Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

juvenal

Clegg Says Earners Over £23K Pa Are In For A Pasting.

Recommended Posts

If £23,000 is the average salary, it makes sense to use that as the starting point for cuts, rising proportionately above that amount. At least, it makes more sense than targeting people who earn less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said that high earners need to be taxed more. He said that the average wage is 23k.

Try to understand that for Cameron, Osborne and Glegg this is really a tiny amount of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If £23,000 is the average salary, it makes sense to use that as the starting point for cuts, rising proportionately above that amount. At least, it makes more sense than targeting people who earn less.

Using intuitive statistics to determine government policy can be self defeating, as it's only based on... intuition.

Why not target people who earn less? It's what the system is about, feed off the work of Mr Average and below, to ensure a comfortable life for those higher up.

That's how humans, ants, bees etc organise themselves. Any other gesture is window dressing and means that no-one gets to enjoy the fruits of their labour. Better to take a tiny bit more from the proles and at least give a few people a chance rather than everyone suffer apart from the 1% elite. Those that do get ahead can increase the living standard for everyone, but you would rather we all just stink together in the same cesspit. Well this is Britain, and no-one likes to think anyone is better off than they are, so lets pretend to bring everyone down to the lowest level while secretly trying to out-do our neighbours. Plus ca change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If middle income income earners are squeezed, but feel those at the top and the bottom are continuing their lives much as before, then the government will fall, and furthermore the government absolutely realises this.

Middle income earners must take the strain (after all that's where most of the money actually resides), but to keep them in line they'll have to see savage reductions in welfare spending plus punitive new taxes for the rich. In other words they need to see hear those at the top and those at the bottom squealing even more loudly than themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If £23,000 is the average salary, it makes sense to use that as the starting point for cuts, rising proportionately above that amount. At least, it makes more sense than targeting people who earn less.

I agree with the theory of targetting people better then the average, but as has been mentioned many times on this site, earnings aren't that directly related to wealth anymore. People earning 25K after tax and NI probably get less net then many single parents on benefits and so could be classed as 'poorer' even though notionally they earn more and will now be asked to contribute even more. The Government seems to have tied us all up in such a complicated knot on this that it's really hard to target who should pay extra.

I look at myself on above average income but without the help of the Bank of Mum and Dad I live in an ex-council flat. Some friends of mine with the help of the BoM&D live in a fantastic 4 bedroom detached house with garden office cabin yet earn less (easily a £300,000 house). I'll be targetted more by these cuts, yet they are wealthier, go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's all down to the numbers.

How many individual voters earn less than £22,000 pa?

If the answer is "an awful lot more than the number of individual voters who earn more than £22,000 pa", you have your explanation.

Edit: speeling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said that high earners need to be taxed more. He said that the average wage is 23k.

Try to understand that for Cameron, Osborne and Glegg this is really a tiny amount of money.

I no longer want to be paid a wage I would prefer to be paid in expenses...lifes basic living expenses, I understand it will be tax free, can provide all relevant receipts. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If £23,000 is the average salary, it makes sense to use that as the starting point for cuts, rising proportionately above that amount. At least, it makes more sense than targeting people who earn less.

The trouble is, there are hordes of vocal left wing dinosaurs whom think benefits=poor, regardless of the tens of thousands in housing benefit and so on that means theyre anything but. And the Media gives them a platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using intuitive statistics to determine government policy can be self defeating, as it's only based on... intuition.

Why not target people who earn less? It's what the system is about, feed off the work of Mr Average and below, to ensure a comfortable life for those higher up.

That's how humans, ants, bees etc organise themselves. Any other gesture is window dressing and means that no-one gets to enjoy the fruits of their labour. Better to take a tiny bit more from the proles and at least give a few people a chance rather than everyone suffer apart from the 1% elite. Those that do get ahead can increase the living standard for everyone, but you would rather we all just stink together in the same cesspit. Well this is Britain, and no-one likes to think anyone is better off than they are, so lets pretend to bring everyone down to the lowest level while secretly trying to out-do our neighbours. Plus ca change.

The difference in wealth/income between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% in the UK - is already at the level of 100x

A fekkin, ignorant, brainwashed moron would think the above!

We're in the cess pit because the elites squeeze too much out of the real wealth creators already thru their parasitic mechanisms!

Do you want a society with a handful of Billionaires dictating policy to your Govt for their Big Business whilst 100 million citizens can't afford medical insurance and get given food tokens to survive on - as in "The land of the Free"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this right, people over £23k have to pay more to support top end salaries that grown exponentially under New Labour?

Just look at doctors:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204065/The-GP-earning-380-000-year--hours-doctors-200-hour.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/09/doctors.pay.gp.health.nhshttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article6993169.ece

No wonder the NHS costs so much! All the increases have gone on wages!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If middle income income earners are squeezed, but feel those at the top and the bottom are continuing their lives much as before, then the government will fall, and furthermore the government absolutely realises this.

Middle income earners must take the strain (after all that's where most of the money actually resides), but to keep them in line they'll have to see savage reductions in welfare spending plus punitive new taxes for the rich. In other words they need to see hear those at the top and those at the bottom squealing even more loudly than themselves.

You only think in terms of your own social strata/status!

Try this >>>

5 Million people in the UK are illiterate - try getting any sort of job with that holding you back.

They're the ones preyed on by the 10,000% loan sharks!

These are the ones who are constantly villified but the whole setup of work in our society 100% excludes them if they can't read an elf and safety notice for instance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL @ 30K being considered a high wage!

top 10% if you please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You only think in terms of your own social strata/status!

Try this >>>

5 Million people in the UK are illiterate - try getting any sort of job with that holding you back.

They're the ones preyed on by the 10,000% loan sharks!

That's nonsense. The literacy rate in the UK is 99%.

There might be 5 million people with no qualifications but that’s a long way from being illiterate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably at least 80% of the population earn less than the national average wage of £23000. For many people, myself included, £30000 a year is a pretty good wage, although obviously you wouldn't class anybody earning that amount as being wealthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's nonsense. The literacy rate in the UK is 99%.

There might be 5 million people with no qualifications but that’s a long way from being illiterate

Yes although curiously the literacy rate is higher in Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Azerbaijan, Slovenia, Cuba and Tongo than in the UK.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=phNtm3LmDZEO9kVsuakgzMQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is unclear.

Is he talking about taxing those above £23k or just withdrawing benefits from them?

edit: or making them pay for previously free services?

edit2: or reducing public sector salaries? What on earth is he actually talking about??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seven million people in the UK are functionally illiterate. Functional illiteracy is "an inability to manage daily living and employment tasks that require reading skills beyond a basic level" i.e. inability to read and comprehend job advertisements, letters from government departments and utility suppliers, newspaper articles, banking paperwork, training materials, complex signs and posters, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is massive looting going on.

Look at the BBC:

Mark Thompson paid more than double what Greg Dyke got.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7348869/Greg-Dyke-BBC-director-general-Mark-Thompson-overpaid-and-out-of-touch.html

Thompson getting a £160k pension top-up from a secret slush fund:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/189027#

Thompson is going to give up his pension top-up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/30/mark-thompson-bbc-pension

Why is it that anyone from the public sector caught with their finger in the till is never brought to account? Why is "I won't do it again" enough for them? Why is he still in a job? Shouldn't he be sacked, money retrieved and someone put in charge on a much lower salary?

We need a sliding scale of pay cuts to combat all this looting. The more their salary has gone up the larger percentage their pay and pension is cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If £23,000 is the average salary, it makes sense to use that as the starting point for cuts, rising proportionately above that amount. At least, it makes more sense than targeting people who earn less.

Lots of 'poor' people on benefits pull in more than that. Some much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 201 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.