Politics

Full time? Obviously including the youngsters who I pointed out are
the ones I *know* getting somewhat less.

 

If that's the case then I can see their reasoning. I wonder what their
sums are, if you knock say 2% off from the lower tiers how much would
you have to up the >100K.

 

Mick should be president

 

Maybe they were just quoting England, and omitting Scotland and Wales.

 

Clegg was also pontificating about Labour being finished and the Liberal
becoming the second main party with the Conservatives. That's why I
wondered which drugs he was taking. Paddy Pantsdown had the decency to
keep his face frozen. I like Paddy!

 

Is that earnings per household, or actual salaries?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (b.rogers at ifrance.com)
\`\ | /`/
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Me neither

Well, I believe you're in the top 10% of earners if you make about 43k
a year. As others have pointed out, after allowances you need to be
on about 40k pa to pay 40% tax. So, your mate is earning more than a
good 80~85% of people, so personally I don't think he's got much to
moan about.

 

Who is Debbie?

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Hog

"Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government!".

The Lib-Dems are always good value on the entertainment front. They
could promise to introduce an 84% base rate for income tax and free
blowjobs on the NHS and it wouldn't matter a bit. They're an
irrelevance.

 

Only for this year though, innit?

 

yeah, you're right - I had a look (well, at the 2007 figures[1]), and
was quite surprised. Until I noticed that those figures are for /all/
employees. i.e. including part-time workers - and more notably (in
terms of the difference to the figures) women.

90% percentile breakpoint figures in 2007:

all - ~43K
all male - ~52K
all female - ~34K
all full-time - ~48K
male full-time - ~54K
female full-time - ~39K

So, speaking as a full-time male employee, I would re-iterate that
earning £40K[2] a year, does not make you /rich/

And we haven't even got into London weighting.


[1]http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/
ASHE_2007/2007_all_employees.pdf
[2]don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be on £40K

 

And let theory reign.

 

I think that's worth doing. I mean, generally, not just when quoting
population densities.

 

salaries.

 

yes - to temporarily make up for dropping the 10% band.

 

" "

 

Ain't they just.

Bring back Paddy!

 

<holds head in hands>

FFS.

I would burn my bra but I need the structural support.

<wanders off muttering>

 

I know a couple of paid Lib Dem staffers, it's interesting to get
their perspective.

Growing support amongst youngsters [1] (who are canny enough to use
the networking opportunities available) a lot of old style activism at
local councillor level (like the left used to do before it got so up
itself) increasing dissatisfaction with the old party system - they'll
increase their MPs next time out. Government is a long way off though.

[1] Which for this purpose is under 30.

 

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

I read an article years ago describing them as the UKs political R&D
department. They can say things that the other parties can't,
*because* they won't get elected. But, having said them, the other
parties tend to lift the more serious ideas, with a bit of tweaking,
where it suits them. So they do server a purpose.