tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466643334422987322.post7427918770584247635..comments2018-02-18T07:05:44.131+00:00Comments on Calum Cashley: Labour's tax rise and why it's wrong in very many waysAnseohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09107667224537870586noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466643334422987322.post-41601227702239835032016-02-17T15:38:18.743+00:002016-02-17T15:38:18.743+00:00Piffle - even your arithmetic is wrong. 480 is 0....Piffle - even your arithmetic is wrong. 480 is 0.81% of 590,000 - if you can't even get a basic percentage right you're not really in a position to comment, are you?Calum Cashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01059728094634130387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466643334422987322.post-71045222515778079532016-02-13T23:59:49.381+00:002016-02-13T23:59:49.381+00:00Misleading choice of denominator as Kevin Hague ha...Misleading choice of denominator as Kevin Hague has pointed out. You should publish his comment.matthew bondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00448822552649968140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466643334422987322.post-67012230704774730602016-02-13T16:47:39.921+00:002016-02-13T16:47:39.921+00:00I'm sorry but this is a really poor piece of a...I'm sorry but this is a really poor piece of analysis. To cite tax rises as a percentage of tax paid rather than the impact as a percentage of salary is intentionally misleading and transparently so.<br /><br />Take your examples, and let's state the impact as %age of salary;<br /><br />£90 on £20k = 0.02%<br /><br />£190 on £30k = 0.63%<br /><br />£480 on £59k = 0.61%<br /><br />£1,890 on £200k = 0.95%<br /><br />You don't have to be an analytical genius to see that this a clearly progressive tax that asks the better off to shoulder the burden.<br /><br />I'll be interested to see if you have the intellectual integrity to publish this commentKevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.com