A superb Speech and Vow by Cameron well above expectations
Discussion
sidicks said:
As ever, totally incorrect:
- The tax situations of Vodafone, Starbucks and Amazon (and the false claims repeatedly made about them) are well known to many of us. Just not you it seems.
- You didn't provide 'evidence' (despite frequent requests). Then you simply linked to a blog (which many of us are already familiar with) with a list of people who you view as credible. We are still waiting for the actual contents of the blog which supports your claims about fraud and tax evasion. I fear we will be waiting some time.
- Given your refusal to discuss your source of information, I simply asked what your expertise was to make the pretty bold claims that you were making. Zero, as we now know.
I really have a presentation to finish tonight, but your posts are so amusing it's difficult to tear myself away.
You will be waiting a very long time indeed, as your attitude shows that any such effort on my part will be completely lost on you. If you were genuinely interested in hearing what I had to say it would be obvious and I would be more than happy to discuss with you, but it is clear that all you are interested in is wasting my time. You don't want to read anything, you just want to have more things to quote back to me with a one-line dismissal and no explanation.- The tax situations of Vodafone, Starbucks and Amazon (and the false claims repeatedly made about them) are well known to many of us. Just not you it seems.
- You didn't provide 'evidence' (despite frequent requests). Then you simply linked to a blog (which many of us are already familiar with) with a list of people who you view as credible. We are still waiting for the actual contents of the blog which supports your claims about fraud and tax evasion. I fear we will be waiting some time.
- Given your refusal to discuss your source of information, I simply asked what your expertise was to make the pretty bold claims that you were making. Zero, as we now know.
I really have a presentation to finish tonight, but your posts are so amusing it's difficult to tear myself away.
I love the idea that you're still trying to finish a presentation at 10.30pm because you've spent the whole day on this thread. I finished work at 4pm and am going to bed.
CamMoreRon said:
You will be waiting a very long time indeed, as your attitude shows that any such effort on my part will be completely lost on you. If you were genuinely interested in hearing what I had to say it would be obvious and I would be more than happy to discuss with you, but it is clear that all you are interested in is wasting my time. You don't want to read anything, you just want to have more things to quote back to me with a one-line dismissal and no explanation.
I've repeatedly requested your supporting evidence and you've repeatedly provided nothing, so it appears to be you that doesn't want a genuine discussion!CamMoreRon said:
I love the idea that you're still trying to finish a presentation at 10.30pm because you've spent the whole day on this thread. I finished work at 4pm and am going to bed.
You flatter yourself. Sometimes people in senior positions need to work beyond standard 9am-5pm hours.
fblm said:
edh said:
As you're so keen on precise definitions, who are the "non tax payers" ?
I'm not sure why you think I am so keen on precise definitions but I would have thought a reasonable definition of 'non tax payer' would be 'someone who doesn't pay tax'. You're doing a sterling job of looking like an idiot on your own but please don't hesitate to ask more stupid questions and I'll see if I can help. Edited by fblm on Thursday 2nd October 19:45
fblm said:
As for the rest of his drivel about non tax payers not benefiting from tax cuts
Your comment didn't make any sense to me (who are these people who don't pay taxes?) and of course was not the point I was making at all. My point was about dressing up an income tax threshold increase as being largely great news for the low paid. (I said that if the low paid are the bottom 25% of earners, 60% of them will get nothing, many of the rest getting very little net gain.) You choose to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent. Insults are more fun though aren't they?
btw I wonder if you're all engaged politically outside of PH? Are you out there arguing for your cause and working for electoral success? or is this it?
edh said:
Insults are more fun though aren't they?
You have been angrily arguing about nothing for the last 2 days. Those below the tax threshold will not benefit from raising the tax threshold. We fvcking get it. No one is disputing that non tax payers don't benefit from tax cuts. It was a fantastic point very well made. Happy now? Please keep the stupid questions coming though, they are great. edh said:
Because I realised last night that this forum was more about points scoring than politics. You're very keen to try and exploit semantics and impose your interpretation on my words.
..You choose to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent.
I can only hope that there's a silent majority who recognise the tactics of some of the posters here, and are just choosing not to get involved. ..You choose to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent.
edh said:
btw I wonder if you're all engaged politically outside of PH? Are you out there arguing for your cause and working for electoral success? or is this it?
I assume the presentation siDICKs was still working on at 11 last night was a definitive summary of the UK economy, with an emphasis on fiscal multipliers that prove small-state neoliberalism is the correct way to run a stable economy. I'm sure he will be presenting it to The Chancellor this very morning.CamMoreRon said:
I assume the presentation siDICKs was still working on at 11 last night was a definitive summary of the UK economy, with an emphasis on fiscal multipliers that prove small-state neoliberalism is the correct way to run a stable economy. I'm sure he will be presenting it to The Chancellor this very morning.
Ah, still no evidence presented to support your claims, yet 12 hours later you want to read-start the personal insults...Any chances you could state your views on JFK, the moon landings and Roswell, to keep up the amusement?
I must admit I do feel inferior to your obvious intellect - I mean "CamMoreRon" if that's not a demonstration of your intelligence I don't know what is. But wait, you've exceeded yourself, you've capitalised the d-i-c-k in my name. I've genuinely never seen that done before....
I give up, you're clearly too clever for me. Maybe you should step up to secondary school and see how you compare against the bigger boys...
Edited by sidicks on Friday 3rd October 08:43
CamMoreRon said:
I can only hope that there's a silent majority who recognise the tactics of some of the posters here, and are just choosing not to get involved. .
I suspect that you're right there. IMO the abuse and name calling of anyone expressing a view outside of what some posters deem acceptable is pathetic.I also suspect that this thread pretty well sums up why more people don't contribute to these discussions. Maybe that's the point.
smn159 said:
I suspect that you're right there. IMO the abuse and name calling of anyone expressing a view outside of what some posters deem acceptable is pathetic.
I also suspect that this thread pretty well sums up why more people don't contribute to these discussions. Maybe that's the point.
I imagine it's because you get barraged with thoughtless denials and attempts to undermine your character / experience if you dare to suggest anything contrary to their beliefs.I also suspect that this thread pretty well sums up why more people don't contribute to these discussions. Maybe that's the point.
1 - Deny
2 - Divert
3 - Undermine
The Tory method of controlling a debate. Ensure nothing you're uncomfortable with gets discussed, and berate your opponent until he is tired of defending.
CamMoreRon said:
smn159 said:
I suspect that you're right there. IMO the abuse and name calling of anyone expressing a view outside of what some posters deem acceptable is pathetic.
I also suspect that this thread pretty well sums up why more people don't contribute to these discussions. Maybe that's the point.
I imagine it's because you get barraged with thoughtless denials and attempts to undermine your character / experience if you dare to suggest anything contrary to their beliefs.I also suspect that this thread pretty well sums up why more people don't contribute to these discussions. Maybe that's the point.
1 - Deny
2 - Divert
3 - Undermine
The Tory method of controlling a debate. Ensure nothing you're uncomfortable with gets discussed, and berate your opponent until he is tired of defending.
You come onto a forum that with your current 11 months of membership, must know there are a lot of diverse people on here, we have:
People high up in Finance.
High ranking Lawyers/Solicitors.
Tax advisors
Accountants.
So when you spout paragraphs of non truths and some just blatant lies, you must have known that those specialists and workers in those specific areas would demand proof of your accusations.
As of yet, you have linked to blogs and told people that its obvious that people are cooking the books, etc.
Yet if you query any one of those people about something they state as fact they would be more than happy to give you a link to evidence in the form of published end of year results, findings from official sources, judges reviews, etc.
No-one is denying, diverting or undermining (well maybe the last one on you and your lack of evidence), all they are saying is that if you come on to a thread stating your facts, etc... you better be prepared to back it up with cold hard facts.
As of yet you have managed a load of responses and not one has been anything other than hearsay as anyone in court would say.
You seem reluctant to want to learn as can be seen with your complete misinterpretation of tax avoidance vs tax evasion and would not listen to reason stating that you have a brother that has done it all, then when queried about certain aspects of tax help, you stated he's still learning and hasn't taken advantage of those tax benefits yet.
People are frustrated as you and several others have your blinkers on and refuse to see anything else other than your point of view that is mostly personal opinion and nothing else... If you proved your antagonists wrong with evidence/facts, then you would get an apology and they would thank you for the new insight, you on the other hand just spouted the above playing the victim.
CamMoreRon said:
smn159 said:
I suspect that you're right there. IMO the abuse and name calling of anyone expressing a view outside of what some posters deem acceptable is pathetic.
I also suspect that this thread pretty well sums up why more people don't contribute to these discussions. Maybe that's the point.
I imagine it's because you get barraged with thoughtless denials and attempts to undermine your character / experience if you dare to suggest anything contrary to their beliefs.I also suspect that this thread pretty well sums up why more people don't contribute to these discussions. Maybe that's the point.
1 - Deny
2 - Divert
3 - Undermine
The Tory method of controlling a debate. Ensure nothing you're uncomfortable with gets discussed, and berate your opponent until he is tired of defending.
You've got the nerve to post what you do when you have actually provided NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support your assertions. You complain about a barrage of insults yet your own user name is an immature b
disation of the PMs name, and you've been insulting people on here as soon as they challenge your cosy "every one knows blah blah blah" style assertions. Can I remind you who stooped to nazi slurs? You are not interested in informed discussion. You might JUST want to check out where sidicks knowledge and experience comes from. Of course that does not necessarily guarantee that he is right in everything he types, but right now, he's certainly not the one with the credibility problem here - YOU ARE!
Edited by andymadmak on Friday 3rd October 09:40
Du1point8 said:
CamMoreRon said:
smn159 said:
I suspect that you're right there. IMO the abuse and name calling of anyone expressing a view outside of what some posters deem acceptable is pathetic.
I also suspect that this thread pretty well sums up why more people don't contribute to these discussions. Maybe that's the point.
I imagine it's because you get barraged with thoughtless denials and attempts to undermine your character / experience if you dare to suggest anything contrary to their beliefs.I also suspect that this thread pretty well sums up why more people don't contribute to these discussions. Maybe that's the point.
1 - Deny
2 - Divert
3 - Undermine
The Tory method of controlling a debate. Ensure nothing you're uncomfortable with gets discussed, and berate your opponent until he is tired of defending.
You come onto a forum that with your current 11 months of membership, must know there are a lot of diverse people on here, we have:
People high up in Finance.
High ranking Lawyers/Solicitors.
Tax advisors
Accountants.
So when you spout paragraphs of non truths and some just blatant lies, you must have known that those specialists and workers in those specific areas would demand proof of your accusations.
As of yet, you have linked to blogs and told people that its obvious that people are cooking the books, etc.
Yet if you query any one of those people about something they state as fact they would be more than happy to give you a link to evidence in the form of published end of year results, findings from official sources, judges reviews, etc.
No-one is denying, diverting or undermining (well maybe the last one on you and your lack of evidence), all they are saying is that if you come on to a thread stating your facts, etc... you better be prepared to back it up with cold hard facts.
As of yet you have managed a load of responses and not one has been anything other than hearsay as anyone in court would say.
You seem reluctant to want to learn as can be seen with your complete misinterpretation of tax avoidance vs tax evasion and would not listen to reason stating that you have a brother that has done it all, then when queried about certain aspects of tax help, you stated he's still learning and hasn't taken advantage of those tax benefits yet.
People are frustrated as you and several others have your blinkers on and refuse to see anything else other than your point of view that is mostly personal opinion and nothing else... If you proved your antagonists wrong with evidence/facts, then you would get an apology and they would thank you for the new insight, you on the other hand just spouted the above playing the victim.
Du1point8 said:
I really don't understand you.
You come onto a forum that with your current 11 months of membership, must know there are a lot of diverse people on here, we have:
People high up in Finance.
High ranking Lawyers/Solicitors.
Tax advisors
Accountants.
So when you spout paragraphs of non truths and some just blatant lies, you must have known that those specialists and workers in those specific areas would demand proof of your accusations.
As of yet, you have linked to blogs and told people that its obvious that people are cooking the books, etc.
Yet if you query any one of those people about something they state as fact they would be more than happy to give you a link to evidence in the form of published end of year results, findings from official sources, judges reviews, etc.
No-one is denying, diverting or undermining (well maybe the last one on you and your lack of evidence), all they are saying is that if you come on to a thread stating your facts, etc... you better be prepared to back it up with cold hard facts.
As of yet you have managed a load of responses and not one has been anything other than hearsay as anyone in court would say.
You seem reluctant to want to learn as can be seen with your complete misinterpretation of tax avoidance vs tax evasion and would not listen to reason stating that you have a brother that has done it all, then when queried about certain aspects of tax help, you stated he's still learning and hasn't taken advantage of those tax benefits yet.
People are frustrated as you and several others have your blinkers on and refuse to see anything else other than your point of view that is mostly personal opinion and nothing else... If you proved your antagonists wrong with evidence/facts, then you would get an apology and they would thank you for the new insight, you on the other hand just spouted the above playing the victim.
I'm sure there are, but I also highly doubt that any of them fully understand the situation as they profess to. Otherwise, why aren't they Chancellor of the Exchequer? Because from what I see, our current one has no more economic proficiency than I do. You may have a strong opinion of yourself based on your background, but that doesn't give you the right to dismiss any counter-opinion without at least some form of justification. "What a load of rubbish" does not count as reasonable justification. That is denial.You come onto a forum that with your current 11 months of membership, must know there are a lot of diverse people on here, we have:
People high up in Finance.
High ranking Lawyers/Solicitors.
Tax advisors
Accountants.
So when you spout paragraphs of non truths and some just blatant lies, you must have known that those specialists and workers in those specific areas would demand proof of your accusations.
As of yet, you have linked to blogs and told people that its obvious that people are cooking the books, etc.
Yet if you query any one of those people about something they state as fact they would be more than happy to give you a link to evidence in the form of published end of year results, findings from official sources, judges reviews, etc.
No-one is denying, diverting or undermining (well maybe the last one on you and your lack of evidence), all they are saying is that if you come on to a thread stating your facts, etc... you better be prepared to back it up with cold hard facts.
As of yet you have managed a load of responses and not one has been anything other than hearsay as anyone in court would say.
You seem reluctant to want to learn as can be seen with your complete misinterpretation of tax avoidance vs tax evasion and would not listen to reason stating that you have a brother that has done it all, then when queried about certain aspects of tax help, you stated he's still learning and hasn't taken advantage of those tax benefits yet.
People are frustrated as you and several others have your blinkers on and refuse to see anything else other than your point of view that is mostly personal opinion and nothing else... If you proved your antagonists wrong with evidence/facts, then you would get an apology and they would thank you for the new insight, you on the other hand just spouted the above playing the victim.
Ok let's take a look back..
My first post was actually about how the ideology of cutting public spending to boost the economy was fundamentally flawed and based on the unrealistic fiscal multipliers Osbourne used in his forecasts.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/13/im...
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com.es/2012/10/o...
This is not bulls
t. This is known. Based on this, I said the ideology of cutting spending to reduce the deficit is false. I went on to say that the government should actually be increasing spending on areas that have a positive multiplication of investment - infrastructure, healthcare, education, to name a few.I also stated that research from various sources states that we lose between £30bn and £70bn in tax avoidance each year. I compared this to a popular pet hate of right wing folk - benefit fraud - and suggested that it costs the economy up to 200 times less (based on estimates in an article I linked) despite often being the most strongly voiced issue of the two. My personal opinion, which is shared by many, is that this money we haemorrhage in to the pockets of the already wealthy could be used to fund some of our struggling public services many times over.
Obviously I cannot support this idea with evidence, because the past 30 years have been dominated by the neoliberal ideology of small state, free market, services over manufacturing. The only support I can give to this idea is predictions made by alternative-thinking economists and political campaigners. Tax Justice Network being a source of such information.
However, I haven't seen one single shred of evidence that this is not true. I have seen the same recycled fear-mongering claims that the right-wing media use to try and suppress any calls for an alternative: businesses will leave / prices will rise / dead will rise from the ground etc etc. That was about as in-depth as the counter argument got.. the rest was all "You do talk rubbish" / "LOL Justice" / "Who are you and what are your qualifications" and other such denials and diversionary tactics. If you're more than happy to give me a link to independent analysis supporting your claims, then please do and I will read them with an open mind.
I am always willing to learn. As I said earlier in the thread: I do not identify myself with the political spectrum, I base my views on the evidence I see. If you show me some compelling evidence or can write a reasonable structured response to inform me, then I will be more than happy to take it on board. As I see it, every contrary opinion can be a chance to alter your perspective for the better.
Finally.. can you blame me for "playing the victim"? Look at the torrent of "responses" any kind of alternative view gets on things like this. The loudest of which seem to come from people with even less background than I do, yet claim I am not qualified to voice such opinions. Of course it is frustrating.
CamMoreRon said:
My first post was actually about how the ideology of cutting public spending to boost the economy was fundamentally flawed and based on the unrealistic fiscal multipliers Osbourne used in his forecasts.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/13/im...
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com.es/2012/10/o...
This is not bullst.
Yes it is. Pretty much everything you've said is.http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/13/im...
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com.es/2012/10/o...
This is not bulls
t.But seeing as you've added some references finally; the lefties moaned a few years ago and jumped on what Christine Lagarde of the IMF said.
Earlier this year she apologised and admitted she was wrong. Source.
0000 said:
CamMoreRon said:
..This is not bullst..
Yes it is. Pretty much everything you've said is.t..But seeing as you've added some references finally; the lefties moaned a few years ago and jumped on what Christine Lagarde of the IMF said.
Earlier this year she apologised and admitted she was wrong. Source.
2 - Your link doesn't work.
Phil1 said:
This is where you came unstuck. It became clear quite quickly that you were confusing evasion with avoidance.
I know the difference, it is just a matter of semantics. All subsequent discussion IMO served only as a diversion.Du1point8 said:
I really don't understand you.
You come onto a forum that with your current 11 months of membership, must know there are a lot of diverse people on here, we have:
People high up in Finance.
High ranking Lawyers/Solicitors.
Tax advisors
Accountants.
So when you spout paragraphs of non truths and some just blatant lies, you must have known that those specialists and workers in those specific areas would demand proof of your accusations.
As of yet, you have linked to blogs and told people that its obvious that people are cooking the books, etc.
Yet if you query any one of those people about something they state as fact they would be more than happy to give you a link to evidence in the form of published end of year results, findings from official sources, judges reviews, etc.
No-one is denying, diverting or undermining (well maybe the last one on you and your lack of evidence), all they are saying is that if you come on to a thread stating your facts, etc... you better be prepared to back it up with cold hard facts.
As of yet you have managed a load of responses and not one has been anything other than hearsay as anyone in court would say.
You seem reluctant to want to learn as can be seen with your complete misinterpretation of tax avoidance vs tax evasion and would not listen to reason stating that you have a brother that has done it all, then when queried about certain aspects of tax help, you stated he's still learning and hasn't taken advantage of those tax benefits yet.
People are frustrated as you and several others have your blinkers on and refuse to see anything else other than your point of view that is mostly personal opinion and nothing else... If you proved your antagonists wrong with evidence/facts, then you would get an apology and they would thank you for the new insight, you on the other hand just spouted the above playing the victim.
Hear hear! A very fine appraisal. I tried to post something along these lines last night (slightly less eloquently) and was undermined by my dodgy internet connection.You come onto a forum that with your current 11 months of membership, must know there are a lot of diverse people on here, we have:
People high up in Finance.
High ranking Lawyers/Solicitors.
Tax advisors
Accountants.
So when you spout paragraphs of non truths and some just blatant lies, you must have known that those specialists and workers in those specific areas would demand proof of your accusations.
As of yet, you have linked to blogs and told people that its obvious that people are cooking the books, etc.
Yet if you query any one of those people about something they state as fact they would be more than happy to give you a link to evidence in the form of published end of year results, findings from official sources, judges reviews, etc.
No-one is denying, diverting or undermining (well maybe the last one on you and your lack of evidence), all they are saying is that if you come on to a thread stating your facts, etc... you better be prepared to back it up with cold hard facts.
As of yet you have managed a load of responses and not one has been anything other than hearsay as anyone in court would say.
You seem reluctant to want to learn as can be seen with your complete misinterpretation of tax avoidance vs tax evasion and would not listen to reason stating that you have a brother that has done it all, then when queried about certain aspects of tax help, you stated he's still learning and hasn't taken advantage of those tax benefits yet.
People are frustrated as you and several others have your blinkers on and refuse to see anything else other than your point of view that is mostly personal opinion and nothing else... If you proved your antagonists wrong with evidence/facts, then you would get an apology and they would thank you for the new insight, you on the other hand just spouted the above playing the victim.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff