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.

Don't be silly.

He never answers questions: he lacks the facility to come up with anything other than a plagiarised soundbite, some poll or an 'oh yes, you're so right'.

As usual no answers just juvenile insults. At least you are consistent.

In our day teaching was seen as a noble profession a bit like nursing - under paid - a vocation. Can you honestly say that is still the case. If the standard of education is improving why are they dumbing down the exams?

Is that really true though ?

I like to think that my early 1970s O levels were "worth" so much more than my own kids GCSE's but when helping them with their homework a few years back either their coursework was as hard as I remember mine being, or I'd forgotten everything I was taught.

Just to preempt the reply that businesses are forever complaining about the standard of English and Maths in their young employees, there was nothing wrong with my O level English when I started an office job in 1974 but everything wrong with my application of English in those first months of that job, I'd never written a business letter before I got the job, had hardly even used the bloody telephone, but I was tutored by my employer and shown these things - something that most employers seem to expect to be already supplied as part of the school leaver package these days ?

I've no reason to believe the teaching profession is particularly either over or undervalued today compared to the past.
I've also no reason to believe that teachers are overpaid.
Though, from my limited knowledge, I'd suggest its harder being a teacher today than in the past and that the role and duties of a teacher are not fully known/misunderstood by a lot of people.

I did not say today's teachers are overpaid - I said teachers in our day were underpaid. Nor did I say the teaching profession was under/over valued by society. What I said was teachers saw the role as a profession and accept the T&C as an occupational hazard.

I would agree it is harder to be a teacher these days as the behavioural standards in society have dropped and the respect for your elders has subsided.

If you want to see how dumbed down the exams have become compare exam papers from the mid 1970's to now - especial in technically subjects such as Maths and Sciences.

I agree re. the last paragraph - but isn't that the point of education? It should be possible to combine knowledge with some life skills in the 11/12 years that kids are in the education system.