JNugent wrote:

You are *too* suspicious!

:-)

Comes from experience of the world today I suppose.

And of this ng ;-)

And of you ;-))

Happy Christmas

John B

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
wrote:

says...

In the nearest town?
Just a suggestion...

They still can't really afford one on £12k.

What can you raise on a 12K salary?

£35,000 - £40,000?

You can still get a terraced house for that oop narth, can't you?

I looked through an estate agent's window not far north of Nottingham
(sometimes considered oop north by a lot of people from as nearby as
Leicester :P) and you can't. Round here the council can't give council
houses away, and you can probably buy them for around that money after
having rented them for a while. That said, council houses can be in an
absolutely horrific state when you get them and need a lot of work to get
sorted.

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:11:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


But if you reduce the tax burden surely you encourage enterprise,
which
moves more money around the economy and thus you still get your tax.
I
am
not an economist, but AFAIK there are still arguments about high vs
low
tax
. The rich will always provide you with more revenue per capita as
they're
spending and earning more cash.

That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work.


Oh really ? That explains why the tax take increased by nearly 50% when
the
60% band was abolished.

It also explains why the top 10% of tax payers are now paying close to
40%
of the overall take compared to just over 20% at the height of so
socially
equitable rates of 98%.



But they don't spend more cash. Everyone has certain needs, once those
needs
are met their surplus cash sits in the bank or wherever they choose to put
it.

but that somewhere can include
direct investment in new business
investment in venture capital orgs
investment in banks, building socieites and other financial services
providers
all of which has a varying effect on job and wealth creation


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:24:55 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:



That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work.


Oh really ? That explains why the tax take increased by nearly 50% when
the
60% band was abolished.

It also explains why the top 10% of tax payers are now paying close to 40%
of the overall take compared to just over 20% at the height of so socially
equitable rates of 98%.



But they don't spend more cash.

So what.

Everyone has certain needs, once those needs are met their surplus cash
its in the bank or wherever they choose to put it.

This has what to do with the price of eggs ?


greg



--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:05:46 -0000, "JNugent"
wrote:

What can you raise on a 12K salary?

£35,000 - £40,000?

You can still get a terraced house for that oop narth, can't you?

Yes, but the prices in the cities (particularly Manchester) are rising
fast, so I don't think this situation will last, except in very
run-down areas or smaller towns (of lower employment).

Some evening of prices/salaries across the country is, I think, needed
- though I (from a purely selfish perspective ) would prefer it to
be the South getting cheaper than the North getting more expensive

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:24:55 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:



That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work.


Oh really ? That explains why the tax take increased by
nearly 50% when the 60% band was abolished.

It also explains why the top 10% of tax payers are now
paying close to 40% of the overall take compared to just
over 20% at the height of so socially equitable rates of
98%.



But they don't spend more cash.

So what.

Everyone has certain needs, once those needs are met their
surplus cash its in the bank or wherever they choose to
put it.

This has what to do with the price of eggs ?


greg

If you hadn't snipped it your own contribution you would understand. In
order to refresh your memory I'll repost the relvant bit.

"The rich will always provide you with more revenue per capita as they're
spending and earning more cash."

wrote:

JNugent wrote:

You are *too* suspicious!
:-)

Comes from experience of the world today I suppose.
And of this ng ;-)
And of you ;-))

injured innocence

Who? Me?

Happy Christmas
John B

And you.
Watch out for drivers who've had one too many (we all have to watch ouit for
that : ( ).

JN

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:34:33 +0000, "Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)"
wrote:



Of course the Government hasn't got the guts to tax heavily - that would
involve looking less voter friendly !

Never mind the the more mundane fact that doing so would raise *less*
revenue, thus increasing the overal tax burden for everyone.



greg


--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

Mark Scott wrote:

Asylum seekers?


It's ironic, isn't it. It's okay for "our" people to sit on their
parasitic arses, but not okay for willing foreigners to do the work no
one else is willing to.

My solution: One assylum seeler gets to stay; one lazy ******* gets sent
to Afghanistan. Problem solved.

Oliver Keating wrote:


What an incredible contribution. Thank you. I have seen the light



You're welcome.