So for franglais benefit and franglais benefit alone, let’s suppose the Police did tell the complainant to do one or risk being charged with wasting Police time. The Police then wasted their own Police time with 2 rozzers, one I believe rather senior to go to a Grandmother’s house who had committed no crime to inform her that a complaint of harassment had been made against her and said complainant had received a warning from them for wasting Police time after Police had investigated, ie viewed a few posts on Facebook. This scenario would not warrant a visit by the Police.
who remembers starmers promise not to raise taxes during the election campaigns or his second favorite sound bite “What you pay in tax now you will pay next year and not a penny more despite any raises. All families will be better off”.
here is the latest on that one from a response to a petition for raising the tax threshold to 20k…
The Government is committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible while ensuring fiscal responsibility.
I can hear people furiously typing (if they respond to the indefensible) but that means less tax… well here is the rub.
the minimum wage rates currently are
- £11.44: For adults aged 21 and over (this is the National Living Wage)
- £8.60: For 18-20 year olds
- £6.40: For under 18s and apprentices
and they will be going upto
- £12.21: Per hour for adults aged 21 and over
- £10.00: Per hour for 18-20 year olds
- £7.55: Per hour for under 18s and apprentices
assuming a 37.5 hour week (yes some will work more and some less)
old rates…
21 and over 11.44 * 37.5 * 52 weeks = 22,308 pa… tax paid = 1,947.60
18 - 20 year olds 8.60 * 37.5 * 52 = 16,770 pa… tax paid = 840
under 18 etc 6.40 * 37.5 * 52 = 12,480 pa tax paid = 0
new rates
21 and over 12.21 * 37.5 * 52 = 23,809.50 pa … tax paid = 2,247.90
18 - 20 year olds 10 * 37.5 * 52 = 19,500 pa … tax paid = 1,386
under 18 etc 7.55 * 37.5 * 52 = 14,722.50 pa … tax paid = 430.50
so to recap…
21 and over will pay 330.30 more an increase of 15.42%
18 - 20 year olds will pay 546 more an increase of 65%
under 18 etc will pay 430.50 more an increase of 430.5 %
so no tax rises huh?
Waste of police resources? Possibly.
Equally possibly a more senior officer taking a novice along with him?
Maybe they were on the way to or from a more serious incident, that required two officers, and stopped off as they were passing there anyway?
I certainly do not know all the details.
True. And the Police have been clear about that.
So the stories of censorship etc are just spin.
it was 2 plain clothes cid
yet they spent the time of 2 cid officers to come speak to her when they couldn’t spare an officer to investigate the theft of 20 cars from the neighborhood. what would you call that??? certainly not spin
“This scenario would not warrant a visit by the Police” is what I posted if you hadn’t tore in like a rabid dog.
Keep digging franglais.
Typical.
Maybe they were not.
Maybe their inept pc commanding officers with a view to shining in Starmer’s eyes to maintain their carreers did what they are good at.
Do his bidding by prioritisimg on this type of crap and virtually ignore the real crime going on around them.
Keep digging by the way …whilst working out how to get out of the corner you have been backed into.
Also try and stop yourself from looking bloody ridiculous.
What??
WOW!
So if someone gets a pay rise…then they should pay the same tax… as if they had no rise?
Is that what you are saying?
We are paying the same income tax on the same income.
C’mon franglais. “This scenario would not warrant a visit by the Police”.
so what you are saying is if we dont want to pay more tax is we should work less hours because the government have put up the wages.
of course this would suit them and their followers that support mass immigration because it means more shortages of work force so more need for foreigners to fill the gaps which means companies can pay 20% less than the going rate which suppresses wages as i said to you yesterday on a different thread is that good?
Every other government since blare brought in the minimum wage increased the tax threshold to match. so people were better off.
as an aside I know plenty of working people that cannot afford a wage increase because it would cost them more in the long run
NO.
I said what I said. Not something different said by you.
well starmer said that despite wage increases we wouldnt pay any more tax not me. So the only way i can see it is either he lied and we pay more tax or we have to work less hours to pay the same tax what ever hours they may be. Unless you agree that he has lied again just to get elected then what other explanation do you have other than people should work less
Did he?
Or is that the same “he said” as you were mistaken with earlier on?
When Starmer said he would act from the first days, and you interpreted as he would achieve all his targets on day one?
When I go to work it is to earn money. When I earn more I expect to pay more tax.
I do not look at the amount of tax I pay, and adjust my hours to ensure I pay the same. That would be perverse.
It is of course simple for anyone to pay the same tax if that is their aim: refuse pay rises. Easy-peasy!
Speaking of political pygmies I’m starting to form a suspicion that David Lammy is actually Diane Abbot with her head shaved!
Well, you never see them together do you?
How about
Is what I post…oh? …How does it go?
yep the same video evidence of him saying what he said that you refuse to admit he said what he said. or try and pass it off as historical when he is stood there in the same suit and glasses that were donated to him.
yes im glad you get it too bad starmer doesnt unless of course he was going to raise the personal allowance too bad he didnt huh or rather lied though his teeth in the hopes the gullible would just see pound signs and not think it through and vote for him.
that 80 pence you get an hour means an increase in weekly income of 30 pounds. But that takes you over the threshold for free child care so you now have to pay 30 quid a day for child care which is 150 per week so you are 120 a week worse off. now that is perverse.
so now your advocating companies breaking the law. You cant refuse an increase in minimum wage.
will you please give warning before making comments like that i have already had to have my laptop repaired for spitting my tea all over it.
1 Like
Are there examples within the benefits system such as that ? (without examining it in detail)
Yes there are, and they should addressed.
That is not the same as an increase in taxes under the same circumstances.
Benefits are not taxes.
Obviously.
Labour government, Labour couicillors involved, say no more.
child placements are not benefits they are metered out by the local authority not the dwp hence why or otherwise there is a cut off not a percentage of earnings/