, and 50 peoplepay £1 each, the 1 person has contributed 50 times the amount that each of thoseothers has. It is you that's applying creative accounting to suggest that thedenominator in this calculation is irrelevant. [/QUOTE] Sowhere have you factored in the number of people that make up the top 1% oftaxpayers v the number of people that make up the bottom 50% and where did youget those statistics from?
    Aren’t YOU veryvery desperately clutching at straws/barely numerate or are you going toexplain how the numerator/£42 billion divided by the denominator/£17.1 billioncould EVER highlight that the UK’s top 1% of taxpayers are paying 131 timesmore into the Exchequer than the bottom 50% [whose contribution would have tobe only £0.32 billion as opposed to the £17.1 your assertion creates for yournumbers to work] when these very numbers totally undermine that assertion [be honest,you failed even GCSE Maths, didn’t YOU]?
    Originally Posted by ;27863471
    Don't embarrass yourself anymore by trying to debate with meon this. I am right.
    Willing yourself to be RIGHT worked well for Hitler for a whiledidn’t it, but don’t your own statistics very completely CRUSH your rationalein a similar manner to the way Stalin’s willingness to sacrifice 25 millionUSSR citizens destroyed the NAZIS?
    Though I’m notdenying that the top 1% pay many times more individually than the bottom 50%aren’t THEY also the beneficiaries of a very diverse array of taxavoidance loopholes for example National Insurance contributions stop at afixed figure so that someone on £300 a week is paying a higher percentage of NIon their wage {up to £42.475k 9%, then only 2% of income above that threshold} thansomeone on £3000 a week/WHY?
    In stark contrast areyou denying that the bottom 50% trapped in the PAYE system having very fewoptions with regard to escaping taxation?
    Share
    Isn't ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?
    Originally Posted by onedayone
    If 1 person pays £42bn, and 50 people pay £16bnthen: £16bn/50 = 0.32. £42bn/0.32 = 131.

    Nice try, but you won't be getting a gold star in primary school maths.
    Though Maths is very veryobviously not your forte, you and I KNOW that that 131 times more assertionwith regard to the upper 1% in comparison to the bottom 50%’s annual payment tothe Exchequer is GARBAGE [£42 billion divided by £17,1 billion = 2.45]isn’t it, as underlined by the so pathetic “Creative Accounting” exercise aboveto so very very desperately stand up your crazy numbers [but you weren’texpecting anyone to challenge you on them, were YOU]?
    Originally Posted by ;27863471
    Unfortunately I don't have the time orpatience to respond to all your questions.
    Don’tyou mean headlong flight from REALITY is the only mode you KNOW as thefactual basis of my rationale/questions is easily verifiable, isn’t it [ormaybe this medium is too technical for YOU is it]?
    QUOTE=;27863471]What I will say isthat my calculation stands correct. When looking at tax receipts you need toconsider the per person contribution.
    If 1 person pays £50, and 50 peoplepay £1 each, the 1 person has contributed 50 times the amount that each of thoseothers has. It is you that's applying creative accounting to suggest that thedenominator in this calculation is irrelevant. [/QUOTE] Sowhere have you factored in the number of people that make up the top 1% oftaxpayers v the number of people that make up the bottom 50% and where did youget those statistics from?
    Aren’t YOU veryvery desperately clutching at straws/barely numerate or are you going toexplain how the numerator/£42 billion divided by the denominator/£17.1 billioncould EVER highlight that the UK’s top 1% of taxpayers are paying 131 timesmore into the Exchequer than the bottom 50% [whose contribution would have tobe only £0.32 billion as opposed to the £17.1 your assertion creates for yournumbers to work] when these very numbers totally undermine that assertion [be honest,you failed even GCSE Maths, didn’t YOU]?

    Originally Posted by ;27863471
    Don't embarrass yourself anymore by trying to debate with meon this. I am right.
    Willing yourself to be RIGHT worked well for Hitler for a whiledidn’t it, but don’t your own statistics very completely CRUSH your rationalein a similar manner to the way Stalin’s willingness to sacrifice 25 millionUSSR citizens destroyed the NAZIS?
    Though I’m notdenying that the top 1% pay many times more individually than the bottom 50%aren’t THEY also the beneficiaries of a very diverse array of taxavoidance loopholes for example National Insurance contributions stop at afixed figure so that someone on £300 a week is paying a higher percentage of NIon their wage {up to £42.475k 9%, then only 2% of income above that threshold} thansomeone on £3000 a week/WHY?
    In stark contrast areyou denying that the bottom 50% trapped in the PAYE system having very fewoptions with regard to escaping taxation?
    Share

    Isn’t ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?
     
  3. Orisons

    Orisons Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    442
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
    Location:
    London in the United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +599
    This FIASCO started when I responded [below] in this thread where the figures being projected and promoted as TRUTH don't withstand any rational evaluation, do THEY?

    However this jumbling of my posts [above] has been happening consistently for some time now.
    Does Britain Need the Rich????

    According to the BBC the top 1% of income tax payers pay 27% of all income tax. Roughly £42bn.
    In contrast the bottom 50% of income tax payers pay only 11% or £16bn.
    So the top 1% contribute 131 times the tax that the bottom 50% contribute.
    So the conclusion seems simple to me. Britain would be in a far worse place if the top 1% left the country.
    The question is:
    How much more can we tax the top 1% before they decide to leave the country?
    Does the public even care if the rich leave the country?
    I hope you’re not an accountant because your numbers aren’t balancing are they?
    Assuming that your £42 billion top 1% figure is correct giving an income tax total income to the Exchequer of £155.56 billion, isn’t it also a fact that the 11% contribution to that total would actually be £17.! billion as oppose to the £16 billion you’ve stated?
    Where has this 131 times figure come from in stark contrast to your own numbers highlighting that the top 1% are actually paying 1.58 times more towards the Exchequer’s income than the bottom 50% [£42 billion divided by £17.1 billion], nice try though?
    Aren’t YOU aware of the fact that but for Maggie [Margaret Thatcher was the UK's first and only woman Prime Minister from 1979-1989] changing the legislation with regard to moving money out of the UK, THEY wouldn’t have had the option with regard to legally moving large sums out of the country in the first place?
    Isn’t it also a fact that the families whose ancestors were given their land post 1066 by William the Conquerer STILL own over 90% of the land in the UK today or are you asserting that the landed gentry are considering selling up their estates and moving abroad so as to evade income tax?
    How would the public caring one way or the other affect the decisions that these people especially the Banksters and high level financial fraudsters/hedge fund managers etc make [aren’t YOU being somewhat naïve or are you just hoping that we are]?
    Isn't ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?
     
  4. Orisons

    Orisons Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    442
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
    Location:
    London in the United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +599
    This post wasn't played with so maybe it depends on which censor/moderator is on shift, eh?

    [​IMG] Originally Posted by onedayone [​IMG]

    According to the BBC the top 1% of income tax payers pay 27% of all income tax. Roughly £42bn.​

    In contrast the bottom 50% of income tax payers pay only 11% or £16bn.​

    I hope you’re not an accountant because your numbers aren’t balancing are they?
    Assuming that your £42 billion billion top 1% figure is correct giving an income tax total income to the Exchequer of £155.56 billion, isn’t it also a fact that the 11% contribution to that total would actually be £17.! billion as oppose to the £16 billion you’ve stated?

    [​IMG] Originally Posted by ;27853143

    So the top 1% contribute 131 times the tax that the bottom 50% contribute.​

    Where is this 131 times figure coming from in stark contrast to your own numbers highlighting that the top 1% are actually paying 2.45 times more towards the Exchequer’s income than the bottom 50% [£42 billion divided by £17.1 billion], nice try though?

    [​IMG] Originally Posted by ;27853143

    So the conclusion seems simple to me. Britain would be in a far worse place if the top 1% left the country.​

    [​IMG] Originally Posted by ;27853143
    The question is:​

    How much more can we tax the top 1% before they decide to leave the country?

    Aren’t YOU aware of the fact that but for Maggie [the UK's first and only woman Prime Minister from 1979-1989] changing the legislation with regard to moving money out of the UK, THEY wouldn’t have had the option with regard to legally moving large sums out of the country in the first place?

    Isn’t it also a fact that the families whose ancestors were given their land post 1066 by William the Conquerer STILL own over 90% of the land in the UK today or are you asserting that the landed gentry are considering selling up their estates and moving abroad so as to evade income tax?

    [​IMG] Originally Posted by ;27853143

    Does the public even care if the rich leave the country?​

    How would the public caring one way or the other affect the decisions that these people especially the Banksters and high level financial fraudsters/hedge fund managers make [aren’t YOU being somewhat naïve or are you just hoping that we are]?

    Isn’t ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?
     
  5. Orisons

    Orisons Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    442
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
    Location:
    London in the United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +599
    Where is the Rocket Science in using the very numbers that you’ve posted as part of your assertion to hit you on the head with [I truly don’t know how accurate your figures re the Exchequer are]?
    Assuming that your £42 billion top 1% figure is correct [as 27% of the income tax paid] giving an income tax total income to the Exchequer of £155.56 billion, isn’t it also a fact that the 11% contribution to that total would actually be £17.1 billion as opposed to the £16 billion you’ve stated?
    Still using your numbers £17.1 billion divided by 50 = £0.342 billion
    Thus £42 billion divided by £0.342 = 122.8 not 131 doesn’t it?
    Don’t your own numbers also highlight that the total contribution to the Exchequer of the top 1% v the bottom 50% [£42 billion divided by £17,1 billion = 2.45] is actually 2.45 times more, whereas your 131 times is at best misleading isn’t it [wouldn’t 131 x £17.1 billion mean the top 1% contributing £2240 billion to the Exchequer]?
    Though I’m not denying that the top 1% pay many times more individually than the bottom 50% aren’t THEY also the beneficiaries of a very diverse array of tax avoidance loopholes for example National Insurance contributions stop at a fixed figure so that someone on £300 a week is paying a higher percentage of NI on their wage {up to £42.475k 9%, then only 2% of income above that threshold} than someone on £3000 a week/WHY?
    In stark contrast are you denying that the bottom 50% trapped in the PAYE system having very few options with regard to escaping taxation?
    Where did you buy them [those qualificatios] as a mere Mechanical Technician/HNC [with 36 years of work experience including a solo design patent for Xerox’s Photocopier Research and Devolopment] as opposed to even an Engineering graduate is highlighting that your rationale is at best fundamentally flawed manipulative GARBAGE, isn’t it?
    Isn’t ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?
     
  6. Orisons

    Orisons Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    442
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
    Location:
    London in the United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +599
    This jumbled edited monochrome mess is what my post [above] has been transformed into on their website [where they also tried to lock me out electronically from logging on]!
    Originally Posted by onedayone
    I'm gonna tell you one last time that it's a percapita contribution ***Edit by Admin***

    Ill repeat, if 1 person pays £50, and 50 people pay £1 each, the 1 person haspaid 50 times the other 50 people.

    Get yourself a calculator and pen and work the numbers.
    Where is the Rocket Science inusing the very numbers that you’ve posted as part of your assertion to hit youon the head with [I truly don’t know how accurate your figures re the Exchequerare]?

    Assuming that your £42 billiontop 1% figure is correct [as 27% of the income tax paid] giving an income taxtotal income to the Exchequer of £155.56 billion, isn’t it also a fact that the11% contribution to that total would actually be £17.1 billion as opposed tothe £16 billion you’ve stated?
    Still using yournumbers £17.1 billion divided by 50 = £0.342 billion
    Thus £42 billiondivided by £0.342 = 122.8 not 131 doesn’t it?
    Don’t your ownnumbers also highlight that the total contribution to the Exchequer of the top1% v the bottom 50% [£42 billion divided by £17,1 billion = 2.45] isactually 2.45 times more, whereas your 131 times is at best misleading isn’t it[wouldn’t 131 x £17.1 billion mean the top 1% contributing £2240 billion to theExchequer]?
    Though I’m notdenying that the top 1% pay many times more individually than the bottom 50%aren’t THEY also the beneficiaries of a very diverse array of taxavoidance loopholes for example National Insurance contributions stop at afixed figure so that someone on £300 a week is paying a higher percentage of NIon their wage {up to £42.475k 9%, then only 2% of income above that threshold}than someone on £3000 a week/WHY?
    In stark contrastare you denying that the bottom 50% trapped in the PAYE system having very fewoptions with regard to escaping taxation?
    ***Edit by Admin***​
    Share​
    Isn’t ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed​
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?​
     
  7. Orisons

    Orisons Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    442
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
    Location:
    London in the United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +599
    #72
    onedayone
    Newbie
    Join Date:
    Jul 2012
    Posts:
    173
    Originally Posted by orisons
    Though Maths is very very obviously not your forte.........

    So where have you factored in the number of people that make up the top 1% of taxpayers v the number of people that make up the bottom 50% and where did you get those statistics from?

    Are you actually reading what you are typing????

    Assume the total number of taxpayers is X

    X times 1% = Y
    X times 50% = Z

    Regardless of what X is, Z will always be 50 times larger than Y.

    Try it at home on your calculator and come back to me with any questions. ***Edit by Admin***
     
  8. Orisons

    Orisons Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    442
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
    Location:
    London in the United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +599
    YOU have provided the numbers and a conclusion that could never ever be correct [re the top 1% of income taxpayers paying 131 times more tax than the bottom 50%] haven’t you, and now you’re throwing your toys out of the pram?
    This figure [131] is misleading because though probaby accurate on an individual comparison level your own numbers [which I haven’t even verified] state that the Exchequer receives £42 billion from the top 1% and £17.1 billion from the bottom 50% which YOU can reconcile with your figure [should actually be 122.8] CREATIVELY but arithmatically how can you deny that the total paid by the top 1% is only 2.45 [£42 billion divided by £17 billion] times more than the so dramatic 131 times more tax being paid that YOU have stated?
    Isn’t ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?
    Became the monochrome mess below on their message board!
    Originally Posted by onedayone​
    Are you actually reading what you are typing????​
    Assume the total number of taxpayers is X​
    X times 1% = Y​
    X times 50% = Z​
    Regardless of what X is, Z will always be 50 times larger than Y.​
    Try it at home on your calculator and come back to me with any questions. ***Edit by Admin***​
    YOU have provided the numbers and a conclusion that could never ever be correct [re the top 1% of income taxpayers paying 131 times more tax than the bottom 50%] haven’t you, and now you’re throwing your toys out of the pram?​
    This figure [131] is misleading because though probaby accurate on an individual comparison level your own numbers [which I haven’t even verified] state that the Exchequer receives £42 billion from the top 1% and £17.1 billion from the bottom 50% which YOU can reconcile with your figure [should actually be 122.8] CREATIVELY but arithmatically how can you deny that the total paid by the top 1% is only 2.45 [£42 billion divided by £17 billion] times more than the so dramatic 131 times more tax being paid that YOU have stated?​
    Share​
    Isn’t ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed​
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?​
     
  9. Orisons

    Orisons Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    442
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
    Location:
    London in the United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +599
    Maybe HE should stop RUNNING AWAY from REALITY!​
    Originally Posted by supperman​
    All this tittle tattle over what percentageof who pays tax or doesn't pay tax is irrelevent,​
    The fact is ,the very rich do not pay tax they are untouchable because of theirwealth,the so called just rich,try the same thing but some are not cleverenough and get caught.​
    Then that other group called the self employed,they are companies and as suchthey pay just 20 %tax meanwhile the rest of us pay tax up to 40% .​
    EXACTLY, His defence of the transparently manipulative numbers in his assertionalso facilitated his headlong flight from my other questions [below] which hedidn’t have the TIME for, I wonder why? ROFL​
    Though I’m notdenying that the top 1% pay many times more individually than the bottom 50%aren’t THEY also the beneficiaries of a very diverse array of taxavoidance loopholes for example National Insurance contributions stop at afixed figure so that someone on £300 a week is paying a higher percentage of NIon their wage {up to £42.475k 9%, then only 2% of income above that threshold}than someone on £3000 a week/WHY?​
    In stark contrastare you denying that the bottom 50% trapped in the PAYE system having very fewoptions with regard to escaping taxation?​
    Originally Posted by ;27853143​
    So theconclusion seems simple to me. Britain would be in a far worse place if the top 1% leftthe country. The question is:​
    How much more can we tax the top 1% before they decide to leave the country?​
    Aren’t YOU aware of the fact thatbut for Maggie changing the legislation with regard to moving money out of theUK, THEY wouldn’t have had the option with regard to legally movinglarge sums out of the country in the first place?​
    Isn’t it also afact that the families whose ancestors were given their land post 1066 byWilliam the Conquerer STILL own over 90% of the land in the UK today orare you asserting that the landed gentry are considering selling up theirestates and moving abroad so as to evade income tax?​
    Originally Posted by ;27853143​
    Does the public even care if the rich leave the country?​
    How would the public caring oneway or the other affect the decisions that these people especially theBanksters and high level financial fraudsters/hedge fund managers etc make[aren’t YOU being somewhat naïve or are you just hoping that we are]?​
    Share​
    Isn’t ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed​
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?​
    Maybe HE should stop RUNNING AWAY from REALITY!
    EXACTLY, His defence of the transparently manipulative numbers in his assertion also facilitated his headlong flight from my other questions [below] which he didn’t have the TIME for, I wonder why? ROFL
    Though I’m not denying that the top 1% pay many times more individually than the bottom 50% aren’t THEY also the beneficiaries of a very diverse array of tax avoidance loopholes for example National Insurance contributions stop at a fixed figure so that someone on £300 a week is paying a higher percentage of NI on their wage {up to £42.475k 9%, then only 2% of income above that threshold} than someone on £3000 a week/WHY?
    In stark contrast are you denying that the bottom 50% trapped in the PAYE system having very few options with regard to escaping taxation?
    Aren’t YOU aware of the fact that but for Maggie changing the legislation with regard to moving money out of the UK, THEY wouldn’t have had the option with regard to legally moving large sums out of the country in the first place?
    Isn’t it also a fact that the families whose ancestors were given their land post 1066 by William the Conquerer STILL own over 90% of the land in the UK today or are you asserting that the landed gentry are considering selling up their estates and moving abroad so as to evade income tax?
    How would the public caring one way or the other affect the decisions that these people especially the Banksters and high level financial fraudsters/hedge fund managers etc make [aren’t YOU being somewhat naïve or are you just hoping that we are]?

    Isn't ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?
     
  10. Orisons

    Orisons Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    442
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
    Location:
    London in the United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +599
    Just to wind me up, this post went through without alteration.
    YOU have provided the numbers and a conclusion that could never ever be correct [re the top 1% of income taxpayers paying 131 times more tax than the bottom 50%] haven’t you, and now you’re throwing your toys out of the pram?
    This figure [131] is misleading because though probaby accurate on an individual comparison level your own numbers [which I haven’t even verified] state that the Exchequer receives £42 billion from the top 1% and £17.1 billion from the bottom 50% which YOU can reconcile with your figure [should actually be 122.8] CREATIVELY but arithmatically how can you deny that the total paid by the top 1% is only 2.45 [£42 billion divided by £17 billion] times more than the so dramatic 131 times more tax being paid that YOU have stated?
    Have YOU ever had an original thought with even your attempts at wit being as feeble as the rationale of your calculations?

    Is actually the the 122.8 that I stipulated above, isn’t it?
    So the crux of your rationale isn’t that the so hard working as opposed to parasitic silver spoon brigade/top 1% are very heroically carrying the so allegedly idle lower echelons on their so broad shoulders/muscular backs, perhaps?
    Is what you stated from the outset isn’t it, whereas now in hindsight you’re very very desperately specifying that what you meant was per person, whereas wouldn’t the Exhequer be delirously happy if instead of the £42 billion they actually receive, they were actually getting [17.1 x 122.8 not 131 = £2100 billion] £2100 billion from the top 1% [which is the only way your numbers could be right]?
    Isn't ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?

     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.