Machiavelli
Well-Known Member
Has she ever tweeted the phrase “lone wolf” whenever lives have been lost to terrorist attacks?
If she has, you could be onto something here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Paradise Papers Leak
- Thread starter Ricster
- Start date
If she has, you could be onto something here.
Gaylord du Bois
Well-Known Member
Can't they claim that back though? Fucking shameful if not.Stop talking shit of course they do. Are the poorest exempt from VAT? duty on alcohol? Duty on cigarettes? Thought not.
Yeah - they just have to hand in the stubs as proof of purchase.Can't they claim that back though? Fucking shameful if not.
Gaylord du Bois
Well-Known Member
Do they get to keep the coupons? My Nan used to do our Christmas on those. 'Kin life saver they were.Yeah - they just have to hand in the stubs as proof of purchase.
Coupons eh?Do they get to keep the coupons? My Nan used to do our Christmas on those. 'Kin life saver they were.
If she did them via an intermediary in the Bahamas it would have been Christmas every day for you lot.
Gaylord du Bois
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. I'll get back to you on that.Coupons eh?
If she did them via an intermediary in the Bahamas it would have been Christmas every day for you lot.
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
The latest figures show the highest earning 10% paid about a third—34%—of their income in tax. To put that in money, in 2014/15 a typical top 10% household would have got £110,000 in income and benefits, and would have lost about £38,000 of it in taxes of various kinds.There are a few on this thread who have been quick to jump on this statement.
Here is why I'm happy to stand by it.
The poorest do not earn money they are supported by the state. The vat they pay on goods is factored into the amount of benefits they receive. If vat was higher they would receive more benefits. They are not taxed they are subsidised. I make no claim that they shouldn't be, just that to claim someone who doesn't earn any money is taxed cannot be said to be true.
That share has hardly changed in recent years, varying from 33% to 35%.
That share is slightly more than what people on lower incomes pay but it's all much of a muchness. Only the bottom 10% buck the trend: they pay about 47% of their income in tax.
Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
But the top 1% of earners pay 27.5% of all income tax revenue.The latest figures show the highest earning 10% paid about a third—34%—of their income in tax. To put that in money, in 2014/15 a typical top 10% household would have got £110,000 in income and benefits, and would have lost about £38,000 of it in taxes of various kinds.
That share has hardly changed in recent years, varying from 33% to 35%.
That share is slightly more than what people on lower incomes pay but it's all much of a muchness. Only the bottom 10% buck the trend: they pay about 47% of their income in tax.
So back on topic. If they all fucked off because they can't make any money in off shore funds where the fuck is that 27.5% going to come from?
denislawsbackheel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 25,338
- Team supported
- We went to Rotherham…
Why the fuck are the BBC repeating Panorama in the news slot?
Where will they fuck off to?But the top 1% of earners pay 27.5% of all income tax revenue.
So back on topic. If they all fucked off because they can't make any money in off shore funds where the fuck is that 27.5% going to come from?