I answered you above, in which case it's your turn to answer all the questions/points that have been put to you.

Yawn. Change the record and answer some direct questions for the first time that I can recall.

I did.

You show yourself up for what you are by refusing to answer questions yourself.

Where did you answer?

I think isostatic readjustment may have played a part in the North Norfolk flloding. There, I have answered all you questions ever - in similar fashion to your "answering."

Unfortunately, your beautiful nineteen fifties education and mindset didn't enable you to tell the difference between "being" and "been'.

You terribly tedious trolling twerp.

What she is/was saying is that the income gap has widened over ther last 30 years. No one on here is advocating income parity but there should be some redistribution.

You have introduced so many straw men into this discussion, it's looking like a giant haystack. Your mention of harvest festival in comparison to the exponential increase in foodbanks being just one example.

Of course the income gap has widened. People with money tend to be able "earn" more by simply doing nothing other than letting their money accrue interest in a bank. When they start making it work it grows even quicker, unless they invest it idiotically. So, if you don't want income parity, then how much disparity do you want, how much is acceptable? According to recent reports, the highest earning 1% shell out 30% of all income tax. Let's start from that.

I wasn't comparing harvest festivals to foodbanks, as they're basically one in the same thing. A mechanism to distribute food to those who need it. So, that's one straw man I didn't introduce.

Do you know why the top 1% pay 30% of the tax take?

It's because they "earn" more, earnings that have increased at a more rapid rate than those in the 99% bracket. We seem to be entering into a race to the bottom by offering lower rates of taxation to the highest earners both individual and corporate. All that does is then shift th burden even further onto those at the lower end of the earnings scale.

How is that fair in a modern society?

I am not sure your last statement is correct. Personal allowances have been increased significantly by this government - proportionately this benefits the lower paid much more and has the impact of lowering the taxes to the lower paid. Corporate tax decreases should benefit society as a whole - in theory - as more companies will look to domicile in the UK rather than take their affairs overseas.

No, you haven't.

I gave you answers to your stupid little 'questions'. You might not like the answers; you may well not agree with them, but I gave you answers.

I also answered your question about where the evidence on the costs of income inequality comes from.

It's your own stupid fault if you don't want to do some reading up on it, but don't come back pretending that you know anything about it.

Sorry but you are wrong.

The vast majority of the bottom centile are already receiving some form of benefit (tax credits or housing benefit), any increase in personal allowances is immediately cancelled out by a similar reduction in working benefits. So the lowest paid gain buggerall. The main beneficiaries of increasing personal allowances are middle-income earners.

If you seriously believe that any corporation already engaged in offshoring its tax liabilities will suddenly decide to bring everything back under UK tax jurisdiction because we've knocked a couple of points off corporation tax, then you're away with the fairies.

We must as always agree to differ - where is your cut off point of the "bottom centime" I suspect there are significant numbers of individuals who will have benefitted from the increase in personal allowances who are not in receipt of benefits e.g. younger single workers who still live at home of which there will be hundreds of thousands.

On corporate taxation if lower the taxation brings negative financial returns why do it? It quite clearly doesn't but once again you know best!!

Of course there are. Unfortunately however it is a coalition policy (a liberal democrat one to be specific) hence it is automatically bad regardless of whether it actually helps people or not.