Whitey Grandad

That's what I thought. The original colours are acceptable (to me at least) but what we've ended up with looks like a 15- year old has been let loose with a set of paints that came free on the front of a comic and I doubt that they will last as long.

I don't think anybody is saying they shouldn't pay any tax, apart from all those who choose living off benefits as a lifestyle, it's a question of the rate of tax and the amount wasted. As for rich foreigners, I suspect they come here because they can have all the benifts without paying any tax. In 'rich foreigners' I include those British who have chosen to be domiciled abroad yet still spend a lot of their time here. Philip Green for a start. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/08/20/sir-philip-green-tax-avoider-gets-job-on-the-side/

The tax relief is only worth more because the marginal rate is twice as high. If there were a flat rate of 20% then the relief would be the same for both. As for Starbucks and all the others I agree totally.

Indeed it does. Thursday nights are not made for football, they bugger up Saturdays.

They rather prove my point, really. That last one, the Tianjin Art Museum, is natural stone facade but still too rectangular and plain for my liking. I'll see your photos and raise you a:

Probably best seen from the inside.

Yeah, Thursday seems to be the problem with it.

I find the whole programme very puerile. Perhaps I'm getting old.

I'm surprised that so few people knew this thing about the optimal tax rate. There's a whole department at the Treasury studying different mathematical models, just have a look for the 'Laffer Curve'. Of course economies are a lot more complicated than a simple curve and the optimal rate changes constantly with all sorts of factors. There is another debate as to whether extorting the maximum amount of tax from the economy is a good thing. Here's a couple of links: http://www.cityam.com/article/maximising-tax-revenue-good-politicians-not-rest-us http://learneconomicsonline.com/laffercurve.php As to whether you're happy to pay a lot of tax depends upon whether you believe that the government is better qualified to spend the money that its earners. For companies a high tax rate will bleed them of funds that could otherwise be invested in new staff and products.

Not me, I ought to be retired. Speak to my cleaning company if you don't believe what I say. There's nothing mythological about it.

That will only put people out of work.

You will never fundamentally understand this if you continue to maintain this line of thinking. The government does not earn any money, it can only take it from those who do, companies or individuals. Your first line is so far off the mark as to be laughable. The wealthy pay a lot of tax, far more than their 'fair share', but the vast bulk of it comes from the ordinary people.

I think it's to do with whether you have enough to live on and whether putting in longer hours is worth the stress and aggro. In the case of the person on benefits they are getting what they need without having to do any work and would need to get a well-paid job just to maintain their current standard of living. In their case the difference is between no work and a lot of work for no difference in income. Basically the difference is that for the working person you are taking moneoff them if they work and for the other you are paying them not to work. You're right about the votes.

This article probably makes it clearer: http://www.cityam.com/article/1393442674/real-reason-squeezing-rich-makes-us-all-poorer

Raising the marginal rate above about 40% reduces the total tax-take, please see below. It's certainly not a giveaway if you're giving people their own money. Please see above under 'Gordon Brown'. You're talking as though this money that these people earn belongs to the government. As the marginal rate increases (including NI) then the total tax take rises and then falls as more and more earners don't see the point in earning more money for less return. There have been many studies into the optimal rate from the government's view of maximising the tax-take but somewhere around 35% to 45% is a common figure. http://www.director.co.uk/magazine/2012/05_May/Graeme_Leach_65_09.html http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/calculating-the-optimal-progessive-income-tax/

You can choose to eat it or ignore it at your peril. The outcome is usually called 'experience'. Would it help if I published my views and then made sure that there was a link to them on Google?

The lower paid already take home a higher proportion of their earnings than the higher paid. Once again, it's not a giveaway if all you are doing is letting people keep more of their own money. Whose money are you 'giving' them?

That's plain hogwash. The total tax take increases if you reduce the upper levels down from 45%. Where on earth did you find that graph, Google? How on earth do you interpret it to mean less money for the lower paid?

Google? Now I know you're not serious. That's the trouble with the younger generation, they think everything on the internet is true. My views are based on bitter experience. I don't want another incompetent pillock like that idiot Brown anywhere near our economy ever again.

All right, I'll come clean, the bit about Gordon Brown treating taxpayers' money as his own wasn't actually made up by me, it was a comment on the television, or radio, or something. Rather than have me proving it was true, how about proving that it wasn't? Ratyher than considering total tax take let's look at personal taxes instead.

But every comment that I make is made up by me?

Or that you should never trust tweets, they're sent by twits.

What is the point of this graph?

The roof is concrete. It's one of my favourite buildings.

Now you're just being silly. How can it be free money if it's already theirs? You're thinking like Gordon Brown, he treated everybody's money as his own and grudgingly let us keep a little of our own money for essentials.