Turn on thread page Beta

THOUSANDS march through Scotland's capital against state visit by DRUMPF watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    The laffer curve is an argument against extremely high taxation such as the 75% tax.
    After cutting the 50% tax , revenue increased.
    As corporation tax has been cut I believe revenue has increased ( I may be wrong)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...-Treasury.html
    Your blind if you can't see this.
    The fact your defending a 75% tax is farcical


    And Keynes's theories haven't failed previously? , look a the 70's, Callaghan admitted it himself.
    Also those articles don't necessarily prove his theories failed.
    The funny thing is in my original post I said Friedman didn't support austerity , rofl.


    Nope I'm not confident , nor did I claim to be an expert.
    But your confidence is shining here.
    You don't know me so can't judge my knowledge and you weren't part of this argument either.


    I was not personally attacking one , I think your the one launching personal attacks .
    Thank you for repeating back to me what I already said. I'm not defending a 75% tax. I'm criticizing your attempt to discredit progressive taxation systems by citing an extreme example and a theory that doesn't and was never meant to discredit progressive taxation rates.

    I never said Keynes' theories never 'failed'. It is not a matter of the theory 'failing' - it is, as I said, a matter of application. All economics theories are based on assumptions that are virtually never met in reality. So all can 'fail' when applied in the real world. The facts are the progressive taxation 'works' in so far as it is meant to, as do public services.

    You're just saying your not confident. But someone who wasn't wouldn't not be so cutting when debating someone else. Don't doubt that - when debating this topic against you - I am very confident. That's because I can judge you, based on what you've written.

    I wasn't part of this argument but this is a public forum and if you're afraid to appear a fool then I will graciously let you wallow in your errors.

    For your arrogance, hypocrisy and rudeness towards Chaotic, and the way you tagged in people who agreed with you to gang up on them, feel free to consider yourself 'attacked'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Thank you for repeating back to me what I already said. I'm not defending a 75% tax. I'm criticizing your attempt to discredit progressive taxation systems by citing an extreme example and a theory that doesn't and was never meant to discredit progressive taxation rates.
    I didn't say it did discredit progressive taxation.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    T
    I never said Keynes' theories never 'failed'. It is not a matter of the theory 'failing' - it is, as I said, a matter of application. All economics theories are based on assumptions that are virtually never met in reality. So all can 'fail' when applied in the real world.
    Agreed


    (Original post by RayApparently)
    T

    You're just saying your not confident. But someone who wasn't wouldn't not be so cutting when debating someone else. Don't doubt that - when debating this topic against you - I am very confident. That's because I can judge you, based on what you've written.

    I wasn't part of this argument but this is a public forum and if you're afraid to appear a fool then I will graciously let you wallow in your errors.

    For your arrogance, hypocrisy and rudeness towards Chaotic, and the way you tagged in people who agreed with you to gang up on them, feel free to consider yourself 'attacked'.
    I have not appeared as a fool ,precisely the opposite , you are free to believe what you like( you are free to think of me as a moron, can't say I give one though)
    I'm not really bothered if you 'attacked' me.
    I consider this argument to be over!
    See you on GE day!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    I didn't say it did discredit progressive taxation.

    Agreed

    I have not appeared as a fool ,precisely the opposite , you are free to believe what you like
    I'm not really bothered if you 'attacked' me.
    I consider this argument to be over!
    See you on GE day!
    This is what you said:

    (Original post by fleky6910)
    You want progressive taxation? Exactly , you want other peoples money that you haven't earned. Have you learn the laffer curve , oh wait you don't understand economics so I don't expect you to. Lets see what happened when a 75% tax was introduced in France https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rcent-supertax The deficit soared , revenue fell , unemployment increased. Again shows you don't understand economics.
    If the link wasn't there to give evidence against progressive taxation then one can only assume it was therefore for no reason at all.

    The fact that you say you don't appear foolish as you dole out weak arguments whilst simulatanously accusing other people of not knowing what they're talking about does not make it so.

    I don't gain anything from this argument, so I'm fine to see it end - but I'm sure you'll remember this exchange the next time you accuse someone of running from a debate because they're not equipped for it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    This is what you said:



    If the link wasn't there to give evidence against progressive taxation then one can only assume it was therefore for no reason at all.

    The fact that you say you don't appear foolish as you dole out weak arguments whilst simulatanously accusing other people of not knowing what they're talking about does not make it so.

    I don't gain anything from this argument, so I'm fine to see it end - but I'm sure you'll remember this exchange the next time you accuse someone of running from a debate because they're not equipped for it.
    The link was there to shows that overly high progressive taxes don't work. I never at any points said progressive taxation doesn't work and is discredited. There is a respected argument for a negative income tax however ( Friedman's).
    None of my arguments were weak but you are free to believe so.
    Funny how you only picked the progressive taxation part and none of the other points from the bar
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    The link was there to shows that overly high progressive taxes don't work. I never at any points said progressive taxation doesn't work and is discredited.
    None of my arguments were weak but you are free to believe so.
    Funny how you only picked the progressive taxation part and none of the other points
    That was your failing then, because you gave 'evidence' without actually making an argument. The only thing you mentioned was the progressive tax rates. Then you brought up the laffer curve as it it was relevant and then you put that link - which apparently wasn't meant to have anything to do with progressive taxation.

    Therefore, you commented on Chaotic's post about progressive taxation and public services with an argument against something they weren't talking about (extreme rates of taxation). It sounds to me like you're trying to backtrack.

    "'None of my arguments are weak" - I can't say I'm blown away by the strength of that.

    If you made points that I missed out then feel free to present them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    (extreme rates of taxation). .
    It is related to progressive taxation , I pointed it out as an example that overly high progressive taxation doesn't work

    That was your failing then, because you gave 'evidence' without actually making an argument. The only thing you mentioned was the progressive tax rates. Then you brought up the laffer curve as it it was relevant and then you put that link - which apparently wasn't meant to have anything to do with progressive taxation.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    T. Then you brought up the laffer curve as it it was relevant and then you put that link - which apparently wasn't meant to have anything to do with progressive taxation.
    Thanks for the compliment

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Therefore, you commented on Chaotic's post about progressive taxation and public services with an argument against something they weren't talking about (extreme rates of taxation). It sounds to me like you're trying to backtrack.
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What do we want? Free **** at the point of access.

    Who's gonna give it to us? Progressive wealth redistribution.
    .
    The argument was very general , my argument of extreme progressive taxation is valid. We already have progressive taxation so I was under the assumption he wanted it to be more progressive so I brought up the laffer curve ( more revenue for HMRC after 50p tax rate was cut).

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    "'None of my arguments are weak" - I can't say I'm blown away by the strength of that.
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    you dole out weak arguments
    Hmmm , seems you used a similair phrase, you aren't blown away by a similar statement you made?

    I doubt we'll gain much by debating fiscal multipliers etc. so lets leave it there
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    It is related to progressive taxation , I pointed it out as an example that overly high progressive taxation doesn't work

    That was your failing then, because you gave 'evidence' without actually making an argument. The only thing you mentioned was the progressive tax rates. Then you brought up the laffer curve as it it was relevant and then you put that link - which apparently wasn't meant to have anything to do with progressive taxation.

    Thanks for the compliment

    The argument was very general , my argument of extreme progressive taxation is valid. We already have progressive taxation so I was under the assumption he wanted it to be more progressive so I brought up the laffer curve ( more revenue for HMRC after 50p tax rate was cut).

    Hmmm , seems you used a similair phrase, you aren't blown away by a similar statement you made?

    I doubt we'll gain much by debating fiscal multipliers etc. so lets leave it there
    So now you were arguing against progressive taxation? Chaotic's post was in favour of progressive taxation, yours provided no counter to that simple premise.

    I'm genuinely unsure of whether or not you realize that was a typo (and the fact I'm unsure is rather uncomplimentary to you I'm afraid).

    Like I said, it's an argument about high tax rates - not necessarily progressive ones. Though it's good to know that your immense glee at the thought of outsmarting them seems to have been based on you assuming an argument on their part.

    I demonstrated why your arguments are weak. All you've been able to do is state the contrary.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Corbyn, Stalin, Castro and Mao had their faults, but I wouldn't call them nutters...
    You really think Corbyn is in the same list as figures like Mao and Stalin? :lol:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Sadly not; the person I quoted seemed to. Still, I do have some hope for Corbyn.
    I'm not expecting him to commence massive liquidations of enemies of the people anytime soon, although thinking about it, he did try and purge Tom Watson.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Bored, so might as well help out ChaoticButterfly who's generosity towards you and humility is a prime example of the concept that "the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt".

    Progressive taxation - being something that can be supported by anyone not matter how much income they earn is clearly not about taking others' money. You cannot accuse Chaotic of wanting others' money without knowing how much they pay into the system and how much they get out. Even if you did it would be an argument against the person - i.e. Irrelevant in a discussion about economics. The Laffer Curve isn't and never has been an argument against progressive taxation, it is a theory that supposes that extremely high absolute tax rates might be counterproductive. Indeed if you are arguing that overtaxing is a show of greed then it is ridiculous to use the laffer curve as part of your argument because using the curve (which we can only guess at the shape of) is about trying to extract as much tax revenue from the taxpayer as possible before they take measures to avoid tax. I realize that some right-wingers are so limited in their thinking that they think the words 'laffer curve' constitute an argument but to anyone who's looking for a genuine low-tax economy and not a cheap (and flimsy) argument the curve has nothing to offer them.

    The hypocrisy of calling out someone for using the Guardian as a source and then doing so yourself is amusing but unimportant. Though it should be noted that Chaotic was not saying the articles 'disproved' Friedman - rather, they were showing you real life occasions when the application of his theories had failed. The exact same thing you attempted to do with your article. With regards to the example you cite, as far as I'm aware there was no significant effect on unemployment, indeed the tax was quickly abolished and the increase in the deficit would be due to falling to predict the revenues the tax would bring rather than being a direct result of the tax. Needless to say, an example of a tax not bringing in revenue is no argument against progressive taxation or public services. There is a reason why there is a near-universal consensus on both these things, regardless of the existence of a few intelligent economists who might disagree. You have been the one hiding behind Friedman's academic achievements rather than demonstrating your own understanding of economics.



    All I got from reading your exchange is that Chaotic is modest and doesn't wish to go in depth into economic theory because they know they only have a shallow understanding. That doesn't mean your understanding is better, it just means you're more confident - again, I'm reminded of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
    Although most of your points here are sound Ray, I strongly disapprove of you praising Chaotic Butterfly, particularly with regard to "humility."

    This is the same reprehensible human being who advocated violence as a political tool and said Milo Yiannopoulous should be punched.

    Now, despite my overwhelming urge to post an ironic Pinochet meme in response, I think it's time we call out these sorts of vile ideologies that endorse violence against those that disagree with us and do so in a peaceful way.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Corbyn, Stalin, Castro and Mao had their faults, but I wouldn't call them nutters...
    Are you deluded or just trolling? Stalin is and clearly was a nutter, surely the Great Purge and the various other purges he held due to his extreme paranoia can tell you this. Paranoia was an extreme mental condition that he suffered from. Are you also aware that Stalinist Russia was not communist? I very much doubt you would like to live in such times, whereby you're forced to have work an extra 3 hours, risk losing your job immediately for being absent/sick and having to resort to the black market to get the necessary goods which were only ever really provided in party dachas (to the political elite). Stalin was a mad man.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Although most of your points here are sound Ray, I strongly disapprove of you praising Chaotic Butterfly, particularly with regard to "humility."

    This is the same reprehensible human being who advocated violence as a political tool and said Milo Yiannopoulous should be punched.

    Now, despite my overwhelming urge to post an ironic Pinochet meme in response, I think it's time we call out these sorts of vile ideologies that endorse violence against those that disagree with us and do so in a peaceful way.
    I'm unaware of Chaotic's comments about violence. I am referencing only their admitting the gaps in their knowledge, whilst fleky uses that self-awareness to assert some sort of intellectual superiority which I'm sure you can see from reading the thread, isn't actually there.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You really think Corbyn is in the same list as figures like Mao and Stalin? :lol:
    I wish Corbyn had the political cunning of Lenin
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The left/ socialism is on a global decline
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    Thatcher and Reagan started globalisation. She is the devil. The working class are screwed because of her.
    Aren't they screwed because Labous thought it a spiffing idea to flood the country with cheap E.European labour?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)


    Chants of "down with Trump, down with May". Speeches addressing May and the greater threat of the far right world wide, this wasn't limited in focus on Trump, although he has acted as a catalyst for action.

    Yesss

    People that like that have always carried hammers and sickles. You can start worrying about communism when there is some new mainstream symbol for it that regular people start carrying around.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    If you can't wave a flag with a swastika on without severe reprimandations and potentially legal action I don't see why the same shouldn't be for any communist insignia. Considering how the body count for communism is 4x as high.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)


    One can only dream...
    Seriously though the hammer and sickle is a dead symbol. It is only carried around by leftists sects and a minority of atavists. It used to be something the common worker would parade over his Barbour shop after his boss fled due to some uprising. The symbol has no currency anymore with "normal" people, if anything it actively puts them off.

    The new sickle and hammer would probably have to be some rock music symbol or something. Hence why Podemos in Spain have co opted Ghost Busters soundtrack for their events. I don't want to be mean to my comrades but if you are a left winger and are using the symbols from 100+ years ago you are a fool, albeit a well meaning one..
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hirsty97)
    If you can't wave a flag with a swastika on without severe reprimandations and potentially legal action I don't see why the same shouldn't be for any communist insignia. Considering how the body count for communism is 4x as high.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 3, 2017
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.