- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 4269 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
34 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 69249
Some time ago I came up with the idea of abolishing or massively reducing most of the taxes collected by the government with the exception of one tax, inheritance tax, which I advocated being raised to 100% with no exemptions or minimum threshold. I posted the idea online (it might have been here) and was ridiculed.
Now I am back, having investigated the matter thoroughly and done a lot of number-crunching and I am here to make the case again. Although the primary motivation for my argument is a moral one, the numbers themselves actually do make sense and we would see a net gain to the tax revenue collected each year.
The plan is simple: Close all loopholes regarding inheritance tax, then raise it to 100% but allow people who jointly own a property to have first-refusal on purchasing it back from the government in the event of the other owner's death (providing they have the money or can get a mortgage). This would apply to any and all possessions including personal chattels meaning you will have to pay the government a few grand to keep your telly, furniture and the like if your wife dies.
Why is this a good idea?
1. It completely and permanently removes every single living person from the tax system forever, freeing them up to do what they please with 100% of the money they earn. Whether you think this is a good thing because you believe people should own the fruits of their own labour or you think it's a good thing because it incentivises people to earn money there is not really anywhere you can sit on the political spectrum and disagree with this.
2. It encourages wealthy individuals from all across the world to base themselves in Britain, creating employment opportunities and of course giving our treasury a shit ton of money when they die. Everybody dies and it's not the sort of thing you can really keep quiet so there's not really any way for people to evade it. If every billionaire on Earth moves significant assets here due to the fact that they don't have to pay any tax we will be drowning in money forever.
3. Morally there is no way to justify someone owning what they did not earn. As with point 1, wherever one sits on the political spectrum they at least pretend to agree with this. Even the die-hard supercapitalists who want to create a libertarian free-market utopia claim that their ideology is based upon wanting people to make their own way in the world and not "rely on others for hand-outs".
Just imagine the paradise we would live in. No income tax, no VAT, no looking over your shoulder to see if the taxman is watching you, but all without having to make even a single cut to any public service. Absolute heaven and it's achievable right now, today, here in Britain in 2016. Why isn't anyone making this happen?
|>>|| No. 69250
1. What if what they want to do with their money is give it to their kids?
2. It would only encourage corporations to base themselves here as a tax haven, as actual rich people tend to have family they'll want to inherit their money.
3. Morally you can't justify a banker earning more than a day labourer, what does that have to do with anything?
|>>|| No. 69251
It ain't worf it Kev, this plank can't get his head around the fundamental concept that people simply wouldn't leave an inheritance if they knew it would all go to the government. What he's proposing is not inheritance tax at all but simply state seizure of all assets upon a person's death.
I can see where he's coming from but it's about as daft as my idea to put fat people in gulags.
|>>|| No. 69252
>I posted the idea online (it might have been here) and was ridiculed.
Yeah you did post it here. I don't remember it being ridiculed but if it was then it was probably because your OP was literally 'Raise inheritance tax to 100%. Abolish all other taxes. Discuss'.
|>>|| No. 69253
This is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard on here. So to make sure I'm understanding you correctly - let's say I have a couple Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Mr Smith is the primary breadwinner of the family whilst Mrs. Smith works part time in between looking after their children Bobby and Susie Smith. One day Mr Smith gets hit smack in the face by the bus and is declared dead on the scene. Are you suggesting that you would send an officer round to the soon-to-be grieving widow's house to tell them that her husband is dead, oh and by the way the government now owns all of your assets for __reasons__ but you are in the lucky position of being able to apply for a second mortgage, because that is exactly the sort of thing a single mother with no real career is likely to be able to afford? If this is indeed the situation you envisage in order to save yourself a bit of money on fags then you really are a heartless bastard.
Reading between the lines, your logic seems to be that everyone's loyalty should be first to themselves and second to their country/government. This isn't the way a large proportion of this country thinks - many/most people would place loyalty to their family way higher than loyalty to their government, and possibly even higher than loyalty to themselves. Therefore, your ideas of fucking over the ability of a family to provide for the next generation is always going to be deeply unpopular.
|>>|| No. 69255
>3. Morally you can't justify a banker earning more than a day labourer
Only if you subscribe to a certain type of Marxist thinking. Anyone could be a day-labourer if they put their mind to it. Contrary to popular belief, graduates who work in the front-office of banks work damn hard over long hours, on top of the investment you have to make in yourself to have a degree from a top uni in the first place. Source: I'm very much not a banker but I know a few people who work front/middle office and who work considerably harder than I would ever want to.
A fairer comparison would be between graduate bankers and junior doctors - on this I would largely agree that the pay difference is unfair.
|>>|| No. 69256
What a callous cunt Mr Smith must have been not to take a pension/life insurance with spousal benefits.
|>>|| No. 69257
Numerous civilizations have attempted to do away with the impulse for family dynasties and its never worked even when you employ the most brutal methods like creating eunuchs. The will to provide for your family or even to have one is just too strong for civilization to do away with.
What will happen is that like a stream people will find ways around the tax such as holding foreign citizenship or as they do now by creating trusts. You remind me of those types who look wistfully at the high taxes of the 1960s without understanding that after a certain point society begins creating ways to avoid or outright dodge tax which typically become more costly for tax authorities to chase than it is worth in revenue and ultimately undermine the authority of the state to tax (think about the resentment towards traffic wardens).
>A fairer comparison would be between graduate bankers and junior doctors - on this I would largely agree that the pay difference is unfair.
I dunno about this but its going to come across as a little amoral. The thing is a junior doctor has greater job stability and most importantly our society places a great deal of honour upon those in the medical profession which is itself a high reward which must be countered when you talk about binmen or undertakers if you are to attract people into the role.
Frankly doctors don't do it for the money and if we were to imagine a society where the opposite were true (high wages, low status) then we would see both lower numbers of Doctors and Doctors who are the wrong kind of people.
|>>|| No. 69258
>The thing is a junior doctor has greater job stability
You've got some moss stuck in your tache, old chap.
|>>|| No. 69259
Ok first of all we're not talking about "saving a bit of money on fags" we're talking about liberating every man, woman and child in this country forever. The idea that we wouldn't do it because it might upset some people who, necessarily, would already be dead by the time they are taxed is crazy. Your example is ridiculous, people always get fucked over when someone dies unexpectedly, even in countries with no inheritance tax she would still be screwed if she has no family, no savings and her husband didn't have a life insurance policy. Fortunately, we have the welfare state here to stop people from starving to death in the street as you seem to imply would be Mrs Smith's only option.
And inheritance tax isn't some new concept I've pulled out of my arse, it already exists. I'm just talking about raising the rate and closing a few loopholes in exchange for living in a much better, happier, freer society.
|>>|| No. 69260
What happens when people start living longer and longer and longer, as is inevitable?
|>>|| No. 69262
But thanks to the soon to be privatised NHS, only the ones without money.
|>>|| No. 69263
We won't need to privatise the NHS if the government wins a football club and a mansion in Mayfair every time a Saudi prince or a Russian oligarch dies.
|>>|| No. 69264
The majority of people want to keep a nest egg to pass on to their kids. All you would see happening is a lot of middle aged people suddenly 'buying' their parents houses, and lots of exorbitant cash gifts passing down before they die. This already happens enough now, and would be the standard practice for every family under your plan. You'd only get tax from people who die young.
|>>|| No. 69265
Why are we having this thread again? It's like the universal income thread - are we going to regurgitate the same discussions on the same topics every year or two?
|>>|| No. 69266
Our debate about healthcare has descended into a false dichotomy between the Bevanite NHS and the US model. Most other European countries use a Bismarckian model, where healthcare is provided by private companies but funded through a nationalised system of insurance. Users of those healthcare systems are much more satisfied and experience similar or better health outcomes, albeit at somewhat higher cost. The UK consistently sits in the middle of the European rankings, ahead of poorer countries in the south and east of Europe, but well behind most northern European countries.
The NHS does a good job of keeping people alive at minimum cost, but it has several major shortcomings that really do need to be addressed. We have very limited choice, our social care system is very poor and long waiting times still persist in many areas.
|>>|| No. 69268
You seem to operating under the mistaken assumption that the current ongoing privatisation of the NHS is happenning because we need to.
... Whilst you seem to be operating under the delusion that we'll get anything remotely like what you describe in exchange for allowing it to continue.
|>>|| No. 69269
Talking about the same subject more than once over the course of a few years is hardly excessive, m8. If it infuriates you for some reason, hide it.
|>>|| No. 69270
>Anyone could be a day-labourer if they put their mind to it. Contrary to popular belief, graduates who work in the front-office of banks work damn hard over long hours
If I sit in my garden doing advanced calculus to no real end I may be doing something that not everybody could do, but that doesn't mean I deserve to be rewarded for it. The financial sector does not benefit society to anything like the degree that would be necessary to justify the sums earned by those working in it. The prime concern of the financial sector is to fatten itself up, and its activities increasingly devolve into rent-seeking.
|>>|| No. 69272
Seconded. Exactly what choice am I supposed to exercise if I'm given a cancer diagnosis? I certainly don't know any better than the specialists in the oncology department. FWIW, yes, I do have some experience here, though admittedly I played on easy mode. It was a pretty scary six weeks, though.
|>>|| No. 69273
What on Earth are you taking about, young man?
>are we going to regurgitate the same discussions on the same topics every year or two?
Welcome to the internet.
>The financial sector does not benefit society to anything like the degree that would be necessary to justify the sums earned by those working in it. The prime concern of the financial sector is to fatten itself up, and its activities increasingly devolve into rent-seeking.
And why do you think those working in the financial industry earn so much considering its prime concern is to 'fatten itself up'? Could we not just leave some monkeys in charge of the very engine of capitalism and the modern world without it all going south??
|>>|| No. 69274
>And why do you think those working in the financial industry earn so much considering its prime concern is to 'fatten itself up'?
I'm not sure what your question is. You seem to think those are mutually exclusive, when they are one and the same.
>Could we not just leave some monkeys in charge of the very engine of capitalism and the modern world without it all going south??
We, along with basically every advanced economy, could get rid of a very sizable portion of our financial sector without "it all going south". In fact quite a few things would go North.
|>>|| No. 69275
>liberating every man, woman and child in this country forever
Liberating from what? The soul-crushing burden of having to pay tax? You're really overstating this. Under your model, people will still have to work, still have to pay bills and rent, the main benefit would be to the very top earners in society who currently pay the most tax.
>Your example is ridiculous, people always get fucked over when someone dies unexpectedly, even in countries with no inheritance tax she would still be screwed if she has no family, no savings and her husband didn't have a life insurance policy. Fortunately, we have the welfare state here to stop people from starving to death in the street
Well I didn't mean to imply that she would have no life insurance, but I would be very surprised if such a policy would be able to pay for a mortgage on a house on top of food/bills. As for the welfare state, so you are basically saying that our hypothetical Mrs. Smith should be happy to move into a council house and live off of poverty wages? You really have no idea do you.
|>>|| No. 69276
>If I sit in my garden doing advanced calculus to no real end I may be doing something that not everybody could do, but that doesn't mean I deserve to be rewarded for it.
So you're effectively saying that we shouldn't fund research into mathematics. I mean, aside from arguments about why furthering the boundary of human knowledge should be a noble enough end in itself, you forget that many advances in mathematics that were made decades ago with full intention of never being of use to anyone are being used today to aid our understanding of physics and develop new technologies.
>The financial sector does not benefit society to anything like the degree that would be necessary to justify the sums earned
And yet, if the banks fell society would quickly crumble. You sound like a teenlad so I imagine this sort of anarchy would greatly please you, but for the rest of us who don't want to live in a Mad Max world they do their job well enough. The UK's economy is definitely too heavily reliant on banking currently, but that's due to the failure of many of our other industries compared to those in developing countries.
|>>|| No. 69278
>So you're effectively saying that we shouldn't fund research into mathematics.
Nope. I am effectively saying that the fact that something is difficult and cannot be done by everybody does not necessarily mean it is socially productive or beneficial.
>And yet, if the banks fell society would quickly crumble. You sound like a teenlad so I imagine this sort of anarchy would greatly please you
Er, no, lad. Luckily we don't have to choose between keeping the banking system we have today (the worst of all possible systems), and effecting its immediate collapse. There are plenty of feasible and sensible reforms.
|>>|| No. 69279
>But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.
|>>|| No. 69280
What are we classing as loopholes here?
• Pension death benefits are usually paid tax-free and are exempt from Inheritance Tax except in limited circumstances, such as a terminally ill person making a transfer within two years before snuffing it (usually final salary to money purchase) for better death benefits for his family.
• Family businesses usually qualify for Business Property Relief so are usually completely exempt. As such, there are firms who specialise in investing in AIM companies because the investor's money will be free from Inheritance Tax once a two/three year window has passed.
• Placing assets in Trust. This has become less attractive since the Budget and the additional nil rate band for main residences but there's still reasons to utilise them. For example, you may want to set up a spousal bypass trust if you can't trust your wife to pass on your assets to your own children instead of your stepchildren - especially if you married late in life and the children were adults when you met.
• Some people are prepared to pay Inheritance Tax and simply take out a life policy to cover the liability so their children don't have to sell the family home, etc.
• Everyone has an allowance of how much you gift each year, plus for special events like at weddings. In addition, if you gift someone part of your wealth then it's usually free from Inheritance Tax if you live more than seven years after making it, a Potentially Exempt Transfer.
• You can lower the rate of Inheritance Tax if you leave a certain portion of your estate to charities.
Which ones of these are we classing as loopholes and how do you propose closing them?
|>>|| No. 69281
I'm not the OP, but I think some of your questions have easy answers. Loopholes should be treated as a matter of fact, not regulation. If you're using a facility naturally and legitimately for its intended purpose, then you're not using a loophole. It's only artificial use that needs to be clamped down on.
Death benefits are not really a loophole. Indeed, under a policy of "you can't take it with you" partner provision in pensions and life insurance would be the intended way of providing for your family, rather than granting them unearned wealth.
If the inheritors have a legitimate interest in the family business, then it makes sense to let them keep it. If they don't, then there's no reason to give them special treatment. The investment scheme you describe is artificial and therefore out.
If you can't pass on your assets, then IHT-dodging trusts become pointless.
No insurer in the land would offer an insurance policy covering IHT if the rate were 100%. The reasons for this should be reasonably obvious.
Clawing back assets gifted seven years ante mortem seems like an overreach. For the shorter term, it may be possible to treat as a non-exempt transfer if it's artificially designed to put the assets out of reach. We have precedent for this in company law.
Some allowance might be made for charities, since they'll at least put the assets to good use, but I don't see why someone who gives to charity should be allowed to keep some of their assets while everyone else has to cough up. The problem the OP highlights is unearned wealth, and as any fule no, unearned advantage is possibly the single biggest driver of social inequality. Individuals whose position is entirely of their own making are very rare, and by far the majority of them are those who have ruined themselves.
|>>|| No. 69282
>No insurer in the land would offer an insurance policy covering IHT if the rate were 100%. The reasons for this should be reasonably obvious.
You'll have to humour me. I've previously helped set up term assurance for a couple of siblings for £10million each, IIRC the annual premiums were about £5k to cover them for just over 30 years, solely to meet a potential Inheritance Tax liability during this period so I'm not really sure what the issue would be.
|>>|| No. 69283
Maybe I'm missing something but I really don't see the difference between this and popping into William Hill and placing a bet that your sister will die within a certain timeframe.
|>>|| No. 69285
It was about three years ago now so I'm a bit hazy on the specifics. All I can remember is that they were the beneficiaries under a will trust and if either of them died within that ~30 year window the shit would hit the fan, for whatever reason, and there'd be a £10million Inheritance Tax liability.
|>>|| No. 69293
Because that was for a known liability over a known period of time and term assurance is the cheapest type of cover for this. Similarly, you can easily enough take out a whole of life policy, possibly with indexation or at a set escalation rate, to cover an approximate Inheritance Tax liability although there's no guarantee you'd cover it in full.
|>>|| No. 69300
>£10million Inheritance Tax liability
And you honestly expect us to feel sorry for these people? You really think we can have any kind of social mobility in a society where some people just randomly get a free £20million+ and others don't?
|>>|| No. 69301
>And you honestly expect us to feel sorry for these people?
Not in the slightest. I was using it as an example of a high value life insurance policy because I haven't got the faintest clue what the other lad is on about by saying you can't get life cover for Inheritance Tax.
|>>|| No. 69302
>saying you can't get life cover for Inheritance Tax.
But nobody said that.
|>>|| No. 69303
Yeah it's just a lottery. Your mum spread her legs under a spinning tombola of assorted semen, so you wouldn't unfairly benefit from how hard your real dad worked.
|>>|| No. 69305
It's what I inferred from >>69281. I can't think why an insurer wouldn't offer cover if Inheritance Tax was 100%. That's why they have underwriting and reinsure their liabilities.
IIRC, in this instance the wealth was from the family business. Builders merchants. The siblings were the third generation.
|>>|| No. 69306
People can get massively rich through hard work and ingenuity in one life time.
If you want to rob corrupt people that's cool but why through a mechanism that considers everyone who's worth something at the end of their lives a cheater.
|>>|| No. 69307
>The siblings were the third generation.
My granddad got done for attempted murder decades before I was born. Should I be in prison?
|>>|| No. 69308
>People can get massively rich through hard work and ingenuity in one life time.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. The number of people currently alive who have achieved this can probably be counted on at most your hands and feet. Everyone else who gets massively rich does so on either unearned wealth or wealth acquired through dishonesty of some kind.
|>>|| No. 69309
>I can't think why an insurer wouldn't offer cover if Inheritance Tax was 100%.
In the absence of a threshold and all the means of dodging the tax, it would be an unlimited liability which is 100% certain to arise. That's not insurance. That's a blank cheque.
|>>|| No. 69310
>People can get massively rich through hard work and ingenuity in one life time.
People can survive falls of multiple thousand feet without a parachute. And yet they most often don't.
|>>|| No. 69313
If you were to increase the tax on wealth acquired through running a successful business then all that would simply achieve is encouraging them to keep/put it back in the company where it would qualify for Business Property Relief and be completely exempt from Inheritance Tax.
That's not how life insurance works. There has to be an actual sum assured. The size of the nil rate band and rate of Inheritance Tax may alter how much cover you feel you need, which you will be able to get cover for, but there must be an amount specified.
|>>|| No. 69314
>If you were to increase the tax on wealth acquired through running a successful business then all that would simply achieve is encouraging them to keep/put it back in the company where it would qualify for Business Property Relief and be completely exempt from Inheritance Tax.
But under OP's system the business itself would fall into the hands of the state when the people who actually built it up and actually deserve to be successful have died.
|>>|| No. 69315
>That's not how life insurance works.
Right. Hence you wouldn't be able to obtain a policy that you could be reasonably sure would cover the liability.
|>>|| No. 69316
>If the inheritors have a legitimate interest in the family business, then it makes sense to let them keep it. If they don't, then there's no reason to give them special treatment.
What's your point? That's exactly how it is under the current system, too. You take out a policy over what you expect the liability will be, which may not turn out to be enough.
|>>|| No. 69317
>but allow people who jointly own a property to have first-refusal on purchasing it back from the government in the event of the other owner's death (providing they have the money or can get a mortgage). This would apply to any and all possessions
|>>|| No. 69318
Okay, well you handover the business down the generations while you're still alive then.
|>>|| No. 69320
>What's your point? That's exactly how it is under the current system, too.
Not really. The fact there's a decent threshold and lots of ways of putting assets out of reach makes the liability manageable and reasonably predictable.
|>>|| No. 69321
>the people who actually built it up and actually deserve to be successful have died.
Owning capital does not mean you deserve to be successful.
|>>|| No. 69322
Alright, fair enough. My point is that the person has at least done something. Even if it that "something" was just learning the rules of an unfair game and then screwing the system to cheat their way to the top they've still put in more work than someone who literally did nothing except just randomly be rich already due to chance.
|>>|| No. 69323
Yes, but they're not inheriting it on death are they? They're either being given it or purchasing it, perhaps using a loan from the company to raise the capital, during their lifetime. There's no practical way of stopping people from doing what they like with their wealth while they're still alive.
I've another question. What would actually be the point in all this? I can see how it could reduce inequality by taking wealth off the rich, plus everyone else for that matter, but how does it improve the lot for commoners?
|>>|| No. 69541
>how does it improve the lot for commoners?
Abolishing VAT will make "luxuries" like chocolate biscuits and toilet paper affordable for normal, hard-working, people for the first time. Likewise getting rid of income tax will make work pay for ordinary families, in some cases for the first time in living memory.
|>>|| No. 69543
>Abolishing VAT will make "luxuries" like chocolate biscuits and toilet paper affordable for normal, hard-working, people
In my experience, the people who most often claim to be broke/unable to afford basics are mostly just useless at managing money. You've got the sort of people that couldn't dream of living without a 50" plasma tv, 20 cigs a day and two holidays a year but somehow wonder why they never have any spare cash. Removing VAT is not going to help these people significantly.
|>>|| No. 69554
The fact that they'll just spend the money is a good thing. Higher demand stimulates growth. You can look at IT and VAT as a tax on economic activity, and IHT as a tax on inactivity. By and large, inherited wealth isn't doing anything, especially when it's in the form of illiquid assets such as property.
|>>|| No. 69555
My idea about just making it illegal to save more than a certain amount, and mandatory to spend your earnings after a certain time frame, is far more comprehensive and less retarded than this.
The problem with consumer capitalism is that we simply aren't committed enough to begin with, not that people try to pass wealth on to their families. The optimum state for a consumerist economy is that they should have nothing left to give to their families, already having spent it all on champagne and speedboats.
|>>|| No. 69557
Well sure, it's a good thing for the tobacco companies and every over industry that basically serves as a povvo tax. It's not a good thing for the people themselves when they've never any chance of saving up a deposit on a house, or for the state when it has to bail them out.
|>>|| No. 69558
A deposit on a house that they can't take with them when they die. There's more to life than saving up just so you can commit 25 years to trying not to lose a house.
|>>|| No. 69561
>25 years to trying not to lose a house.
As opposed to an entire lifetime paying rent.
|>>|| No. 69564
If you manage to spend your whole life paying rent whilt attempting to save up for a deposit, I think you need to start asking yourself what went wrong.
|>>|| No. 69565
I think we all know what went wrong. What went wrong was cunts using homes as investments rather than ... well, homes.
|>>|| No. 69569
Yeah fuck hard working people. Only the descendants of nobility, slave-traders and criminals should have money.
|>>|| No. 69570
Don't forget politicians. How are we supposed to bribe them if they're not allowed to have the money?
|>>|| No. 69571
By privileging 'hard-working people' above those who choose not to work or can't work or even just don't work as hard, you are in fact supporting the elites you claim to despise. Who the hell do you think hard-working people are working for, you moron?
|>>|| No. 69575
I'm gonna say it is a lack of supply. In real terms homes are 5 times more expensive then they were in the 70s and 80s, used to be and average house was about 4 times annual wages now 20 times is considered 'reasonable' The older generation is fucking the younger all the time rubbing their hands together at how much money they 'made'. we need half a million homes built right now, and no one wants to do anything about it.
|>>|| No. 69583
>now 20 times is considered 'reasonable'
Huh? Let's say you earn ~£50k as a moderately experienced professional. I don't think you'd be looking to buy a house worth £1,000,000 on that salary.
|>>|| No. 69585
That depends. Presumably as a moderately experienced professional you'd want more than a basement flat and don't want to be on the shit side of town.
Also, FWIW, median individual income is still around the £26k mark, and median household income around £35-40k. "Average" house prices are £200k though given the massive variations between types of property this number is effectively meaningless. 2-beds are typically a little below the average while 3-beds are typically some way above them, with differences of around £50-75k between the two.
|>>|| No. 69586
Are you seriously suggesting that if a property isn't worth at least a million it will be nothing more than a basement flat on the wrong side of town? I think you might be confusing London for the norm rather than the exception.
Besides, even your own figures are contradicting you - for a median household income of £35-40k the average house price of £200k is close to five times that, aka the same as what you claim they were in the 70s and 80s.
As an aside, where do you get your figures for median income from - and more importantly who do they include? If they include, for example, part-time working magistrates, almost-retirees, and recent immigrants then I would think them likely to be skewed towards lower incomes.
|>>|| No. 69589
Well yeah, I did. You pulled an argument from your arse, and I have it the full credit it deserved.
|>>|| No. 69590
Lad. You pulled some figures from your arse. I divided one by the other and showed it contradicted your earlier assertion. QED bitch.
|>>|| No. 69591
>your earlier assertion
Again, no. There's no need to get quite so upset about it, though.
|>>|| No. 69592
Settle down, ladies. Kim Jong Un is threatening to bomb America in the next few weeks. We've got a war to plan.
|>>|| No. 69594
Well that's good news. Maybe when he's dropped his load IYKWIM we can finally finish those bloody seppos.
|>>|| No. 69633
It's pretty average for a moderately experienced professional. Obviously it's going to seem above average when you compare with the great unskilled hordes.
|>>|| No. 69707
>Are you seriously suggesting that if a property isn't worth at least a million it will be nothing more than a basement flat on the wrong side of town? I think you might be confusing London for the norm rather than the exception.
People still need to live in London.
|>>|| No. 69713
So our capital city should just become a ghost town devoid of all life other than tourists and multi-millionaires? Who will collect the rubbish? Who will wait tables and wash dishes? Who will run the souvenir stalls? Who will staff the brothels? Who will clean the theatres and guard the museums at night? Elves?
|>>|| No. 69717
You're looking at this in a very black and white way. There is a middle-ground between 'earns mininimum wage' and 'is a millionaire' believe it or not.
But anyway, I'm not arguing against having more affordable property in London (i.e. I'm not >>69712), just that it's important to recognise it isn't at all representative of the vast majority of the country.
|>>|| No. 69720
Maybe you're having difficulty handling multiple parallel ideas in a single thread but never was it asserted that 50k represented a median salary for the entire population.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]