sign the petition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

@ raginpup

I love the way that you demand evidence from others yet make claims like: I think it is fair to say that Labour's manifesto commitments, if came to pass, would force business to rethink their strategy, adjust its operations but they would continue to operate within the UK as the alternatives aren't attractive enough to relocate, which, if you're being honest for a moment, is an expression of faith, or, perhaps more accurately, a blind expression of hope, because that is what you want to believe.

Is the bottom line is that you can't escape form the logic that increasing corporate taxation in the UK makes the country less attractive to operate in, so you squeeze your eyes tight shut, cross your fingers and hope?

What sort of 'adjustment to operations' from business falling short of stopping investment in it's existing operations or abandoning the UK are you anticipating and hoping for?

You suggest that your advice to work colleagues is 'keep doing the same thing and you'll get the same results'. It's good advice although Einstein's version was more eloquent. It's strange that you offer that advice, however, whilst advocating a return to the tax and spend policies that so spectacularly failed the country in the 70s. Practise what you preach maybe?

On the subject of what works, you may also reflect on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Report that MMM linked to a few months ago which confirmed the progress that had been made in reducing poverty in this country, which progress only faltered after the financial crisis of 2008 and the aftermath thereof. Alternatively you could reflect on the historical and current consequences of Socialist economics around the world.

I post on these threads because they interest me. That's the same for you I assume. I know that you started posting on football threads after someone asked why you only posted on political ones a while ago, but I'm not so in need of the approval of others.

---

Don't try that one Kerr you big old snakeypants - as you've said yourself that we could provide no evidence that things (public services, homelessness) would have been better in the last 10 years if corp tax had been higher, but then was stumped by me pointing out that you yourself had no evidence that things would have been worse. Your complete conviction on the fact that cutting corporation tax leads to increased tax revenues is completely faith based, and born of looking at economics the way that you want to see it. The one certainty is that by raising corporation tax X amount would raise X amount for tax revenues, that is a FACT, but I'm not trying to hide that it gives birth to uncertainty about how businesses respond, and this has to be weighed up in the decision a government will have to weigh up. I don't claim to have evidence that NO jobs would be affected by such a raise, you don't have evidence that X amount of tax revenues would be raised by your cuts. Where your argument on this REALLY stalls is that after X years of substantial corp tax cuts in the UK you STILL cannot find any direct evidence of this increasing tax revenue, the very central point of your justification for cutting corp tax. As I keep pointing out, we have done it your way for years and years, yet you still can't point to tangible evidence that it works. I've pointed out the simple equation for what I think is happening: that the monies raised for companies is being offset by the taxes lost to the public purse. I can't prove that, but that seems a reasonable assumption seeing as it certainly doesn't seem to be making it's way into our public purse...

Now do you need me to point out the differences between commentary and opinions on economic models (where there is little empirical evidence on what actually works) and my challenging people on here who like to casually stereotype and generalise. Can I categorically prove that all/most Africans aren't violent, and that all/most Muslims aren't terrorists? No, but does that mean such statements should be allowed to go through unchallenged. (if you'd been reading my posts closely enough you'd have noticed that the real objective was to try and discourage the onslaught of right wing posts being started on here) Why am I posting lessons in logic and argument to a bloody lawyer?? I think you know this really, but just like by brother in law (barrister), loves to just win arguments and will keep droning on until submission!

And as for my commenting on footy posts ha haaa! - how cynical are you? If you'd read my input to footy posts a bit more, you'd have noticed that I got access to watch all the Millers games last Autumn and for the first time in years could regularly watch Millers games on a regular basis. Hence I was able to make informed comments, and join in enthusiastically on match threads. Without this, I didn't feel able to contribute much without seeing them. You must be an awfully cynical individual to make such a wrong assumption! Egg on face lad!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gm_gm

Is there any interest in an economics workshop, happy to lend my knowledge for free, 12 papers over 12 weeks.

All political persuasions welcome..,no idiots though

---

Does it come with free irrelevant graphs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Does it come with free irrelevant graphs?

---

You haven't read the last paragraph properly pup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gm_gm

You haven't read the last paragraph properly pup

---

Mi-ow! XD

Pup, i think you've hit the nail on the head, something i touched on in an earlier post on this thread, he can't stand losing an argument, so continues his waffle and bluster, his continued attempts at trying to convince me of an obvious flaw in his argument kind of shows him up to be honest, it really does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by millmoormagic

Isn't that what we all do Lasterman? i don't think roly is objecting to you looking out for your kids is he?

---

I don't know. When he said:

"The problem is the poor and powerless can never win because of an uneven playing field. One or two might sneak through but generally no matter how hard you work, how talented you are you will always achieve better if you come from a basis of wealth. Not to see that just puts you in self denial."

...I assumed that he was objecting to people having an advantage on the basis of the financial standing of their parents. Maybe I was wrong.

I will try to clear it up. Of course, you will try to do best for your kids and family. I do the best I can. The point I am making is that if you are in a privileged position of having wealth you should still think of those less fortunate than yourself eg be willing to pay more taxes etc to help homeless people, fund the national health system etc. As my old mum used to say-quoting her again- dont forget where you came from. In other words some people won't have had the lucky breaks you have for many, many reasons. I am not suggesting that you send money to your old school mates who didn't do so well as you or put yourself on the bread line instead I am trying to suggest that you support others worse off than yourself through the ballot box. I do think there should be a limit to how wealthy any human being can be and I am sure you sure not near that limit. You may have done well for yourself and maybe you think you deserve your wealth which is fair enough but to say anyone can achieve what you have is not true in my opinion no matter how hard someone tries with the hand they have been dealt.

Suppose what I am basically saying is that we should ALL be more altruistic and less materialistic. Its more to do with values rather than wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lasterman

I don't know. When he said:

"The problem is the poor and powerless can never win because of an uneven playing field. One or two might sneak through but generally no matter how hard you work, how talented you are you will always achieve better if you come from a basis of wealth. Not to see that just puts you in self denial."

...I assumed that he was objecting to people having an advantage on the basis of the financial standing of their parents. Maybe I was wrong.

---

I can see where you're coming from there i suppose, i think the correct way is something in between, decent parents will always support their kids won't they. I also think roly has a point in terms of poorer parents tend to live in poorer areas with schools not as able and have different outlooks, the focus is on short term survival rather than long term planning, living hand to mouth if you like. if you compared let's say Wickersley comp and Clifton comp for example, the difference is huge in all sorts of areas, wealth of parents, single parents, child behaviour etc etc, it all links in.

I think you can be relatively wealthy and care about others. Likewise, I think if you are not wealthyyou should still think of others. It would be very difficult to make everybody exactly equal. Personally, I think people should be paid according to how useful they are to a smooth and fair running of society. So footballers/ pop stars / film stars etc would be not as well paid as nurses, doctors, care assistants, teachers etc. You could also add dangerous jobs as well to the list of those who should be more highly paid. Not saying you shouldnt have sportsmen/ pop stars etc. There would still be a place in society for them.

I still strongly believe that wherever there is inequality and unfairness in the world it is a recipe for conflict. The world is an overcrowded place with everyone competing for resources whatever they may be. If we want the human race to survive much longer we need to sort some of these problems: do our bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rolymiller

I will try to clear it up. Of course, you will try to do best for your kids and family. I do the best I can. The point I am making is that if you are in a privileged position of having wealth you should still think of those less fortunate than yourself eg be willing to pay more taxes etc to help homeless people, fund the national health system etc. As my old mum used to say-quoting her again- dont forget where you came from. In other words some people won't have had the lucky breaks you have for many, many reasons. I am not suggesting that you send money to your old school mates who didn't do so well as you or put yourself on the bread line instead I am trying to suggest that you support others worse off than yourself through the ballot box. I do think there should be a limit to how wealthy any human being can be and I am sure you sure not near that limit. You may have done well for yourself and maybe you think you deserve your wealth which is fair enough but to say anyone can achieve what you have is not true in my opinion no matter how hard someone tries with the hand they have been dealt.

Suppose what I am basically saying is that we should ALL be more altruistic and less materialistic. Its more to do with values rather than wealth.

---

I don't disagree. It's difficult to respond without appearing to seem like you're looking for some sort of good citizen award, but I don't think I have anything to reproach myself for with regard to my contribution to the state coffers or the assistance I've given to unconnected and unrelated people who are in need of help. The interesting thing is that I wouldn't have been able to do any of that if I hadn't made efforts to move forward...perhaps behaviour you might interpret as indulging in greed?