"RDBD the figures are averages and therefore not helpful," <quote> Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. </quote> Therefore they are not the same thing. The premise of using a median viewpoint is (as explained) to counter the "right skew" that a statistical average can cause. Very important in statistics that you understand the basic concepts (and their differences) before stating whether information derived using those concepts is "helpful" or not.
RDBD yes I had not noticed that, point taken. I am agreeing with you on this. Unless we do an in depth study the picture is not totally clear, however I agree with your point that higher benefits means higher taxes as a general rule.
"Unless we do an in depth study the picture is not totally clear" Other than displaying the histogram for each nation (which immediately displays aspects such as skew) , there is not too much to glean without getting more current data. The one thing you can discern though is the difference between the mean and median (D = mean - median) . If the 2012 median was the same as the 2011 one, then D = 10K / 14K / 18K USD for France/Germany/UK respectively. That would have been a more sensible basis for the disparity you claim.
This is all getting a little bit heated, boys. It's never wise to discuss politics. I suggest we change the subject to cool things down. So... Do we have any religious, God-bothering freaks who post on this site? What do you think of the Pope? I bet he wears ladies' knickers under that white dress of his.
Nah. I'm too busy being tied up and having my balls whipped by midgets dressed up as Nuns to get too involved in any of that kinky stuff.
You could try dressing up as a nun and see if that encourages the transformation. All the midgets I have ever known have dressed up as nuns. Then again, I tend not to meet any other midgets outside the club.* *I'm referring, of course, to The Nun-Obsessed Midget Transvestite and Social Club
At least we know today why Tesco thought an independent Scotlamd would not result in increased costs.
No As we're talking facts: In your opinion, the BOE would eventually concede to a currency union. In my, and just about every economist's opinion, they will not. But, the FACT remains that neither the SNP or the yes campaign could tell the Scottish voting public what they're new currency would be! In your opinion, the EU would have to accept an independent Scotland as a member. Taking in to account that any vote to include Scotland would have to be unanimous, and that Spain has already baulked by saying that it would be at least 8 yrs, it seems unlikely. Again, the FACT is that the Scottish public don't know if they would be admitted, or not.
You sound just like Alister Darling. All I can say is that you cannot have seen much of this debate if you think that the SNP did not tell everybody that they would use the pound. With or without a union it would be the pound. They said this over & over & over again. Why you wish to keep trotting out the establishment line I have no idea. I have already explained, many times, why the EU would have found a way to usher Scotland into the EU without fuss, any other path is just complete chaos. THose are not facts btw they are opinions, yours and mine. NSIS all you are doing is winding yourself up on this subject without, as far as I can see any good reason. Why not just accept that I do not agree with your position and leave it at that.
Polloi Ok, my friend, let's call a truce on this one. Just know that I find your interpretation of facts rather odd & one sided.
