Or Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn formerly 2nd Viscount Stansgate

😆

allthepies – Member
Or Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn formerly 2nd Viscount Stansgate

That can be allthepies's law, though I think you're a little late if you hope to get any milage from it 🙂

no its because gideon is the most ballachingly posh sounding name you can imagine (and lets you know that he was preparing for power from an early age changing his name to one the plebs might find less offensive)
basically it serves to remind people how out of touch he is with the common man, maybe even conjours up 'were all in this together'

apparently his nickname around parliament is oik!?

it serves to reaffirm prejudice, nothing else…

A lot of us have been or will be paying close to 50% taking into account tax and NI

PAYE plus NI on 100K including employers contribution comes to about 45%. Not a million miles from 50%, and I did say "close to".

If you include employers contributions, which isn't a tax that you pay. 🙄

It's factually correct, but it doesn't stand up as an argument. I believe it's what my philosopher mate would call a non-sequitur.

Why doesn't it stand up as an argument though? Just repeating that something is wrong but not saying why isn't an argument either.

mogrim – I never called him Gideon. The name 'oik' is far more revealing though -just shows how terrifyingly posh they are that he is nicknamed oik I think because he went to only the third poshest school in the country.

Why doesn't it stand up as an argument though? Just repeating that something is wrong but not saying why isn't an argument either.

Because the facts quoted are not relevant to the argument being made. I do not know how to make it any clearer than that.

Whatever level of debt is acceptable is dictated by market conditions, what the normal level is, what the prospects for the future look like etc. You cannot say "Well it was 100% in 1842, therefore it would be fine at 100% now". One thing does not follow the other.

If you cannot understand that, you're either wilfully misunderstanding, or really shouldn't be allowed out on your own.

we still don't spend enough to have the services we want

Probably true, but (a) life is a compromise and (b) so far there's been little evidence of a direct link between expenditure and quality of services in this country – other countries e.g. Germany and the Netherlands seem to run their governments in more business-like ways.

Maybe the answer is to emulate some of the countries being idolised on here and start charging for healthcare, that way there's more money for other things.

[just nipping out to put on my flame-proof gear].

tron, perhaps if you explained why you feel the facts are not relevant…

ie do you know why the current accepted levels of debt/GDP differ from those in the past? I'm not even necessarily saying I support everything in that article, but so far no-one has actually come up with a clear argument that disputes any of it.

it serves to reaffirm prejudice, nothing else…

It reaffirms my prejudices about hobnobbing on Russian yachts, certainly.

nice edit tron – so perhaps a more telling stat would be to compare our levels of debt/gdp with a number of similar countries now, on which we are also far from the worst?

Are you going to now tell me that IMF data from April 2010 on the G7 countries isn't relevant?

If we are in such a terrible state why does Britain still have such a good credit status which means our national debt is paid back at very low rates of interest?

Well that would hold largely true for most of the recent goverments irrespective of side…

TBH, for me, 'Gideon' evokes a small, eagerly dispensed Bible.

Probably true, but (a) life is a compromise and (b) so far there's been little evidence of a direct link between expenditure and quality of services in this country

Really?

If you include employers contributions, which isn't a tax that you pay

It's a tax someone pays on my employment so should be included in the calculation of overall tax rate, otherwise we could make the employer pay all the tax; that way we'd all be on 0% tax but curiously with the same take-home pay. Although I agree it does make the effective rate lower (44.4% according to my calculation) but its still pretty high. 50% effective tax rate comes in at 135K again according to my dodgy accountancy.

That redpepper article mentions debt levels between 1920 and 1960. Were there any significant world events just prior to, and during, that period which would make it poor as a comparison?

lets you know that he was preparing for power from an early age changing his name to one the plebs might find less offensive

Or possibly he didn't like his name and decided to change it?

That redpepper article mentions debt levels between 1920 and 1960. Were there any significant world events just prior to, and during, that period which would make it poor as a comparison?

They didn't have a War on Terror (TM), for a start.

so perhaps a more telling stat would be to compare our levels of debt/gdp with a number of similar countries now, on which we are also far from the worst?

I said earlier that I've no interest in getting into a huge argument about this. For me to explain the problems to you, it's pretty clear that I'd have to teach you the basics of economics.

Here's a very rough list of what would determine whether the government has an acceptable level of debt:
Level of multiplier effect – dictated by public opinion
Current level of Debt
Level of Deficit
Growth predictions
Likely future currency movements
Future spending plans
Growth predictions for trading partners.
Likelihood of default.
Current interest rates.
Likely future interest rates.

I think you should be able to see that taking a TJ line of "we've got less debt than XYZ" is an incredibly narrow way of looking at the issue.

TJ mentioned the wonderfully happy Dutch and Scandinavians in a previous thread about taxation and service levels. Shame they have a higher suicide rate than the UK.

druidh – look at this graph

Hardly suggests the apocalypse we are being sold does it?

Ah, but they kill themselves in a good state of health! Ha!

I said earlier that I've no interest in getting into a huge argument about this. For me to explain the problems to you, it's pretty clear that I'd have to teach you the basics of economics.

You mean 'I've got no interest in actually making an argument, I'm just going to be patronising and make it sound like I know what I'm talking about, without actually saying anything'.

I'm not suggesting that everything is hunk-dory – I'm suggesting that the scale of the problem has been grossly exaggerated to suit the Tories idealogical position.

Agreed – some might say that it's been 'sexed up' 😉

I'm not suggesting that everything is hunk-dory – I'm suggesting that the scale of the problem has been grossly exaggerated to suit the Tories idealogical position.

Oh, I thought you were suggesting that Red Pepper article was something that should actually be taken seriously by people. I've explained to you why it's a badly argued piece, but you seem to be unable to understand my arguments. What other conclusion can I draw?

Hardly suggests the apocalypse we are being sold does it?

Debt/deficit – both begin with d so why not interchange them.

I've explained to you why it's a badly argued piece

Except that you haven't done any such thing.

Rio – so what we learn from that is that the government deficit increases massively during a huge recession – wow.

I also wonder why everyone is ignoring the point made earlier that the deficit could equally well be reduced by employing some of the anti-tax evasion policies that the Lib Dems have conveniently abandoned, presumably because they aren't allowed to upset the Tories rich chums.

Why is it that only cuts are being explored as an option? Because they are ideologically motivated.

druidh – look at this graph

… which shows current debt as a percentage of GDP is currently the highest it's ever been except during the post world war periods.

… which shows current debt as a percentage of GDP is currently the highest it's ever been except during the post world war periods.

In the middle of a massive worldwide financial crisis yes….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGex0kLgNok

Well done tron – fail to make any kind of argument at all other than saying 'because you're wrong', then call people thick when they don't accept your inherent intellectual superiority – you really did well there. 🙄

'Tis quite funny though.

I've explained repeatedly to you what is wrong with the arguments in the article. I really don't see how you can fail to understand.

Saying that you don't agree with something isn't the same as explaining why it's wrong.

He has explained why he thinks it's wrong. However he clearly hasn't done it to the level of detail that you'd like… you're both right and wrong…

reviewing trons posts he has said
deficit does not equal debt
there are indirect taxes as well as direct ones
and the article doesnt take into account that public opinion and public spending may affect economic growth

it doesnt appear to be anysort of real analysis of teh article

He's also said that the key points it uses aren't relevant to the point being argued. I haven't read it so can't comment on the veracity of that statement but clearly grum would like him to explain in detail why they aren't relevant.

it doesnt appear to be anysort of real analysis of teh article

I've no interest in analysing the entirety of an article which anyone with basic knowledge of economics and logic can see is incorrect. Hence I've drawn a couple of points out – no understanding of the multiplier effect, or that what is acceptable in one context is not in another. I think once you've exposed such basic flaws in the argument, there's no point going any further.

grum – Member

Why is it that only cuts are being explored as an option? Because they are ideologically motivated.

?? All governments are idealogically motivated. It's just that your ideaology is different from the current one.

Hardly suggests the apocalypse we are being sold does it?

Er… I don't think anyone is saying things are anywhere near as bad as they were in the post war periods, just the worst they have been since.

Shame they have a higher suicide rate than the UK.

The frequently very fine line between deciding to record 'death by misadventure', 'open verdict' and 'suicide' in the UK (and quite possibly overseas too) makes that a very unreliable comparison.

Sorry.