global warming again

[Mike.C]

Devonwoody,

this is looking like serial trolling now, and if you continue with it I will be asking a moderator to lock this thread. Find something new to say, maybe even something interesting, and stop just trying to wind people up with poorly written and illogical posts.

Mike

Mike, not that I am calling DW a troll, far from it, but lets just say for a moment that he is. Neither he or any other troll can exist without members like you. If no one bites or even posts on the trolls thread he will soon get fed up and disappear.
I suspect that John is just having a laugh and is probably chuckling away when he reads your replys. The clue is in his posts, where not once has he reacted to your belittling of his opinions. Trolls normally react when you call them an silly person :wink:

As for asking the mods to close the thread, why? He is not being abusive or talking about any of the forum NO NO's. With this sort of reaction you are just playing into a trolls hands, or playing his game. If it upsets you just ignore the thread. Me I think some of the opinions are quite funny :lol:

Cheers

Mike[/quote]

 

[Kalimna]

And another thing - blaming teachers for the current state of schooling in youngsters is both crass and grossly unfair. How about ridiculous government edicts? (and I normally try to shy away from jumping on the 'blame the government' bandwagon) The presence of an ever more insidious media? Reduced involvement in family life? Desire for peer acceptance secondary to the media? Just a couple of ideas.

Oooh, I need to calm down. Another chrimbo mince pie methinks!

Adam

 

[MikeG.]

Reading this thread is like watching an intelligent group of people talking to a scientologist.
Adam

Utterly brilliant analogy!!

....and Mike C........you are dead right, of course. The problem is that it sometimes takes quite a long time to realise that someone who has been a member for a long time is actually winding everyone up, rather than just having a conversation.

Mike

 

[Digit]

Ministers said the drop in standards among 10-year-olds, who took part in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, was due to a sharp rise in addictive video games coupled with a decline in reading at home.

Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, called for parents to read to children for 10 minutes every night, ensuring it was "as much a part of kids' routines as brushing their teeth and having a bath".

However, the Government also admitted that the fall may be because of a decline in the amount of time teachers spent reading directly to classes

So that's all lies then, correct?

So let us see what the Holy Guardian has to say...

Children’s secretary Ed Balls responded to the results saying he accepted some responsibility for the decline in standards but also blamed parents. Read more Ed Balls' response in the DCSF Pirls press release at www.dcsf.gov.uk.

(Guardian, 29 November 2007)

Roy.

 

[wobblycogs]

It's the old saying, lies, damn lies and statistics. If almost half the country was illiterate or innumerate it would go into meltdown. Even taking the lower figure (IIRC it was 21%) would cause us all terrible problems.

Personally, I don't have much time for teachers but I respect what they do and most are seem to be pretty good. I know there is no way I have the patience to teach (in the modern way).

I would like to recount a little story though... I was on the train a couple of years ago coming back from a meeting. Sitting at the table next to me were four young soon to be teachers. I was bored so I was listening to them chatting about their up and coming final exams and how hard they were going to be. One of them commented on the fact that the maths questions would be the hardest at which point pulled out an example paper and started testing the others. They were trivially easy questions which could be solved in your head but between them they didn't get a single question right. I was dumbfounded. To top it all one of them said "it's alright I'm not going to be teaching maths anyway".

I don't expect an English teacher to have a degree in maths but to not be able to, for example, figure out what 10% of a £2.50 is without resorting to a calculator / book is terrible. I think there is an attitude of looking down your nose at all science and maths related subjects in this country and we are as a whole poorer for it.

 

[Digit]

During the exam season last year a group of youngsters were screaming 'foul' about not being able to answer an exam question as nobody had taught them what 'despotic' meant.
One girl screaming that her life had 'been seriously destroyed!' as a result.
Seriously destroyed?

Roy.

 

[Smudger]

During the exam season last year a group of youngsters were screaming 'foul' about not being able to answer an exam question as nobody had taught them what 'despotic' meant.
One girl screaming that her life had 'been seriously destroyed!' as a result.
Seriously destroyed?

Roy.

Source?

 

[Mike.C]

Reading this thread is like watching an intelligent group of people talking to a scientologist.
Adam

Utterly brilliant analogy!!

....and Mike C........you are dead right, of course. The problem is that it sometimes takes quite a long time to realise that someone who has been a member for a long time is actually winding everyone up, rather than just having a conversation.

Mike

True :wink:

Cheers

Mike

 

[Digit]

Source?

Dandy and Beano and live interview on Welsh TV.

Roy.

 

[studders]

Well I've finished reading this thread, most enlightening..


Must go now, got to take meself off to the forest in me V12 Jaaaaag an cut down a bunch of trees with ma trusty 3.5 litre V6 chainsaw.


:wink:

 

[big soft moose]

Regards tax : I believe it is a undesputed fact (but please feel free to correct me :lol: ) that poorer people DO PAY a larger proportion of their income as tax.

.

not really

to start with if you are seriously poor (ie on benefits) you arent paying any income tax

if you earn less than £6035 pa you dont pay any income tax

if you earn more than £6035 but less than £34,800 then you pay 20% on the ammount over £6035

and if you earn over £34,800 you pay 20% on the ammount between £6035 and £34,800 and 40% on the ammount over £34,800

from april this year there will also be a 50% band on income over 150,000

Therefore although it is undoubtedly true that a few rich people avoid or evade income tax it is laughable to suggest that the poor are paying a higher proportion of their income as tax than everyone else, when the reverse is demonstrably the case.

 

[Jake]

it is laughable to suggest that the poor are paying a higher proportion of their income as tax than everyone else, when the reverse is demonstrably the case.

You need to take into account taxes on consumption as well as income tax, which tend to be regressive (as is Council Tax). And NI which has a ceiling, etc.


I don't know what the outcome is but it is nowhere near as clear cut as that.

 

[Dibs-h]

Reading this thread is like watching an intelligent group of people talking to a scientologist.

....

Cheers,
Adam

Yep - it does feel like that - or talking to a born again something or a convert with a dose of convertitis\born-again-itis.

(not having a dig at anyone anyone who is a convert\born again something - I must just attract the ones who insist I'm going to ****!)

 

[wobblycogs]

I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. I believe what lurker meant was that the percentage of total income taken from the poor as tax is greater than the percentage take from the rich. You are completely right in saying that high earners pay a larger percentage as income tax but over all I believe lurker is right in saying the poor / middle earners are taxed more heavily percentage wise than the high earners.

This seemingly counterintuative situation arises because of the different ways direct (e.g. income) and indirect (e.g. VAT) taxes work. Direct taxes cause equality because they are always progressive (at least in the UK), the more you earn the more you pay. Indirect taxes don't promote equality though, a rich person using a litre of petrol has the same absolute tax burden as a poor person but as a percentage of income the poor person shoulders a much greater burden.

Most tax systems have a mix of direct and indirect with the rich fighting for a larger portion of indirect and the poor for a larger portion of direct taxation. I'd favour the slider moving a little towards direct taxation as I think we need to close the rich / poor divide a bit.

 

[Mike.C]

Regards tax : I believe it is a undesputed fact (but please feel free to correct me :lol: ) that poorer people DO PAY a larger proportion of their income as tax.

.

not really

to start with if you are seriously poor (ie on benefits) you aren't paying any income tax

if you earn less than £6035 pa you dont pay any income tax

if you earn more than £6035 but less than £34,800 then you pay 20% on the amount over £6035

and if you earn over £34,800 you pay 20% on the amount between £6035 and £34,800 and 40% on the amount over £34,800

from april this year there will also be a 50% band on income over 150,000

Therefore although it is undoubtedly true that a few rich people avoid or evade income tax it is laughable to suggest that the poor are paying a higher proportion of their income as tax than everyone else, when the reverse is demonstrably the case.

I could never at anytime in my life have hoped to earn £2884 a week or 150,000 per annum and so although the 50% tax band does not effect me it still makes me see red to think that anyone though either hard work, knowing the right people, or being in the right place at the right time should be ripped of to this extent. No one will EVER convince me that just because these people have got the get up and go to earn this sort of money they should have to give the goverment 50% of every penny they earn. It simply is not right that any one section of the population should be penalised to such an extent just because they earn more.

Cheers

Mike

 

[Digit]

I must just attract the ones who insist I'm going to ****!)

Well some of 'em make the alternative sound pretty dull don't they?

Roy.

 

[big soft moose]

it is laughable to suggest that the poor are paying a higher proportion of their income as tax than everyone else, when the reverse is demonstrably the case.

You need to take into account taxes on consumption as well as income tax, which tend to be regressive (as is Council Tax). And NI which has a ceiling, etc.


I don't know what the outcome is but it is nowhere near as clear cut as that.

Neither do I , but on those its worth considering that the rich consume more , and consume more luxury goods which are higher rated, and live in larger houses which attract more council tax etc

I agree with you that its a complex subject but its certainly too complex to state as a proven fact that the poor pay more tax proportional to their income than the rich

for example although i wouldnt charecterise myself as poor (or you as rich) I would bet that as a lawyer you pay a damn sight more tax than I do as a rights of way officer

 

[Mike.C]

Regards tax : I believe it is a undesputed fact (but please feel free to correct me :lol: ) that poorer people DO PAY a larger proportion of their income as tax.

.

not really

to start with if you are seriously poor (ie on benefits) you aren't paying any income tax

if you earn less than £6035 pa you dont pay any income tax

if you earn more than £6035 but less than £34,800 then you pay 20% on the amount over £6035

and if you earn over £34,800 you pay 20% on the amount between £6035 and £34,800 and 40% on the amount over £34,800

from april this year there will also be a 50% band on income over 150,000

Therefore although it is undoubtedly true that a few rich people avoid or evade income tax it is laughable to suggest that the poor are paying a higher proportion of their income as tax than everyone else, when the reverse is demonstrably the case.

I could never at anytime in my life have hoped to earn £2884 a week or 150,000 per annum and so although the 50% tax band does not effect me it still makes me see red to think that anyone though either hard work, knowing the right people, or being in the right place at the right time should be ripped of to this extent. No one will EVER convince me that just because these people have got the get up and go to earn this sort of money they should have to give the goverment 50% of every penny they earn. It simply is not right that any one section of the population should be penalised to such an extent just because they earn more.

Cheers

Mike

By way of seeing how they must feel, lets just say that you earn £500 a week, would you be happy if the taxman took £250 of it week in and week out? I know I wouldn't :twisted:

Cheers

Mike

 

[Jake]

I agree with you that its a complex subject but its certainly too complex to state as a proven fact that the poor pay more tax proportional to their income than the rich

for example although i wouldnt charecterise myself as poor (or you as rich) I would bet that as a lawyer you pay a damn sight more tax than I do as a rights of way officer

I agree, I don't know what the answer is but I don't think the UK has either a regressive or a progressive tax system anymore (I am sure there are anomalies along the scale where things cut in and out).

I would guess I pay more tax, but the issue is whether I should pay more on every incremental pound I earn. I have a lot less objection to that than Mike C does.

 

[Mike.C]

I agree with you that its a complex subject but its certainly too complex to state as a proven fact that the poor pay more tax proportional to their income than the rich

for example although i wouldnt charecterise myself as poor (or you as rich) I would bet that as a lawyer you pay a damn sight more tax than I do as a rights of way officer

I agree, I don't know what the answer is but I don't think the UK has either a regressive or a progressive tax system anymore (I am sure there are anomalies along the scale where things cut in and out).

I would guess I pay more tax, but the issue is whether I should pay more on every incremental pound I earn. I have a lot less objection to that than Mike C does.

Hi Jake,

For an obviously intelligent man who probably had many sleepless nights studying for the exams you had to sit on your way to becoming a solicitor I cannot understand why you do not object to paying upto 30% more tax then lower paid workers. So can you enlighten me?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that a partner in one of the bigger law firms earns around £167,000, but this solicitor stated that he had to burn the midnight oil and work many long hours to get to the position and pay grade he had attained, and I suspect that more than a few lawyers have to stay at the office the night before a big case.

I have no idea how much you earn, but if it is anything like this and you have to give 50% to the taxman I cannot see how you could not be upset about it.

Ok if a man earns more he has to pay more, but IMHO at 20% (from £150,000) he would be paying £30,000 which is a much fairer system.

Cheers

Mike