wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:41:44 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
The same way they currently get to Gatwick. Road or train via London (if a
station was built there).

Gatwick is already too far for such people, and it has excellent motorway
and rail links.

Which part of investing in infrastructure for manston did you have a problem
comprehending?

And who'd pay for the tens of billions of infrastructure investment? Not
the owners of Manston. Not the airlines.


I endure flying because the holiday at the other end is worth it. No way
would
I fly 50 times to the US simply for work business class or not. They could
shove the job.

Obviously you wouldn't, as you're afraid of flying. I enjoy it.

Do change the record you old soak. And the amount of times you flew for your
job its quite apparent you're one of those sad *******s who lived to work
rather than worked to live. Some of us have lives outside our work which we'd
rather spend time in. Clearly you didn't.

That's one way of rationalising a failed career.

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:09:16 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2018\06\11 12:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:53:46 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked:

a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.

It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).

It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.

... which makes London one of the most connected places in the owrld to
locate a business HQ, which brings more money and talent into the country.


Indeed so, which is why the business community is so keen on the next
runway being at Heathrow. London has been losing out to Amsterdam, Paris
and Frankfurt, and government after government has been agreeing with the

Losing out how exactly? You do know that London is the largest financial
centre in europe and even after Brexit only unilever has shifted to amsterdam
and thats only legally. Oh, and Paris is 2 hours away by train - much quicker
than the plane overall, not that many executives want to work in france with its
45% tax rate for high earners and punitive job laws.

I realise that you're not, and never will be, a high earner, so you can be
excused for not knowing that some people in Britain have marginal tax rates
of more than 20%. In fact, the top UK tax rate is 45%, plus 2% employees’
primary class 1 rate above upper earnings limit, so effectively 47%.

On 13/06/2018 09:28, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 12/06/2018 09:50, wrote:
Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit.

Actually they are.

They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed
with little effort.

They are fixed to a large extent by the positioning of the runways. To
land safely, most airliners need a straight line approach exceeding 25
miles, entered from a turn of about 10 miles in radius,so for Heathrow,
they start their final approach over the Thames estuary area. For
Manston, that approach would skirt the French coast, so would need
international co-operation between air traffic controllers.

Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong
airport (AKA Kai Tak, aka HEart attack airport) used to be regularly
voted the worst airport in the World by pilots, due to the twisty
approach between high rise buildings. The new one is rated as being much
safer, due to its unobstructed approach over water.

Air traffic control would also have a low opinion of aircraft taking off
from Manston into the densely occupied landing approach areas round
Heathrow and Gatwick. This would be even more fun when the wind changed
and all of them were taking off and landing while travelling East, so
that Heathrow and Gatwick traffic was taking off into Manston's approach
pattern.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 13/06/2018 11:30, Recliner wrote:

I realise that you're not, and never will be, a high earner, so you can be
excused for not knowing that some people in Britain have marginal tax rates
of more than 20%. In fact, the top UK tax rate is 45%, plus 2% employees’
primary class 1 rate above upper earnings limit, so effectively 47%.

Then again, at the bottom end, if you take withdrawal of benefits into
account, some people have an effective tax rate in excess of 100%. I
know one person who, if they work 20 hours a week instead of 16, is less
well off in spite of working more, as they lose some in work benefits.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:25:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:41:44 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
The same way they currently get to Gatwick. Road or train via London (if a
station was built there).

Gatwick is already too far for such people, and it has excellent motorway
and rail links.

Which part of investing in infrastructure for manston did you have a problem
comprehending?

And who'd pay for the tens of billions of infrastructure investment? Not
the owners of Manston. Not the airlines.

The same people who'll end up paying for heathrows white elephant - us.

Do change the record you old soak. And the amount of times you flew for your
job its quite apparent you're one of those sad *******s who lived to work
rather than worked to live. Some of us have lives outside our work which we'd
rather spend time in. Clearly you didn't.

That's one way of rationalising a failed career.

My career is fine thanks, however I also have a life outside of it too. I
suspect you don't which is why you're constantly travelling, no doubt to
alleviate the boredom of sitting at home staring at the walls with only
jeremey kyle for company.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:30:21 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:09:16 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2018\06\11 12:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:53:46 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked:

a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.

It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).

It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.

... which makes London one of the most connected places in the owrld to
locate a business HQ, which brings more money and talent into the country.


Indeed so, which is why the business community is so keen on the next
runway being at Heathrow. London has been losing out to Amsterdam, Paris
and Frankfurt, and government after government has been agreeing with the

Losing out how exactly? You do know that London is the largest financial
centre in europe and even after Brexit only unilever has shifted to amsterdam
and thats only legally. Oh, and Paris is 2 hours away by train - much
quicker
than the plane overall, not that many executives want to work in france with
its
45% tax rate for high earners and punitive job laws.

I realise that you're not, and never will be, a high earner, so you can be
excused for not knowing that some people in Britain have marginal tax rates
of more than 20%. In fact, the top UK tax rate is 45%, plus 2% employees’
primary class 1 rate above upper earnings limit, so effectively 47%.

The french 45% rate starts at a lower income than the UK, and it used to be
considerably lower when the pound was higher against the euro. Also france
- for some inexplicable reason - don't have the equivalent of PAYE so even
some guy on minimum wage in a warehouse has to do his own taxes at the end of
the year. Couple that with it being almost impossible to fire someone in france
and you can see why not many people want to work there. Most brits who move
out there are retired.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 09:28, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 12/06/2018 09:50, wrote:
Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit.

Actually they are.

They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed
with little effort.

They are fixed to a large extent by the positioning of the runways. To
land safely, most airliners need a straight line approach exceeding 25
miles, entered from a turn of about 10 miles in radius,so for Heathrow,
they start their final approach over the Thames estuary area. For
Manston, that approach would skirt the French coast, so would need
international co-operation between air traffic controllers.

Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Air traffic control would also have a low opinion of aircraft taking off
from Manston into the densely occupied landing approach areas round
Heathrow and Gatwick. This would be even more fun when the wind changed
and all of them were taking off and landing while travelling East, so
that Heathrow and Gatwick traffic was taking off into Manston's approach
pattern.

If you lived in north london like I do you'd see airliners on approach and
departure from heathrow passing each other with minimum vertical and almost
no horizontal seperation every day.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:52:12 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:25:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:41:44 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
The same way they currently get to Gatwick. Road or train via London (if a
station was built there).

Gatwick is already too far for such people, and it has excellent motorway
and rail links.

Which part of investing in infrastructure for manston did you have a problem
comprehending?

And who'd pay for the tens of billions of infrastructure investment? Not
the owners of Manston. Not the airlines.

The same people who'll end up paying for heathrows white elephant - us.

Nope. There are plenty of people who will happily invest in Heathrow's
success. There weren't any investors in Manston's flop of an airport.


Do change the record you old soak. And the amount of times you flew for your
job its quite apparent you're one of those sad *******s who lived to work
rather than worked to live. Some of us have lives outside our work which we'd
rather spend time in. Clearly you didn't.

That's one way of rationalising a failed career.

My career is fine thanks, however I also have a life outside of it too. I
suspect you don't which is why you're constantly travelling, no doubt to
alleviate the boredom of sitting at home staring at the walls with only
jeremey kyle for company.

Yes, as I said, you're rationalising your career failure, just as you
rationalise your fear of flying (first, it was that you didn't like
travelling economy, then it was that you didn't like travelling in
business class, not that you ever have, of course).

Of course, these two problems might be connected: your fear of flying
has stopped you getting a decent job. That may explain your obvious
frustration and permanent anger: no-one likes being judged as a
failure. So here's a date for your diary: 30 June.

https://www.flyingwithconfidence.com

I had a colleague who took it, and it transformed him, and his career
prospects.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:43:27 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 13/06/2018 11:30, Recliner wrote:

I realise that you're not, and never will be, a high earner, so you can be
excused for not knowing that some people in Britain have marginal tax rates
of more than 20%. In fact, the top UK tax rate is 45%, plus 2% employees’
primary class 1 rate above upper earnings limit, so effectively 47%.

Then again, at the bottom end, if you take withdrawal of benefits into
account, some people have an effective tax rate in excess of 100%. I
know one person who, if they work 20 hours a week instead of 16, is less
well off in spite of working more, as they lose some in work benefits.

Yes, there are strange bumps in the marginal tax rate curve, and there
are indeed short stretches where the marginal rate can be very high
indeed, even over 100%. The idea of universal credit was to prevent
these anomalies for low earners.

There are also accidental bumps in the marginal tax rate as people
climb the scale; see:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/number-high-earners-caught-60pc-tax-trap-set-double/

However, the 47% marginal rate is deliberate and applies over the
whole range for very high earners.

On 13/06/2018 11:55, wrote:


Also france
- for some inexplicable reason - don't have the equivalent of PAYE so even
some guy on minimum wage in a warehouse has to do his own taxes at the end of
the year.

The lack of compulsory deduction of _income_ tax from wages and salaries
in France is readily explained if you look at the French fiscal system
and talk to French officials in the equivalent of HMRC and Treasury.
But it's only of historical interest as employer withholding is due to
start in January 2019.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid