Coronavirus Thread

[Strokes]

On 05/11/2020 at 13:14, yorkie1999 said:

Simple, wait for the next election, vote labour in and they'll supertax the 5% that own 95% of the wealth.

Like they did last time they were in?

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, MonmoreStef said:

 Very easy for someone who isn’t mega rich to say. 

Really feeling sorry for those billionaires

[LCFCCHRIS]

19 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

A short story:

 

 

 

Not followed the story here, but the scenes in those pictures would make you think they just took down a fortified wall, not site fencing 🤣

[yorkie1999]

With the videos that have been circulating on social media showing students climbing out of buildings during police raids because of large parties being held over the last few months, i can see why they decided to put fencing up.

[String fellow]

4 hours ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

Hmmm I see the government are climbing down on their 4000 deaths a day doomsday scenario they sold to the public. Absolute shower.

Does that mean that 400 deaths per day is okay?

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

31 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Does that mean that 400 deaths per day is okay?

What on earth are you talking about? What an absolutely ridiculous comment for you to make.

I don’t know why I’ll bother to answer but I will, of course it’s not ok, I never said it was, but neither is the crazy statement of 4000 deaths per day,  Do you think it’s ok for the government to mislead the population? 
 

 

 

 

[StanSP]

11 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

What on earth are you talking about? What an absolutely ridiculous comment for you to make.

I don’t know why I’ll bother to answer but I will, of course it’s not ok, I never said it was, but neither is the crazy statement of 4000 deaths per day,  Do you think it’s ok for the government to mislead the population? 
 

 

 

 

It's fine. Footballers wouldn't get up for £100k/w and that's all that matters buddy!

[simFox]

1 hour ago, String fellow said:

Does that mean that 400 deaths per day is okay?

Cancer averages 500, everyday and it's not the number 1 killer. This may come as a surprise, but people don't live forever.

 

We just locked down the country on the back of 4000 deaths per day and it's not true. You can't see the problem with that?

Edited 6 November 2020 by simFox

[Paninistickers]

1 minute ago, simFox said:

Cancer averages 500, everyday and it's not the number 1 killer. This may come as a surprise, but people don't live forever.

Plus heart disease. That's another 400+ a day

[Leicester_Loyal]

8 hours ago, simFox said:

Which country is that? UK is 48k according to worldometer

Stole it from another forum, don't think it said what country, I just assumed it was the UK.

 

The figures and percentages make for interesting reading though.

[st albans fox]

Really dont understand why they bothered to model the death rate .....a pointless argument because they were never going to let it run. Why not just extrapolate the number of hospital admissions on the back of the current case numbers .....that’s easily modelled. And the number of ICU beds available is also a known parameter .....

 

The public are prepared to make sacrifices for NHS staff ..... that should be where they come from .......old people dying isn’t really sticking now ......

 

 

[reynard]

7 hours ago, MonmoreStef said:

 Very easy for someone who isn’t mega rich to say. 

How do you know I'm not mega rich?

[Legend_in_blue]

 

 

[foxile5]

7 hours ago, MonmoreStef said:

 Very easy for someone who isn’t mega rich to say. 

Well I don't think 'paying their share' is exactly being unfair is it? Or should the mega rich pay less than their share? 

[MonmoreStef]

9 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Well I don't think 'paying their share' is exactly being unfair is it? Or should the mega rich pay less than their share? 

Depends what you decide is fair. Personally I think they pay more than their fair share.  

[yorkie1999]

4 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Well I don't think 'paying their share' is exactly being unfair is it? Or should the mega rich pay less than their share? 

The mega rich don’t pay their share, they pay accountants to hide their wealth, they avoid paying tax. PAYE people, and that includes footballers, subsidise the whole system.

[Otis]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/mar/09/actually-the-rich-pay-lots-of-tax-but-on-income-not-their-wealth

 

HM Revenue & Customs this week published an analysis of the income tax paid in the UK by salary band, region and gender. In total we paid £174bn income tax in 2016-17, the latest year for which figures are available. But of that, £52.5bn – nearly a third of all tax raised – was paid by the 381,000 taxpayers who earn more than £150,000 a year. The tax paid by those 381,000 individuals (overwhelmingly male) was more than all the income tax paid by the first 20 million taxpayers.

[Innovindil]

25 minutes ago, Otis said:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/mar/09/actually-the-rich-pay-lots-of-tax-but-on-income-not-their-wealth

 

HM Revenue & Customs this week published an analysis of the income tax paid in the UK by salary band, region and gender. In total we paid £174bn income tax in 2016-17, the latest year for which figures are available. But of that, £52.5bn – nearly a third of all tax raised – was paid by the 381,000 taxpayers who earn more than £150,000 a year. The tax paid by those 381,000 individuals (overwhelmingly male) was more than all the income tax paid by the first 20 million taxpayers.

I'd be quite happy to pay more tax too if I was rocking over £150k a year. 

 

However, considering we had a MASSIVE data dump containing dodgy shite from masses of the rich just a few short years ago that pretty quickly got burried I'd say saying that they pay alot =/= they pay their fair share. 

[simFox]

39 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Well I don't think 'paying their share' is exactly being unfair is it? Or should the mega rich pay less than their share? 

It's 40% over 50k, there's plenty of people that pay that. Most people on big contracts just incorporate and pay corporate tax at 19%. If you're "mega rich" you put money through the channel Islands or other tax havens. If you work overseas and get paid PAYE, you only visit the UK <90 days a year and pay zero.

 

We'll all be paying mega tax soon anyway to pay for lockdown.

[String fellow]

Anyone who listened carefully to what was said at last Saturday's press conference will realise that the PM did not introduce the second lock-down based on solely on the 4k/day deaths headline figure. It based on numerous data, all pointing to the strong likelihood that the NHS would be overwhelmed this winter if nothing was done to reduce the R number. The heat maps showed that some hospitals were already seeing more COVID-19 admissions than during the first wave. So to just seize on that one figure to bash the government with, when they are clearly doing their very best to minimise fatalities, seems to me wholly unjustified. Guardian readers - please feel free to mock me as much as you want!

[StanSP]

10 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Anyone who listened carefully to what was said at last Saturday's press conference will realise that the PM did not introduce the second lock-down based on solely on the 4k/day deaths headline figure. It based on numerous data, all pointing to the strong likelihood that the NHS would be overwhelmed this winter if nothing was done to reduce the R number. The heat maps showed that some hospitals were already seeing more COVID-19 admissions than during the first wave. So to just seize on that one figure to bash the government with, when they are clearly doing their very best to minimise fatalities, seems to me wholly unjustified. Guardian readers - please feel free to mock me as much as you want!

It's not just that that there is to bash the government with though is there?

 

[Kopfkino]

37 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Anyone who listened carefully to what was said at last Saturday's press conference will realise that the PM did not introduce the second lock-down based on solely on the 4k/day deaths headline figure. It based on numerous data, all pointing to the strong likelihood that the NHS would be overwhelmed this winter if nothing was done to reduce the R number. The heat maps showed that some hospitals were already seeing more COVID-19 admissions than during the first wave. So to just seize on that one figure to bash the government with, when they are clearly doing their very best to minimise fatalities, seems to me wholly unjustified. Guardian readers - please feel free to mock me as much as you want!

I’m pretty sure it’s more Telegraph readers picking up on the 4000 figure. Yes the 4000 figure wasn’t used as the reason to lockdown but it was woeful data presentation for which the government has been warned by the Stats office for. And it gave every opportunity for people to seize on it to obfuscate, choosing to present it has given people, who don’t want to discuss what’s actually happening cos they’d have to confront their drivel about false positives and casedemics, the opportunity to talk about the 4000 figure instead of anything of any importance.

 

Which sort of sums the governments performance up, it’s just own goal after own goal.

[dsr-burnley]

13 hours ago, simFox said:

Which country is that? UK is 48k according to worldometer

That's probably the alternative set of figures derived from death certificates.  There are people who have coronavirus on their death certificate even though they were never tested; they may also be people (though obviously fewer) who did not have it on their death certificate even if they were tested.

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, simFox said:

It's 40% over 50k, there's plenty of people that pay that. Most people on big contracts just incorporate and pay corporate tax at 19%. If you're "mega rich" you put money through the channel Islands or other tax havens. If you work overseas and get paid PAYE, you only visit the UK <90 days a year and pay zero.

 

We'll all be paying mega tax soon anyway to pay for lockdown.

If you incorporate, your company pays tax at 19%.  But if you take the money out of the company, that's when you pay income tax.  If you spend the company's money as your own, you pay income tax.  It's not a matter of paying corporation tax at 19% and the money's yours.

 

As for people who live and work in Saudi Arabia and don't pay any tax in the UK, there are millions of them.  The population of Saudi Arabia is 33m and virtually none of them pay UK income tax.  Not a lot we can do about that - not even if they used to live here and plan to live here again.

 

Watch out for retirement ages going up as well.  It'll be 70 before the current crop of under 40's have retired, I reckon.  Back to where it was when it was introduced, in fact!

[simFox]

31 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

If you incorporate, your company pays tax at 19%.  But if you take the money out of the company, that's when you pay income tax.  If you spend the company's money as your own, you pay income tax.  It's not a matter of paying corporation tax at 19% and the money's yours.

 

As for people who live and work in Saudi Arabia and don't pay any tax in the UK, there are millions of them.  The population of Saudi Arabia is 33m and virtually none of them pay UK income tax.  Not a lot we can do about that - not even if they used to live here and plan to live here again.

 

Watch out for retirement ages going up as well.  It'll be 70 before the current crop of under 40's have retired, I reckon.  Back to where it was when it was introduced, in fact!

Of course, but you only pay tax on the profit and if you pay yourself minimum wage and put everything else as company expense and pay a dividend whilst renting office space etc, you can still work it pretty well and buy stuff for work like cars. It's not rocket surgery!