Well i was actually curious, are they just going to be paying less % per £1? That sorta deal?

And therefore, by your own logic, if "Thatcher presided over a period of burgeoning meritocracy", we'd have seen the results. Whereas, in fact, we have seen the continuation of a decline in numbers of those people brought up on council estates etc making it into public life at the highest levels.

I thought this from a gentleman called Tony Bury's blog might help you:

I found this very easy to understand analysis of the taxation, explained through a group buying beer!
Enjoy the reading… !

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER…

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:-

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. 

The fifth would pay £1…
The sixth would pay £3…
The seventh would pay £7…
The eighth would pay £12…
The ninth would pay £18…
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59…
So, that’s what they decided to do…

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80. 
 


The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. 
 


And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving). 

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving). 

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving). 

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving). 

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving). 

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 


Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10″ 
”Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me” “That’s true” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks” 
”Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill. 
 
 
 
 
 


And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. 
 


David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. 
Professor of Economics. 

For those who understand, no explanation is needed…
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible….

You'll have to wait for someone better informed than me to answer that question that specifically. But I do know that everyone else – other than the already-best-off are being hit with increased tax/loss of benefits.

Just received this by email:

In church I heard a lady in the pew next to me saying a prayer.
It was so sweet and sincere that I just had to share with you:-

Dear Lord,

This has been a tough two or three years.

You have taken my favourite actor, Patrick Swayze.

My favourite male singer, Michael Jackson.

My favourite Blues Singer, Amy Winehouse.

My favourite actress, Elizabeth Taylor.

And now my favourite singer, Whitney Houston.

I just wanted you to know that my favourite politicians are:
Ed Miliband, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, Ed Balls, David Cameron, Gordon Brown and John Bercow

I think you are having trouble in understanding the simple concept of the effluxion of time.

Yes it was - the pass level was changed from one year to the next.

Think it through - there was a limited number of grammar school places available, in my school its was an influx of 120 boys per year, every year we got 120 boys, four forms of 30, exactly the same number every year, the rest (like my brother, chortle) were cast adrift into the secondary school system, his first year at secondary school was overcrowded and he ended up in a class of around 38 boys, put simply they creamed off the top 120 in our catchment area and put the rest into the lower division and to do that you have to move the bar every year.

I'd add that I later found out that my pass mark in the 11 plus was just one mark above what was the bar that year - and I continued in that mode for the next five years, always just did enough, never did too much

That's how exams were in the past. Take the top x %. It's the same with football clubs, etc. Take the top X take a closer look at them and then reduce that number (going into the adult squad / university). Trouble is Labour destroyed the system so its the other way round - with lot's getting to university and now they pay the price (literally) by paying themselves to stay off the unemployment register for 3 years.

Who'd have believed it - British politicians messing up something.

Call yourself an oracle?

I was aware of the cutting/capping of benefits, i thought the stopping of benefits of anyone on 60k+ was sort of an attack on the better-off, but the fact that millionaires get a big reduction just stinks, AND makes no sense, practically speaking.

i know full well it wasn't your idea, that would involve you actually having the nous to be able to come up with something.


an example? you've got it all mapped out. why are you distancing yourself from it now? surely it's right that we as taxpayers train up people to go and work for the energy companies and save them the job of doing it?

sounds pretty clear to me. paying people to behave. as i said, it's up there with 'hug a hoodie'.

nothing positive? what you want is cheerleaders, sycophants to nod in approval at the great essays of nothing you produce.

ffs. and i'm meant to be the stupid one.