1. If you look at it naively, yes. In practice the number will fall below £40k because every personal tax except income and national insurance is completely regressive (particularly VAT). Knowing the treasury, I have a sneaking suspicion the number coincides with the median household income, which clocks in around £36k.

2. Would that be income before or after tax

Anyway, I suspect most of you here are basically talking on my dime. So get off my lawn!

(The comparison is stupid anyway. Those banks were bailed out on borrowed public money. What now? Start including future earnings from the children as well? Should we correct that for future inflation as well? These kinds of spurious calculations simply don't make any sense.)

What may be more interesting is how close the popular vote in Greece was, and how relatively far apart the number of representatives are, simply because the biggest party gets an extra 50 seats in parliament.

Anyway, anyone dare to put a date on the Euro collapse yet? 1 month? 3 months? 6? Never?

3. According to the beeb the treasury pays out £22k per family. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

So if we assume the average person eventually pays around 60% of all their income to the taxman (that seems on the low side to me but w/e). Then you need a Household income of about £36,000. So that's equivalent to single incomes of £18,000 each.

ie, not nearly as much as either of you are making out.

4. Err...22k per family means an average of 2 people in each family assuming a population of 62 million. That seems a little low.

5. Originally Posted by Smuggo
According to the beeb the treasury pays out £22k per family. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

So if we assume the average person eventually pays around 60% of all their income to the taxman (that seems on the low side to me but w/e). Then you need a Household income of about £36,000. So that's equivalent to single incomes of £18,000 each.

ie, not nearly as much as either of you are making out.
That maths (in the article) is terrible or just wrong. 32 million households in the UK??? Doesn't the average houseful have 1.8 children or something.

Even if that were right, a household income of 36,000 puts you in the top 30 - 40% of all households. How many of the protesters do you think came from that tranche?

Source: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

6. Originally Posted by Lallante
Originally Posted by Smuggo
According to the beeb the treasury pays out £22k per family. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

So if we assume the average person eventually pays around 60% of all their income to the taxman (that seems on the low side to me but w/e). Then you need a Household income of about £36,000. So that's equivalent to single incomes of £18,000 each.

ie, not nearly as much as either of you are making out.
That maths (in the article) is terrible or just wrong. 32 million households in the UK??? Doesn't the average houseful have 1.8 children or something.

Even if that were right, a household income of 36,000 puts you in the top 30 - 40% of all households. How many of the protesters do you think came from that tranche?

Source: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/
Well the figures are provided by the same people you are quoting as your source.

ONS says 26.3m households in the UK so it's not massively off anyway (would be about £26k then).

Also, I'm not protesting in the street about inequality but I support its ideals and my household income is above £36k, and many people I know do as well and their household incomes are above £36k. It is possible to be in favour of something that would have benefits to wider society and not just yourself.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove. A progressive taxation system has other benefits to those who might seem numerically worse off as a result, such as a vaguely functional society, educated workforce and a subsidised workforce they can exploit to make themselves richer.

7. Originally Posted by Lallante
Originally Posted by Smuggo
According to the beeb the treasury pays out £22k per family. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

So if we assume the average person eventually pays around 60% of all their income to the taxman (that seems on the low side to me but w/e). Then you need a Household income of about £36,000. So that's equivalent to single incomes of £18,000 each.

ie, not nearly as much as either of you are making out.
That maths (in the article) is terrible or just wrong. 32 million households in the UK??? Doesn't the average houseful have 1.8 children or something.

Even if that were right, a household income of 36,000 puts you in the top 30 - 40% of all households. How many of the protesters do you think came from that tranche?

Source: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/
The average family may well have 1.8 children. But not all households are families.

8. Originally Posted by Lallante
Originally Posted by Smuggo
According to the beeb the treasury pays out £22k per family. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

So if we assume the average person eventually pays around 60% of all their income to the taxman (that seems on the low side to me but w/e). Then you need a Household income of about £36,000. So that's equivalent to single incomes of £18,000 each.

ie, not nearly as much as either of you are making out.
That maths (in the article) is terrible or just wrong. 32 million households in the UK??? Doesn't the average houseful have 1.8 children or something.

Even if that were right, a household income of 36,000 puts you in the top 30 - 40% of all households. How many of the protesters do you think came from that tranche?

Source: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

hrmm

you have a higher income than around 94% of the population - equivalent to about 57.5 million individuals.
^ thats for my gf and I bringing in around £1000/week. We both have full time jobs and work part-time as well. and while we live well in London, we do live in a shoebox and have credit card bills.

All relative I guess vOv

Also screw taxes.

9. Originally Posted by cheeba
Originally Posted by Lallante
Originally Posted by Smuggo
According to the beeb the treasury pays out £22k per family. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

So if we assume the average person eventually pays around 60% of all their income to the taxman (that seems on the low side to me but w/e). Then you need a Household income of about £36,000. So that's equivalent to single incomes of £18,000 each.

ie, not nearly as much as either of you are making out.
That maths (in the article) is terrible or just wrong. 32 million households in the UK??? Doesn't the average houseful have 1.8 children or something.

Even if that were right, a household income of 36,000 puts you in the top 30 - 40% of all households. How many of the protesters do you think came from that tranche?

Source: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

hrmm

you have a higher income than around 94% of the population - equivalent to about 57.5 million individuals.
^ thats for my gf and I bringing in around £1000/week. We both have full time jobs and work part-time as well. and while we live well in London, we do live in a shoebox and have credit card bills.

All relative I guess vOv

Also screw taxes.
It's working on the assumption that you and your GF are in fact one person.

10. Originally Posted by Smuggo
Originally Posted by Lallante
Originally Posted by Smuggo
According to the beeb the treasury pays out £22k per family. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

So if we assume the average person eventually pays around 60% of all their income to the taxman (that seems on the low side to me but w/e). Then you need a Household income of about £36,000. So that's equivalent to single incomes of £18,000 each.

ie, not nearly as much as either of you are making out.
That maths (in the article) is terrible or just wrong. 32 million households in the UK??? Doesn't the average houseful have 1.8 children or something.

Even if that were right, a household income of 36,000 puts you in the top 30 - 40% of all households. How many of the protesters do you think came from that tranche?

Source: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/
Well the figures are provided by the same people you are quoting as your source.

ONS says 26.3m households in the UK so it's not massively off anyway (would be about £26k then).

Also, I'm not protesting in the street about inequality but I support its ideals and my household income is above £36k, and many people I know do as well and their household incomes are above £36k. It is possible to be in favour of something that would have benefits to wider society and not just yourself.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove. A progressive taxation system has other benefits to those who might seem numerically worse off as a result, such as a vaguely functional society, educated workforce and a subsidised workforce they can exploit to make themselves richer.
Using the correct numbers the household break-even income level is 44,000.

This equates to being in the top 19% of the population.

My point is you cannot complain about the financial services "getting bailed out by my dollar" when you yourself are constantly bailed out by the top 19% (most of whom work for the financial services).

Very few people are "against equality" but everyone sensible is against scapegoating people just because they earn more than you, and about handouts (see: Zimbabwe if you are into radical wealth redistribution).

11. And where does this "correct" figure come from?

And it's not really scapegoating when banking institutions are very clearly to blame for not actually knowing what they were doing despite justifying their high wages on the basis that they did.

12. Originally Posted by Lallante
My point is you cannot complain about the financial services "getting bailed out by my dollar" when you yourself are constantly bailed out by the top 19% (most of whom work for the financial services).
Oh bullshit. The financial services are able to operate the way they do because of the society that's built up around them.

13. No no its all the bottom 1% fault.

14. Originally Posted by Rodj Blake
Originally Posted by Lallante
Originally Posted by Rodj Blake

Put it this way:Budd was as close to Thatcher as Campbell was to Blair. At the time he was compared to Rasputin. Her favouring his advice over Nigel Lawson's was arguably the beginning of the end for her government.
If he was that close to her then he would have KNOWN if raising unemployment was her real goal. This is just typical leftie conspiricy theory "the man keeping us down" junk that they use to rationalise not working hard or doing things they dont want to.
If there's one thing Sir Alan Budd isn't, it's a leftie.

Edit, NVM, I'm confusing Sir Alan Budd with Sir Alan Walters - and I think that Sykes probably did as well.
Sir Alan Walters was her chief economic adviser, wheras Sir Alan Budd was if I recall correctly John Major's chief economic adviser (or maybe that of his chancellor)

That doesn't mean he wasn't giving Thatcher's government economic advice as well.

I'm pretty sure that neither of them could reasonably be described as a 'leftie' by anyone other than an extreme right wing lunatic.

15. Originally Posted by El Capitano
Originally Posted by Lallante
My point is you cannot complain about the financial services "getting bailed out by my dollar" when you yourself are constantly bailed out by the top 19% (most of whom work for the financial services).
Oh bullshit. The financial services are able to operate the way they do because of the society that's built up around them.
Are you implying that the financial services industry isn't responsible for everything we have?

Next you're going to tell me that people who build things, do research, or manual labour are somehow the backbone of society.

16. Originally Posted by Frug
Are you implying that the financial services industry isn't responsible for everything we have?

Next you're going to tell me that people who build things, do research, or manual labour are somehow the backbone of society.
That's the thing that bugs me about the whole argument over who pays he most tax and what it does or does not entitle them to. We've been instigating policies that, even if they don't encourage wealth concentration, they certainly don't get in its way, for decades now. If you've been able to use society to make your fortune, don't be surprised when people get upset that society bails you out when you fuck up the economy. After all, some of the greatest proponents of capitalism are being shielded from its more adverse effects.

17. Oh no we ran out of money, cut spending? Fuck off. We'll just borrow our way out.

18. Originally Posted by Takon Orlani
Oh no we ran out of money, cut spending? Fuck off. We'll just borrow our way out.
Cut spending = economic contraction. Contraction that trickles through every aspect of society and creates negative GDP changes all around. True depression.

Borrow out of it = Passing problems down to the next generation and hope they can figure out something better (they can't)

Fun choices eh?

19. Originally Posted by Rudolf Miller
Originally Posted by Takon Orlani
Oh no we ran out of money, cut spending? Fuck off. We'll just borrow our way out.
Cut spending = economic contraction. Contraction that trickles through every aspect of society and creates negative GDP changes all around. True depression.

Borrow out of it = Passing problems down to the next generation and hope they can figure out something better (they can't)

Fun choices eh?

20. Originally Posted by Takon Orlani
Originally Posted by Rudolf Miller
Originally Posted by Takon Orlani
Oh no we ran out of money, cut spending? Fuck off. We'll just borrow our way out.
Cut spending = economic contraction. Contraction that trickles through every aspect of society and creates negative GDP changes all around. True depression.

Borrow out of it = Passing problems down to the next generation and hope they can figure out something better (they can't)

Fun choices eh?
magically converting to a gold standard solves nothing.

gold is in itself inherently worthless, it has limited value as a very stable conductor but everything else is just derived from its rarity and historical reasons, it's even less logical to base a currency off that compared to the current "do we believe that government x will be able to pay back what's owed" that is basically the foundations of our current currency systems.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•