Court hearing delayed (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter ccfcway
- Start date
Nick
Administrator
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Your interpretation of what people say suggests that your idea of 'truth' is not based in anything in this world.
Let's indeed look at which posts I liked in this thread. That'll be fun.
Has mart turned up on this thread?
Still, I'll let you have the last word, as you correct me with some more lauchable 'truth'.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Lile I said I didn't start it. But I was told I was wrong by someone who was wrong. That meant the FT was wrong. All the graphs were wrong. And when I said so the shitfest started as usual.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Get the violins out. Nobody has said that.
M&B Stand
Well-Known Member
Nick
Administrator
Those who wear Lonsdale Trainers, obviously.
I think you know what I mean by saying we all need to pay more.... but in response to your point the rich need to pays higher percentage than the poor
Astute
Well-Known Member
The problem is who decides what is rich?
Then you get the problem of how much more to tax before it becomes not worthwhile trying to earn more. And the more you tax people the more will look at ways of dodging tax.
Is someone who earns 50k a year rich? They are already in the 40% band. People already turn down work at that rate as nearly half of their earnings go in tax. Higher tax rates can reduce tax paid. Someone earning 46k takes home about 34k. After that it goes down even more. But if a couple both earn 23k they take home about 38k.
Or is it those on over 150k should pay more than 45%? How much should it go up to?
M&B Stand
Well-Known Member
I don’t know what you mean at all, please explain. Who exactly is rich 16k earners? 25k? 32k 40k? What’s your more tax mean 40% 50% what and who do you want paying it?
