Britain's economic security put at risk by growing reliance on taxing the rich, OBR warns

by Guest Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:28 pm

Britain's economic security is being put at risk by the growing reliance on taxing the wealthiest, the official financial watchdog has warned.

The Office for Budget Responsibility revealed that over the past decade the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.7 per cent.

It said that Britain's "reliance" on a small number of people paying so much of the nation's tax means that the economy is now more "vulnerable" to financial shocks than it was before the recession a decade ago.

The report also raises concerns that the bulk of revenues from stamp duty are now coming from the wealthy after a series of tax rises by David Cameron's Government.

The watchdog says that Britain's economy could face significant damage if wealthy people, who are are "highly mobile", choose to move to other countries with lower tax rates.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/13/britains-economic-security-put-risk-growing-reliance-taxing/

by Original Quill Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:27 am

Telegraph wrote:It said that Britain's "reliance" on a small number of people paying so much of the nation's tax means that the economy is now more "vulnerable" to financial shocks than it was before the recession a decade ago.

Nonsense, I'd like to hear that argument. Unfortunately, the article is just an announcement. There's no elaboration on the so-called study.

It sounds to me like trickle-down theory, which one conservative called voodoo-economics. Lol...someone read John Maynard Keynes and said, what if I turned the book up-side-down?
study

by Guest Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:27 am

Original Quill wrote:
Telegraph wrote:It said that Britain's "reliance" on a small number of people paying so much of the nation's tax means that the economy is now more "vulnerable" to financial shocks than it was before the recession a decade ago.

Nonsense, I'd like to hear that argument. Unfortunately, the article is just an announcement. There's no elaboration on the so-called study.

It sounds to me like trickle-down theory, which one conservative called voodoo-economics. Lol...someone read John Maynard Keynes and said, what if I turned the book up-side-down?

There is a very simple study, just look at France when under before their recent left wing Government and how they taxed the rich. Hence now there is a centrist party in power.

When you over tax the rich they will simply move elsewhere.

Its not even rocket science this.

by 'Wolfie Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:01 am

Britain's economic security put at risk by growing reliance on taxing the rich, OBR warns 1399249160

It is outright bullshit for the Mirdoch right-wing press to claim that Britain is increasingly "reliant" on their bludging "top 1 per cent"...

Yet another self-serving faux "study" to prepare the general populace for yet another broadening of the tax revenue base, in parallel with the impending halving of corporate tax rates and the ongoing failure of gov'ts to crack down on tax avoiders..

Watch out next month, for suggestions that Britain's "VAT" taxes should either have another 5% added to it, or else extend it to cover more goods.

by Guest Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:15 am

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/01/news/millionaires-fleeing-france/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

by Original Quill Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:00 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense, I'd like to hear that argument. Unfortunately, the article is just an announcement. There's no elaboration on the so-called study.

It sounds to me like trickle-down theory, which one conservative called voodoo-economics. Lol...someone read John Maynard Keynes and said, what if I turned the book up-side-down?

There is a very simple study, just look at France when under before their recent left wing Government and how they taxed the rich. Hence now there is a centrist party in power.

When you over tax the rich they will simply move elsewhere.

Its not even rocket science this.

Are you making this up? There's no study, just a conclusory claim:

It said that Britain's "reliance" on a small number of people paying so much of the nation's tax means that the economy is now more "vulnerable" to financial shocks than it was before the recession a decade ago.

What are you smoking?

by Guest Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

There is a very simple study, just look at France when under before their recent left wing Government and how they taxed the rich. Hence now there is a centrist party in power.

When you over tax the rich they will simply move elsewhere.

Its not even rocket science this.

Are you making this up? There's no study, just a conclusory claim:

It said that Britain's "reliance" on a small number of people paying so much of the nation's tax means that the economy is now more "vulnerable" to financial shocks than it was before the recession a decade ago.

What are you smoking?

Its not a claim but a reality of when this happens..

You want to ignore the evidence, please do so, its what you do best

by Original Quill Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:16 pm

Thorin wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/01/news/millionaires-fleeing-france/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

Globalization is a reality. That is all your 2014 articles about France have to say. Globalization is just water seeking it's lowest level; as your article attests: [/i]"Once the standard of living in these countries [India and China] improves, we expect several wealthy people to move back."

The OP article, however, claimed that inverse taxation was responsible. Tax is a different subject than globalization. The wealthy receive more value, and use more resources. Of course they pay more.

by Original Quill Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:20 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Are you making this up? There's no study, just a conclusory claim:

What are you smoking?

Its not a claim but a reality of when this happens..

You want to ignore the evidence, please do so, its what you do best

Merriam-Webster wrote:ev·i·dence
ˈ/evədəns/
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Your OP article provides no evidence...a point you seem to miss. It just offers conclusions.

by Guest Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/01/news/millionaires-fleeing-france/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

Globalization is a reality. That is all your 2014 articles about France have to say. Globalization is just water seeking it's lowest level; as your article attests: [/i]"Once the standard of living in these countries [India and China] improves, we expect several wealthy people to move back."

The OP article, however, claimed that inverse taxation was responsible. Tax is a different subject than globalization. The wealthy receive more value, and use more resources. Of course they pay more.

This was France under socialism.
Hence you ignore the evidence again.

by Guest Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Its not a claim but a reality of when this happens..

You want to ignore the evidence, please do so, its what you do best

Merriam-Webster wrote:ev·i·dence
ˈ/evədəns/
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Your OP article provides no evidence...a point you seem to miss. It just offers conclusions.

I am giving you evidence.

You have given your opinions, not based on anything,

by Original Quill Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:29 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Your OP article provides no evidence...a point you seem to miss. It just offers conclusions.

I am giving you evidence.

You have given your opinions, not based on anything,

You are not giving evidence, you are repeating words. It's just another RW commission trying to re-litigate keynesian economics.

Been there, done that.

by Guest Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I am giving you evidence.

You have given your opinions, not based on anything,

You are not giving evidence, you are repeating words. It's just another RW commission trying to re-litigate keynesian economics.

Been there, done that.

I gave plenty of evidence and all you did was give a very poor based opinion

You can again ignore all the evidence all you like, its what you do best

by Guest Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:32 pm

The Office for Budget Responsibility was created in 2010 to provide independent and authoritative analysis of the UK’s public finances. It is one of a growing number of official independent fiscal watchdogs around the world.

We have five main roles:

http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/about-the-obr/what-we-do/

by Guest Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:33 pm

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is an advisory non-departmental public body established by the UK government to provide independent economic forecasts and 'independent' analysis of the public finances as background to the preparation of the UK budget.[1] It was formally created in May 2010 following the general election (although it had previously been constituted in shadow form by the Conservative party opposition in December 2009)[2] and was placed on a statutory footing by the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011.[3] It is one of a growing number of official independent fiscal watchdogs around the world.[4]

The office is currently headed by Robert Chote, formerly a director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Budget_Responsibility

So not right wing as Quill claimed.

by Original Quill Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:33 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You are not giving evidence, you are repeating words. It's just another RW commission trying to re-litigate keynesian economics.

Been there, done that.

I gave plenty of evidence and all you did was give a very poor based opinion

You can again ignore all the evidence all you like, its what you do best

Ohhh...all these words. I'm getting sleepy. Nothing going on in this thread; guess I'll move on...

by Guest Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I gave plenty of evidence and all you did was give a very poor based opinion

You can again ignore all the evidence all you like, its what you do best

Ohhh...all these words. I'm getting sleepy. Nothing going on in this thread; guess I'll move on...

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is an advisory non-departmental public body established by the UK government to provide independent economic forecasts and 'independent' analysis of the public finances as background to the preparation of the UK budget.[1] It was formally created in May 2010 following the general election (although it had previously been constituted in shadow form by the Conservative party opposition in December 2009)[2] and was placed on a statutory footing by the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011.[3] It is one of a growing number of official independent fiscal watchdogs around the world.[4]

The office is currently headed by Robert Chote, formerly a director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Budget_Responsibility

So not right wing as you claimed

Second, the reason I have ridiculed your replies is that you have not even read the report

Its your usual confirmation bias that kicks in denying you the ability to actually study the report.

http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/publications/

http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/overview-of-the-fiscal-risks-report/

by Original Quill Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:38 pm

Thorin wrote:The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is an advisory non-departmental public body established by the UK government to provide independent economic forecasts and 'independent' analysis of the public finances as background to the preparation of the UK budget.[1] It was formally created in May 2010 following the general election (although it had previously been constituted in shadow form by the Conservative party opposition in December 2009)[2] and was placed on a statutory footing by the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011.[3] It is one of a growing number of official independent fiscal watchdogs around the world.[4]

The office is currently headed by Robert Chote, formerly a director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Budget_Responsibility

So not right wing as Quill claimed.

The Office for Budget Responsibility was formerly (prior to May 2010) an arm of the Conservative Party. "It had previously been constituted in shadow form by the Conservative party opposition in December 2009." It was was "placed on a statutory footing by the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Budget_Responsibility

by Guest Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is an advisory non-departmental public body established by the UK government to provide independent economic forecasts and 'independent' analysis of the public finances as background to the preparation of the UK budget.[1] It was formally created in May 2010 following the general election (although it had previously been constituted in shadow form by the Conservative party opposition in December 2009)[2] and was placed on a statutory footing by the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011.[3] It is one of a growing number of official independent fiscal watchdogs around the world.[4]

The office is currently headed by Robert Chote, formerly a director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Budget_Responsibility

So not right wing as Quill claimed.

The Office for Budget Responsibility was formerly (prior to May 2010) an arm of the Conservative Party. "It had previously been constituted in shadow form by the Conservative party opposition in December 2009." It was was "placed on a statutory footing by the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Budget_Responsibility

Yes formerly now independent.

by 'Wolfie Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:38 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Your OP article provides no evidence...a point you seem to miss. It just offers conclusions.

I am giving you evidence.

You have given your opinions, not based on anything,

Britain's economic security put at risk by growing reliance on taxing the rich, OBR warns 1763903427

Those Tory mongrels are barking louder, week by week ...

Thorin the Dodger is lowering himself to doing a Tommy Monk here;
repeating his garbage over and over, and then laughingly calling it "evidence"..

by Guest Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:54 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I am giving you evidence.

You have given your opinions, not based on anything,

Those Tory mongrels are barking louder, week by week ...

Thorin the Dodger is lowering himself to doing a Tommy Monk here;
repeating his garbage over and over, and then laughingly calling it "evidence"..

Thank you for your kind words and nothing on the debate except your poor unfounded claims

Anything else

by Ben Reilly Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:27 am

First of all, I doubt that most millionaires will flee the country of their birth over a few percentage points worth of a tax increase.

But for the ones who do, do you really want them in your country anyway? People with that mentality obviously only care about money and have no patriotism or compassion for their countrymen.

by Guest Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:50 am

Ben Reilly wrote:First of all, I doubt that most millionaires will flee the country of their birth over a few percentage points worth of a tax increase.

But for the ones who do, do you really want them in your country anyway? People with that mentality obviously only care about money and have no patriotism or compassion for their countrymen.

1) Based on what? You not knowing the vast majority of rich people who have paid into the system far more than you could achieve in a billion life times?

2) People who work hard for their money which you are now castigating, because you believe in an inequality system that targets them for being successful?

3) How about leading by example and giving away 70% of your wealth to those who need it?

by 'Wolfie Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:10 am

How much is that Dodger in the window ???

https://youtu.be/2AkLE4X-bbU

Woof woof !

Britain's economic security put at risk by growing reliance on taxing the rich, OBR warns 1763903427

by Guest Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:13 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

How much is that Dodger in the window ???

https://youtu.be/2AkLE4X-bbU

Woof woof !

Thank you again for your kind words and the red.

Anything else?

by Raggamuffin Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:19 am

Ben Reilly wrote:First of all, I doubt that most millionaires will flee the country of their birth over a few percentage points worth of a tax increase.

But for the ones who do, do you really want them in your country anyway? People with that mentality obviously only care about money and have no patriotism or compassion for their countrymen.

Oh I don't know. They probably have properties and businesses in other countries anyway, so they may well leave. If they made the money through their own efforts, it's not just money they care about, it's their own ambition and hard work, so they might resent having to pay more. In any case, patriotism and compassion don't pay the bills.

by Original Quill Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:First of all, I doubt that most millionaires will flee the country of their birth over a few percentage points worth of a tax increase.

But for the ones who do, do you really want them in your country anyway? People with that mentality obviously only care about money and have no patriotism or compassion for their countrymen.

Oh I don't know. They probably have properties and businesses in other countries anyway, so they may well leave. If they made the money through their own efforts, it's not just money they care about, it's their own ambition and hard work, so they might resent having to pay more. In any case, patriotism and compassion don't pay the bills.

What you have just described is Globalization. Globalization has to do with high costs of production in relative locations, and the ease of mobility among the rich and their capital. Here's the argument in the Telegraph article:

Telegraph article wrote:The [Office of Budget Responsibility] says that Britain's economy could face significant damage if wealthy people, who are are "highly mobile", choose to move to other countries with lower tax rates.

That is not uniquely a tax problem. It also has to do with the cost of labour, transport and other resources…and where capitalists place their money. It's a globalization issue.

The article, by a Conservative think tank, is just trying to whip up a concern where none exists. Didge is trying to cross the two wires between Keynesian economics and globalization. The fact that neither he, nor the article, provide any support for this is telling.

Telegraph article wrote:It said that Britain's "reliance" on a small number of people paying so much of the nation's tax means that the economy is now more "vulnerable" to financial shocks than it was before the recession a decade ago.

Why limit the issue to taxes? One could equally say that this is an argument that wealth should not be permitted to cluster in such a small portion of the population. Spread wealth around--broaden the base--and Britain will be much more secure.

by Guest Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:29 pm

Thorin wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:First of all, I doubt that most millionaires will flee the country of their birth over a few percentage points worth of a tax increase.

But for the ones who do, do you really want them in your country anyway? People with that mentality obviously only care about money and have no patriotism or compassion for their countrymen.

1) Based on what? You not knowing the vast majority of rich people who have paid into the system far more than you could achieve in a billion life times?

2) People who work hard for their money which you are now castigating, because you believe in an inequality system that targets them for being successful?

3) How about leading by example and giving away 70% of your wealth to those who need it?

by Original Quill Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:47 pm

I can't think of a better use for tax monies than education and the enrichment of knowledge to help our society.

When wealth accumulates in the hands of the few, it surpasses need and goes on to be spent on frivolousness. Investment only comes when frivolousness turns into boredom. Taxation diverts wealth into productive channels.

Where else are they going to spend it? Trump tower?

by 'Wolfie Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:07 pm

The fartful Dodger even defeats some of his own arguments with that article...

Both Didge and 'big dog' Deano like to keep on falsely claiming that a small minority of millionaires, billionaires and corporations are paying "most" and /or "the majority" of Britain's tax revenue..

That article says it was just over 27% last financial year -- even less than the "30-odd %" that I suggested on another thread on here last week -- and still well short than the "most" that those Tory-apologist trickle-heads keep on claiming.

by nicko Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:47 pm

Wolfie, if you keep your mouth shut people will still think you a fool.

When you keep opening it we know you are!!

by Guest Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:17 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The fartful Dodger even defeats some of his own arguments with that article...

Both Didge and 'big dog' Deano like to keep on falsely claiming that a small minority of millionaires, billionaires and corporations are paying "most" and /or "the majority" of Britain's tax revenue..

That article says it was just over 27% last financial year -- even less than the "30-odd %" that I suggested on another thread on here last week -- and still well short than the "most" that those Tory-apologist trickle-heads keep on claiming.

Thank you for your kind words and not anything on the topic itself

Anything else?

by Original Quill Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:01 pm

nicko wrote:Wolfie, if you keep your mouth shut people will still think you a fool.

When you keep opening it we know you are!!

It's an old joke, nicko.

Now, have you got anything to add to what Wolf said? Cause he's said more than you...or, for that matter, the OP. It's just a bad apologia for rich folks. Conservatives represent special interests; liberals represent all people.

by Guest Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:Wolfie, if you keep your mouth shut people will still think you a fool.

When you keep opening it we know you are!!

It's an old joke, nicko.

Now, have you got anything to add to what Wolf said? Cause he's said more than you...or, for that matter, the OP. It's just a bad apologia for rich folks. Conservatives represent special interests; liberals represent all people.

Britain's economic security put at risk by growing reliance on taxing the rich, OBR warns 3489511464

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:11 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The fartful Dodger even defeats some of his own arguments with that article...

Both Didge and 'big dog' Deano like to keep on falsely claiming that a small minority of millionaires, billionaires and corporations are paying "most" and /or "the majority" of Britain's tax revenue..

That article says it was just over 27% last financial year -- even less than the "30-odd %" that I suggested on another thread on here last week -- and still well short than the "most" that those Tory-apologist trickle-heads keep on claiming.

That's a high percentage for the top 1%. What about the top 2% or 3%?

by 'Wolfie Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:27 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The fartful Dodger even defeats some of his own arguments with that article...

Both Didge and 'big dog' Deano like to keep on falsely claiming that a small minority of millionaires, billionaires and corporations are paying "most" and /or "the majority" of Britain's tax revenue..

That article says it was just over 27% last financial year -- even less than the "30-odd %" that I suggested on another thread on here last week -- and still well short than the "most" that those Tory-apologist trickle-heads keep on claiming.

That's a high percentage for the top 1%. What about the top 2% or 3%?

That 27% doesn't only include the billionsires and millionares, but also the corporations that they control...

What's more important is the proportion of the economy that they represent (probably over 30% ?) -- 'Big businesses' contributions re: employment and productive contributions has been falling since the 1960s..

And the fallacy that this top percentage "creates jobs" and employs many people no longer holds water --- over the last few decades their proportion of the workforce has virtually halved (due to "off-shoring" of jobs, along with increasing mechanisation, automation and 'outsourcing'..); at the same time as their tax dodging has shot up..

The facile arguments that you, Thorin and head keep putting forward belong back in the 1950s -- not in the 21st century.

by Guest Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:31 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The fartful Dodger even defeats some of his own arguments with that article...

Both Didge and 'big dog' Deano like to keep on falsely claiming that a small minority of millionaires, billionaires and corporations are paying "most" and /or "the majority" of Britain's tax revenue..

That article says it was just over 27% last financial year -- even less than the "30-odd %" that I suggested on another thread on here last week -- and still well short than the "most" that those Tory-apologist trickle-heads keep on claiming.

That's a high percentage for the top 1%. What about the top 2% or 3%?

Its a massive percentage that very few people pay and help finance this country

by 'Wolfie Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:32 am

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:Wolfie, if you keep your mouth shut people will still think you a fool.

When you keep opening it we know you are!!

It's an old joke, nicko.

Now, have you got anything to add to what Wolf said? Cause he's said more than you...or, for that matter, the OP. It's just a bad apologia for rich folks. Conservatives represent special interests; liberals represent all people.

nicko just likes to reinforce the fact that he understands zilch about Economics and business...

by Guest Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:35 am

The top 1% in Britain are defined as those earning more than £162,000 before tax, according to HMRC’s latest Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI). The average income for the top 1% in the UK in 2010 was approximately £267,000 a year before tax, according to the 2016 World Wealth and Income Database, while the average earnings of the top 0.1% was £990,000.

by Original Quill Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:15 pm

Thorin wrote:The top 1% in Britain are defined as those earning more than £162,000 before tax, according to HMRC’s latest Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI). The average income for the top 1% in the UK in 2010 was approximately £267,000 a year before tax, according to the 2016 World Wealth and Income Database, while the average earnings of the top 0.1% was £990,000.

One percent is defined as one part in one hundred parts. It cannot be changed by any panel, government or otherwise.

If you want to say a government panel found 1% those surveyed earned £162,000, ok. But they didn't "define" it.

What you have given are aging data, that do not say that.

by Guest Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:The top 1% in Britain are defined as those earning more than £162,000 before tax, according to HMRC’s latest Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI). The average income for the top 1% in the UK in 2010 was approximately £267,000 a year before tax, according to the 2016 World Wealth and Income Database, while the average earnings of the top 0.1% was £990,000.

One percent is defined as one part in one hundred parts. It cannot be changed by any panel, government or otherwise.

If you want to say a government panel found 1% those surveyed earned £162,000, ok. But they didn't "define" it.

I see you failed to understand the difference between the 1% and the 0.1%

Inequality again.

by Original Quill Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:20 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

One percent is defined as one part in one hundred parts. It cannot be changed by any panel, government or otherwise.

If you want to say a government panel found 1% those surveyed earned £162,000, ok. But they didn't "define" it.

I see you failed to understand the difference between the 1% and the 0.1%

Inequality again.

Confused again, didge? Maybe you just better avoid thinking. Stick to C&P.

by Guest Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I see you failed to understand the difference between the 1% and the 0.1%

Inequality again.

Confused again, didge? Maybe you just better avoid thinking. Stick to C&P.

And as seen when I point out what you missed here, you then resort by acting your age.

That of a 3 year old

by Original Quill Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:28 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Confused again, didge? Maybe you just better avoid thinking. Stick to C&P.

And as seen when I point out what you missed here, you then resort by acting your age.

That of a 3 year old

Is there a point to be made by you? So far, we haven't heard one.

by Guest Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

And as seen when I point out what you missed here, you then resort by acting your age.

That of a 3 year old

Is there a point to be made by you? So far, we haven't heard one.

I have made plenty, which you do your usual replies of insults.

The fact you have not even still read the report says it all

by Original Quill Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:30 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Is there a point to be made by you? So far, we haven't heard one.

I have made plenty, which you do your usual replies of insults.

The fact you have not even still read the report says it all

Is there a point you wish to make? Speak up.

The article in the OP makes no point. It is totally peremptory and conclusory.

by Guest Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I have made plenty, which you do your usual replies of insults.

The fact you have not even still read the report says it all

Is there a point you wish to make? Speak up.

The article in the OP makes no point. It is totally peremptory and conclusory.

Hilarious and this coming from the poster who has not even read the report.

by Original Quill Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:39 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Is there a point you wish to make? Speak up.

The article in the OP makes no point. It is totally peremptory and conclusory.

Hilarious and this coming from the poster who has not even read the report.

There's not much to read. It's just declaratory and lacking in any kind of elucidation. I've read it, picked it apart and quoted its vacuous passages.

Lol. You are at a loss for words, aren't you?

by Guest Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Hilarious and this coming from the poster who has not even read the report.

There's not much to read. It's just declaratory and lacking in any kind of elucidation. I've read it, picked it apart and quoted its vacuous passages.

Lol. You are at a loss for words, aren't you?

Which is an admission to not reading

You never read it because I had to post the link to the report and it shows you still have not read it

Hope you never glossed over all evidence in a trial this way Quill?

by Original Quill Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:54 pm

Jeeze...it's a simple read. It distills down to trying to make globalization into a counter-Keynesian argument.

It's designed to confuse those who have either not caught up with globalization, or perhaps, forgotten Keynesian economics. It simply says this is that without bothering to elaborate.

And of course, it's wrong, which is--may I suggest--the reason why it fails to go into much detail. It's a classic shit-stirring pitch by a conservative issue mill. It's not very intelligent because a sizable portion of conservatives are not very intelligent. As John Stuart Mill said, "I didn't mean that conservatives are stupid, but that stupid people are conservative." A simple declarative argument will suffice for conservatives.

by Sponsored content