Loz

"Boaty McBoatface" makes me laugh much more than it ever should do. Personally, I think NERC should throw out some sort of challenge. If the UK can donate, say ?10m, to the BMcB fund then they'll name the boat accordingly. Personally, I think if they did that, they'd get the dosh and everyone will be happy.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fashion is a form of free speech But, ironically, you have to 'say' what someone else deems is in fashion.

I've voting Sadiq for my second vote. Have yet to decide my first (which has, for me, always gone to a minor party) but it will probably be the Lib Dem. The rest from the minors seem like the usual bunch of nutters. Six months ago, Goldsmith had a slight edge for me, but he's really done nothing to impress me since then.

Will they have to spell the word 'exploitation'?

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.politicshome.com/ > > Loz can you link to anything confirming the > 3 income streams he omitted. https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/73752/corbyn-admits-failing-include-pension-income-tax and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/jeremy-corbyn-failed-to-declare-third-pension-on-tax-return/

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shouldn't the title of this thread be changed > Seeing as Corbyn actually paid to much tax. Based on what he published, that's true. But considering he allegedly missed three other income streams off his tax form, is that still the case?

Maybe, maybe not. But it does show up the Brexit fallacy that we'll suddenly be ?8.5bn better off. That money (and probably more) will be spent.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz > > we pay more than our fair share to employ the eu > representatives and departments, therefore > bringing the work in house and redeploying those > resources here (no expense accounts for living in > Brussels...) will represent a saving to the UK > plus safeguard their jobs > > Sorry but I am finding your argument on this point > weak and lacking in vision. Sorry, but going for Brexit to ensure we pay over the odds for stuff just doesn't seem a really good idea. You can dress it up as a saving, but it's not - simple logic shows that. Trying to say "We don't to pay more than our 1/28th share, so we'll pay the whole cost instead" just doesn't make sense. You can try and dress it up as 'safeguarding jobs' but it's not that either. (Brussels jobs are unsafe? Who knew?!?). It's just saying "UK good. EU Bad" without any semblance of logic to back that argument.

I just wish there was some form of opposition to keep the government in check. Unfettered governments are always a bad thing.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not convinced by your argument that we would need to create > extra departments to do what is already happening as money doesn't just appear in business accounts > here without passing through our government (or their departments) first, but if we do need to > have more departments that would mean more jobs created. Win win for brexit I personally believe > based on your argument. Except you are not factoring in the jobs lost in Europe. There are quite a few UK people working in Brussels. It's simple - if a job is paid for by 28 countries, the cost to each country is going to be less than if each country does the work individually. You really think needless public sector job creation is a good argument for Brexit?

That often happens. I bought a bottle of wine from Sainsburys (not DKH) a while ago, on special from ?11 down to ?6. When it went through it priced at ?11. When I questioned it, they asked one of the floor staff to check it - he came back and said ?11. So, I went back to the spot with him and pointed out the 'special' tag. "Oh, that finished yesterday. It's ?11 now." "Errm - it's marked at ?6. You have to honour that" "No, we just haven't changed the price on the shelf ticket. It's ?11." "I'd like to speak to a manager." Manager comes over, I point out the tag, manager tells floor staff person that the lower price is to be honoured. Floor staff person looks genuinely perplexed. Sadly, the law is on Sainburys side in this. They're allowed to charge differently to the shelf price - the onus is on you to detect it and reject the purchase (or argue them down) if you don't like the new price. I always try and keep an eye on these things as it happens quite regularly. Sainsburys used to refund the difference + 10%. They don't any more. Read into that what you will. You can take your receipt back to customer services and they might refund you. Might.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yeah that makes no sense to me either Loz. Is > > Uncle arguing for one tier of government? > > He is arguing to remove extra tiers ABOVE our own government (i.e. Euro MPs and so on) Yes, but he seemingly phrased it to make a "I hate the EU because it is the EU" into a more generic comment on government. Scratch the surface of such arguments and they quickly fall apart. It also fails to appreciate that these 'extra layers' are functional and would need to be done anyway, with the associated extra costs as I pointed out in the '5 reasons' post above.

Both our current property and our previous we were responsible for the left hand side fence, as viewed from the road.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Evidence for any of these assertions? Historical selling prices are widely available on the internet.

The Tory spokesman comment made me laugh: "A metaphor for Labour policy. It was late, it was chaotic, it was inaccurate, it was uncosted."

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've already stated in an earlier post- definitely OUT for me. Extra layers of political interference > (much of it from unelected politicians) is always bad and expensive... Always? So you are saying a single layer of government is the best system? No more local councils, no counties, no England/Scotland/Wales/NI.

More quotes: You: "Economists never judge at tax that way. You have to look at the total tax as a percentage of income not as an absolute number to determine how heavy the burden is on each group. " Me: "The IFS would disagree with you, and they're about as independent as you can find. And pretty competent economists." My point was that there is a lot of debate as to whether VAT is progressive, regressive or even proportional. That point still stands.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, I think you already know that's what I was saying... No, after your last post I have really no idea what you are saying. Your argument has been all over the shop. Your starting argument has been that a progressive tax is defined as a function of "percentage of income". I merely pointed out that is not a hard and fast definition. You said it was 'standard', then moved around using lots of other definitions (e.g. rich/poor), and saying there was no debate on the definition, all while having a debate on the definition. Lets remember how this started: Me: "There is a LOT of debate on whether VAT is progressive, regressive or even proportional." You: "I've never heard anyone before claim here or in the US that consumption taxes aren't regressive."

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And my use of 'Brexiter' is simply an easy way to descibe someone who is voting for Brexit. You > should stop applying connotations to the use of language that don't exist. I don't think Brexiter is problematic. 'Little Englander' is, though.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz-- no one, not even the IFS is debating what progressive or regressive means. The debate is > how to measure who is rich or poor. But the debate is whether VAT is regressive or mildly progressive (or even something else). Surely defining the terms is central. > The IFS's position is that how much someone earns isn't the best measure of how rich or poor they > are, particularly how rich or poor they will be over their lifetime. That's the core of their > argument for using expenditure rather than income, which is the normal way of looking at this. That contradicts your entire previous argument: that percentage of income is the *only* standard measure of progressive. It also contradicts that "no one, not even the IFS is debating what progressive or regressive means". I'm really not sure what you are trying to say, now. > Unlike the IFS and you, I believe that using the conventional income measurement method is the best. Hang on - you previously said this was the 'standard', now it's just your opinion of 'the best'? Your argument is entirely inconsistent. You keep defining what you say is the definition of 'progressive', then contradicting yourself, then saying there is no debate, all while pointing out the debate. > I can go into the reasons why I (and most economists) do but it might be simpler to agree to disagree at this point. Well, that was sort of the point I was making at the end of my last post. More so now as I have no idea of what you are actually trying to say.

I might be wrong, but I took Louisa's non-response to my 5 reasons to stay as a grudging acceptance.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, the reason why the standard way to examine if a tax is regressive or progressive relies on > income is because its designed to assess how much of each group's income is being contributed to the > running of the country. I think you are missing my point. I don't think your definition of progressive is correct, and neither does the IFS. And Seabag seems to agree with me too, since applying your rule to that example given would deem it very, very regressive. Some sites do seem to agree with you, but then always use income-aligned tax as an example. Some just define a progressive tax where higher earners 'pay more' or 'pay a higher rate'. I can't seem to find a good solid, universally accepted answer to this. I'm not sure there is a 'standard' answer, as you claim. So, rather like 'progressive' in a political sense, then. :)

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I was around 7 months pregnant (many moons ago) I worked in Westminster and usually had to > stand on the bus from Dulwich onwards. I got fed up having to stand the majority of the journey so > made sure that my bump nudged a seated male passenger until he got fed up reading his paper > and gave me a seat. Why specifically a male passenger?

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, its not actually progressive based on that paper. The IFS determine that VAT when measured > as a percentage of income is clearly regressive. It can only be described as progressive using the > rather unconventional metric of measuring it as a percentage of household expenditure rather than > income. But how can you measure a non-income tax as a function of income? Let's say we made car tax more progressive. Say ?50 for those with incomes under the tax threshold, ?70 for those in the 20% band, ?90 for those in the 40% and ?100 for those in the 45% band. By your measure (of total tax paid as a %age of actual income) it is still *very* recessive! The only way around that would be to make VAT (or car tax) a function of income, but then it is no longer VAT/car tax, it's income tax. Everything would have to be. And it seems the IFS agrees with me. Which is nice.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Never mind the BBC explained it to me. Basically, the treasury fudged the analysis for Osborne by > not looking at the impact of VAT as a percentage of income when claiming it was not regressive. Of > course, methodologically that's utter nonsense. Economists never judge at tax that way. You have > to look at the total tax as a percentage of income not as an absolute number to determine how heavy > the burden is on each group. That percentage burden is the actual definition of regressive, > progressive and flat. These are technically defined concepts. The IFS would disagree with you, and they're about as independent as you can find. And pretty competent economists. http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2009/09chap10.pdf They describe it as 'mildly progressive'.