I'm only slightly, moderately worried about a young dictator doing a bit of Sabre Rattling.........in case anyone cares.
When I was a kid, Mum always told me not to worry unless she was/she'd tell me when to worry. So far she has been silent on the issue. Any help?
If you start a thread on it.................
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide
Predictable but amusing; the lefties pour scorn, but have no cogent argument in response.
Twas ever thus
I'm not convinced you made a cogent argument in the first place.
So far, as I understand it, you're arguing that Clegg has been a barrier to more sweeping (actual) cuts and that those rendered near destitute should be hit even harder. Presumably you'd cut taxes further at the top, because, you know, these people are very talented and the engines of the economy. What's more, there would be an immediate talent drain should we dare to suggest a fourth holiday home and yacht might be a little extravagant.
You then threw out a Daily Mail statistic and declared "I'm done!"
Excuse the Apprenticism, but I'd like to "drill down to the specifics." Can you detail precisely where you'd cut and to what degree? We're looking for numbers here rather than sweeping generalisations, knee-jerk reaction, and divide and rule rhetoric. Once you've produced your manifesto, I'll be happy to work through the finer details.
I said I wouldn't post again on this subject, but for crying out loud.
What I actually stated was a material fact; you may not like it, you may find it inconvenient, you may even try and discredit it by rolling out the tired old "Daily Mail" taunt, so beloved of the Guardian reading minority, but. It happens to be true.
Here's another one you won't like - Out of the 1.4 Million claimants who did attend the medical, 55% were found to be well enough to attend work immediately. I appreciate that as a hack, your realtionship with facts is probably a bit tenuous, however it doesn't make them any less true.
If you really think the capping welfare benefits at a maximum of £26000 will leave people "destitute", I would refer you to the many hard working people who earn substatially less than this amount, and pay taxes to allow others to stay at home and do nothing.
How very heartless of me.
Please define "material fact." Countless philosophers (and mathematicians) argue that there's no such thing as absolute truth. You're referring to highly subjective appraisals based on tick-box exercises. Are you familiar with the criteria for these assessments? Can you state categorically that this is a failsafe mechanism for evaluating one's ability to work?
As usual, particularly right wing individuals latch onto a convenient binary, hence the "divide and rule" comment in my previous post. According to such language, you're either well enough to start work immediately, or so severely disabled that getting out of bed is impossible.
According to your logic there's no grey area here. I'm happy to concede that some people are benefit cheats. I have little more respect for such individuals than for a plutocratic elite holding the majority of the global population to ransom. The latter group would rather watch a third of the global population starve to death than entertain the possibility of debt reduction. A few hundred quid a month off the social seems small potatoes by comparison. However, as I say, I'm not making a case for benefit theft.
Let me give you an example that might complicate your "well enough or not" equation. A close relative is diagnosed with severe mental health problems and spent the best part of eighteen months under section. Thankfully he's not been hospitalised for just over a year now, though his mental health difficulties remain highly debilitating. His benefits have already been reduced and are set to be cut further.
We're not a wealthy family and unable to support him full time. Admittedly he can walk and use his hands, so technically he's capable of really demeaning work. Perhaps he could work as a labourer, where really insensitive blokes could mock him for being a bit strange? It'd do his self esteem the world of good. He has zero self confidence and becomes particularly distressed if taunted or confronted. That's precisely how he was treated when he did a factory job several years ago.
All that aside, you still haven't detailed what course of action should be taken. Furthermore, the £26,000 figure isn't representative of the overwhelming majority of benefit claims, though it's a convenient reference point if you want to demonise a particular section of society. It's that binary logic again. As I say, those with extreme views tend to argue with extremes and ignore the stuff in the middle.
Your "hack" comment also cheapens an already non-existent argument. It's a shame you had to resort to that.
Ah, the old "I've lost the argument on the facts, so I better try and throw some philosophy at it to disguise the fact that I've been made to look like a numpty" approach
To try and make this easier for you, let me expalin what a material fact is. Manchester United beat Sunderland 1-0 this weekend. That is a fact. It's black and white, no gray areas. You might not like that fact if you are a Sunderland supporter, but not liking it doesn't change it.
I have given you two factual examples which are accurate and nothing to to with shades of grey.
Now, I understand that you and some others don't like those facts, but no one has come back with a rational intelligent response, or any facts of their own to support a counter argument; all you can do is resort to insults such as "troll", just because you happen not to like my political views.
There was once a man who took a similiar view to his political opponents, he was a painter from Austria. Rather than try and put up any rational arguments against them, he just shot them instead.
Rather than keep bleating on about my "manifesto", why not state what you would be prepared to cut yourself ? Why not be be a bit braver than the 2 Eds, who refuse to confirm that they would reverse these cuts if back in power ?
Anyway, hasn't this thread ended after Godwin's Law was invoked, albeit in bizarre circumstances?
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom
OK, so you would rather have 50% of naff all, than 40% of £1M.
Oh boy, there's that binary logic again.
Since you've done this in every post on this thread, it's worth clarifying that you understand what I mean by binary logic and why any argument predicated on a binary is untenable?
Let's examine the above binary in a little more detail (and we'll ignore the £1m figure, since this is entirely arbitrary).
Your position, as I understand it, is that a 50 percent top end tax rate would result in zero tax revenues from anyone that falls into this category. On the other hand, you propose that a 40 percent tax rate would result in these good citizens deciding "fair's fair," we'll pay all of that.
Neither of these statements has anything to do with practice. The current high earning elite and corporations will consistently pay as little tax as they can get away with; and continue to employ accountants to manipulate the tax system, irrespective of the "actual" rate. The only way to combat this problem is to dedicate resources to closing tax loopholes and prosecuting those that don't comply, which is essentially the argument I made above. Despite tokenistic efforts to appease the electorate, no party has come close to instituting and upholding such laws and standards. (Lower earners aren't afforded the privilege of deciding how much tax they'd like to pay without recrimination. This is entirely a preserve of the financial elite.)
If you honestly believe that we have to choose between zero tax revenue at a 50 percent rate and full tax revenue at a forty percent rate, I don't know what else to say.
I can only conclude that you're trying desperately to wind me up, or can't grasp the complexities of the situation. If it's the former, good job. If it's the latter, please give the matter a little more thought before parroting Tory rhetoric crafted to scare us all into submission.
If your response to this post is another absurd binary statement, at least we'll know you've got nothing more to offer.
Oh dear. Wrong again I'm afraid, Mr Binary. My reference to a 50% rate was purely in relation to Labour's top rate of tax which has just been lowered to 45%, a cause of much squeeling by Ed Balls (although again he refuses to confirm he would reinstate it ) Despite all the rhetoric about "tax cuts for millionaires" etc, the hard fact is (yes, I know you hate hard facts), is that the tax take from this section of tax payers actually decreased when the rate went up to 50%. Yes, that's right; less money for your precious welfare system.
(While we are on the subject of "the rich", whoever they may be, here's yet another little binary fact for you to choke on - the top 10% of earners already pay 60% of the total income tax paid in the uk. True. )
What you need to be aware of, and hopefully already are, is the Laffer Curve. Laffer was a US economist who plotted the overall tax take according to rates charged. (Warning - mathematical facts coming up; very binary and black and white)
The curve goes like this: if the tax rate is set at 0%, the Goverment will receive £ZERO in income tax receipts (with me so far ?). If the tax rate is set at 100% however, the Government will also receive £ZERO. Self evidently, if you took away everything someone earned, they would not bother to go to work.
So, somewhere in between 0% & 100% is the sweet spot, where the maximum tax revenue can be generated, without disicentivising people to work.
I think the 50% rate proved that it was at least a psychological barrier for some, who were just not prepared to give away literally half of what they earned.
Now I know this may be a bit complex for you to grasp, but hopefully you will get the drift. Lower the rate of tax, increase the overall tax take. Penal rates of tax serve only to satisy the politics of envy, they do nothing to help those at the lower end of the income scale I'm afraid.
Panasonic VT50B / Pioneer VSX- LX55 / SKY+ HD 2TB / Sony BD370 / Tannoy Arena 5.1 / Dual CS506 / Isotek MIRA / QED Cables
I will accept the use of "numpty", but not mad commie in relation to your good self
At least you're consistent in your use of binary logic, even if that means posting the kind of response I predicted.
In other words, if I don't accept your extreme viewpoint, I must be positioned at the other extreme (in this instance a "mad commie").
Incidentally, your "fake moon landing" comment was premised on a non sequitur and genuinely unimpressive. I'm not sure it qualifies as reductio ad absurdum, since that would imply extrapolation on a previously articulated viewpoint.
The most I could infer from this statement is that you're accusing me of being an irrational conspiracy theorist, in effort to discredit any other claim I make.
If I end this post with wink, does that mean I can say anything I like and it'll be taken in jest?
Hardware: Panasonic TX-P50VT65B (calibrated); Cambridge Audio Azur 651BD; Yamaha RX-A810; Teac PD-H600; PS3; B&W 601 & 600LCR (series 3); Q Acoustics QAV (rear)
Furniture and Accessories: BLOK Classix 3000 Oak AV Cabinet; Atacama Nexus 6 (atabite metal filled); 3D3 A1112
LOUNGE: Panasonic TX-P50GT50 / Panasonic DMP-BDT120 / Yamaha RX-A2020 / Q Acoustics 2020i (front) / Q Acoustics 2020 (rear) / Q Acoustics 2000Ci / Q Acoustics1000Si / Roksan Radius 5.2 (is poorly, so Pro-ject Debut III) / Sky HD / WD My Book Live / Tacima CS-929
BEDROOM: Samsung LE32C450 / Sony BDP-S360 / Echostar HDS-600RS / Netgear WNCE2001
Strapped- give up- there's no point., It only takes one idiot to throw a pebble in the pond,but it takes an eternity for the ripples to die down.
I've more or less given up on here precisely for the reason that one" can be a completely obnoxious """" but if you use the right words ,you can stay a member. And there really are a few members on here. I laughed myself stupid at the false praise heaped on one member specific thread which failed to see ignorant abusive rants disguised as "honesty".Come on Andy.,get a grip.
" changed from you to one for clarity.
Despite all the rhetoric about "tax cuts for millionaires" etc, the hard fact is (yes, I know you hate hard facts), is that the tax take from this section of tax payers actually decreased when the rate went up to 50%. Yes, that's right; less money for your precious welfare system.
That's the coalition line, backed up by statistics showing that the rate of tax accrued from the top end fell when a higher rate was imposed.
In reality, that rate was never imposed at all. Again, you're presenting us with a choice between
Option A) a higher top rate and falling tax revenues
Option B) a lower top rate and increasing tax revenues.
Congratulations, you've got the Tory patter exactly right.
We're only presented with this choice because the higher rate is not imposed in a considerably more forceful manner.
If there are no repercussions for top end tax avoidance and we rely on high earners' and corporations' good will, of course this will happen.
Only a hard-line approach and zero tolerance will result in a higher top end tax yield (much like the approach to benefit fraud the coalition continually foregrounds as a distraction tactic). Essentially, I'm outlining Option C.
By the way, your "giving literally half away" point is redundant, since nobody pays half their earnings in tax under a graduated system.
I'd also prefer that you don't speak to me like I'm an idiot that couldn't possibly grasp the concepts put forth.
I know, but since Cloverleaf seems intent on perpetuating government propagated myths, I feel compelled to challenge him.
As you can probably tell, this is something I feel very strongly about. If it was a debate about cables, I'd duck out in a heartbeat.
there really are a few members on here.
Hello RGD Long time no see, how are things?
All dandy here. I do lurk,and I notice you've been sucked into one or two disputes,you tinker.
I hope the changed lifestyle with baby is keeping you happily occupied.It is a brilliant period of life and you will be reminded of it when the little B""""""d aged 15 comes home and chucks up on your best carpet. No change there .Maybe a beer in M/c next time I'm up( I was born in Longsight)
Stupidness is relentless, it's best ignored.
I can only go on the evidence presented, and tailor my language accordingly.
OK enough, thread locked.
Andy Clough is Brand Editor of What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision and whathifi.com
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing