anothersaintinsouthsea

I think it was more your juxtaposition of spending being 46% of GDP with a comment that spending under Labour had doubled. It could have been interpretated that it had been 23% before Labour got in. From looking at info below it would appear that it was 38.2% when they came in, 47.7% when they left, with a rough steady average of 40% before the financial crisis kicked in. A bigger economy would only mean smaller welfare bills if inequality didn't grow. While the UK has got richer over the last 30 odd years inequality has grown considerably and long-term joblessness hasn't really been solved. The aging population also means growing pension payments, social case and NHS bills. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spending-1963 1963-64 12.0 38.5 1964-65 13.0 38.1 1965-66 14.5 39.6 1966-67 16.0 41.4 1967-68 18.3 44.6 1968-69 19.3 43.4 1969-70 20.3 42.5 1970-71 22.7 42.7 1971-72 25.2 42.6 1972-73 28.3 41.9 1973-74 33.4 44.4 1974-75 43.7 48.6 1975-76 55.7 49.7 1976-77 63.6 48.6 1977-78 69.5 45.6 1978-79 78.6 45.1 1979-80 93.6 44.6 1980-81 112.5 47.0 1981-82 125.6 47.7 1982-83 138.3 48.1 1983-84 149.7 47.8 1984-85 159.6 47.4 1985-86 166.1 44.9 1986-87 172.0 43.4 1987-88 183.1 41.5 1988-89 190.4 38.8 1989-90 209.7 39.1 1990-91 224.4 38.9 1991-92 251.1 41.3 1992-93 271.5 43.3 1993-94 283.7 42.7 1994-95 296.4 42.1 1995-96 309.5 41.6 1996-97 315.3 39.8 1997-98 321.9 38.2 L 1998-99 330.9 37.2 L 1999-00 343.1 36.3 L 2000-01 364.3 36.8 L 2001-02 389.3 37.7 L 2002-03 421.1 38.6 L 2003-04 455.5 39.4 L 2004-05 492.4 40.5 L 2005-06 524.0 41.2 L 2006-07 549.8 40.8 L 2007-08 583.1 41.0 L 2008-09 629.8 44.0 L 2009-10 670.1 47.7 L 2010-11 687.9 46.7

I'll give him a big shout, always see a few in Saints shirts.

If you knew all along that I was referring to two to three million why did you reply to me "The assets of £2/3 million aren't going to be difficult to achieve in London, are they?" I think the 40% figure is a suitable level for top rate tax. The fact is that many people who should pay this level don't due to complex, expensive and devious tax planning - see Gary Barlow, Jimmy Carr and Phillip Green. The current thresholds at which different tax rates come in could be stetched out a bit to help the squeezed middle and reduce the benefits trap.

FFS "£2-3m" = in the region of £2m to £3m, not two thirds of a million. I didn't define "wealthy people" I defined the "super-rich" as I see it. I defined them as people who with annual income of several hundred thousand and net assets of over £2m. Stop putting words in other people's mouths AGAIN.

American golf fans make me want to puke.

I'd wager my entire tax bill that a UK billionaire pays a lower percentage of tax on their income that me (let alone Phillip Green!). Why are you so quick to label it as envy? It's got fucc all to do with envy it just about everyone pulling together in the same direction to make society as a whole better.

Even Maggie could getting any lower than the high 30s% and that was with plenty of sell-offs and healthy north sea oil. Sounds like distorted statistics your quoting there.

I guess that was because when I wrote this: You replied directly: Pot and kettle?

Net assets of £3m and annual income of £300k plus not difficult to achieve? Well a tiny tiny minority have such wealth, you act like this is common place. A top rate of 40% is fair but I doubt many of those in and above the bracket I put forward pay anything close to 40% - hence perhaps the desire to look at other methods.

Well as you seem to have all the answers what do you think is an acceptable % of income to be paid in tax by the super-rich?

Obviously there are shades of grey (ooh lala) but i'd suggest income in the hundreds of thousands and assets of £2-3m plus. The top 1% if you like.

Does your in depth analysis include the amount of indirect taxation paid relative to wages? Does it take into account complex tax planning schemes and the use of tax havens? I'd bet that super-rich pay a lower % of tax than those who fall into the upper rate bracket but only just.

DPP, someone should tell the European team that they are supposed to avoid the lake.

are they still pursuing a "class action" lol

What is your opinion? why won't it work? what is "it"?

I guess if you're going to critique it you first have to define what the tax mechanism is. Then you need to understand what it's aim is: is it designed purely to raise funds? is it designed to alter economic behaviour? or is it intended to replace other methods of taxation? Then you need to explain why it is the "biggest. riskiest, and craziest gamble": is it because it won't work as policy makers intend? is it because it will be easiliy evaded/avoided? is it because you think it is morally wrong? is it because you think it will have unintended and harmful consequences? is it because you think it will be politically unpopular and risk your re-election chances? or is it because you're a bit of a NIMBY and feel like you've already paid your fair share?

Can someone define "wealth tax"?

I'm sure the WAGS enjoy better fayre than hotdogs, the least there'd get is prawn sandwiches.

Luke Dowling was that lad at school who claimed that all the birds fancied him. Mind you being linked unscuccessfully to Billy Paynter et al is a bit of a come down from Riquleme and Maradona.

Surely the Wallace overhead kick from that game is a contender?

The new arrangements are not saving the current Government any money at all.

This is a massive red herring that has spun out to reduce the negative PR surrounding tuition fees. Introducing fees will have negligable impact on the deficit and will save the Government very little over the life of this Parliament and probably the next. Fees will be paid back over 20 odd years and so will be funded by the Government (probably through borrowing. Not to mention that students won't be paying anything back at all until they get a reasonably well paid job - which will probably take ages if the current economic climate remains.

talented barstard .

You could try the industrial estate (Centurion Park?) just the other side of the Northam Bridge. Always plenty of spaces, no charge and doesn't take much time to get out onto the main road.

Even if I knew what they were doing and why they were doing it I still wouldn't join in. I hope he makes a full recovery but it has got **** all to do with me or the Saints. if the situation was reversed I wouldn't give a crap if others joined in. These hysterical tarts need to get a grip.