• Britain should not crack down on tax havens as doing so would destroy their livelihoods, senior Tory
    53 replies, posted
Bias is irrelevant, it is a magazine and mostly doesn't report news but writes editorials instead. You just are ignorant of how journalism works and don't understand that 'bias' doesn't matter outside of news reporting.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50081340]Bias is irrelevant, it is a magazine and mostly doesn't report news but writes editorials instead. You just are ignorant of how journalism works and don't understand that 'bias' doesn't matter outside of news reporting.[/QUOTE] Yes it is relevant, it's why most sane people don't take fox news seriously.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50081350]Yes it is relevant, it's why most sane people don't take fox news seriously.[/QUOTE] Fox News is a [B]news[/B] station which reports heavily biased [B]news[/B]. The Spectator is a [B]magazine[/B] which writes [B]editorials[/B]. You not liking its opinions and it being heavily right-wing is completely irrelevant.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50081364]Fox News is a [B]news[/B] station which reports heavily biased [B]news[/B]. The Spectator is a [B]magazine[/B] which writes [B]editorials[/B]. You not liking its opinions and it being heavily right-wing is completely irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Yes and they're liable to misreport statistics and leaving out important facts, similar to how fox news will misreport news. It's the same bloody concept.
This is threadshitting at this point, so I'm out. You just don't understand the difference between news and editorials.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50081396]This is threadshitting at this point, so I'm out. You just don't understand the difference between news and editorials.[/QUOTE] How does that change anything, it's the same damn concept, they're making a claim but have a massive conservative bias which makes what they say dubious, as opposed to a more centrist paper like the times. Another amazing and definitely measured article from the spectator [URL]http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/05/next-up-on-newsnight/[/URL] Even though a massive chunk of the BBC's journalists are actually tories. Oh and another one [URL]http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/if-wiltshire-tories-regard-george-osborne-as-a-socialist-he-has-a-problem/[/URL] Or maybe a nice spot of climate change denial [url]http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/im-putting-my-money-where-my-mouth-is-and-betting-against-climate-change/[/url] the spectator is garbage.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50081364]Fox News is a [B]news[/B] station which reports heavily biased [B]news[/B]. The Spectator is a [B]magazine[/B] which writes [B]editorials[/B]. You not liking its opinions and it being heavily right-wing is completely irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Fox is not a news station. Hell they named themselves Fox News Entertainment. The whole last discussion that made you not look very smar, let me tell you that, could have been avoided if you didn't chose to ignore the source that CLEARLY gives numbers on how your graph with this ridiculous title is wrong and biased. It's in his post. At the bottom. But no you decided to defend some questionable outlet that shows its bias and trash journalism after 5 seconds of looking at their website.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50080809]You see the big issue in about the 2nd paragraph, America needs congressional action to overhaul our system, fat chance getting that done with a red Congress[/QUOTE] Anybody in our Congress. The Democrats are just as much of lying, cheating scumbags as the Republicans are.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50081410]How does that change anything, it's the same damn concept, they're making a claim but have a massive conservative bias which makes what they say dubious, as opposed to a more centrist paper like the times. Another amazing and definitely measured article from the spectator [URL]http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/05/next-up-on-newsnight/[/URL] Even though a massive chunk of the BBC's journalists are actually tories. Oh and another one [URL]http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/if-wiltshire-tories-regard-george-osborne-as-a-socialist-he-has-a-problem/[/URL] Or maybe a nice spot of climate change denial [url]http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/im-putting-my-money-where-my-mouth-is-and-betting-against-climate-change/[/url] the spectator is garbage.[/QUOTE] I could trawl through the New Statesman or Economist blogs to find terrible articles too. Saying The Spectator is garbage is nonsense - both the Spectator (right) and the New Statesman (left) are both respected magazines and the data they use is well researched. It's like quoting The Economist then saying "it has pro-market bias so everything they write is manipulated and it's trash".
[QUOTE=Mythman;50083525]I could trawl through the New Statesman or Economist blogs to find terrible articles too. Saying The Spectator is garbage is nonsense - both the Spectator (right) and the New Statesman (left) are both respected magazines and the data they use is well researched. It's like quoting The Economist then saying "it has pro-market bias so everything they write is manipulated and it's trash".[/QUOTE] lol I didn't have to trawl through it, a brief couple of google searches brought that stuff up. It's not even just pro market, they actively misreport facts (like george osbornes tax cuts bringing in more money when really it was just wealthy people delaying their incomes creating an artificial boost in tax income). On top of that they seem to consider anything left of ayn rand socialism. I wouldn't compare them to the new states man, it's more comparable to the opinions section of the huff post, except worse. It's only considered "respected" because middle class people love it since it validates their mad libertarian views. Oh and apparently they also support eugenics, as if it couldn't get much worse [url]http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/the-return-of-eugenics/[/url], I barely have to click any pages before I find yet another morally heinous article.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50083553]lol I didn't have to trawl through it, a brief couple of google searches brought that stuff up. It's not even just pro market, they actively misreport facts (like george osbornes tax cuts bringing in more money when really it was just wealthy people delaying their incomes creating an artificial boost in tax income). On top of that they seem to consider anything left of ayn rand socialism. I wouldn't compare them to the new states man, it's more comparable to the opinions section of the huff post, except worse. It's only considered "respected" because middle class people love it since it validates their mad libertarian views.[/QUOTE] What I meant was, every magazine publishes crap articles sometimes: [url]http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/11/why-movember-isnt-all-its-cracked-be[/url] [url]http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/04/six-months-jeremy-corbyn-already-one-historys-great-opposition-leaders[/url] Both magazines occasionally publish terrible articles but that doesn't mean that the whole magazine is trash. (The pro market bit was for The Economist not The Spectator) The Spectator and The New Statesman are two sides of the same coin - they are both magazines, they both appeal to the politically engaged but they are on different sides of the political spectrum. I could say that The New Statesman considers anything right of Militant socialism, toryism. Throwing stupid stuff like this around gets us nowhere. On topic: the cut to the 50p tax rate has brought in more tax income, this is shown through government statistics and through independent studies. It is even supported by economic theory, the Laffer curve shows that cutting taxes can increase tax income. There's no need to dismiss reputable statistics just because they come a magazine that isn't politically aligned to you. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;50083553] Oh and apparently they also support eugenics, as if it couldn't get much worse [url]http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/the-return-of-eugenics/[/url], I barely have to click any pages before I find yet another morally heinous article.[/QUOTE] Are you even reading the articles you're posting about? From the article: [QUOTE] This is why scholars like Robert Pollack, a professor at Columbia University, want a moratorium on of germ-line DNA modification. ‘Imagine that, many years hence, there are two sorts of people: those who carry the messy inheritance of their ancestors, and those whose ancestors had the resources to clean up their germ cells before IVF.’ So you end up with two types of humans: the genetically tidy rich and everyone else. The experiments being carried out in London are worrying, he says, precisely because the British have such a good success rate. ‘It is not failure, but success, that concerns me,’ says Professor Pollack. ‘And for that concern, there are few venues more troubling than the Crick Institute — it is as likely as any place in the world to do this without making any distracting, avoidable mistakes.’ So some 130 years after Britain gave the world the idea of perfecting humanity, we are once again at the cutting edge of this troubled science. For good or ill, eugenics is back.[/QUOTE] It is raising concerns over the success of gene therapy in the UK and worries that it may lead to a two-tier society where the rich can filter out all their bad genes (which is eugenics by any other name).
Well to be honest I probably wouldn't trust the new statesman either, but the spectator takes it that extra step further. Definitely not places you should be using as sources of solid economics. Independent studies have not shown that it raised tax, the raise was artificial due to wealth people holding back their wages until the bill was passed, as has been pointed out. It actually cost the country in the long run. [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/george-osborne-claims-cutting-the-top-rate-of-tax-raised-8bn-it-cost-the-country-24bn-and-heres-how-a6905836.html[/url]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50081410]How does that change anything, it's the same damn concept, they're making a claim but have a massive conservative bias which makes what they say dubious, as opposed to a more centrist paper like the times. Another amazing and definitely measured article from the spectator [URL]http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/05/next-up-on-newsnight/[/URL] Even though a massive chunk of the BBC's journalists are actually tories. Oh and another one [URL]http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/if-wiltshire-tories-regard-george-osborne-as-a-socialist-he-has-a-problem/[/URL] Or maybe a nice spot of climate change denial [url]http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/im-putting-my-money-where-my-mouth-is-and-betting-against-climate-change/[/url] the spectator is garbage.[/QUOTE] They're pretty bad but they're not [i]this[/i] bad [url]http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-hard-left-are-wilfully-blind-to-the-evils-of-islamist-nazis/[/url] [quote]Jeremy Corbyn and the hard left are wilfully blind to the evils of Islamist Nazis[/quote] [quote]I’m currently reading The Flight of the Intellectuals by Paul Berman, which, in large part, is about the failure of the European left to see Islamism for what it is: namely, a Middle Eastern form of fascism. Berman documents in painstaking detail how Islamism was transformed into a mass movement by the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s to foment anti-British insurrection in the Middle East and as an instrument for carrying out the extermination of the Jews.[/quote] I should put out this is written by the deputy editor of the Spectator. Its rightwing trash without the sugar coating or subtle indoctrination of rags like the Mail.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50083644]Well to be honest I probably wouldn't trust the new statesman either, but the spectator takes it that extra step further. Definitely not places you should be using as sources of solid economics. Independent studies have not shown that it raised tax, the raise was artificial due to wealth people holding back their wages until the bill was passed, as has been pointed out. It actually cost the country in the long run. [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/george-osborne-claims-cutting-the-top-rate-of-tax-raised-8bn-it-cost-the-country-24bn-and-heres-how-a6905836.html[/url][/QUOTE] That only applies to that tax year: there was a deferral of payments so it led to a decrease in tax receipts for 2012/2013 and a £7bn increase in payments in 2013/2014. This is a one-off effect. If you look at the tax receipts for 2014/2015 they are greater than the tax receipts from 2011/2012 (that is, excluding the one-off deferral effect) the reduction of the 50p tax rate has increased tax income. George Osbourne's claim that there has been a £7bn increase is complete BS but there has been an increase in high earner tax receipts none the less. The Laffer Curve theory has played out as expected.
[QUOTE=Mythman;50083715]That only applies to that tax year: there was a deferral of payments so it led to a decrease in tax receipts for 2012/2013 and a £7bn increase in payments in 2013/2014. This is a one-off effect. If you look at the tax receipts for 2014/2015 they are greater than the tax receipts from 2011/2012 (that is, excluding the one-off deferral effect) the reduction of the 50p tax rate has increased tax income. George Osbourne's claim that there has been a £7bn increase is complete BS but there has been an increase in high earner tax receipts none the less. The Laffer Curve theory has played out as expected.[/QUOTE] Except it hasn't played out because it's actually cost us more. It was a one off effect but that was in making it seem like an increase, it has in fact cost the country overall as has been shown in both articles I've posted so far.
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50083685]They're pretty bad but they're not [i]this[/i] bad [url]http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-hard-left-are-wilfully-blind-to-the-evils-of-islamist-nazis/[/url] I should put out this is written by the deputy editor of the Spectator. Its rightwing trash without the sugar coating or subtle indoctrination of rags like the Mail.[/QUOTE] Quibble: Toby Young isn't the deputy editor, Isabel Hardman is. He's talking about Islamism not Islam, and he's talking about the Muslim Brotherhood's version of Islamism in particular. (The Muslim Brotherhood was even investigated for terrorist links in 2014). From the article: [QUOTE]The evidence linking Hassan al-Banna, the intellectual architect of Islamism and founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, to Nazism is substantial. For one thing, he singled out Hitler as a political role model in one of his political tracts. For another, he was a close ally of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who helped set up a Muslim division of the Waffen SS in the Balkans. The Nazis gave the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies a good deal of resources, including a network of radio stations that the Grand Mufti used to disseminate pro-German propaganda. In 1942, one of these stations broadcast a speech telling all Arabs: ‘You must kill the Jews before they open fire on you. Kill the Jews who appropriated your wealth and who are plotting against your security. Arabs of Syria, Iraq and Palestine, what are you waiting for?’[/QUOTE] Again, read the articles you post. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;50083727]Except it hasn't played out because it's actually cost us more. It was a one off effect but that was in making it seem like an increase, it has in fact cost the country overall as has been shown in both articles I've posted so far.[/QUOTE] The report cited in the article: [url]http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http:/www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf[/url] is looking at the effect the 50p Tax rate had on the economy, not the effect of lowering it to 45p. The report itself states that: [QUOTE]The longer the additional rate [the 50p tax rate] remains in place the more people are likely to consider it a permanent feature of the UK tax system and the more damaging it would be for competitiveness. This suggests the negative impact on GDP may increase over time, and therefore the direct yield (and revenues from other tax bases) might fall over time toward or beyond zero.[/QUOTE] The £2.4bn figure at the bottom of the article , on the other hand, is still referring to the one-off effect of the delaying of tax receipts. There was a one-off loss of tax due to the implementation of the cut but since then there has been an increase in tax revenues.
[QUOTE=Mythman;50083746]Quibble: Toby Young isn't the deputy editor, Isabel Hardman is. He's talking about Islamism not Islam, and he's talking about the Muslim Brotherhood's version of Islamism in particular. (The Muslim Brotherhood was even investigated for terrorist links in 2014). From the article: Again, read the articles you post. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] The report cited in the article: [url]http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http:/www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf[/url] is looking at the effect the 50p Tax rate had on the economy, not the effect of lowering it to 45p. The report itself states that:[/QUOTE] If you adjust for inflation we actually brought in more in income tax in 2010 than we did this year, so obviously not
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50083821]If you adjust for inflation we actually brought in more in income tax in 2010 than we did this year, so obviously not[/QUOTE] Granted, but it's not as simple as you think - it a completely different tax environment now than in 2010. 1st, the raising of the tax threshold means that more people pay no tax at all. (The raising of the threshold to £10,000 meant that the poorer members of society pay less tax). 2nd, the proportion of tax revenue raised from the additional rate (the 45p rate) has actually increased, showing that the richer members of society are contributing more to the pot. So whilst the overall revenue has fallen, the lowering of the 50p rate to 45p has actually increased the amount of tax paid by the richer members of society. If the tax threshold was not raised, it is likely that tax revenue today would be greater than in 2010 (even when adjusting for inflation).
[QUOTE=Mythman;50083864]Granted, but it's not as simple as you think - it a completely different tax environment now than in 2010. 1st, the raising of the tax threshold means that more people pay no tax at all. (The raising of the threshold to £10,000 meant that the poorer members of society pay less tax). 2nd, the proportion of tax revenue raised from the additional rate (the 45p rate) has actually increased, showing that the richer members of society are contributing more to the pot. So whilst the overall revenue has fallen, the lowering of the 50p rate to 45p has actually increased the amount of tax paid by the richer members of society. If the tax threshold was not raised, it is likely that tax revenue today would be greater than in 2010.[/QUOTE] We brought in what would be the equivalent of 308 billion at todays rates back in 2010 as opposed to the 275 billion this year, it's not even comparable, we've lost tons of money as a result of the income tax cuts, at a time where we'd just come out of a financial crisis we were bring in more money than we are now. All the alleged raises are all smoke and mirrors as was pointed out in the articles. Further cuts like what most of the tories want would only lead to even further loses.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50083890]We brought in what would be the equivalent of 308 billion at todays rates back in 2010 as opposed to the 275 billion this year, it's not even comparable, we've lost tons of money as a result of the income tax cuts, at a time where we'd just come out of a financial crisis we were bring in more money than we are now. All the alleged raises are all smoke and mirrors as was pointed out in the articles. Further cuts like what most of the tories want would only lead to even further loses.[/QUOTE] The personal allowance was ~£6000 in 2010, whereas it is £10,500 today. This means that people can earn more now without paying any tax at all which reduces the revenue gained from income tax. The raise in the personal allowance was the most significant tax cut done by the last two governments and it helped the poorer in society the most. The reducing of the 50p rate to 45p, whilst causing a one-off deferral effect, actually increased tax revenue in the long run (as I have tried to show above). And it is what the Spectator graph shows too, which is what started all of this off.
[QUOTE=Mythman;50083946]The personal allowance was ~£6000 in 2010, whereas it is £10,500 today. This means that people can earn more now without paying any tax at all which reduces the revenue gained from income tax. The raise in the personal allowance was the most significant tax cut done by the last two governments and it helped the poorer in society the most. The reducing of the 50p rate to 45p, whilst causing a one-off deferral effect, actually increased tax revenue in the long run (as I have tried to show above).[/QUOTE] Yeah somehow I don't buy the idea that the 25 billion pound hole appeared purely as a result of the personal allowance bracket being raised, maybe 1 or 2 billion loss might result from that considering those people barely paid anything as it was any way, clearly something else caused the rest of that hole and I think it's pretty obvious what it was. And no the spectator graph doesn't show it because it only shows the artificial rise.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50083980]Yeah somehow I don't buy the idea that the 25 billion pound hole appeared purely as a result of the personal allowance bracket being raised, maybe 1 or 2 billion loss might result from that considering those people barely paid anything as it was any way, clearly something else caused the rest of that hole and I think it's pretty obvious what it was.[/QUOTE] A £4000 reduction in income tax revenue from every tax payer in the UK? That is a huge change to income tax receipts. Lowering the 50p rate to 45p? Again, whether you buy it or not, the statistics show that it increased revenues from those that pay that rate.
[QUOTE=Mythman;50084004]A £4000 reduction in income tax revenue from every tax payer in the UK? That is a huge change to income tax receipts. Lowering the 50p rate to 45p? Again, whether you buy it or not, the statistics show that it increased revenues from those that pay that rate.[/QUOTE] The statistics show a temporary increase, nothing has suggested we've had an overall increase, all the stuff you have posted has been on the temporary boost, not overall. I mean that archive link itself is from 2012, it's not based on current statistics.
Just like the countless livelihoods you've destroyed?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.