Discussion
BlackLabel said:
Not Corbyn's biggest fan but I hope he wins as it will tear Labour apart. Nonetheless, this (via Private Eye) rings true to me.
Very interesting article from Private Eye. I find in very frustrating that in our politics, there are frequent and intentional attempts to misrepresent the ideas and positions of political opponents.
This occurs across the political spectrum.
It is so blatant, I can only assume the idea is to mislead the casual observer.
Of course I understand the temptation and reasons for wanting to do this. When you consider though the effect it has on the quality of decision making it is real problem.
Halb said:
Jasandjules said:
Well he actually seems to be answering questions put to him. How odd.
Isn't it?!
tting buttons and the media becoming even more febrile than usual; they can't come out with a straight answer to anything, therefore anyone who does(however misguided) is a fundamental threat.Corbyn apparently doesn't like people being reminded of the nutty things he's said over the years:
http://order-order.com/2015/09/02/corbyn-quoting-t...
http://order-order.com/2015/09/02/corbyn-quoting-t...
I'll be honest, I don't see the issue the PI are trying to show.
The first one: "anyone who's committed a war crime should [stand trial]". How can guilt be assessed prior to the trial? Therefore, if TB should "possibly" face trial, then by his own twist of logic that means JC doesn't know if TB committed a war crime - which means he should stand trial to determine that.
Second one, he clearly states that's he'd work with other parties in the event of a Labour minority. Therefore he's willing to do a deal with the SNP.
And so on.
The problem is not bias or misrepresentation, it's distilling a fluffy, verbose and unclear answer to it's logical synthesis. If JC feels he's been misrepresented, then he can always answer questions differently to prevent that...
The first one: "anyone who's committed a war crime should [stand trial]". How can guilt be assessed prior to the trial? Therefore, if TB should "possibly" face trial, then by his own twist of logic that means JC doesn't know if TB committed a war crime - which means he should stand trial to determine that.
Second one, he clearly states that's he'd work with other parties in the event of a Labour minority. Therefore he's willing to do a deal with the SNP.
And so on.
The problem is not bias or misrepresentation, it's distilling a fluffy, verbose and unclear answer to it's logical synthesis. If JC feels he's been misrepresented, then he can always answer questions differently to prevent that...
FredClogs said:
Why wouldn't that work, say (for the sake of argument) you could lift everyone below £100k out of tax by taxing income over £100k at 100% - would that really be so terrible?
Socialist are often accused of attempting to create utopias, I don't really see the harm in trying, it's surely better than not!
Why stop there? Who actually NEEDS £100,000? Why not just scrap the concept of income altogether? People would apply to the State for their state-issued accommodation, clothing, and food needs which would be determined by government actuaries. Everybody would be equal. Now THAT would be Utopia. Just ignore those naysayers who would tell you the economy would cease to exist in any meaningful form. Would that really be so terrible? Heck, it works in North Korea. I don't see the harm in trying etc etcSocialist are often accused of attempting to create utopias, I don't really see the harm in trying, it's surely better than not!
FredClogs said:
Why wouldn't that work, say (for the sake of argument) you could lift everyone below £100k out of tax by taxing income over £100k at 100% - would that really be so terrible?
I'd be up for that for sure if I were on £125k. First thing I'd do is work four days of the week and take only £100k, so more take home for me and a day off! Where do I vote?REALIST123 said:
Halb said:
Jasandjules said:
Well he actually seems to be answering questions put to him. How odd.
Isn't it?!Makes him refreshing.
CaptainSlow said:
FredClogs said:
Why wouldn't that work, say (for the sake of argument) you could lift everyone below £100k out of tax by taxing income over £100k at 100% - would that really be so terrible?
I'd be up for that for sure if I were on £125k. First thing I'd do is work four days of the week and take only £100k, so more take home for me and a day off! Where do I vote?Also, would it be so terrible? Probably if you were used to a lifestyle that required an income in excess of a hundred grand a year, I'm unfortunately not in that earnings bracket but if I suddenly found out I couldn't afford the mortgage on my lovely, expensive home along with the holidays and such forth that I was accustomed to simply because the government wanted my money I'd be mighty peeved.
Edited by Axionknight on Thursday 3rd September 11:50
CaptainSlow said:
FredClogs said:
Why wouldn't that work, say (for the sake of argument) you could lift everyone below £100k out of tax by taxing income over £100k at 100% - would that really be so terrible?
I'd be up for that for sure if I were on £125k. First thing I'd do is work four days of the week and take only £100k, so more take home for me and a day off! Where do I vote?Axionknight said:
How much can you put into a pension? There's always ways and means of getting around such punitive taxation - that's what these soak the rich morons don't seem to understand, they are cutting their nose off to spite their face as many people will find a way to avoid handing over such vast sums of cash.
True, and watch the brain drain leave the UK to NY, Frankfurt and Dubai, along with the associated Corp Tax receipts. London the financial capital of the world?...forget it.0000 said:
Quite. I already make sure I don't earn more than £100k because of the effective 60% band there. I took 6 months off last year!
It's quite amazing how sensitive to what they perceive as unfair tax changes. I know people that dump additional amounts into pensions to ensure they still get child allowances.Axionknight said:
How much can you put into a pension? There's always ways and means of getting around such punitive taxation - that's what these soak the rich morons don't seem to understand, they are cutting their nose off to spite their face as many people will find a way to avoid handing over such vast sums of cash.
The entire country would stop earning more than £100k, and there would be literally zero raised in income tax. It's not even a case of 'oh, well lots of nice people will earn a bit more and that'll go in the coffers' because few if any employers will pay more to an employee if they're receiving zero of that additional sum in remuneration because the incentivisation element is largely gone.Edited by Axionknight on Thursday 3rd September 11:50
That Matt can't understand that is a damning indictment of his intellect.
Edited by iphonedyou on Thursday 3rd September 12:02
audidoody said:
FredClogs said:
Why wouldn't that work, say (for the sake of argument) you could lift everyone below £100k out of tax by taxing income over £100k at 100% - would that really be so terrible?
Socialist are often accused of attempting to create utopias, I don't really see the harm in trying, it's surely better than not!
Why stop there? Who actually NEEDS £100,000? Why not just scrap the concept of income altogether? People would apply to the State for their state-issued accommodation, clothing, and food needs which would be determined by government actuaries. Everybody would be equal. Now THAT would be Utopia. Just ignore those naysayers who would tell you the economy would cease to exist in any meaningful form. Would that really be so terrible? Heck, it works in North Korea. I don't see the harm in trying etc etcSocialist are often accused of attempting to create utopias, I don't really see the harm in trying, it's surely better than not!
k off somewhere else 
.iphonedyou said:
The entire country would stop earning more than £100k, and there would be literally zero raised in income tax. It's not even a case of 'oh, well lots of nice people will earn a bit more and that'll go in the coffers' because few if any employers will pay more to an employee if they're receiving zero of that additional sum in remuneration because the incentivisation element is largely gone.
That Matt can't understand that is a damning indictment of his intellect.
I'm going to design a graph that compares tax receipts versus tax rate %. Obviously 0% would generate zero tax receipts...likewise with 100%. I'm going to call it the "Captain Slow Curve", it'll become a basic understanding for anyone with a basic economics education, socialists won't understand it though sadly.That Matt can't understand that is a damning indictment of his intellect.
Edited by iphonedyou on Thursday 3rd September 12:02
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff