youreavinalaff

Having checked your posts i see you wrote " no caps after April" That is incorrect . As has been pointed out.

Most of the time I use my phone to access the internet. The names of those who like my comments don't show. I must press the individual emojis to see the names but I don't bother. Sorry to disappoint.

My point is, you misquoted me in an attempt to try to prove something. Then you picked again without acknowledging that misquote to try, once again, to prove something when all along all you are proving is that you don't like people disagreeing with you. You seem to mistake "wrong" and "disagree" quite a lot.

Why do people mis quote to try and prove a point? This is what I said "How about when posters on a forum call for a general election because a new government will do better but offer no figures or info as to why, that doesn't count?". That does belong on the list.

Funny. So, when we read about someone saying " the cost of living crisis is so bad I had to use a food bank" but we don't see photos, that doesn't count? When we hear someone on the TV talking about there energy bills allledgedly tripling but we don't see the bills, that doesn't count? When we hear opposition leaders say " the government's plans won't work" but offer no figures, that doesn't count? When the shadow chancellor accuses the government of giving tax relief to 1% of the population, but offers no figures, that doesn't count? How about when a poster on a forum says " the wealthy benefit more, but won't confirm what " wealthy" is, that doesn't count? How about a first minister saying how well off her country would be if independent but offers no figures, that doesn't count? How about when posters on a forum call for a general election because a new government will do better but offer no figures or info as to why, that doesn't count? OK. Let's shut down all forms of media. Anything anyone says just doesn't count, in the eyes of some.

Ray Reardon for example.???????????? It's his 90th birthday today. He fid quite well after leaving the mines.

But he was driving round in a Jag, with a big salary while the miners struggled. So, my comment was not hogwash. You went off topic to try to make it look that way. Funny really. 55555.

Not to mention the trade union bosses. I still remember the images of Arthur Scargill at the miners' strikes. "Come on lads. That's it. Get that picket line going. Don't worry about your bills. Don't worry about feeding your families. Don't worry about the violence. It's all for a cause". How did he travel to the picket line??? In a chauffeur driven Jag.

I just want to know what your idea of wealthy is. That way I can try to decipher how accurate your comment " mainly for the wealthy" is. If you cannot give any suggestion on your idea of wealth, I will have to suggest you are talking rubbish.

You've been using the word do much. You say the wealthy will get more out of thevtax cuts yet others say the top 1% of earners. Just wondering where the line is drawn. I have savings, no debts, and my wife and I have a combined salary of circa £50k. Are we, in your opinion, wealthy?

Do the wealthy not get sick? Do they not have education? Are they never victims of crime? Are they immune to house fires? Do they never go out? I would like to know how much you think someone needs to have to be wealthy? How much do they or did they earn? Does a wealthy person need cash in the bank? I know mortgageless people whose property is worth 750k. Are they wealthy? I know someone who lives in a 2 bed flat worth 280k, has a BMW and 300k in the bank. Is he wealthy?

OK. You seem to be suffering from selective reading. I'll make it short. The 20% to 19% tax cut benefits ALL tax payers. Any services cuts affect EVERYONE. Benefits cuts might lead to the million jobs currently available being taken. More employed, more tax revenue, less benefits paid out. WIN WIN.

Please show that in facts. I think you'll find the tax cut to 19% covers all tax payers. Also, you seem to think all wealthy people earn in the higher tax bracket. Interesting. I know many people with wealth that have never earned over 50k a year. I also know those that earn over 100k that are cash poor. Once again you are wide of the mark with your comment.

Once again you fail. I asked you to provide facts, in your own words, of tax cuts that provide massively for the highest earners. All you have posted is a graph showing percentages. It goes without saying that someone on 50k a year will save more but then they are paying more tax anyway. You obviously need to go away and think about it. While you are at it, find a graph that shows how much a 50k earner pays in tax compared to a 20k earner. That would be fairer. We could then compare tax paid to percentage saved just to see how fair it is. You could also post how much each group gets in tax credits, to make it even fairer. Maybe post how much those on benefits pay inbtax, just to make it fairer. I look forward to reading your facts. Thanks.

I'm afraid not. I have written, marked and proctored exams in schools for over 20 years. No ID cards were ever needed. ID sometimes needed in the form of house book or school issued ID.

An outdated link containing comments, not facts, made prior to the announcement that the 45% tax bracket would remain.

That's what you said previously on a local forum, only to be proved wrong.

No, one doesn't. I was a teacher in Thailand for 21 years. There is no requirement to show ID to take an exam in school. If you are a registered student, many of whom would be registered before they are 7 years old, one can take an exam. If you are taking a test outside of school, such as a government test at grade 6,9 or 12. IID will be required.

What exams can she not take? Thai students sit exams 4 times a year.

Actually, the Facebook page I was reading had 4 guys saying they were waiting for an email. One even said he can log in but his account says "email sent" but he has not received any emails. Your comment is therefore inane to the situation.

He seems expert in his views and speeches. That's why I asked him to explain in his own words, post the decisions to reverse the 45-40% tax cut, how the wealthy are so much better off. Still waiting.

You put the words in your own mouth. Now, please divulge the info you have that proves the cuts favour only the wealthy. The NI cut favours anyone who pays NI, for example.

Yes, it was To benefit first time buyers and those at the lower end of the property market.

Those comments,were made when the 45% to 40% cut was in place. Please could you explain, in your own words, the other tax cuts that fortune the wealthy and no one else. The ones you were talking about in your post that I quoted. Thanks.

We have already discussed the cancellation of that cut. The poster I quoted is saying there are others. I'm asking for confirmation of those.