[Closed] Get your dancing on grave boots ready

Ah, you've edited Deadly .......it's bravo who's angry.

Can't he get his hands on a "Che Guevara" either ?

@ ernie, sorry, I edited but you missed it 🙂

Is it a kind of under garment?

Whilst you little Thathcherites are creaming yourselves over definitions, there are families of sailors who died on the Belgrano, who never got to see their loved ones again. Because some power-mad * wanted to show how 'tough' she was. An act of complete cowardice.

Sorry, are "being a power-mad ", or indeed "showing how tough you are"Now written into the Geneva convention as war crimes? because unless they are, then you're still talking shite by accusing her of being a war criminal...

Zulu; I'm not the one who needs to play with guns to make themselves feel all tough, mate.

Too ****ing right sonny - It's like having two cocks. If one of your cocks could kill someone 😈

Napoleon complex

Hmm...

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex ]Napoleon complex is an informal term describing an alleged type of inferiority complex which is said to affect some people, especially men, who are short in stature. The term is also used more generally to describe people who are driven by a perceived handicap to overcompensate in other aspects of their lives..... It does not appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)[/url]

Is [i]that[/i] why you play with guns then Labby? 😆

Maybe you should go and talk to someone about it. Might help.

Oops double post! Silly forum...

[img] [/img]

Bump glitch bump

[i]It's like having two cocks[/i]

You'll always be one big cock to me! x

Too **** right sonny - It's like having two cocks. If one of your cocks could kill someone

Ooh you're so butch!

I bet that really impresses those young girls, eh? 😉

Is that why you love me so much Crikey? I had heard you love a big cock 😉

http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/

[img] [/img]

crikey - Member

Is it a kind of under garment?

I'm not wearing one of those !!!

[img] [/img]

You're certainly one of the biggest I've ever seen 😯

They come smaller than that ?!! 😯

Jesus Christ, I want to make love to a woman wearing a pair of those. 🙂

Are you trying to groom me Crikey?

[img] [/img]

I prefer partners that I don't have to iron before sex, but thanks for the thought Grandad...

Crikey; if you're above the age of consent, you might be a bit 'old' for Labby...

Jesus Christ, I want to make love to a woman wearing a pair of those.

I quite like the colour scheme. Kinda tarty and slutty... 🙂

I don't think they'd suit you though. 😐

Can anyone think of a policy or action of her ANY government's that was actually a good idea and did the country some good? I'm certainly struggling.

She reduced the top rate of income tax from a potential 98% depending on your circumstances, to 60% then 40%, and that certainly gets a big thumbs up from me.

Top rate wasn't 98%

Kinda tarty and slutty...

Speaking of which, I haven't had any begging emails lately mate. Where's she hiding?

Top rate wasn't 98%

In the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher came to power when top income tax rates were 83% - [b]plus an 'unearned income' surcharge of 15% if the income derived from investments rather than from wages or salary - making the effective rate 98%[/b] for those living on pensions or other investment assets. She quickly reduced the top rate to 60%, and then to 40%. The 'brain drain' of ambitious Britons going to work overseas was staunched, while wealthy and prominent people like the actor Michael Caine and the novelist Frederick Forsyth returned from their tax havens. And for these and other reasons, the Treasury discovered that the top 1% and 5% of taxpayers were paying a far larger share of the tax burden than they had done before. Where the top 10% contributed 32% of the tax take before the cuts, they were contributing 45% of it afterwards.

Got a new bloke, in't she. He works down the recycling place but I know he's selling hookey booze and cigs round the back though. I had toyed with the idea of grassing him up, cos that's the spiteful sort of little sod that I am, but the nipper needs shoes, so I thought it best to keep schtum.

So the top rate wasn't 98% then.

There was an additional tax [b]if[/b] there was 'unearned income'

So the top rate wasn't 98% then.

Then was an additional tax if there was 'unearned income'

Which is why I said "potential" & "depending on your circumstances" 🙄

If you two don't start insulting each other with a bit of imagination this thread will never get to 1000 posts...

Are you saying that the basic rate isn't 20% then ?

After all, people then pay a further 17.5% tax (soon to be 20%) when they spend their money.

So what's the basic rate now ?

Are you saying that the basic rate isn't 20% then ?

After all, people then pay a further 17.5% tax (soon to be 20%) when they spend their money.

So what's the basic rate now ?

Stop it.

I caveated my original comment accordingly. You mis-read it and jumped in.

Back on topic. Maggie introduced the Right To Buy for council tenants. That was a good thing.

That was a good thing.

Yeah, cept there was no plan to use the revenue raised to create more social housing, pushing people into private rented accomodation, which now costs the nation many times more. Great idea. 🙄

Stop it.

No, I want to carry on.

But let me caveat my original question.......what is the [i]potential[/i] basic rate now ? .....bearing in mind that the average person pays VAT on most of their weekly wages.

Or isn't there anything about that in the Adam Smith Institute's propaganda bumpf you've been reading ?

Yeah, cept there was no plan to use the revenue raised to create more social housing, pushing people into private rented accomodation, which now costs the nation many times more. Great idea.

Ideal time to re-introduce the workhouses then

No, I want to carry on.

But let me caveat my original question.......what is the potential basic rate now ? .....bearing in mind that the average person pays VAT on most of their weekly wages

I made no mention of VAT in my original post. I was pointing out the benefits of reducing abhorrent income tax charges

Maggie introduced the Right To Buy for council tenants. That was a good thing.

In what way?

I was pointing out the benefits of reducing abhorrent income tax charges

The only benefit I saw was : [i]"a big thumbs up from me"[/i]

So what you are saying is that the 'basic rate' is just that .......'the basic rate'.

The top rate however, is variable.......'the top rate plus whatever you fancy adding to it'.

That seems fair.

For a Tory.

In what way?

My grandparents were able to buy their house. That was a good thing.

For a Tory.

no denying it. I'm a staunch tory.

My grandparents were able to buy their house. That was a good thing.

Oh you mean it was good for them, not a good thing for society generally? Typical Tory attitude. 🙄

But let me caveat my original question.......what is the potential basic rate now ? .....bearing in mind that the average person pays VAT on most of their weekly wages.

...and surely given you're a pragmatist you can accept that it was good for the country to get rid of even an 83% top rate of tax.

I have no idea whether you are a Tory or not, but that little quote you lifted from the Adam Smith Institute has all the logic and fairness of a Tory.

And btw, since we are on the subject of Adam Smith/taxation, lets remember what Adam Smith actually said about taxation - not what people who use his name say :

[i]The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities;

that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.[/i]

What do you reckon he would make of everyone paying 20% VAT, whether or not they can afford it ?

And I bet he wouldn't have liked Maggie's Poll Tax.

Or the 'subjects of the state' who keep their money offshore.

What do you reckon he would make of everyone paying 20% VAT, whether or not they can afford it ?

no denying it. I'm a staunch tory.

No! Really??? 😯

🙄

Oh you mean it was good for them, not a good thing for society generally? Typical Tory attitude.

Yes, just them because they were the only people in the uk that bought their council house.

FWIW my grandparents on both sides were "working class". My dad drove bull dozers for a living and my mum was a secretary.

I'm actually fairly dubious about the assertion that the average person pays VAT on most of their wages.

You might well be. But food and children's clothing isn't what the average person spends most of their weekly wages on.

Oh dear. this threa did contime rather.

I have now had a faceful of beer since Last posted but I will attempt to answer this:

Ratty zulu
So, TJ, Fred, and others, you may not like what was done during the war but, please, if you are going to throw around the allegations of “war criminal”, please justify it .....

You know what. In terms of law I can't. However IMO and that of many others the world over it was morally wrong. 600 people died directly as a result of Thatchers orders to sink the Belgrano and another what - couple of thousand was it?? died as a result of the failure to find a peaceful solution.

Now there are war crimes an war crimes and we must remember both the numbers and the context but I am convinced that the Belgrano was running away thus sinking it with superior tech while it is running away is a crime. Those 600 men need not have died

However I did not have to make that decision and hindsight is 20/20. But sinking an obsolete ship that is little threat using superior tech while that ship is running away stinks to me and I want no part of it

......you're a pragmatist you can accept that it was good for the country to get rid of even an 83% top rate of tax.

I am also a realist, and therefore realise that there is a limit to human endurance and capabilities. Just look at the Olympic Games for examples......human capabilities are limited. No one can run at 60mph. And never will.

Someone who works hard, give them £25k. Someone who works very hard, give them £45k. Someone who works extremely hard, give them £70k. Someone who works unbelievable hard, give them £100k.

But how ****ing hard do have to work for a £1 million? Even if you never went to sleep, there are still only 24 hours in the day - nothing can change that.

Beyond a certain threshold people are being rewarded to work which they haven't done - and therefore are taking more than their fair share of the cake. I support 100% taxation for those persons. And they can **** off to the United States if they don't like it, I'm sure they don't have superhuman powers which can't be replaced.

Like Thatcher I say reward hard work. But unlike Thatcher, I actually mean it.

My apologies ernie for misrepresenting you. You're clearly not a pragmatist at all, but still stuck with your class based politics of envy. I'm no more a fan of people earning £1 million than you, but at least I'm prepared to acknowledge the facts that an 83% rate of tax actually brought in less revenue.

But food and children's clothing isn't what the average person spends most of their weekly wages on.

You know what. In terms of law I can't. However IMO and that of many others the world over it was morally wrong. 600 people died directly as a result of Thatchers orders to sink the Belgrano and another what - couple of thousand was it?? died as a result of the failure to find a peaceful solution.

Now there are war crimes an war crimes and we must remember both the numbers and the context but I am convinced that the Belgrano was running away thus sinking it with superior tech while it is running away is a crime. Those 600 men need not have died

However I did not have to make that decision and hindsight is 20/20. But sinking an obsolete ship that is little threat using superior tech while that ship is running away stinks to me and I want no part of it

How about Blair/Brown and the little Iraq affair? WMD's anyone or a trip to Guantanamo Bay?

....class based politics of envy

LOL ! That good ol' reliable Tory fall-back 😀

I guess those who are now complaining that the cuts are going to hit the poorest hardest are just "envious" of the super rich.

When all else fails...........wheel out the [i]socialist envy[/i] "argument".

STW need to start saving for new servers and bandwidth for when she does go given the reaction here.

Now there are war crimes an war crimes

Well, no, there are war crimes and there are legitimate acts of war, sinking an enemy ship counts as the latter.

and we must remember both the numbers and the context but I am convinced that the Belgrano was running away thus sinking it with superior tech while it is running away is a crime.

Its a shame that neither the Argentinian government, or the captain of the ship contend that your position is correct. Both specifically concede that it was a legitimate target, and decrypts of Argentinean naval communications show that the Belgrano [u]was[/u] under direct orders to attack the British fleet at the time of the sinking.

Those [s]600[/s] [b]323[/b] men need not have died

If the Argentinan government had not sent forces to illegally invade the Falklands, then [u]nobody[/u] need have died! I'm afraid, TJ, that sometimes you just have to get over your prejudices and petty class war and accept that the people ultimately to blame are the ones who started shooting first!

Ernie, it's not about how hard you work. There are, as you say, just 24 hours in a day.

If my economic worth to a company is £1m per annum - they make an extra million a year because of my employment - then surely it's up to them to reward me as they wish to. And I'd be very upset if they just offered me £25k or even £75k.

As a result of that additional £1m of profit, the company pays more tax. All depends on losses brought forward etc, but untimately they'll pay UK corporation tax on that £1m.

If you told me I paid 100% tax on anything over £100k, I'd probably not leave the UK. I'd just not do the high end work, the tricky, intricate stuff that is often the difference between a company doing well or failing. Thing is, [b]no-one[/b] would do it in the UK; it would either get transplanted to another country, or not done at all. In neither case would you get the 100% tax take on the additional salary, and you'd now also be missing the tax take on the company profits.

My view is that anything over 50% taxation is unfair - by taking half of what I earn (and NI as well, let's not forget that) as well as a lot of VAT, the country does not badly from me.

It's like having two cocks. If one of your cocks could kill someone

And ther are war crimes, legitimate acts of war and shooting a big gun to try and compensate for your sexual inadequacies. I think you've explained where you're coming from

In the [s]big[/s] little ccoks defence that's a quote from Superbad. Not much of a defence I know........

Actually bigbutslimmer, its not a big gun, only a little one, 6 mm...

Which is about the same size as my other cock as it happens 😳

I'd suggest you go and read up on your contemporary [url= http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0829482/quotes ]film[/url] and [url=

references....

Zulu - having read your last comment I edited my previous post. Wouldn't want the pedants discrediting me for being factually incorrect 😉

Zulu - thats my reasoning for why I say it was a crime.

Of course the Argentinians would say that it was a threat. It doesn't mean it was tho
You need to get over your petty prejudices. Nothing to do with prejudice or class war from me, everything to do with how I see the world.

Of course the Argentinians would say that it was a threat. It doesn't mean it was tho

Then why did the Argentinian government spend over a decade claiming it was a war crime, before conceding it was not, and was in fact a legitimate target - that fact alone undermines your claim that "of course they would say it was a threat"

You're stumbling over yourself to show how your own worthless opinion is right, whilst the opinions of people who were actually involved are worthless.

James Mates asks whether it is true that his ship posed 'a real threat' to the task force - Captain Hector Bonzo replies:

"Yes, I agree with that statement. I think we posed a real threat...[u] we never had any intention of going back to shore; we were only waiting for the right moment to act[/u]."

Yet you continue to claim that in [u]your opinion[/u] they were running away....

everything to do with how I see the world.

Come off it - of course the captain would say that. Yes my opinion is that it was running away and was obsolete thus no real threat anyway.

Its an opinion. YOu asked for an explanation of the reasoning that this was a war crime - thats it.

So, you cannot substantiate your claim by any reference to international criminal law, the articles of war, or the Geneva conventions - thats not reasoning, its pure hyperbole.

The opinion of the great malevolent TJ is more important than the opinions of the courts, the people who were there, the UN, and the rest of society.

tell me TJ - in your own little world, where do you see yourself, is it really possible that [b]all[/b] those people are wrong, people who were there, the [u]man who actually commanded the ship[/u] says he was not running away, but he is wrong and [b]you[/b] are right?

thew pomposity of your own self importance astounds TJ - Just like the 25% cuts, you're unable to accept that you're wrong, and that your allegations are not only unfounded, but ridiculous!

700!

Zulu - you asked for the reasoning I gave you it. You think it ridiculous - many folk do not. Your opinion / my opinion. I think your opinions are totally absurd. so what?

nickf - Member

If you told me I paid 100% tax on anything over £100k, I'd probably not leave the UK. I'd just not do the high end work, the tricky, intricate stuff that is often the difference between a company doing well or failing. Thing is, no-one would do it in the UK; it would either get transplanted to another country, or not done at all. In neither case would you get the 100% tax take on the additional salary, and you'd now also be missing the tax take on the company profits.

How come countries with much higher taxation than us still have people doing these roles - so much so their economies are performing better than ours.

Has anyone noticed the striking resemblance between Thatcher and Zelda from The Terrahawks?

No TJ, not my opinion!

[u]The opinion of the bloke who actually commanded the ship contradicts your claim that they were sailing away and were not a threat[/u]

Why, just [b]why[/b], for one second, would you think that he is wrong and [b]you[/b] are right?