Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1…314315317319320…509

Comments

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,376
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    There's nothing in the story to support that. It sounds like the only problem came with the tax reduction. So the moral is, be very careful when cutting taxes.
    The problem was not the cut itself but the attitude of those who had a sense of entitlement about getting the benefits. You could call them lefties.

    Care is needed when raising taxes as it doesn't always have the desired effect.

    But we're agreed there's nothing about raising taxes in the story.

    Wouldn't want to move the goalposts, would you?
    I guess you didn't read the highlighted text in my post above then. Or is this selective blindness on your part.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,314
    bradsbeard wrote:
    Will somebody just answer the question. Will my Canyon be cheaper after brexit?
    No.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,133
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    There's nothing in the story to support that. It sounds like the only problem came with the tax reduction. So the moral is, be very careful when cutting taxes.
    The problem was not the cut itself but the attitude of those who had a sense of entitlement about getting the benefits. You could call them lefties.

    Care is needed when raising taxes as it doesn't always have the desired effect.

    But we're agreed there's nothing about raising taxes in the story.

    Wouldn't want to move the goalposts, would you?
    I guess you didn't read the highlighted text in my post above then. Or is this selective blindness on your part.

    I did read that, but it's an explanatory comment and nothing in the story supports it. In fact before the cut, all of them "seemed quite happy with the arrangement".

    To justify that comment, a whole other story is needed.
  • bradsbeard
    bradsbeard Posts: 210
    PBlakeney wrote:
    bradsbeard wrote:
    Will somebody just answer the question. Will my Canyon be cheaper after brexit?
    No.

    Thank you. Damn thought there may have been one plus to this debacle.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,133
    bradsbeard wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    bradsbeard wrote:
    Will somebody just answer the question. Will my Canyon be cheaper after brexit?
    No.

    Thank you. Damn thought there may have been one plus to this debacle.

    In a no deal brexit, they've said that tariffs on bikes from outside the EU will be reduced from 17% to 0%. The GBP will probably move to compensate for that.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,376
    bradsbeard wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    bradsbeard wrote:
    Will somebody just answer the question. Will my Canyon be cheaper after brexit?
    No.

    Thank you. Damn thought there may have been one plus to this debacle.
    It's getting cheaper at the moment as Sterling has risen a fair bit recently. Get your order in now.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,376
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    There's nothing in the story to support that. It sounds like the only problem came with the tax reduction. So the moral is, be very careful when cutting taxes.
    The problem was not the cut itself but the attitude of those who had a sense of entitlement about getting the benefits. You could call them lefties.

    Care is needed when raising taxes as it doesn't always have the desired effect.

    But we're agreed there's nothing about raising taxes in the story.

    Wouldn't want to move the goalposts, would you?
    I guess you didn't read the highlighted text in my post above then. Or is this selective blindness on your part.

    I did read that, but it's an explanatory comment and nothing in the story supports it. In fact before the cut, all of them "seemed quite happy with the arrangement".

    To justify that comment, a whole other story is needed.
    :roll: Selective lack of understanding...
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,133
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.
    If you read the analogy, the point is that an attempt to raise taxes can actually decrease tax revenues...

    You claimed it was about an attempt to raise taxes. It plainly isn't.

    Now you want to expand the discussion to some broader point.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,376
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.
    If you read the analogy, the point is that an attempt to raise taxes can actually decrease tax revenues...

    You claimed it was about an attempt to raise taxes. It plainly isn't.

    Now you want to expand the discussion to some broader point.
    Blimey, do I really need to spell it out? When the rich guy got the 'tax' cut they all objected and beat him up - clearly they thought he should not get it (or as much) and should have paid more. However in doing so, they scared him off and he no longer turns up or contributes anything.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,133
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.
    If you read the analogy, the point is that an attempt to raise taxes can actually decrease tax revenues...

    You claimed it was about an attempt to raise taxes. It plainly isn't.

    Now you want to expand the discussion to some broader point.
    Blimey, do I really need to spell it out? When the rich guy got the 'tax' cut they all objected and beat him up - clearly they thought he should not get it (or as much) and should have paid more. However in doing so, they scared him off and he no longer turns up or contributes anything.

    So nothing about raising taxes then, all about the decrease.
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    Does it make the same point if the barman raised it by £20?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,314
    The barman bars everyone for being miserable sh!ts.
    And goes out of business. :lol:
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    PBlakeney wrote:
    The barman bars everyone for being miserable sh!ts.
    And goes out of business. :lol:

    The barman reduces the price of beer by 20p a pint to highlight the effect of brexit despite it not happening yet and everyone calls him out for being the tw$t he is
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    The barman decides to join up with the first 4 drinkers and they go to the work places of the others and seize the means of production. No one pays for beer but it is rationed to one beer a week and the supplier changes to Carling, there is a huge trade in black market beer and anyone caught criticising the barman gets sent to the gulag.

    To turn around the failing bar economy they decide to produce corn for export, any surplus is taken by the barman, the remaining drinkers decide next year to not bother sewing their corn. The barman launches a military offensive on the Kulaks and half of them die, the rest are sent to the Gulag.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,376
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.
    If you read the analogy, the point is that an attempt to raise taxes can actually decrease tax revenues...

    You claimed it was about an attempt to raise taxes. It plainly isn't.

    Now you want to expand the discussion to some broader point.
    Blimey, do I really need to spell it out? When the rich guy got the 'tax' cut they all objected and beat him up - clearly they thought he should not get it (or as much) and should have paid more. However in doing so, they scared him off and he no longer turns up or contributes anything.

    So nothing about raising taxes then, all about the decrease.
    Err, no. Keep ignoring the obvious if you want.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,376
    HaydenM wrote:
    The barman decides to join up with the first 4 drinkers and they go to the work places of the others and seize the means of production. No one pays for beer but it is rationed to one beer a week and the supplier changes to Carling, there is a huge trade in black market beer and anyone caught criticising the barman gets sent to the gulag.

    To turn around the failing bar economy they decide to produce corn for export, any surplus is taken by the barman, the remaining drinkers decide next year to not bother sewing their corn. The barman launches a military offensive on the Kulaks and half of them die, the rest are sent to the Gulag.
    More sensible than the bloke from Kingston :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    https://waitingfortax.com/2016/03/01/di ... raise-8bn/

    Suggestion that the 50-45% tax cut by Osbourne did not raise money and, if anything, reduced tax revenues.
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,133
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.
    If you read the analogy, the point is that an attempt to raise taxes can actually decrease tax revenues...

    You claimed it was about an attempt to raise taxes. It plainly isn't.

    Now you want to expand the discussion to some broader point.
    Blimey, do I really need to spell it out? When the rich guy got the 'tax' cut they all objected and beat him up - clearly they thought he should not get it (or as much) and should have paid more. However in doing so, they scared him off and he no longer turns up or contributes anything.

    So nothing about raising taxes then, all about the decrease.
    Err, no. Keep ignoring the obvious if you want.

    I'm looking at the actual analogy you posted. Everyone was having a great time until the government decided to rock the boat with tax decreases. Then the problem was that the proles were savages and/or that the government allowed capital flight.

    Barman should have given them some peanuts as well - the message could be that improved public services are preferable to tax cuts.

    If you can point to the bit in the story that talks about raising taxes, I'll take it all back.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,376
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.
    If you read the analogy, the point is that an attempt to raise taxes can actually decrease tax revenues...

    You claimed it was about an attempt to raise taxes. It plainly isn't.

    Now you want to expand the discussion to some broader point.
    Blimey, do I really need to spell it out? When the rich guy got the 'tax' cut they all objected and beat him up - clearly they thought he should not get it (or as much) and should have paid more. However in doing so, they scared him off and he no longer turns up or contributes anything.

    So nothing about raising taxes then, all about the decrease.
    Err, no. Keep ignoring the obvious if you want.

    I'm looking at the actual analogy you posted. Everyone was having a great time until the government decided to rock the boat with tax decreases. Then the problem was that the proles were savages and/or that the government allowed capital flight.

    Barman should have given them some peanuts as well - the message could be that improved public services are preferable to tax cuts.

    If you can point to the bit in the story that talks about raising taxes, I'll take it all back.
    Let's try to get to the problem you seem to be having with a clear explanation before you try to move it on to the wider debate. Tell me which part of my explanation above you don't understand.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    HaydenM wrote:
    Does it make the same point if the barman raised it by £20?

    Genuine question, if it was done in reverse would it not have the same outcome?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,376
    Here it is again in case you missed it.
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Blimey, do I really need to spell it out? When the rich guy got the 'tax' cut they all objected and beat him up - clearly they thought he should not get it (or as much) and should have paid more. However in doing so, they scared him off and he no longer turns up or contributes anything.

    Which part do you not understand KG?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Here it is again in case you missed it.
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Blimey, do I really need to spell it out? When the rich guy got the 'tax' cut they all objected and beat him up - clearly they thought he should not get it (or as much) and should have paid more. However in doing so, they scared him off and he no longer turns up or contributes anything.

    Which part do you not understand KG?

    That does look like a further explanation that you have added rather than what was in the original story, but more to the point WGAF what was mentioned where? No analogy is needed. Anyone with an above-primary-school understanding of maths can grasp that tax rates and revenue do not have a simple linear relationship, and if you are paying a lower effective tax rate, there is less from which to cut.

    None of this addresses the original point about Johnson's spending promises being broadly comparable to Corbyn's.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,133
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Here it is again in case you missed it.
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Blimey, do I really need to spell it out? When the rich guy got the 'tax' cut they all objected and beat him up - clearly they thought he should not get it (or as much) and should have paid more. However in doing so, they scared him off and he no longer turns up or contributes anything.

    Which part do you not understand KG?

    I still can't see the bit where an attempt to raise taxes actually reduced tax revenue.

    I can see other unsubtle messages, but not the one you claimed.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,376
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Here it is again in case you missed it.
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Blimey, do I really need to spell it out? When the rich guy got the 'tax' cut they all objected and beat him up - clearly they thought he should not get it (or as much) and should have paid more. However in doing so, they scared him off and he no longer turns up or contributes anything.

    Which part do you not understand KG?

    I still can't see the bit where an attempt to raise taxes actually reduced tax revenue.

    I can see other unsubtle messages, but not the one you claimed.
    I know you're not thick so you must be deliberately 'not seeing' the point. Bit of a waste of time now.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,133
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Here it is again in case you missed it.
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Blimey, do I really need to spell it out? When the rich guy got the 'tax' cut they all objected and beat him up - clearly they thought he should not get it (or as much) and should have paid more. However in doing so, they scared him off and he no longer turns up or contributes anything.

    Which part do you not understand KG?

    I still can't see the bit where an attempt to raise taxes actually reduced tax revenue.

    I can see other unsubtle messages, but not the one you claimed.
    I know you're not thick so you must be deliberately 'not seeing' the point. Bit of a waste of time now.

    Just quote the bit that's about tax rises!
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    Could you two maybe take this to PM?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,133
    I just wondered if stevo would admit he'd made a mistake :)

    Never going to happen.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    I just wondered if stevo would admit he'd made a mistake :)

    Never going to happen.

    As you knew the answer and no-one else cares could we leave it there?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,133
    I reckon the rich guy owns the means of beer production and has been exploiting the workers by underpaying them. They rose up against him suspiciously quickly.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,376
    rjsterry wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    I just wondered if stevo would admit he'd made a mistake :)

    Never going to happen.

    As you knew the answer and no-one else cares could we leave it there?
    I think we will. Sadly KGs persistence is not matched by his capability to realise when he's wrong :)

    I think he was just desperate to score a point for a change. Better luck to him next time...
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]

Categories