I'd suggest in political terms we live in shite Britain. I can't remember the last time i heard a single one from any party talk any sense. They all seem to go to Smarm school and are very good at that but that is where there skills and ability stops.
I used the phrase "post Thatcherite Britain", I think. What I meant was that since Thatcher, every political party has espoused corporatism and that anything that makes money is OK. Nothing has been done to wind back private companies taking over all sorts of duties, from policing, to prison wardering, to spying and data collection, water, electricity - you name it. Supposedly it was all in our best interests, making everything efficient. In actual fact, companies are required to make a profit, and an ever increasing profit at that (if you want the share price to go up, and thus management bonuses). The only way of achieving this is to hike prices and/or reduce costs, which normally requires a reduction in services. Why government ownership of companies (i.e., they hold the majority of shares) should instantly mean that the companies owned must ipso facto be inefficient behemoths, I have no idea. I sent a parcel to Pete1950 last week. Cost with the Swiss PO was CHF 53, cost with FedEx was CHF 177, and with DHL about CHF 250. That's the cost of privatisation, folks.
But who's paying the diffence really...the swiss tax payer ? (Do you have them?! Lol) Made me laugh when I watched those odious MPs having a dig at the Beeb yesterday, accusing them of greed and over indulgence...while no doubt claiming their £500 travel allowance, £500 lunch allowance and £500 overnight allowance to be at the hearing.
Wholeheartedly agree, particularly about government ownership of public utilities and the failure of privatisation....but that's a whole different thread!
The Swiss tax payer may be paying some of the difference. But I don't think the Swiss post office is required to make much of a profit. It's a service to the inhabitants of the country. Much of the difference with FedEx and DHL will in any case be their profit margin, so it doesn't mean that the Swiss PO is necessarily out of pocket. But some things are for the general good. Do you suppose the Albert Hall is subsidised? I bet it is, like Covent Garden. Both institutions seem to me a good way to use some public money, even if I've never been to one, and only rarely to the other. I think Post Offices are a great way to use some public money.
So why do the plod spend all this money on super computers so they can tell whether you have insurance and mot,tax without you even knowing when they are coasting up the road behind you,before they waste there time pulling you in,so my question is,if they already know your legal,do they just pull you in cause they can,or because they can't be assed to search out the c--ts who steal the bikes,in this crime free world we live in,rant over
I agree about the downside of corporatism and there is a strong argument for having a nations strategic services and utilities under public control but that is where it should end. The lack of a bottom line unfortunately does turn large state owned companies into inefficient behemoths where self interest over rides customers interests. Re the parcel I suspect, as bladders says, that the Swiss PO price is subsidised by the Swiss taxpayers. Or just maybe that the Swiss are such good little munchkins that they work for free ?
So bradders, how much do you have to earn to be in the top 3%? I suspect it is a lot less than most people would guess.
If you earn more than £42,000 then you are in the top 10% of earners. I suspect the top 3% is substantially higher than that though.
Depends whether you classify £64k as substantially higher. I think you would need a great deal more to buy the 'freedom and privacy' that bradders mentions, I agree with the point he makes though. Unfortunately the problem with the 'rich' is that there are so few of them that taxing them higher, even at punitive rates, doesn't raise a significant amount of extra income for the government. Doesn't mean that we should allow them to take the p*ss though which unfortunately is what they are prone to do.
The top 1% of earners pay a third of all the income tax that the Treasury receives. Is £64,000 the average that the top 3% earn? I can't find any statistics for that.
Its a true statement. UK Budget 2012: Top 1% of earners contribute almost a third of all the income tax | This is Money
The article says 27.7%, which by my simple maths is closer to 1/4 than 1/3 - tut tut, lies, damned lies and statistics. ;-)
They may know that your bike is road legal, but how the hell do they know who is riding it until you're actually stopped? It may have just been stolen and not yet reported. Strange, but it does very very occasionally happen this way.
£64K sounds about right for the top 3%. I think about £20K of that would be taxed at 40% and also on that income level all child benefit would be withdrawn. There are a couple of old articles on the BBC website - they don't say what the average BBC salary is, but they do make for some interesting reading. According to this, in 2009 £58K put someone in the top 5%: BBC NEWS | Magazine | Just what is a big salary? And this discusses the "what do the top 1% pay in tax?" question, but more interestingly shows that the top 10% pay more than half of all income tax: BBC News - What do the rich give back to society? I don't understand why, as one of few clear policies, Labour politicians keep on about wanting to reinstate a 10% income tax band - after all, they were the ones who got rid of it, and now that the personal allowance is close to £10K, and the basic rate only 20% (low by standards of many countries, although NI adds more), I am surprised how little tax my missus pays by working part time. What many don't realise about our tax system is that, due to changes made by the last government, the effective rate for those earning over £100K (if only!) is 60% (plus NI) because of withdrawal of the personal allowance. The rate then goes back down to 40% after the allowance has all been taken away (at about £120K). My suspicion is that this is one reason why many GPs now work part-time.
