From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:n206paFr6flU1@mid.individual.net...

On 18/03/2026 10:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message

On 16/03/2026 07:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...

On 12/03/2026 05:48 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...

On 10/03/2026 01:37 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

When I was a teenager, the standard (lowest) rate of income tax was >>>>>>>>> 37.5% (seven shillings and sixpence in the pound)

A standard rate of seven shillings and ninepence in the pound, >>>>>>>> originally
having been introduced by the Conservative Government in the Finance >>>>>>>> Act
of 1960

and I paid that rate at 16, on wages of a lot less than L10 a week. >>>

Except of course you didn't. You paid that rate on the amount your >>>>>>>> L10 weekly wage exceeded your personal allowance. Can you remember >>>>>>>> what that was ?

I paid income tax at 16. That could not have happened under PAYE unless >>>>>>> earnings (calculated YTD) exceeded the tax-free allowance (also >>>>>>> calculated
YTD). The tax-free allowance for 1966-1967* is quoted below, BTW.

So that when you said above there -

" I paid that rate at 16, [seven shillings and sixpence in the pound], on
wages of a lot less than L10 a week."

what you actually meant to say was -

"at 16 I earned the first L5 a week tax free; and I paid seven shillings >>>>>> and sixpence in the pound on the remainder, which was a lot less than >>>>>> L5."

I never claimed that I was paying tax on every pound I earned.

quote:

I paid that rate at 16, on wages of a lot less than L10 a week.

As you apparently experienced difficulties with this point, resulting in my
being accused of misrepresentation, perhaps I should explain further.

Your wages of a "lot less than L10 a week were indeed "every penny you >>>> earned" That is a fact.

As a consequence of which

"I paid that rate at 16, on wages of a lot less than L10 a week."

can be substituted by

"I paid that rate at 16, on every pound I earned"

That is your interpretation. Not many sensible people would share it.

But it's not an "interpretation"

It's straightforward logic.

You "straightforward logic" is an aberration up with which I shall no longer put.

The basis supposedly of all reasoned argument

Were your wages "of a lot less than L10 a week." every pound you earned ?

Yes: No: or most likely, refusing to answer ?

Because clearly they must have been; by definition.

So that in claiming both that

a) I paid that rate at 16, [seven shillings and sixpence in the pound], on >> wages of a lot less than L10 a week."

b) I never claimed that I was paying tax on every pound I earned

You have clearly contradicted yourself.
And while quite possibly people your might regard as "sensible" such as
the Genius President Donald Trump, quite happily go around contradicting
themselves all the time, as you just did, and probably would agree with
you in this, this is not what is normally regarded as "sensible"..

Old joke:
START:
Liverpool bus passenger (to conductor): "Do you stop at the Adelphi?"

Liverpool bus conductor: "What? On my wages, missus?"
END


Billy Bookcase: "But a night at the Adelphi is rack-rated at less than your >>> week's wages, which is contrary to your claim that it all swallow all of >>> your
wages."

But maybe if that Liverpool bus conductor hadn't spent all his money
on beer and cigarettes, as they all do, you know, he could actually
have stayed at the Adelphi occasionally. So he was quite simply
lying.

More of your "straightforward logic", eh?

Is that really the best you can do ?

Very disappointing. 1/10


bb


--- Synchronet 3.21e-Linux NewsLink 1.2