Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Students occupy University of Sheffield Auditorium

NoXion said:
Has it occurred to you that the problem with QE as it currently stands is that giving money to banks for them to sit on doesn't actually do anything to stimulate demand?
Click to expand...

No idea. Probably a good point.

I'm not here to defend or criticise QE. Somebody else brought it into the thread.
 
Barry43210 said:
Again, I repeat, do you folks prefer to come here agree on everything ?

It would seems so. All I've seen so far is a foulmouthed tirade of nit picking and some twerp pretending I am somebody else

Have I stumbled intoa forum for teenagers in error ?
Click to expand...
But you're different, aren't you Barry?
 
Barry43210 said:
Don't put yourself down so much....all part of the rich tapestry.
Click to expand...
Not me who called forum members foul-mouthed, incapable of reasoned debate or anything other than mono-thought. Why evade the question; what brings you here?
 
Barry43210 said:
Goverments spend what they collect in tax - correct, except for occasionally desperate resorting to QE.
(and if they borrow to spend they have to pay that back too out of tax revenue)
'All well paid jobs are hard' - I have not said this
'The only motivation is personal material benefit' - I have not said this
'I know what everybody else thinks and they think the same as me' - I have not said this

For some reason your brain seems to be putting a made up spin on my comments. Maybe it's you who thinks the above...somewhere underneath the self-righteousness.
Click to expand...

1. 'Please keep in mind...government does not create money. They collect a finite amount of tax and thats all they have available to spend.' This is what you said and neither of these statements are true.

2. 'Cool. So whats the point in anybody working hard ? If you will only benefit 5%. Should we all just do easy jobs ?' If the easy jobs pay less then it follows that the hard jobs pay more; you wrote it even if you didn't think it through.

3.'If it came to a choice between working in a pub (again) or studying 6 years to be a doctor (no I'm not)...to end up on the same after tax pay I'd be in the pub. Everybody would be. Surely there has to be some incentive for people to do the harder or in some cases just less desirable but better paying jobs ?' The personal material incentive of higher wages is the only one you've put forward; if you didn't mean it then why write it?

4. 'If it came to a choice between working in a pub (again) or studying 6 years to be a doctor (no I'm not)...to end up on the same after tax pay I'd be in the pub. Everybody would be.' This is you saying that you know what everybody thinks and that they think like you...everybody.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
Louis MacNeice said:
1. 'Please keep in mind...government does not create money. They collect a finite amount of tax and thats all they have available to spend.' This is what you said and neither of these statements are true.

2. 'Cool. So whats the point in anybody working hard ? If you will only benefit 5%. Should we all just do easy jobs ?' If the easy jobs pay less then it follows that the hard jobs pay more; you wrote it even if you didn't think it through.

3.'If it came to a choice between working in a pub (again) or studying 6 years to be a doctor (no I'm not)...to end up on the same after tax pay I'd be in the pub. Everybody would be. Surely there has to be some incentive for people to do the harder or in some cases just less desirable but better paying jobs ?' The personal material incentive of higher wages is the only one you've put forward; if you didn't mean it then why write it?

4. 'If it came to a choice between working in a pub (again) or studying 6 years to be a doctor (no I'm not)...to end up on the same after tax pay I'd be in the pub. Everybody would be.' This is you saying that you know what everybody thinks and that they think like you...everybody.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Click to expand...

It's pretty lame to abandon your views and focus on semantics. And pretty transparent.

But just in case you truly cannot compute the simple point I am raising let me draw it out with one clear question.

If for similar after tax pay you had the choice of

1) Years of study followed by 40 years of sitting at a desk as a Solicitor dealing with dull conveyancing work

2) Anything else that you would more enjoy to do.

Which would it be.

And to remind. This and all I have said before is in response to the argument made by somebody that rich people (i count solicitors in that) should take home 5p in the pound after tax.

Again, drop the semantics and side stepping. Just answer this question.
 
Barry43210 said:
It's pretty lame to abandon your views and focus on semantics. And pretty transparent.

But just in case you truly cannot compute the simple point I am raising let me draw it out with one clear question.

If for similar after tax pay you had the choice of

1) Years of study followed by 40 years of sitting at a desk as a Solicitor dealing with dull conveyancing work

2) Anything else that you would more enjoy to do.

Which would it be.

And to remind. This and all I have said before is in response to the argument made by somebody that rich people (i count solicitors in that) should take home 5p in the pound after tax.

Again, drop the semantics and side stepping. Just answer this question.
Click to expand...

Stop saying "someone" and tag me (use the @ followed by my user name it does this Barry43210 ) that way I can respond...

I don't think anyone else has argued for a 95% tax rate for the wealthy. I'll be honest I wasn't being entirely serious when I suggested it.

However, why the hell not?

Bear in mind that the 95% would only kick in on earnings over a certain amount. I think you mentioned 100k? Let's use that. Any earnings over 100k are taxed at 95%.

Are any of your arguments still valid in this hypothetical?
 
Barry43210 said:
Fucking, like yeah. Fucking.
Click to expand...
You don't sound happy or comfortable here Barry. I ask again, given that you've described fellow forum members foul-mouthed, incapable of reasoned debate or anything other than mono-thought. What brings you here?
 
Barry43210 said:
It's pretty lame to abandon your views and focus on semantics. And pretty transparent.

But just in case you truly cannot compute the simple point I am raising let me draw it out with one clear question.

If for similar after tax pay you had the choice of

1) Years of study followed by 40 years of sitting at a desk as a Solicitor dealing with dull conveyancing work

2) Anything else that you would more enjoy to do.

Which would it be.

And to remind. This and all I have said before is in response to the argument made by somebody that rich people (i count solicitors in that) should take home 5p in the pound after tax.

Again, drop the semantics and side stepping. Just answer this question.
Click to expand...

Just saying it's 'semantics' isn't some sort of easy get out. If you didn't mean those things then why write them in the first place, and subsequently why not just say you were wrong?

All you've asked above is would you rather do something you enjoy than something you don't for the same money. This is not what you've said previously, unless you're presuming that being a doctor is equivalent to doing 'dull conveyancing work'.

However, I am pleased to see that you've decided to dip your toe into the ocean of other possible motivations for choosing one type of work rather than another; now can you think further than personal enjoyment as a motivation?

Also you do realise that the putative 95% tax rate was a marginal one, to be levied on earnings over a certain rate, so that rich people wouldn't be taking home 5p in the pound after tax. They would get their tax free allowance (£10,000 reduced as their earnings went over £100,000)), plus 90% of earnings up to £5,000, 80% of earnings between £5001 and £31,785, 60% of earnings between £31,786 and £150,000, 55% of earnings between £150,001 and whatever the new upper limit is....and only on that proportion of their income above that upper limit (say £250,000) would they pay the 95% rate.

Of course all this supposes that there wouldn't be additional steps towards the 95% rate and that the rich wouldn't employ accountants to make sure that their position was as 'efficient' as possible. But don't let any of these facts get in the way of your dishonest defense of the hard working rich who'll be forced to work for 5p in the pound.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
Louis MacNeice said:
Just saying it's 'semantics' isn't some sort of easy get out. If you didn't mean those things then why write them in the first place, and subsequently why not just say you were wrong?

All you've asked above is would you rather do something you enjoy than something you don't for the same money. This is not what you've said previously, unless you're presuming that being a doctor is equivalent to doing 'dull conveyancing work'.

However, I am pleased to see that you've decided to dip your toe into the ocean of other possible motivations for choosing one type of work rather than another; now can you think further than personal enjoyment as a motivation?

Also you do realise that the putative 95% tax rate was a marginal one, to be levied on earnings over a certain rate, so that rich people wouldn't be taking home 5p in the pound after tax. They would get their tax free allowance (£10,000 reduced as their earnings went over £100,000)), plus 90% of earnings up to £5,000, 80% of earnings between £5001 and £31,785, 60% of earnings between £31,786 and £150,000, 55% of earnings between £150,001 and whatever the new upper limit is....and only on that proportion of their income above that upper limit (say £250,000) would they pay the 95% rate.

Of course all this supposes that there wouldn't be additional steps towards the 95% rate and that the rich wouldn't employ accountants to make sure that their position was as 'efficient' as possible. But don't let any of these facts get in the way of your dishonest defense of the hard working rich who'll be forced to work for 5p in the pound.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Click to expand...

So many words but none that answer the question I asked you.
 
Barry43210 said:
So many words but none that answer the question I asked you.
Click to expand...

It's a different question each time. Which one don't you think I've answered? If it is the oh so razor sharp 'would you rather do something you enjoy or something you don't for the same money', then my answer would generally be to choose the enjoyable option. That said I can imagine circumstances - indeed I've faced such circumstances - where the less enjoyable option would be the better choice.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PR1Berske
Sheffield school incident 1st May 2024
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
gosub
Universal basic income
2 3
Replies
74
Views
3K
Mungy
Mungy
editor
'Vegan diets are healthier and safer for dogs' says The Guardian about University of Winchester survey
22 23 24 25 26
Replies
759
Views
23K
mentalchik
mentalchik
marty21
Roy Chubby Brown gig cancelled in Sheffield . Right wingers call it censorship.
2 3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
5K
xenon
X
hitmouse
Norwich woman ordered to pay back £4.5k Universal Credit for not being British
Replies
17
Views
1K
wtfftw
wtfftw
Back
Top Bottom