Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Well on his way to being a conner. And to think, just a short time ago I was reluctant to put him on that list. It's hysterical that I can basically tailor a thread to the guy, notice the tense of my OP, and he walks right into it. That is...conneresque....we'll see.... Well, what you actually did tailored a thread to the fact that you are unable to comprehend what you read or did not completely read the article. It's not that the 50p tax caused total revenue to drop, but that it didn't raise the amount it was expected to. These also are numbers that come out of self assessment. Plus I think that we can all agree that a 50% tax is extreme in any case. It also goes on to explain the reason the final numbers have not been collected yet is due to the fact that they have been able to compile all the information yet. Lastly it says that roughly 20% of Britain's citizens that pay by self assessment pay within the last few hours before the deadline. Overall, the article makes a good case for the fact that a 50% tax on the upper class is too high. It does not however even attempt imply that it's case is fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Well, what you actually did tailored a thread to the fact that you are unable to comprehend what you read or did not completely read the article. It's not that the 50p tax caused total revenue to drop, but that it didn't raise the amount it was expected to. These also are numbers that come out of self assessment. Plus I think that we can all agree that a 50% tax is extreme in any case. It also goes on to explain the reason the final numbers have not been collected yet is due to the fact that they have been able to compile all the information yet. Lastly it says that roughly 20% of Britain's citizens that pay by self assessment pay within the last few hours before the deadline. Overall, the article makes a good case for the fact that a 50% tax on the upper class is too high. It does not however even attempt imply that it's case is fact. Ummm 50p is 50 Pence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) but even you must admit that raising taxes is the right thing to do sometimes, correct? Reading comprehension is important. It's not something I have to "admit" to....when I already clearly stated it above....didn't I? I have been saying that we should not raise taxes in a recession, or a recovery, or whatever this is....because that is based on rational expectations of what these tax increases will do to capital. We need capital, you raise taxes, you cut capital. Simple. Now, the problem is: if you spend government money, it may create some spending, but it won't create capital. It may have a short term effect on demand, especially if you can get hit the right Keynesian multipliers...but this is a short term approach. The massive, Obama, non-Keynsian Keynsian stimulus both failed to work, as expected, and, has no chance of fixing structural unemployment, also as expected. Why? Because investing in solar power companies is NOT Keynesian, therefore it has no chance of hitting the multipliers correctly. And, whatever structural jobs it creates...well? They're all gone, aren't they? Instead, it's merely venture capital minus a key factor--> the market research and due diligence that any real VC would actually perform properly prior to pulling the trigger. AND, structural problems to date have only been solved by supply side economics, as both Reagan and Clinton proved. Now imagine, if we hadn't done the stupid for the last 3 years, we'd be long recovered....and yes, we would expect a boom, at which point it would make sense to raise taxes, rates, or both, as a way to stave off inflation. So, in conclusion, the reason you haven't gotten your coveted, irrational, punishment taxation of the rich ....is directly due to the policies and people you support. Once again, the far left were in charge of all branches....and succeeded in getting exact opposite of what they intended. Nice work again, idiots. Edited February 24, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Ummm 50p is 50 Pence... And 50 Pence is half a pound. So if you are paying 50p on the pound your are paying a 50% tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Well, what you actually did tailored a thread to the fact that you are unable to comprehend what you read or did not completely read the article. It's not that the 50p tax caused total revenue to drop, but that it didn't raise the amount it was expected to. These also are numbers that come out of self assessment. Plus I think that we can all agree that a 50% tax is extreme in any case. It also goes on to explain the reason the final numbers have not been collected yet is due to the fact that they have been able to compile all the information yet. Lastly it says that roughly 20% of Britain's citizens that pay by self assessment pay within the last few hours before the deadline. Overall, the article makes a good case for the fact that a 50% tax on the upper class is too high. It does not however even attempt imply that it's case is fact. Yeah, this is a cogent analysis. Everything you said is irrelevant. The fact is that they expected X in revenue to be raised by raising the tax rates....and believe me, if they were only off by 20%....they wouldn't be coming out with a story that is obviously intended to manage expectations downward, because they know that they won't be anywhere near X. They quoted a myriad of people....where is the quote that says..."no, actually we will be right on target with out expectations, or only off by 20%?". There isn't one, is there? That means they know they are F'ed, and it's damage control time. Hint: when people are already saying whose policy it was....that tells you it's going to fail badly, and everybody is looking for a chair before the music stops. Edited February 24, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 And 50 Pence is half a pound. So if you are paying 50p on the pound your are paying a 50% tax. My bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Yeah, this is a cogent analysis. Everything you said is irrelevant. The fact is that they expected X in revenue to be raised by raising the tax rates....and believe me, if they were only off by 20%....they wouldn't be coming out with a story that is obviously intended to manage expectations downward, because they know that they won't be anywhere near X. They quoted a myriad of people....where is the quote that says..."no, actually we will be right on target with out expectations, or only off by 20%?". There isn't one, is there? That means they know they are F'ed, and it's damage control time. Hint: when people are already saying whose policy it was....that tells you it's going to fail badly, and everybody is looking for a chair before the music stops. And as I said before, this is nothing more than your expressed opinion. And your opinion, no matter how forcefully you stated it, does not constitute fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 And as I said before, this is nothing more than your expressed opinion. And your opinion, no matter how forcefully you stated it, does not constitute fact. Where's the quote that says they are only going to be off a little? Did my opinion say what was said by every single person they interviewed...or did the people who were quoted say it? Ridiculous. My opinion didn't conceive and implement this policy, nor does it have anything to do with the results that were obtained. Perhaps if they engaged me, or somebody like me-->it's not like there's a shortage of consultants in Britain, they would have avoided this failure. But, they didn't. Instead, they listened to clowns, and now they are getting clown results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Where's the quote that says they are only going to be off a little? Did my opinion say what was said by every single person they interviewed...or did the people who were quoted say it? Ridiculous. My opinion didn't conceive and implement this policy, nor does it have anything to do with the results that were obtained. Perhaps if they engaged me, or somebody like me-->it's not like there's a shortage of consultants in Britain, they would have avoided this failure. But, they didn't. Instead, they listened to clowns, and now they are getting clown results. Not me, nor the article made any suck quote. I just pointed out that your opinion, which you stated as fact, was being presented as fact without the full contingent of data. In my opinion, it was a stupid policy also. However, I am willing to concede that it is only my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 You don't contribute much here other than exposing yourself as a low level target. How does it feel to be a 1%er? I'm not talking about a top 1%er either. Oh, he's not a 1%er in any way. He's about a "40%er". We're well on our way to "Idiocracy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Oh, he's not a 1%er in any way. He's about a "40%er". We're well on our way to "Idiocracy". Read again. I was calling him a bottom 1%er. He's just a dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Oh, he's not a 1%er in any way. He's about a "40%er". We're well on our way to "Idiocracy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Well, it's not like we don't have Buffalo, NY, Detroit MI, and basically every other dominated for decades by Democrats inner city as further examples of the effect of over-taxing and over-spending. That's the fault of people who live on cul-de-sacs, not the taxation and spending policies of city officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Read again. I was calling him a bottom 1%er. He's just a dumbass. I get where you were trying to go but there's way too many people like him to give such exclusivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts