|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 29, 2024 9:19:00 GMT
I’m as light as a feather ya daft sanctimonious woke cock womble😎 You're definitely not, ya overweight, out of shape, middle-aged loser in a dead-end job with a string of failed relationships behind him, living in shitty rented accommodation in the dump that is Stoke-on-Trent...! 😘🤪 That’s out of order, putting a couple of jokey figures doesn’t make it any less offensive. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Oct 29, 2024 10:46:27 GMT
You're definitely not, ya overweight, out of shape, middle-aged loser in a dead-end job with a string of failed relationships behind him, living in shitty rented accommodation in the dump that is Stoke-on-Trent...! 😘🤪 That’s out of order, putting a couple of jokey figures doesn’t make it any less offensive. Completely agree. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 29, 2024 10:53:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Oct 29, 2024 11:07:18 GMT
Read this earlier. Strange mishmash of people in varying, sometimes self imposed circumstances. Weird describing a student loan as take home pay, someone getting £33k a year in benefits which seems a lot to me, A 70 year old with a mortgage which is rare, someone with a £150k salary moaning about bills. Found the whole article a bit odd tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 29, 2024 11:20:46 GMT
Read this earlier. Strange mishmash of people in varying, sometimes self imposed circumstances. Weird describing a student loan as take home pay, someone getting £33k a year in benefits which seems a lot to me, A 70 year old with a mortgage which is rare, someone with a £150k salary moaning about bills. Found the whole article a bit odd tbh. tbh anyone earning over £100k is not fair game perse but i wont be bleeding my heart but yep a mix of people tbh anything under £40k is not extravagant (compared to benefits it is but) any more with the cost of living as it is. these people cannot afford to be squeezed |
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Oct 29, 2024 12:17:22 GMT
Read this earlier. Strange mishmash of people in varying, sometimes self imposed circumstances. Weird describing a student loan as take home pay, someone getting £33k a year in benefits which seems a lot to me, A 70 year old with a mortgage which is rare, someone with a £150k salary moaning about bills. Found the whole article a bit odd tbh. tbh anyone earning over £100k is not fair game perse but i wont be bleeding my heart but yep a mix of people tbh anything under £40k is not extravagant (compared to benefits it is but) any more with the cost of living as it is. these people cannot afford to be squeezed But the rich also refuse to be 'squeezed' so what's the answer? If we want better public services then someone has to pay for it. |
|
|
|
Post by sticky on Oct 29, 2024 12:37:02 GMT
I’m as light as a feather ya daft sanctimonious woke cock womble😎 You're definitely not, ya overweight, out of shape, middle-aged loser in a dead-end job with a string of failed relationships behind him, living in shitty rented accommodation in the dump that is Stoke-on-Trent...! 😘🤪 Things get heated on here at times but that really is a disgraceful post. |
|
|
|
Post by milton58 on Oct 29, 2024 13:17:59 GMT
that must have hurt fella truth usually does What do you mean? fuck knows wasn't even supposed to have quoted you tbh...the oatcake gremlins strike again |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 29, 2024 13:55:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 29, 2024 13:59:35 GMT
Read this earlier. Strange mishmash of people in varying, sometimes self imposed circumstances. Weird describing a student loan as take home pay, someone getting £33k a year in benefits which seems a lot to me, A 70 year old with a mortgage which is rare, someone with a £150k salary moaning about bills. Found the whole article a bit odd tbh. The BBC have certainly picked some contrary examples. The lady explained the student loan was non-taxable and that she had two part time jobs in absolute fairness. The but I was gobsmacked by was "I make £7,600 a month but £2,600 goes on childcare"....which is at it should be if you can afford it, surely?? |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Oct 29, 2024 14:03:42 GMT
fuck knows wasn't even supposed to have quoted you tbh...the oatcake gremlins strike again I see |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 29, 2024 14:46:44 GMT
I don't disagree. But nor did I claim to be someone who "still believes the govt and all their various guises don't waste any money" which is what you said, hence my comment about you making up something you think I said simply to argue against it! It'd be lovely if nobody wasted anything, money or resources, energy, time, whatever. You clearly are a paragon in that regard  It's a bit naive to think that that could ever be the case, but laudable to try to get there nonetheless. Even then, you'd still have people arguing that spending on [NetZero; foreign aid; migrants; benefits; insert unliked policy here] was a waste regardless, simply because they don't believe it should be spent in that cause. Our tax burden is pretty low comparatively. Look it up if you don't believe me! Edit: here you go, I've saved you the bother: ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationallyGlobal happiness report: worldhappiness.report/ed/2024/happiness-of-the-younger-the-older-and-those-in-between/#ranking-of-happiness-2021-2023
That's gonna blow a lot of people's minds who think otherwise! From that IFS report: " Under current government plans, UK tax revenue is forecast to increase to 37.7% of GDP by 2027–28. This would take the UK above both the current OECD and G7 averages. It should be noted, however, that other governments may also increase their levels of taxation by then". Good. And when it does, then we will be well within our rights to ask why things aren't getting better. As I've said many times on here, they pay more tax in our comparable northern European neighbours, have generally better public services and happier people - go figure! Perhaps having an extra £50 a month in your wages doesn't add up to much life satisfaction when your roads are full of potholes, you can't get a doctor's appointment and you're paying for your kids school books...? Incidentally, "I was responding to you implying the electorate are a bit dumb wanting better services but no tax increases. I'm highlighting if we reigned in some of the catastrophic waste all of our govt departments oversee then we might have a more palatable tax burden..." that is pretty much the Conservative manifesto right there and it regularly wins them elections and yet services don't get better (usually much worse like we've just experienced) so forgive me if I do think the electorate is a bit dumb, yes! Its funny how The northern European countries are put up there as exemplars But at least you haven't gone down the American view that Scandinavia is the perfect example of how socialism works 😆 But have a chat with Musik on here. He might tell a slightly different story. When it comes to Happiness you have to count what matters to people. Here law and order is ranked as #1 these days. No wonder when a report recently from BRÅ (The Crime Preventing Unit) said, according to Lena Melin at Aftonbladet (a left wing newspaper), that 51,3% of all 15 year olds in Sweden have committed a crime, it could be stealing, vandalism, assault or drug related. So with a right wing government who has crime prevention as their number one goal Sweden have gone up the Happiness table, no doubt about that, but it will take time to make the turn. Income and wealth inequalities ... You could write hundreds of pages about that. All I want to mention for now is it's easier for the mega rich these days, they're not necessarily the ones paying the taxes. In fact 5 persons in Sweden own more than 60% of everything here measured in SEK, our currency. This started some twenty years ago. Some important former socialdemocrats with their perspective have looked back historically and admit that, Jan Emanuel for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom_stokiepmre89 on Oct 29, 2024 14:53:24 GMT
You're definitely not, ya overweight, out of shape, middle-aged loser in a dead-end job with a string of failed relationships behind him, living in shitty rented accommodation in the dump that is Stoke-on-Trent...! 😘🤪 That’s out of order, putting a couple of jokey figures doesn’t make it any less offensive. Oddly I have a strange begrudging respect for someone like Rednwhitenblue; who doesn't hide behind false pretences of virtuousness and just lays bare his total cuntery for the world to see. Far less annoying than total cunts who also believe they're morally superior. |
|
|
|
Post by riverman on Oct 29, 2024 15:25:02 GMT
Read this earlier. Strange mishmash of people in varying, sometimes self imposed circumstances. Weird describing a student loan as take home pay, someone getting £33k a year in benefits which seems a lot to me, A 70 year old with a mortgage which is rare, someone with a £150k salary moaning about bills. Found the whole article a bit odd tbh. The BBC have certainly picked some contrary examples. The lady explained the student loan was non-taxable and that she had two part time jobs in absolute fairness. The but I was gobsmacked by was "I make £7,600 a month but £2,600 goes on childcare"....which is at it should be if you can afford it, surely?? I don't know where she's getting that £7600 a month from either. £150000 ÷ 12 is £12500 a month as far as I'm aware. Who's she trying to kid? |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 29, 2024 15:34:48 GMT
tbh anyone earning over £100k is not fair game perse but i wont be bleeding my heart but yep a mix of people tbh anything under £40k is not extravagant (compared to benefits it is but) any more with the cost of living as it is. these people cannot afford to be squeezed But the rich also refuse to be 'squeezed' so what's the answer? If we want better public services then someone has to pay for it. The answer is to vote for people who offer that on their manifesto Dave. It's like ordering a McDonald's and complaining it isn't KFC. If you vote people like Boris and Keir. You get what you vote for which is austerity. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 29, 2024 15:38:52 GMT
The BBC have certainly picked some contrary examples. The lady explained the student loan was non-taxable and that she had two part time jobs in absolute fairness. The but I was gobsmacked by was "I make £7,600 a month but £2,600 goes on childcare"....which is at it should be if you can afford it, surely?? I don't know where she's getting that £7600 a month from either. £150000 ÷ 12 is £12500 a month as far as I'm aware. Who's she trying to kid? That was sort of where I was going with it. She must be so annoyed each morning with the chaffing from those diamond shoes. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 29, 2024 15:51:58 GMT
The BBC have certainly picked some contrary examples. The lady explained the student loan was non-taxable and that she had two part time jobs in absolute fairness. The but I was gobsmacked by was "I make £7,600 a month but £2,600 goes on childcare"....which is at it should be if you can afford it, surely?? I don't know where she's getting that £7600 a month from either. £150000 ÷ 12 is £12500 a month as far as I'm aware. Who's she trying to kid? thats take home pay i reckon shes paying premium child care (ie posh nursery) for that amount. she could get that cheaper shes in the top 1% The top 1% of income tax payers are a group of around 310,000 people, and to be in that group you need a personal taxable income of at least around £160,000. But the top 1% of all adults in the UK are a group of 540,000 people, and to be in that group you need “only” £120,000 per year she can cut her cloth accordingly, most of us cannot |
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Oct 29, 2024 15:56:09 GMT
The BBC have certainly picked some contrary examples. The lady explained the student loan was non-taxable and that she had two part time jobs in absolute fairness. The but I was gobsmacked by was "I make £7,600 a month but £2,600 goes on childcare"....which is at it should be if you can afford it, surely?? I don't know where she's getting that £7600 a month from either. £150000 ÷ 12 is £12500 a month as far as I'm aware. Who's she trying to kid? She may have been talking about take home pay which it wouldn't be that far off give or take a few hundred. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 29, 2024 15:56:44 GMT
The BBC have certainly picked some contrary examples. The lady explained the student loan was non-taxable and that she had two part time jobs in absolute fairness. The but I was gobsmacked by was "I make £7,600 a month but £2,600 goes on childcare"....which is at it should be if you can afford it, surely?? I don't know where she's getting that £7600 a month from either. £150000 ÷ 12 is £12500 a month as far as I'm aware. Who's she trying to kid? She's probably talking about take home pay after tax, student loan, national insurance and pension deductions. |
|
|
|
Post by riverman on Oct 29, 2024 15:59:43 GMT
I don't know where she's getting that £7600 a month from either. £150000 ÷ 12 is £12500 a month as far as I'm aware. Who's she trying to kid? She may have been talking about take home pay which it wouldn't be that far off give or take a few hundred. Fair enough if that's the case but the article says income which to me is net take home pay, ie money coming in. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 29, 2024 16:00:19 GMT
I don't know where she's getting that £7600 a month from either. £150000 ÷ 12 is £12500 a month as far as I'm aware. Who's she trying to kid? thats take home pay i reckon shes paying premium child care (ie posh nursery) for that amount. she could get that cheaper shes in the top 1% The top 1% of income tax payers are a group of around 310,000 people, and to be in that group you need a personal taxable income of at least around £160,000. But the top 1% of all adults in the UK are a group of 540,000 people, and to be in that group you need “only” £120,000 per year she can cut her cloth accordingly, most of us cannot Presume that is the top 1% is based solely on income salary too. I imagine if we include dividends, bonuses etc that it may be even higher what they're taking home. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 29, 2024 16:02:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 29, 2024 16:08:25 GMT
I don't know where she's getting that £7600 a month from either. £150000 ÷ 12 is £12500 a month as far as I'm aware. Who's she trying to kid? thats take home pay i reckon shes paying premium child care (ie posh nursery) for that amount. she could get that cheaper shes in the top 1% The top 1% of income tax payers are a group of around 310,000 people, and to be in that group you need a personal taxable income of at least around £160,000. But the top 1% of all adults in the UK are a group of 540,000 people, and to be in that group you need “only” £120,000 per year she can cut her cloth accordingly, most of us cannot To be fair it’s her cloth Not cloth donated by a mate |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 29, 2024 16:08:51 GMT
She may have been talking about take home pay which it wouldn't be that far off give or take a few hundred. Fair enough if that's the case but the article says income which to me is net take home pay, ie money coming in. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 29, 2024 16:14:57 GMT
That’s out of order, putting a couple of jokey figures doesn’t make it any less offensive. Oddly I have a strange begrudging respect for someone like Rednwhitenblue; who doesn't hide behind false pretences of virtuousness and just lays bare his total cuntery for the world to see. Far less annoying than total cunts who also believe they're morally superior. I'm a total cunt, but I'm certainly not morally superior. If you asked the morally superior total cunts they'd tell you that I hadn't got any morals to be superior about. |
|
|
|
Post by riverman on Oct 29, 2024 16:19:37 GMT
As I said the article just says income and not gross income. Fair enough I stand corrected. She's still in a much better position than most people tho. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 29, 2024 16:32:17 GMT
As I said the article just says income and not gross income. Fair enough I stand corrected. She's still in a much better position than most people tho. 100% i dont class her as super rich but like i said she could cut costs easier than most people |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 29, 2024 17:12:20 GMT
Fair play Andy Burnham👏👏
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 29, 2024 18:54:31 GMT
The Manchester and London transport only is in control of the mayor/local authority. The govt couldn’t touch it Fair play but it’s easier for burnham to do this. Defo political and if that Mp gets recalled I can see burnham going for it |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 29, 2024 18:58:13 GMT
The Manchester and London transport only is in control of the mayor/local authority. The govt couldn’t touch it Fair play but it’s easier for burnham to do this. Defo political and if that Mp gets recalled I can see burnham going for it Ok mate didn’t realise that👍 |
|
It's a bit naive to think that that could ever be the case, but laudable to try to get there nonetheless. Even then, you'd still have people arguing that spending on [NetZero; foreign aid; migrants; benefits; insert unliked policy here] was a waste regardless, simply because they don't believe it should be spent in that cause.
