Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gaben)
    ROFL!! :rofl::rofl:

    Did you watch the Ted Cruz vs Bernie Sanders debate? It's really good. Bernie got a lesson in Economics.
    I watched part of it , Ted was wrecking him.
    Still funny how the left winger still hasn't replied.
    I think your dupe check is still going on , you should be accepted into the party in the next few days!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    I watched part of it , Ted was wrecking him.
    Still funny how the left winger still hasn't replied.
    I think your dupe check is still going on , you should be accepted into the party in the next few days!
    No worries, I'm looking forward to joining the party.

    Here's one of my favourite parts of the debate

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Funny how you don't actually address the actual points of the argument which are on the previous page. You clearly don't understand economics as you think the guardian disproves the most influential economist of the 20th century.
    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.
    I know enough to know their are economists who are on my side of politics and think the current state of affairs is not ideal to say the least. yanis Varafoukis, Joseph Stiglitz, Ha-Choon Chang to name a few.

    Any honest economist knows those things are not ridiculous notions in that meme you posted. We have the NHS in the UK and we still function. Empirically it is possible to have "free things".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I know enough to know their are economists who are on my side of politics and think the current state of affairs is not ideal to say the least. yanis Varafoukis, Joseph Stiglitz, Ha-Choon Chang to name a few.

    Any honest economist knows those things are not ridiculous notions in that meme you posted. We have the NHS in the UK and we still function. Empirically it is possible to have "free things".
    Still babbling , didn't actually respond to any points. Naming economists is not an argument.
    I used the meme after using substantial arguments, none of which you responded to. Did you respond to the laffer curve point or the French 75% tax?
    No.
    Did you respond to any of my points on the other thread about Keynesian economics and the fiscal , multiplier?
    No.
    Did you respond to my points about Thatcher and the 70's?
    No
    You have provided no evidence and not actually debated the subject matter.
    At this point your opinion is invalid.
    Don't debate subject matters you don't understand
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Funny how you don't actually address the actual points of the argument which are on the previous page. You clearly don't understand economics as you think the guardian disproves the most influential economist of the 20th century.
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Thanks! Don't argue about things you have no idea about.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    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 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

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    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.
    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.
    (Original post by RayApparently)

    That doesn't mean your understanding is better, it just means you're more confident - again, I'm reminded of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
    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.

    (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. .
    I was not personally attacking one , I think your the one launching personal attacks .
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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:
    (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:
    (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:
    (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:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You really think Corbyn is in the same list as figures like Mao and Stalin? :lol:
    Sadly not; the person I quoted seemed to. Still, I do have some hope for Corbyn.
    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

    18
    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

    12
    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:
    (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.
    Offline

    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
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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