Stupid things non petrolheads say....
Discussion
Zoobeef said:
xRIEx said:
Zoobeef said:
xRIEx said:
I suppose you ignored my comment about 'suited to purpose', then?
You said really suited to purpose like a caterfield. So if my Noble was a DB9 would you still think I should just have one or the other?Saying that, most people who have a shed do so because their main car is special. If someone has a £400 Mondeo and a spankers one to keep the miles down on the new one then I understand you completely.
Your last sentence is exactly the scenario I was talking about.
OneLittleFish said:
Blown2CV said:
stupid things the unwashed electorate say.
Y'know, maybe I am wanting to get into a bit of political debate with half-baked comments such as yours.Might be amazing to you but I have been politically active for quite some time and earn a reasonable amount in my job, enough to run a decent car and put a roof over my head in reasonable comfort. I'm university educated and have a reasonable knowledge of the political landscape. I am a member of a left-of-centre political party and certainly fellow party members who I have met are not "the unwashed electorate" but highly intelligent individuals who are being failed by the system.
Look at the directorships in the UK, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Look at the bankers. Most likely white, middle aged upper class graduates of Oxford or Cambridge. Most likely didn't work their way up like us poor sods who work longer hours than ever for less expendible pay. They have children who never want for anything and have their way paid through Oxford or Cambridge. They get top jobs in those companies and so the wealthy get wealthier.
As recession hits the payday loan companies profit out of those who are struggling most. Our working conditions get more and more stressful but years of the Tories under Thatcher and Major helped kill off the power of the union. Those who follow the same two party system have given away the main defence that we have against exploitation in the workplace.
If you vote Labour, Tory, Liberal Democrat or UKIP you are voting for the same tired system with a different coloured rosette pinned to their suit jacket. The rich will get richer, the poorer will continue to work longer hours under more pressure to take home less money at the end of the day.
Believe me, it is not us who are "the unwashed electorate" as it is us who want to preserve our pensions, our health service, to build affordable housing, to help those who work ridiculous hours and can't manage to both feed their families and pay the rent. So many people moaned about the system when the banks collapsed but who actually still wants change now?
!!Flibble said:
Basically because if you earn just above the cost of living you can't afford to pay much tax before you're on the breadline. Whereas if you take home a few mill then you can afford to pay more tax. The difference between earning say £1.2 mil a year and £1 mil a year in quality of living is small, but the difference between £12k and £10k is large.
To add to this, a weekly shop of say, £150 for a normal family (4 people) comes to £600 per month, or 7,200 per year. Out of a million quid a year, that's a small amount, but out of £19900 per year (which is roughly what I earn after deductions) its a massive amount (36%)
So whilst the rich are being taxed quite a lot, if they were to spend a common amount on food (lets say 10,000 per year) it's not going to be as much of a dent in their earnings to them as it is to someone like myself. Of course, if you earn more, you can spend more, hence flashy cars and nice houses etc etc. I would do the same!
BTW, I'm pretty happy with my earnings
Not so happy with the property market prices! But hey-hoFlibble said:
MrBarry123 said:
Yes, but those figures are only seen because the current system is unfair and disproportionately biased towards the majority in society to win votes at an election.
Depends what you call fair.Under your system someone earning £15k pays 0% tax, whereas someone earning £100k pays 25.5%, that's pretty disproportionate too.
The whole point behind it is that someone earning say £20k gets a lot more out of a few % less paid on tax than someone earning £200k. For instance if you take £15k as essential expenditure and everything else as disposable, then the £20k guy has £5k of disposable and loses £1.5k to tax, net £3.5k. The 200k guy has £185k as disposable and loses £55.5k to tax, net £129.5k. If you change those tax bands so that the 20k guy pays 20% and the 200k guy 40% then the 20k guy has a tax cut of £500 and the 200k guy has a tax rise of 18.5k. This then plays into the effect that as you get more disposable income the effect on happiness is less. When you only have £3.5k a year to spend on non-essentials you have to be pretty selective about which things get bought. That's not really the case at £100k+, at that income you can buy what you like when you like, hence losing a bit of spending power has a much smaller effect. So 20k guy is very happy, he gets an extra £500 and buys a new tv, while 200k guy is a bit miffed but not that miffed really as he's still pulling down over well over £100k net.
So yes it is biased towards improving the lot of the majority at the expense of the minority. But is a system that improves the lot of the minority, who already have it easiest, really more fair?
Don't forget the other correlated tax too, namely VAT. 20k guy spends his entire income, every month. So he pays proportionally 20% of his earnings, less cost of essentials as VAT. 200k probably invests most of his, as that's a better plan, and he has enough to buy all the things he wants with plenty left over. So he pays proportionally a very small amount of his earnings as VAT. The greater income tax burden tends to offset this in the current system, but would not in a flat system.
Anyway, that is based on the premise that taxation is fair, whereas it's actually as high as the government can get away with without losing too many votes.
The criticism and finger pointing is very one way. A bit of acknowledgement that the high earners pull the weight of a whole street full of low earners in terms of net contribution to the national cause would probably curb a bit of right-wing sentiment from high earners who feel like they are simultaneously being milked and lambasted for the audacity to be capable of it.
StuntmanMike said:
K321 said:
someone at work recenyly told me that their uncle has a bespoke special order direct from ferrari a 2001 model yellow testarossa with gullwing doors
i am still waiting for a photo of it
In fairness that's not a non petrolhead, that's just your standard lying prick, many petrolheads can be like this.i am still waiting for a photo of it
To be avoided.
(I am working from dodgy memories of reading car mags a long time ago)
jamieduff1981 said:
For all that, most highish earners can square that off and be content, right up until the point where some genius points the finger and pipes in with "The rich need to start paying their way", missing that fact that his own contributions to the treasury that year funded a box of pencils whilst the rich guy who "isn't paying his way" single handed funded the salary of a school head teacher.
The criticism and finger pointing is very one way. A bit of acknowledgement that the high earners pull the weight of a whole street full of low earners in terms of net contribution to the national cause would probably curb a bit of right-wing sentiment from high earners who feel like they are simultaneously being milked and lambasted for the audacity to be capable of it.
The criticism and finger pointing is very one way. A bit of acknowledgement that the high earners pull the weight of a whole street full of low earners in terms of net contribution to the national cause would probably curb a bit of right-wing sentiment from high earners who feel like they are simultaneously being milked and lambasted for the audacity to be capable of it.
So true. In fairness, a great deal of it is pure ignorance. I like to ask these kind of moaners to guess what someone earning £xk in my job would pay in tax, and they usually underestimate it by about 1/2. If people knew that a lot of high earners actually do pay an effective tax rate of 50%, they might quit banging on about "fair share".
thismonkeyhere said:
StuntmanMike said:
K321 said:
someone at work recenyly told me that their uncle has a bespoke special order direct from ferrari a 2001 model yellow testarossa with gullwing doors
i am still waiting for a photo of it
In fairness that's not a non petrolhead, that's just your standard lying prick, many petrolheads can be like this.i am still waiting for a photo of it
To be avoided.
(I am working from dodgy memories of reading car mags a long time ago)
te like that!RobinBanks said:
thismonkeyhere said:
StuntmanMike said:
K321 said:
someone at work recenyly told me that their uncle has a bespoke special order direct from ferrari a 2001 model yellow testarossa with gullwing doors
i am still waiting for a photo of it
In fairness that's not a non petrolhead, that's just your standard lying prick, many petrolheads can be like this.i am still waiting for a photo of it
To be avoided.
(I am working from dodgy memories of reading car mags a long time ago)
te like that!te mostly consisting of modded Mercs and exotica commissioned by Arabian oil barons.Utterpiffle said:
Bloody hell, what do you buy?! We have budget of £50 per week for food (family of 3), very rarely spend all of it, and we eat very well...
I absolutely refuse to believe that.3 meals a day for 3 over a week is 63 meals.
So each meal is under £1 a head!!!!!!
And you eat "very well"...
Are you excluding say - school dinners, free food at work, family anorexia?
walm said:
Utterpiffle said:
Bloody hell, what do you buy?! We have budget of £50 per week for food (family of 3), very rarely spend all of it, and we eat very well...
I absolutely refuse to believe that.3 meals a day for 3 over a week is 63 meals.
So each meal is under £1 a head!!!!!!
And you eat "very well"...
Are you excluding say - school dinners, free food at work, family anorexia?
Eating very well in my book involves Angus fillet steak with a half decent red wine. Angus fillets cost about £36 for 4 from Costco and mid-range wines about £12/bottle from same. I've just blown the week's budget on 1 meal which is the sort of thing we'll have once or twice a fortnight. We easily get through £150/week - probably more.
It's not possible to eat well (particularly where quality meats are concerned) in the UK for £50/week. I spend £16/week on a coffee and a bacon roll most mornings from the Wild Bean Cafe on the way in to work.
jamieduff1981 said:
... I spend £16/week on a coffee and a bacon roll most mornings from the Wild Bean Cafe on the way in to work.
You've not thought of making your own bacon rolls at home and taking them with you?Pack of 8 rashers of bacon = £2
Pack of 8 rolls = £1
Tub of butter = £1
You do the math.
Evangelion said:
jamieduff1981 said:
... I spend £16/week on a coffee and a bacon roll most mornings from the Wild Bean Cafe on the way in to work.
You've not thought of making your own bacon rolls at home and taking them with you?Pack of 8 rashers of bacon = £2
Pack of 8 rolls = £1
Tub of butter = £1
You do the math.
I'm perfectly happy to give someone else £3.25 to provide me with a bacon roll and a large latte in the morning after I've driven 45 minutes to work. YMMV. I'm not pleading poverty - I'm challenging the figure of £50/week to "eat really well".
The bacon roll isn't really the core issue - it's what a quality evening meal costs that makes £50/week Iceland frozen chicken nuggets territory.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff