So? What is the relevance of this? The current discussion is about the ONS figures for household income. Will you triumphantly quote the figure for blue smartie percentages next? That's about as relevant.
I’ve used approximate numbers and rounded because precise numbers aren’t needed to show the point that the average joe can’t pay £40k per annum in tax.
I'm going to report you for using the 'f' word. You know you are not allowed to, and you've been very good for the past 2 years.
There’s a serious point there. In science and statistics you shouldn’t quote spurious accuracy. In truth nobody knows the real median household earnings. Sure, you can gather a sample. But you don’t know, because you have a sample. Best you can do is take the sample the same way every time. Science is better at this because they have scientific notation. So 3.5x10^4 means between 34500 and 35500. Unfortunately statisticians have to use error bars or standard deviations. But sure, within the level of accuracy we’re talking about, a few grand here or there isn’t going to make the average joe pay 40k in tax.
Bizarre contribution Jimmy. Not entirely sure what you are even trying to say. Why would personal income stats have anything to do with a discussion about household income? 9/10 cats prefer Whiskas you know.
Ooo. Just got a strike & post deletion for unsuitable language. Sauron’s eye is upon me. Hi SF moderators! Can I take a ban in return for letting Chippie back in?
Fair trade then. Thinking about it..., I’m condescending and patronising too - so it’d be a win for SF.
These threads may be bad news for personal relations, but they're awesome for improving the written word.