onedayone;27863471 said:If 1 person pays £42bn, and 50 people pay £16bn then: £16bn/50 = 0.32. £42bn/0.32 = 131.
onedayone;27863471 said:Nice try, but you won't be getting a gold star in primary school maths.
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]?;27863471 said:Unfortunately I don't have the time or patience to respond to all your questions.
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?;27863471 said:Don't embarrass yourself anymore by trying to debate with me on this. I am right.
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?