Now I see why guys like your Bekham come play soccer over here..... you make 10 million over there and 5 million goes to the government......

(V): all you had to say is that anything over 150k gets taxed at thr 50% level.... make yourself clear mate.

because how the news words it, it is for anyone who earns more than 150k....


okay, so the first 6k or so is tax free, and then the next 36k or so is taxed at 20%, then up to 150k is taxed at 40%, and then anything over 150k is taxed at 50%... is that it?, I think I got it now......

(V): perhaps anything OVER 150K is taxed at 50 %?

Czuch: No.. No and NOOOOO. It's only £150k+ that he pays 50%. I thought that was very clear, I've explained it....

SEVERAL TIMES

Now, if you can't understand that simple fact of UK taxation.. then what is the point of me going further?

Now, who is better at knowing the UK taxation system? Someone who lives and has dealt with it, worked in UK accounts.... or, someone who can't be bothered to look up and study how our accounts work?

I hope you don't do your own accounts!!

Bernice: Thanks Bernice.....

Jules knows I am right, and he is trying to cloud this fact by being as non committal as possible right now....


but he knows that in my example, with two identical situations, one person makes 148k, and the other make 151k, the guy who made 148k will take home more after taxes than the guy who made 151k..... its simple really, he just doesnt want to admit it works out like that

(V): I know there are many variables in a tax situation... and I know that savings, for example, are taxed differently than wages....


my guess is that your version of the IRS doesnt consider income from a savings or from other dividend investments as part of the total when calculating if you earned more than 150k?

I know you like to keep things as complicated and convoluted as possible.... but lets keep it simple, just for me please....

lets say someone makes 150K in earnings, he is single with no kids, he has no other income or any types of deductions... just plain simple 150k a year salary, okay????

Now is he or is he not going to pay 50% of that in taxes???? and if he is going to, doesnt that leave him with 75K net, after tax income????

Bernice: I know enough that a general accurate figure for someone earning $150k is not possible. It's not just a factor of how much you earn, but if you have a family, savings, day care, etc, etc.

And I think Czuch is quite capable (I hope he is) of finding a tax calculation site for the UK.

Czuch: we get our first $9828 tax free......I dont have the exact tables in front of me....but if you earn $1000 per week your taxation is only about $190 per week taxes.

I can get a copy if you wish....I dont really have a lot to do with taxation as such so cant really comment on australian taxes.

But obviously (v) knows it all when it comes to UK taxes so let him give you exact figures on income and taxes on specific figures :)

Czuch: Work it out yourself, use a calculator... but seeing as there are other variables.. you'd still not be accurate.

so it looks like you guys get your first 6k without any income taxes.... then up to 35k or so after the first 6k at 20%.... then anyone who makes up to 150k get 40% and anyone over 150k will now get 50% tax rate?


But you still havent answered how much I will have left after taxes on income if I made 150k????

(V): Okay Jules.... so 50% tax rate does not take 50% of your pay in taxes???

...and sorry, i dont remember it.... say again.... your tax rate on the wealthy 1% has gone down in good economic times?

Czuch: Oh I am sorry, must clout Jules round head

Snoopy: There is only a possibility. Governments change and all the rest of the variables. Known or unknown.

(V): yes very temporary has the lastest news is that 27th Febuary 2032 will be the date that we actually get back to before all this mess started

thats another 23 years of being taxed to the hilt or am i missing something

Czuch: I did say about taxes going down, and I did explain our taxation system sufficiently to give you an understanding.

And yet you are still not listening. So I ain't typing and wearing my fingers down any more.

(V): Well, I already asked you if taxes on the most wealthy in your country ever go down when the economy is good for example? You never answered that one....

So also explain to me? When you say someone who makes 150k per year gets taxed at 50%, then how much taxes will the government take from them???

Czuch: me...by just a few 100 or maybe a K.

Czuch, the measures are temporary. Saying tax rates will keep rising is not reality, and if you looked at how politics work and that governments change.. then to be realistic you'd have to say that there is a very good chance this new tax level may drop, or at least stay stable. Statistically in 200 years, anything we do now re taxes will have little effect then.

As for Global warming, I'm not looking 1-200 years in the future, I'm looking at what will my kids inherit as a world? We don't own this world, we are borrowing it from our descendants.

To be a realist, you have to understand, economics and various other subjects.. And I'm afraid, you saying someone will lose £75k when they get to the £150k wages mark says you don't understand, or, at the least, understand our country's taxation system.

.. Or are plain exaggerating

heavenlyemma: That was his quote, asking me, not mine asking him....

Czuch: No he's not

BTW.... only 1% of your population makes more than 150k per year????

(V): not sure where I said anything to lead you to a different conclusion????

My point is, who takes home more money, you make 151k and I make 149k, me or you?

As for 100-200 years ahead.. are you that much of a pessimist?

No I am a realist.... you dont seem to mind when it comes to global warming, how what we do today will effect us in 200 years.... so why dont you care how raising taxes year after year now will effect your country in 200 years?

Czuch: You still don't get it do you Wages over £150K are taxed at 50%, anything below that is not taxed at 50% but at the rate for wages under £150K.

Ok,... clear??

As for 100-200 years ahead.. are you that much of a pessimist?

(V): Question... do your wealthy ever get tax cuts??? I mean, when the economy is bad they get hit with a higher rate, do their rates come down when the economy is going along good?

My guess is the answer to that one is a big fat NO!

If thats true, then their taxes can only continue to be raised, maybe slowly, but over 100 years, or 200 years, where will they be then? Point is, that somewhere along the line you have taxed everyone to the max, you simply cannot tax someone more than they earn..... what happens then?

How do you grow an economy that relies on wealth redistribution, after the point where it costs more to sustain than there is money available to redistribute?

(V): The Most important 1%!!! Really..



Well, for a society that relies on wealth redistribution, take from the rich to give to the poor, the rich are the most important people, your socialism falls flat without the top 1% wage earners



You just get too literal sometimes.... I was just trying to make a point.... lets say this painting company is a self employed business and you are the only employee, or forget the painter.... but isnt it better to make 140k at a lower tax rate than to make 150k and get taxed down to 75k?

Czuch: The Most important 1%!!! Really.. Mmmmmm So, those who do service jobs like take your rubbish away, keep your hospitals clean, the police, nurses, plumbers, etc. are not just as important?

Without these people, those top 1% earners would not be able to earn that money as the structure of the country is dependent on all services and workers. I mean.. that 1% is reliant on the companies workers to earn money.

And you really don't seem to know accounts, if a company makes 150,000 then that is not the wages the boss makes. All costs, etc are deducted as per Balance sheets and Profit and Loss statements.

And it is normal with good business to put some by to build up a reserve for future expansion, or to aim towards investment in the current business structure.

Snoopy: were broke yet we keep borrowing with the goverment claiming they will buy our way out of the mess theyve gotten into


thats what we are trying to do over here right now....

Probably will feel good for a couple of years as well.... if somebody printed a million dollars for me right now, I could sure spend my way out of my problems for awhile too

(V): Which affects about 1% of the population.

The most important 1%

How much of the gross income comes from that top 1%? I bet it is way more than 1% of the gross wages?

Do you think if I have a painting company that has made 140k this year and it is november, will I just take the month of December off for holiday, or will I continue to work and make more than the 150k that puts me in the 50% bracket?

Snoopy: For a lot of big earners that is not possible. EG Council CEO's. Also as you know there is a clamp down going on over using off shore accounts.

Czuch: Czuch.. that's for pay over £150,000. Which affects about 1% of the population.

Czuch: were broke yet we keep borrowing with the goverment claiming they will buy our way out of the mess theyve gotten into http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/96627


the top earners will once again be moving overseas so has not to pay

i dont know much about the ins and outs but has a normal person in the UK i know how much im hurting has week after week my normal shopping bag of food increases by over £1 a week

my savings get hardly anything in interest
the sooner we have a general election the better

.... UK might not be quite to the 70% tax level like some other socialist countries, but it seems it is soon to be 50%

What happens after it eventually hits 100%

You can t take more than that, so you have to cut spending, and when that happens, then people earn less money, meaning less in the coffers, so cut more spending....

I just dont see how socialism can sustain itself over a long period of time

Bernice: From his family.

As for your search results... maybe you should try the UK google aka google.co.uk

Czuch: the reports Ive read put him as a homeless alcoholic...(V) says he was going home, so I guess he could be going home to the Homeless shelter.....god who would know... lol

so he was going home or he is a homeless alcoholic?

I used your "search parameters" and this is the only thing i got.....ONE result...

Web Images Maps News Video Gmail more ▼Groups

Books

Scholar

Blogs

Translate

YouTube

Calendar

Photos

Documents

Reader

Sites

even more »
Sign in

Google Advanced Search
Preferences


Web Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "ian tomlinson route home". (0.35 seconds)
Search ResultsTomlinson death row: G20 protesters just as much to blame as the ...But the police wouldn't have been there and Ian Tomlinson's route home would not have been impeded if there had been no protest that day in ...
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/iain_martin/blog/2009/.../tomlinson_death_row_g20_protesters_just_as_much_to_blame_as_the_police - 83k - Cached - Similar pages
In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 1 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.

(V): smart ----. I used "Ian Tomlinson" with quotes.

There is no use asking you questions.

WHERE DID YOU GET THE IDEA HE WAS GOING HOME TO WATCH FOOTBALL.............so he was a Millwall fan.....how did you know he was going home to watch footy?

Just answer the question.

Bernice: We have the right to demonstrate, that's not "rent a crowd", it's using our democratic right to protest. Millions went to London over the Iraq war.

As for football matches.. of course, people all over the world travel to watch matches abroad in many sports.. Some even go to the Olympics

He was a Millwall fan, he finished work at 7pm. He worked from a stall who his friend as an Evening Standard Vendor ran. He himself was an official vendor, but then went to helping other vendors.around Monument Station.

Read our papers, do a google.. but if you use google, make sure your search parameters are good.

"ian tomlinson route home" is the one I used.

(V): you have misinterpreted again.....I wasn't querying the "going home", I was asking you how did you know he was going to be watching football?

Each report I have read (english reports) have said he was a chronic alco and living in a homeless shelter....if your press can't report correctly, not my problem.

Yes I have read he was a newspaper seller....over here young boys of about 12-16 years old sell newspapers .....was he working in a shop? or standing on a street corner?

Your report says he was confronted by lines of riot police....to me (looking at the vid) he actually walked into them. He appeared to be nowhere near the main group of demonstrators.

The english are world reknown for their "want" to demonstrate at the drop of a hat.....they even travel in large groups to football matches both home and overseas.

Bernice: Rent a crowd..... We are not known for that, the only time that sort of thing happened was during the old days of secondary picketing. That was made illegal years ago.

If you don't know he was on his way home, then you can't have been following the story very well, as it was stated from day one that the news broke he was on his way home.

Yes, since he split with his wife, he did drink... big deal.. The guy but the man who he worked with that day stated he was sober, happy and looking forward to the next day of work. He was improving himself. He is described as a man "...He was a gentleman and he never hurt anyone," said one colleague. "He was a really nice fella who just minded his own business."
"He was King of the Hill – King of Fish Street Hill." That is my tribute to him," another added.
Barry Smith, 55, an Evening Standard vendor who had known Mr Tomlinson for 26 years, said he helped out on the stall every day, starting at 7am.

Ok?

(V): can I ask how did you know he was going home to watch the football? I havn't seen that written anywhere or is it just supposition?

He was living in a homeless shelter and was a chronic alcoholic so that would account for the staggering walk wouldn't it...I mean it was after work and he probably had a couple...again supposition.

I must also say that it did look like an unprovoked attack, although why did the cameraman take his filming from the main crowd and pan around onto this poor fellow.....was there some indication of an impending skuffle?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Hundreds-protesters-march-silence-man-died-G20-protests.html

go nearly to the bottom of the page and watch this video....
it doesnt appear to me that he "rolled" except he rolled over to speak to the police.

he eventually got up and walked away under his own steam.....

in the video above this one it appears he is the only one going in that direction....all others appear to be going straight ahead....

were all these protestors for real or were they part of the usual "Rent a Crowd" the POMS (english) are known for. Who will ever know.....

Czuch: Czuch, perhaps you ought to keep up with the events. He altered his route as his normal route was blocked by police and protesters. The guy is supposed to walk a great extra distance to avoid it all with his known health problems!!

And the footage was taken (or so reported) "....shot by a fund manager from New York who was in London on business.
He told the Guardian: "The primary reason for me coming forward is that it was clear the family were not getting any answers."

"The newspaper said the video would be handed to the police complaints watchdog as part of a "dossier of evidence" which also includes a collection of witness statements and photographs in the aftermath of the alleged attack."

Photographer Anna Branthwaite, who saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street, said: "A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him. It wasn't just pushing him - he'd rushed him. He went to the floor and he did actually roll. That was quite noticeable.

"It was the force of the impact. He bounced on the floor. It was a very forceful knocking down from behind. The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor.

"So it wasn't just that the officer had pushed him - it became an assault."


Sir Paul Stephenson this week ordered a top-level review of riot policing and admitted his concerns over the "clearly disturbing" images to have emerged.

... All from British newspapers.

(V): everyone who had a camera was recording the police and their interaction with the crowds.


Okay, so it wasnt just this one guy trying to walk down the street all by himself, just trying to go home?

And you said he had already altered his normal route, and he still could not avoid an area with riot police?

Its just strange to me that this is the only guy in the video
especially since there are supposedly large crowds of people all around, and people making videos of all the action etc.....but all the other people managed to not be in any harm or somehow in the way of the police... how was this poor slob so unlucky to be the only person who just could not get out of the way?

Czuch: Czuch.... everyone who had a camera was recording the police and their interaction with the crowds. Whether it was a proper cam, or a mobile phone.

Also there were plenty of CCTV camera's catching the action, as well as news teams. It's called modern technology Czuch and the right of people to record events.

The bloke had to go a different route to his norm because of the protests. That has been explained Czuch... Don't you remember??

Czuch: Like he did??????? It is assault... I don't think you know the law very well if you don't think it is. Police still have to follow a code of conduct and rules regarding the force they can use in situations.

EG.. In the USA if a Cop shoots a man doesn't he have to justify the shooting?

Mousetrap: He looked liked an innocent bystander who just happend to be in the wrong place at the same time. He had his back to the police and there was certainly no need for him to be pushed to the ground like that.



How can you know what happened before the video shoot? It is possible that he was facing the police and being belligerent to their presence, and after this, he then turned his back and put his hands in his pockets.... like "I dare you to do anything to me now", for all we know, he knew there was a video camera taping and was hoping for some kind of confrontation.....


I mean, why would someone be there to make a recording of some bloke trying to walk home to watch a game on TV???? Its obvious that he was not alone on this street, there had to be some good reason the police were even there in the first place.... if this guy represents average joe public, then that says a sad tale for the common sense of the average person, IMO.


If you are just an average joe walking home it should be quite easy to avoid contact with riot police, unless the average joe in the UK is an idiot?

(V): Well, you have no evidence yet either that this was an assault?

Its not an assault if he had in any way disobeyed a police order....

Yes, he is just one man.... so you are saying it would not be okay for hundreds of people to act against the police like he did, but because it was just one person doing the disobedience, it is okay? (if it was in fact disobedient?)

Czuch: And your evidence of this is......?????

and we are not talking about a thousand people, ie a hypothetical situation.. we are talking about one man getting home to watch football.

He was just a member of Joe Public, not an idiot. And the policeman I doubt will get back to duty. Assault over here is still a crime, and regardless of duty a policeman is expected to uphold the law and not break it.

Another item that has come up today is regarding the Hillsborough disaster where many football people died. The Home Secretary is releasing the files on the matter 10 years early due to the families of 96 dead people wanting to know what happened 20 years ago.

..... developments in the past indicate that there was much the police did not reveal their role in the disaster, and have been hiding stuff.

The families want justice and to know what happened to cause the deaths.

You can understand that can't you?

Czuch: I have to disagree with you there. He looked liked an innocent bystander who just happend to be in the wrong place at the same time. He had his back to the police and there was certainly no need for him to be pushed to the ground like that. I fear the police are getting away with far too much in this country.
As V said, guns are very rare here. There are one or two shootings and one or two armed robberies but our police dont carry guns, only special forces and they have to be called out. But in general it is not needed too and thank goodness as the police would be shooting everyone will nilly.