Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    No, that is not my solution. I am stating a fact - tax them too much, and they will go somewhere else.

    We need a minimum global tax on the rich
    Sounds like an excellent idea but I don't think there's any remote chance of that happening in the near future. So the next best thing is doing the right thing and taxing them appropriately domestically.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Oh, dear. Do you use tesco value aluminium foil for your tin foil hat? You must because 'OMFGJUSUEROR THE RICHERZ ARE OUTZ TO GETS ME'.
    aren't politicians generally from privately educated wealthy families? aren't lots of conservatives millionaires? doesn't osborne own 15% of a family business that has paid £0 in tax?

    the rich run the country, that is not debatable, and they have financial interests to protect
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Sounds like an excellent idea but I don't think there's any remote chance of that happening in the near future. So the next best thing is doing the right thing and taxing them appropriately domestically.
    That only hurts us, though, and gifts them to other countries

    Is that the right thing? To reduce our own tax income?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    "I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people." - Isaac Newton
    If physics were in the same state as economics is today we would still be using the Geocentric model of heavenly bodies.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by High Stakes)
    Spoiler:
    Show















    Lol I find these arguments kind of silly. Economics is not accurate at forecasting, yes, I think everybody agrees on that. The field attempts to predict decisions humans make predicated on the assumption that we are all rational. The problem with Economics is that we make a lot of assumptions in our models. But as the field develops and progresses are models ought to become more and more accurate. If everyone gave up now and didn't even try to further the field we won't be any nearer to better understanding our economy. Duh.
    I would have to agree, there has been in the last 30 years some incredible progress in terms of behavioural economics, which is more psychological in nature but provides a great frame work to create new models with. Richard Thalers book "Misbehaving" has really shed light on the problems with Economics, whilst also making it clear that the subject is still useful, its that it needs changing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    aren't politicians generally from privately educated wealthy families?
    You're assuming that being privately educated automatically means you're rich.


    (Original post by mangala)
    aren't lots of conservatives millionaires?
    Do you know what conservatism is or do you assume that the Tory party is the only representation of conservatism? Even then, the Tories are not about protecting the rich.

    (Original post by mangala)
    doesn't osborne own 15% of a family business that has paid £0 in tax?
    And? His responsibility is to the business' shareholder, e.g. himself. Your idea of morality is far too objective, and ignores relativism.

    (Original post by mangala)
    the rich run the country, that is not debatable, and they have financial interests to protect
    Yes, it is debatable. You have no evidence to suggest that they do, except for what you want to believe.
    Offline

    19
    Good attempt at trying to be funny but not quite there yet
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    That only hurts us, though, and gifts them to other countries

    Is that the right thing? To reduce our own tax income?
    If the alternative is willingly allowing them to shaft the rest of society then yes. GDP is not the most important metric in the universe.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    If physics were in the same state as economics is today we would still be using the Geocentric model of heavenly bodies.
    It needs an enlightenment
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    You're assuming that being privately educated automatically means you're rich.




    Do you know what conservatism is or do you assume that the Tory party is the only representation of conservatism? Even then, the Tories are not about protecting the rich.



    And? His responsibility is to the business' shareholder, e.g. himself. Your idea of morality is far too objective, and ignores relativism.



    Yes, it is debatable. You have no evidence to suggest that they do, except for what you want to believe.

    it is not debatable you dirty tory.

    bit old, but
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/elec...hy-Tories.html

    those lib dems have been replaced by other wealthy tories. so can we now establish that the country is run by the rich, yes?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    it is not debatable you dirty tory.

    bit old, but
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/elec...hy-Tories.html

    those lib dems have been replaced by other wealthy tories. so can we now establish that the country is run by the rich, yes?
    Why are you even here debating whether or not the tories and lib dems are run by the rich? Who cares, they are voted in by us, if we were all so bothered by that fact they would never win an election.

    By the way, because people are rich it doesn't mean they dont have the ability to vote or go into politics.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by High Stakes)
    Spoiler:
    Show















    Lol I find these arguments kind of silly. Economics is not accurate at forecasting, yes, I think everybody agrees on that. The field attempts to predict decisions humans make predicated on the assumption that we are all rational. The problem with Economics is that we make a lot of assumptions in our models. But as the field develops and progresses are models ought to become more and more accurate. If everyone gave up now and didn't even try to further the field we won't be any nearer to better understanding our economy. Duh.
    So if your models are fundamentally based on that then that needs to be taken into account.

    It isn't a problem that economies are incredibly complex. It;s that the field of economics is incredibly anti-science and rejects empiricism. It is better to acknowledge how little you actually know than pretend you do know. I'm not saying economics as a subject should be discarded. Rather it should be dragged out of the dark ages.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    it is not debatable you dirty tory.
    Well done on repeating a previous post, ol' chap. I'll go back to flogging my peasants now.



    (Original post by mangala)
    bit old, but
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/elec...hy-Tories.html

    those lib dems have been replaced by other wealthy tories. so can we now establish that the country is run by the rich, yes?
    Your assumption is that we live in a system where the government is the sole authority on the operations of a nation. Try again.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So if your models are fundamentally based on that then that needs to be taken into account.

    It isn't a problem that economies are incredibly complex. It;s that the field of economics is incredibly anti-science and rejects empiricism. It is better to acknowledge how little you actually know than pretend you do know. I'm not saying economics as a subject should be discarded. Rather it should be dragged out of the dark ages.
    But where is empiricism? Economics at it's basic level deals with how humans react when faced with choice. This goes all into the behaviour of humans. How can we empirically predict how every human will act when faced with a change in some economic condition (insert x increase in inflation or y fall in strength of pound) without making some form of generalisation. The natural sciences have it a lot easier.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So if your models are fundamentally based on that then that needs to be taken into account.

    It isn't a problem that economies are incredibly complex. It;s that the field of economics is incredibly anti-science and rejects empiricism. It is better to acknowledge how little you actually know than pretend you do know. I'm not saying economics as a subject should be discarded. Rather it should be dragged out of the dark ages.
    In fact, its mathematics which has ruined Economics. The subject tries to make predictions through research and data about peoples behaviour; most of which has little to do with any complicated mathematical work. As i said above your post, we need to take into account the use of research into how consumers actually behave rather than pretending like they are all economic students.

    But overall i do agree with your sentiment, the course needs to change.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BradleyLawrence)
    Why are you even here debating whether or not the tories and lib dems are run by the rich? Who cares, they are voted in by us, if we were all so bothered by that fact they would never win an election.

    By the way, because people are rich it doesn't mean they dont have the ability to vote or go into politics.
    1. the system is rigged in the tories' favour (dont get me wrong, im not defending labour at all)

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...bour-win-again

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...sition-7424965

    2. mainstream media is owned ( or managed, in the case of the BBC ) by extremely wealthy people with financial interests to protect, so they can spout whatever they like to get the tories elected

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-existent-myth

    or you can look at any maintstream news paper, it'll probably say something bad about muslims on the cover if u aren't sure which one is right wing

    3. im not saying rich people don't have the ability to be politicians - i never said the tories are bad because they don't know what they're doing. they know exactly what they're doing, they're getting them and their friends richer

    ( http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-credit-suisse )
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Well done on repeating a previous post, ol' chap. I'll go back to flogging my peasants now.





    Your assumption is that we live in a system where the government is the sole authority on the operations of a nation. Try again.
    fair enough mate i'll volley you back to when your family owned slaves
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Oh, dear. Do you use tesco value aluminium foil for your tin foil hat? You must because 'OMFGJUSUEROR THE RICHERZ ARE OUTZ TO GETS ME'.
    Oh will you shut up you arrogant condescending prrickk. You rich ppl cant make a proper argument because you lot dont know the reality . Why do you need to bring 'tesco value' in to this as a way of mocking other ppls social status? Disgusting
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    1. the system is rigged in the tories' favour (dont get me wrong, im not defending labour at all)

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...bour-win-again

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...sition-7424965

    2. mainstream media is owned ( or managed, in the case of the BBC ) by extremely wealthy people with financial interests to protect, so they can spout whatever they like to get the tories elected

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-existent-myth

    or you can look at any maintstream news paper, it'll probably say something bad about muslims on the cover if u aren't sure which one is right wing

    3. im not saying rich people don't have the ability to be politicians - i never said the tories are bad because they don't know what they're doing. they know exactly what they're doing, they're getting them and their friends richer

    ( http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-credit-suisse )
    The BBC is incredibly left wing, what are you even on about mate. Stop believing everything you read.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by under8ed)
    Oh will you shut up you arrogant prrickk
    There's only one k in 'prick'. Better luck next time, old chap.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.