"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:


"Martin Barclay" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 19:47:17 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 25/04/2016 14:13, Martin Barclay wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:31:01 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On 24/04/2016 10:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/04/16 20:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/04/2016 20:39, Rod Speed wrote:
alan_m wrote Blair did change Labour very
significantly indeed and made it electable to govt again.

TB lied to the voters.


The two are not only not exclusive, they are in fact the same thing.

No one would elect a Labour government that told the truth.


"The trouble with the British is that they expect Scandinavian levels
of welfare, but only pay American amounts of tax. These facts are
irreconcilable" Dianne Abbott, BBC 'This Week'.

Really?

Income tax compared:-
Country Single no Kids Married 2 Kids United Kingdom 33.5%
27.1%
United States 29.1% 11.9%


Doesn't that make Abbott's point? And 70ish% of UK tax is indirect, and
not income related.

I imagine there are a lot of "Married with 2 Kids" in the UK who wished
they were only paying 11.9% tax!


Well yes, but we have something approaching a welfare state. Something,
Abbott appears to be arguing, that we expect on 11.9% tax. The crux of
Osborne's argument?

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.

Even in the UK, 70% of the population earn less than £20,000 pa, and
contribute 20% of total income tax.

As I say, they get the low earners through indirect taxation. And in the
case of the US, low welfare spending

The US in fact collects a lot less in all forms of tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ntage_of_ GDP

On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000. I'd call $25k very low.

Even in the UK, 70% of the population earn less than £20,000 pa, and
contribute 20% of total income tax.

As I say, they get the low earners through indirect taxation. And in
the case of the US, low welfare spending

The US in fact collects a lot less in all forms of tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ntage_of_ GDP


Well, that's as a % of GDP - the US has a high GDP. The highest, I think.

That's the (and Abbott's) point - low direct taxation, but low welfare.
Which is bad news if you're poor and ill.

--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States

Even in the UK, 70% of the population earn less than £20,000 pa, and
contribute 20% of total income tax.

As I say, they get the low earners through indirect taxation. And in
the case of the US, low welfare spending

The US in fact collects a lot less in all forms of tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ntage_of_ GDP


Well, that's as a % of GDP

That's the number that matters when comparing the total
tax collection by country.

- the US has a high GDP. The highest, I think.

That is irrelevant when the % of GDP is used.

That's the (and Abbott's) point - low direct taxation, but low welfare.
Which is bad news if you're poor and ill.

It's silly to claim that the bottom half of the US is poor.

On 27/04/2016 18:58, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States

Even in the UK, 70% of the population earn less than £20,000 pa, and
contribute 20% of total income tax.

As I say, they get the low earners through indirect taxation. And in
the case of the US, low welfare spending

The US in fact collects a lot less in all forms of tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ntage_of_ GDP



Well, that's as a % of GDP

That's the number that matters when comparing the total
tax collection by country.

- the US has a high GDP. The highest, I think.

That is irrelevant when the % of GDP is used.

That's the (and Abbott's) point - low direct taxation, but low
welfare. Which is bad news if you're poor and ill.

It's silly to claim that the bottom half of the US is poor.

Perhaps the lower quartile might be a better comparison. Another clue
might be that South American's have a longer life expectancy than such a
developed country as the USA.

On 27/04/16 20:43, Fredxxx wrote:
Another clue might be that South American's have a longer life
expectancy than such a developed country as the USA.

Is that why they are all flocking to get into the USA?


Except of course you are in fact lying, and the USA has one of te best
life expectancies in the world, and only 2 S American countries do better

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/l...-south-america

phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

etc etc.

Odd how its always the lefty****s who lie blatantly and against such
easily researchable evidence.


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 27/04/2016 18:58, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States

Even in the UK, 70% of the population earn less than £20,000 pa, and
contribute 20% of total income tax.

As I say, they get the low earners through indirect taxation. And in
the case of the US, low welfare spending

The US in fact collects a lot less in all forms of tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ntage_of_ GDP



Well, that's as a % of GDP

That's the number that matters when comparing the total
tax collection by country.

- the US has a high GDP. The highest, I think.

That is irrelevant when the % of GDP is used.

That's the (and Abbott's) point - low direct taxation, but low
welfare. Which is bad news if you're poor and ill.

It's silly to claim that the bottom half of the US is poor.

Perhaps the lower quartile might be a better comparison.

Not when the bottom half of USians pay no net income tax.

Another clue might be that South American's have a longer life expectancy
than such a developed country as the USA.

Try that one again, itÿs a bit garbled. Presumably you missed
a word out but it isnt at all obvious what word is missing.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/04/16 20:43, Fredxxx wrote:
Another clue might be that South American's have a longer life
expectancy than such a developed country as the USA.

Is that why they are all flocking to get into the USA?


Except of course you are in fact lying, and the USA has one of te best
life expectancies in the world, and only 2 S American countries do better

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/l...-south-america

phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

etc etc.

Odd how its always the lefty****s who lie blatantly and against such
easily researchable evidence.

He's actually a righty****.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/16 20:43, Fredxxx wrote:
Another clue might be that South American's have a longer life
expectancy than such a developed country as the USA.

Is that why they are all flocking to get into the USA?


Except of course you are in fact lying, and the USA has one of te best
life expectancies in the world, and only 2 S American countries do better

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/l...-south-america

phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

etc etc.

Odd how its always the lefty****s who lie blatantly and against such
easily researchable evidence.


And Camoron!

On 27/04/16 23:10, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/16 20:43, Fredxxx wrote:
Another clue might be that South American's have a longer life
expectancy than such a developed country as the USA.

Is that why they are all flocking to get into the USA?


Except of course you are in fact lying, and the USA has one of te best
life expectancies in the world, and only 2 S American countries do better

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/l...-south-america

phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

etc etc.

Odd how its always the lefty****s who lie blatantly and against such
easily researchable evidence.


And Camoron!

He's a lefty**** as well, in reality.



--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On Thursday, 28 April 2016 07:46:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/16 23:10, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/16 20:43, Fredxxx wrote:
Another clue might be that South American's have a longer life
expectancy than such a developed country as the USA.

Is that why they are all flocking to get into the USA?


Except of course you are in fact lying, and the USA has one of te best
life expectancies in the world, and only 2 S American countries do better

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/l...-south-america

phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

etc etc.

Odd how its always the lefty****s who lie blatantly and against such
easily researchable evidence.


And Camoron!

He's a lefty**** as well, in reality.

Is there such a thing as an ambidextry****

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:06:58 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 28 April 2016 07:46:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/16 23:10, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/16 20:43, Fredxxx wrote:
Another clue might be that South American's have a longer life
expectancy than such a developed country as the USA.

Is that why they are all flocking to get into the USA?


Except of course you are in fact lying, and the USA has one of te
best life expectancies in the world, and only 2 S American countries
do better

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/l...-south-america

phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

etc etc.

Odd how its always the lefty****s who lie blatantly and against such
easily researchable evidence.


And Camoron!

He's a lefty**** as well, in reality.

Is there such a thing as an ambidextry****

There'd be a split down the middle!

I'll get my coat...

--
Ad-blocker blocking websites face legal peril at hands of privacy bods.
Websites that detect ad-blockers to stop their users from reading webpages
could be illegal under European law.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04...al_challenges/

On 28/04/16 12:56, Martin Barclay wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:06:58 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 28 April 2016 07:46:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/16 23:10, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/16 20:43, Fredxxx wrote:
Another clue might be that South American's have a longer life
expectancy than such a developed country as the USA.

Is that why they are all flocking to get into the USA?


Except of course you are in fact lying, and the USA has one of te
best life expectancies in the world, and only 2 S American countries
do better

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/l...-south-america

phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

etc etc.

Odd how its always the lefty****s who lie blatantly and against such
easily researchable evidence.


And Camoron!

He's a lefty**** as well, in reality.

Is there such a thing as an ambidextry****

There'd be a split down the middle!

I'll get my coat...

ITYM a *slit* down the middle.



--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Odd how its always the lefty****s who lie blatantly and against such
easily researchable evidence.


And Camoron!

He's a lefty**** as well, in reality.

Says it all about you - in reality.

--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:03:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 28/04/16 12:56, Martin Barclay wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:06:58 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 28 April 2016 07:46:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/04/16 23:10, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/16 20:43, Fredxxx wrote:
Another clue might be that South American's have a longer life
expectancy than such a developed country as the USA.

Is that why they are all flocking to get into the USA?


Except of course you are in fact lying, and the USA has one of te
best life expectancies in the world, and only 2 S American countries
do better

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/l...-south-america

phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

etc etc.

Odd how its always the lefty****s who lie blatantly and against such
easily researchable evidence.


And Camoron!

He's a lefty**** as well, in reality.

Is there such a thing as an ambidextry****

There'd be a split down the middle!

I'll get my coat...

ITYM a *slit* down the middle.

You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment!

--
Ad-blocker blocking websites face legal peril at hands of privacy bods.
Websites that detect ad-blockers to stop their users from reading webpages
could be illegal under European law.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04...al_challenges/

On 27/04/2016 18:58, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.


In practice, it's likely to be higher, with 4th sector informal work,
and cash workers.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States


Individuals. That was the discussion.

snip

It's silly to claim that the bottom half of the US is poor.

Yes, that is a good point. Depends how you define poverty, I suppose.

Is a US *household* living on less than $2 (before benefits, begging,
charity etc) a day poor? I think you might concede that's poor. 2.8
million US children live in such households. Double that of pre-2008.
Just WTF.

--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 27/04/2016 18:58, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.


In practice, it's likely to be higher,

I donÿt believe that.

with 4th sector informal work, and cash workers.

Those are the ones that donÿt declare their real income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States


Individuals. That was the discussion.

Nope, what was being discussed was the bottom half of the US.

It's silly to claim that the bottom half of the US is poor.

Yes, that is a good point. Depends how you define poverty, I suppose.

By any sensible definition of real poverty, nothing even
remotely like the bottom half of the US is in real poverty.

Is a US *household* living on less than $2 (before benefits, begging,
charity etc) a day poor? I think you might concede that's poor.

I donÿt believe that anything even remotely like half the US lives like
that.

2.8 million US children live in such households.

It's stupid to count the number before any benefits.

Double that of pre-2008.

Donÿt believe that either given the unemployment rate there now.

Just WTF.

All that shows is that lots live on benefits. No surprises there.

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000. I'd call $25k very low.

Even in the UK, 70% of the population earn less than £20,000 pa, and
contribute 20% of total income tax.

As I say, they get the low earners through indirect taxation. And in
the case of the US, low welfare spending

The US in fact collects a lot less in all forms of tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ntage_of_ GDP


Well, that's as a % of GDP - the US has a high GDP. The highest, I think.

That's the (and Abbott's) point - low direct taxation, but low welfare.
Which is bad news if you're poor and ill.

or even rich and ill

ask Christopher Reeve (who had to go back to work, despite his injuries, to
continue to pay for his health care)

tim

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K


what's households got to do with anything?

taxation is based upon person income not household income?

tim

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...



I donÿt believe that.

with 4th sector informal work, and cash workers.

Those are the ones that donÿt declare their real income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States


Individuals. That was the discussion.

Nope, what was being discussed was the bottom half of the US.

No

what was being discussed was the tax paid by the bottom half of the
population.

tax paid is not based upon household income so household income cannot be a
factor in such a discussion

tim

"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K


what's households got to do with anything?

It's the household income that determines whether the
household is living in poverty or not.

taxation is based upon person income not household income?

That is just plain wrong in the USA.

"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...



I donÿt believe that.

with 4th sector informal work, and cash workers.

Those are the ones that donÿt declare their real income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States


Individuals. That was the discussion.

Nope, what was being discussed was the bottom half of the US.

No

what was being discussed was the tax paid by the bottom half of the
population.

tax paid is not based upon household income so household income cannot be
a factor in such a discussion

It can with the US when quite a bit of taxation is done on a household
basis.

Quite a bit of it is in Britain too, most obviously with the bedroom tax.

On 30/04/2016 09:49, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
snip

Is a US *household* living on less than $2 (before benefits, begging,
charity etc) a day poor? I think you might concede that's poor.

I donÿt believe that anything even remotely like half the US lives like
that.


No, quite, see below.

2.8 million US children live in such households.

It's stupid to count the number before any benefits.


Hardly - it's a decent proxy, especially in the US.

Double that of pre-2008.

Donÿt believe that either given the unemployment rate there now.


I'm simply citing the source that, er, you gave :-)


--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2016 09:49, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
snip

Is a US *household* living on less than $2 (before benefits, begging,
charity etc) a day poor? I think you might concede that's poor.

I donÿt believe that anything even remotely like half the US lives like
that.


No, quite, see below.

Nothing like it in fact.

2.8 million US children live in such households.

It's stupid to count the number before any benefits.


Hardly - it's a decent proxy, especially in the US.

It isnt a proxy for anything. What matters is their total
income, regardless of where that comes from as far as
whether they are living in poverty is concerned.

Double that of pre-2008.

Donÿt believe that either given the unemployment rate there now.


I'm simply citing the source that, er, you gave :-)

You are doing nothing of the sort.

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...



I donÿt believe that.

with 4th sector informal work, and cash workers.

Those are the ones that donÿt declare their real income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States


Individuals. That was the discussion.

Nope, what was being discussed was the bottom half of the US.

No

what was being discussed was the tax paid by the bottom half of the
population.

tax paid is not based upon household income so household income cannot be
a factor in such a discussion

It can with the US when quite a bit of taxation is done on a household
basis.

Quite a bit of it is in Britain too, most obviously with the bedroom tax.

bedroom tax = quite a lot

what are you on?

it doesn't even raise the amount lost down behind the sofa

tim

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K


what's households got to do with anything?

It's the household income that determines whether the
household is living in poverty or not.

The issue at hand had nothing to do with poverty

it was about the mechanics of tax collection


taxation is based upon person income not household income?

That is just plain wrong in the USA.

I don't believe you

tim

In article , Jack Brown
writes


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...



I donÿt believe that.

with 4th sector informal work, and cash workers.

Those are the ones that donÿt declare their real income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States


Individuals. That was the discussion.

Nope, what was being discussed was the bottom half of the US.

No

what was being discussed was the tax paid by the bottom half of the
population.

tax paid is not based upon household income so household income
cannot be a factor in such a discussion

It can with the US when quite a bit of taxation is done on a household
basis.

Quite a bit of it is in Britain too, most obviously with the bedroom
tax.
Which is not a tax at all. However Council Tax is and is based on
household.
--
bert

On 30/04/2016 20:12, Jack Brown wrote:


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...



I donÿt believe that.

with 4th sector informal work, and cash workers.

Those are the ones that donÿt declare their real income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States


Individuals. That was the discussion.

Nope, what was being discussed was the bottom half of the US.

No

what was being discussed was the tax paid by the bottom half of the
population.

tax paid is not based upon household income so household income cannot
be a factor in such a discussion

It can with the US when quite a bit of taxation is done on a household
basis.

Quite a bit of it is in Britain too, most obviously with the bedroom tax.

Can you explain how the "bedroom tax" is a tax?

"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K


what's households got to do with anything?

It's the household income that determines whether the
household is living in poverty or not.

The issue at hand had nothing to do with poverty

Then tell RJH who brought that up.

it was about the mechanics of tax collection

And when the bottom HALF of americans pay no net income tax...

taxation is based upon person income not household income?

That is just plain wrong in the USA.

I don't believe you

Doesnÿt matter what you believe, most obviously with property tax.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
Quite a bit of it is in Britain too, most obviously with the bedroom tax.

Can you explain how the "bedroom tax" is a tax?

He gets all his information from the tabloids. And never reads beyond the
headlines.

--
*After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K


what's households got to do with anything?

It's the household income that determines whether the
household is living in poverty or not.

The issue at hand had nothing to do with poverty

Then tell RJH who brought that up.

it was about the mechanics of tax collection

And when the bottom HALF of americans pay no net income tax...

taxation is based upon person income not household income?

That is just plain wrong in the USA.

I don't believe you


sorry

you can't just come along

make an unsubstantiated claim

and

when someone challenges you, say

"tough"

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
Quite a bit of it is in Britain too, most obviously with the bedroom
tax.

Can you explain how the "bedroom tax" is a tax?

He gets all his information from the tabloids.

they even accept this terminology on the BBC now

the argument is lost

move on

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
Quite a bit of it is in Britain too, most obviously with the bedroom
tax.

Can you explain how the "bedroom tax" is a tax?

He gets all his information from the tabloids.

they even accept this terminology on the BBC now

It's perhaps understandable when used in context.

the argument is lost

move on

But not when talking about general taxation.

--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Fredxxx wrote

Quite a bit of it is in Britain too, most obviously with the bedroom
tax.

Can you explain how the "bedroom tax" is a tax?

He gets all his information from the tabloids.

There you go, face down in the mud, as always.

Don’t in fact read any tabloids at all, ever.

In fact I use our local national broadcaster
for my news, our equivalent of your BBC.

And never reads beyond the headlines.

How odd that its called the bedroom tax.

"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K


what's households got to do with anything?

It's the household income that determines whether the
household is living in poverty or not.

The issue at hand had nothing to do with poverty

Then tell RJH who brought that up.

it was about the mechanics of tax collection

And when the bottom HALF of americans pay no net income tax...

taxation is based upon person income not household income?

That is just plain wrong in the USA.

I don't believe you


sorry

you can't just come along

make an unsubstantiated claim

That isnt an unsubstantiated claim with the property tax in the USA.

and

when someone challenges you, say

"tough"

I didnÿt say "tough", I rubbed your nose in the fact
that the property tax is in fact a household tax, not
a tax on individuals. You carefully deleted that from
the quoting and tried pulling your stunt and lied
through your teeth as well and are fooling absolutely
no one at all when you are so flagrantly dishonest.

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K


what's households got to do with anything?

It's the household income that determines whether the
household is living in poverty or not.

The issue at hand had nothing to do with poverty

Then tell RJH who brought that up.

it was about the mechanics of tax collection

And when the bottom HALF of americans pay no net income tax...

taxation is based upon person income not household income?

That is just plain wrong in the USA.

I don't believe you


sorry

you can't just come along

make an unsubstantiated claim

That isnt an unsubstantiated claim with the property tax in the USA.

that's only important if it is a substantial tax

and one that is paid by "everyone", i.e. includes renters. In general
renters make up the bulk of those not earning enough to be paying IT and if
property taxes are taxes on increase in capital value will nor be paid by
them

and

when someone challenges you, say

"tough"

I didnÿt say "tough", I rubbed your nose in the fact
that the property tax is in fact a household tax, not
a tax on individuals. You carefully deleted that from
the quoting and tried pulling your stunt and lied
through your teeth as well and are fooling absolutely
no one at all when you are so flagrantly dishonest.

what a load of bollox

tim

"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at
all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K


what's households got to do with anything?

It's the household income that determines whether the
household is living in poverty or not.

The issue at hand had nothing to do with poverty

Then tell RJH who brought that up.

it was about the mechanics of tax collection

And when the bottom HALF of americans pay no net income tax...

taxation is based upon person income not household income?

That is just plain wrong in the USA.

I don't believe you


sorry

you can't just come along

make an unsubstantiated claim

That isnt an unsubstantiated claim with the property tax in the USA.

that's only important if it is a substantial tax

It is in the USA for the bottom half who pay no net income tax.

It is in fact by far the most important tax those pay there.

and one that is paid by "everyone", i.e. includes renters.

Renters pay it because the landlord passes that on to the renters.

In general renters make up the bulk of those not earning enough to be
paying IT and if property taxes are taxes on increase in capital value

They aren't. Those are capital gains taxes.

will nor be paid by them

But the property taxes are because the landlords
include those in the rent they charge.

and

when someone challenges you, say

"tough"

I didnÿt say "tough", I rubbed your nose in the fact
that the property tax is in fact a household tax, not
a tax on individuals. You carefully deleted that from
the quoting and tried pulling your stunt and lied
through your teeth as well and are fooling absolutely
no one at all when you are so flagrantly dishonest.

what a load of bollox

What a stunning rational line of argument you have there.

"tim..." wrote in message
...
what a load of bollox

Well of course, Jack Brown is superdick.

On 01/05/2016 00:14, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2016 09:49, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
snip

Is a US *household* living on less than $2 (before benefits, begging,
charity etc) a day poor? I think you might concede that's poor.

I donÿt believe that anything even remotely like half the US lives like
that.


If I'd said that you'd be correct ;-)


No, quite, see below.

Nothing like it in fact.


Quite. even so, using the source you gave:

"Extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less
than $2 per day before government benefits, more than doubled from
636,000 to 1.46 million households (including 2.8 million children)
between 1996 and 2011, with most of this increase occurring between late
2008 and early 2011."

2.8 million US children live in such households.

It's stupid to count the number before any benefits.


For a number of reasons, not least related to the fact the the US has a
tough benefits system, it is not IMO.


Hardly - it's a decent proxy, especially in the US.

It isnt a proxy for anything. What matters is their total
income, regardless of where that comes from as far as
whether they are living in poverty is concerned.


It's a vivid illustration of poverty trap and baseline income for example.

Granted, if we're talking about a country with a solid benefits system,
it has less meaning in terms of absolute poverty. But we're not.

Double that of pre-2008.

Donÿt believe that either given the unemployment rate there now.


Again, your source (above).


I'm simply citing the source that, er, you gave :-)

You are doing nothing of the sort.

Yes, I am, from the point where you shifted the discussion to households:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States

That page is pretty good, but takes a good deal of unpacking, not least
around the use of median incomes. Distribution of income, along with
baseline poverty, seems to be one of the more disgraceful statistics in
the US.

--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 01/05/2016 00:14, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2016 09:49, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
snip

Is a US *household* living on less than $2 (before benefits, begging,
charity etc) a day poor? I think you might concede that's poor.

I donÿt believe that anything even remotely like half the US lives like
that.

If I'd said that you'd be correct ;-)

I'm correct anyway.

No, quite, see below.

Nothing like it in fact.

Quite. even so, using the source you gave:

I never gave any source.

"Extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less
than $2 per day before government benefits,

It is completely stupid to be considering before any government benefits.

more than doubled from 636,000 to 1.46 million households (including 2.8
million children) between 1996 and 2011, with most of this increase
occurring between late 2008 and early 2011."

And that has in fact dropped considerably since then.

2.8 million US children live in such households.

It's stupid to count the number before any benefits.

For a number of reasons, not least related to the fact the the US has a
tough benefits system,

Like hell it does when those who are
working qualify for food stamps alone.

it is not IMO.

More fool your opinion.

Hardly - it's a decent proxy, especially in the US.

It isnt a proxy for anything. What matters is their total
income, regardless of where that comes from as far as
whether they are living in poverty is concerned.

It's a vivid illustration of poverty trap

Like hell it is. It says nothing useful what
so ever about any purported poverty trap.

and baseline income for example.

And that in spades.

Granted, if we're talking about a country with a solid benefits system, it
has less meaning in terms of absolute poverty. But we're not.

We are actually.

Double that of pre-2008.

Donÿt believe that either given the unemployment rate there now.

Again, your source (above).

Again, that is not my source.

I'm simply citing the source that, er, you gave :-)

You are doing nothing of the sort.

Yes, I am,

No you aren't, it isnt my source.

from the point where you shifted the discussion to households:

I shifted nothing. It is the household income that
matters with poverty which YOU brought up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States

That page is pretty good, but takes a good deal of unpacking, not least
around the use of median incomes.

Bull**** it does.

Distribution of income, along with baseline poverty, seems to be one of
the more disgraceful statistics in the US.

Nothing disgraceful about the real living standards that
those in say the bottom 5% end up with, particularly
when you exclude those who choose to **** what
income they have against the wall on illegal drugs etc.

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Jack Brown" wrote in message
...


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2016 21:44, Jack Brown wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 23:17, Jack Brown wrote:

snip

In fact the bottom HALF of the US pays no net income tax at
all.

Utterly bizarre IMO.


A very high proportion of people on very low incomes.

It is nothing even remotely like half of them.


48% earn less than $25,000.

In theory. Many of those are the result of tax fraud and
because they are illegals paid in cash who donÿt declare
their income.

I'd call $25k very low.

More fool you.

In fact the the bottom half of households earn up to $54K


what's households got to do with anything?

It's the household income that determines whether the
household is living in poverty or not.

The issue at hand had nothing to do with poverty

Then tell RJH who brought that up.

it was about the mechanics of tax collection

And when the bottom HALF of americans pay no net income tax...

taxation is based upon person income not household income?

That is just plain wrong in the USA.

I don't believe you


sorry

you can't just come along

make an unsubstantiated claim

That isnt an unsubstantiated claim with the property tax in the USA.

that's only important if it is a substantial tax

It is in the USA for the bottom half who pay no net income tax.

It is in fact by far the most important tax those pay there.

and one that is paid by "everyone", i.e. includes renters.

Renters pay it because the landlord passes that on to the renters.

In general renters make up the bulk of those not earning enough to be
paying IT and if property taxes are taxes on increase in capital value

They aren't. Those are capital gains taxes.

will nor be paid by them

But the property taxes are because the landlords
include those in the rent they charge.

you'll be arguing that all companies pay zero tax, because it all come from
the proceeds of sales to other people, and that thus these other people pay
that tax, next

it doesn't work like that

tim