travellers

[daltontrees]

54 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

Why can't people under 18 go to prison?

 

Unless you mean they would go to a YOI, or whatever they are called these days.

Because the law says so.

 

But that wasn't my point. It was about arithmetic. The age of criminal responsibility only matters if Vespasian's statistic strictly said 'prison'.

 

I repeat,  I couldn't give a stuff about the subject matter.

 

Whrn anyone who says 'the facts are .... and therefore ...', it does well to check the facts because without them the  'therefore' means nothing.

[Lucan]

1 hour ago, Haironyourchest said:

Everybody pay littlle, small gov ? 18% is about tops, according to the Laffer Curve (Art Laffer the famous economist) if the gov takes zero taxes it has zero revenue to run the machinery of state. If the gov takes 100% in tax, people have no money to spend or invest and the economy collapses = zero revenue. Charge them 50% and they hide some of it or hire accountants. Tax the rich too much and they leave, and take the jobs with them. Etc. So studies were done and they figured the sweet spot for revenue gain was 18%.

I think the 18% you are referring to are studies done on corporate tax. On occasions when the Laffer Curve has been revisited, recent results for UK and similar economies are closer to what they are now and even show that labour and capital income taxes could be increased;

How Far Are We From The Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited

Tax avoidance and fiscal li mits  : Laffer curves in an economy with informal sector

 

The Laffer Curve has pretty much been consigned to the scrap heap, it's just a pity that the other supply side economic theories from those dark ages of macroeconomics have not yet joined it.

 

[difflock]

Anyone relying on statistics to prove an argumentative point, should remember, that a degree or professional Level Accountancy exam once opened with the various financial facts pertaining to a fictitious business, a quite long winded account, then asked  1 simple question at the bottom of the page;

1. Using the data provided show that the above firm is in a parlous financial condition and should be put into recievership.

Having answered the question to the best of their abilities, the candidates turned over the page for Question 2.

2. Using the information already provided prove this firm is financially sound and would be a good investment opportunity.

Whether true, or not, it neatly describes the use of statistics,

or, more succiently, as me Uncle Arthur a retired Schoolteacher expressed it;

"lies, dammned lies and statistics"

marcus

Edited July 2, 2018 by difflock

[Haironyourchest]

1 hour ago, Lucan said:

I think the 18% you are referring to are studies done on corporate tax. On occasions when the Laffer Curve has been revisited, recent results for UK and similar economies are closer to what they are now and even show that labour and capital income taxes could be increased;

How Far Are We From The Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited

Tax avoidance and fiscal li mits  : Laffer curves in an economy with informal sector

 

The Laffer Curve has pretty much been consigned to the scrap heap, it's just a pity that the other supply side economic theories from those dark ages of macroeconomics have not yet joined it.

 

Why the hate for Supply Side? It worked for America under Reagan, and Bill Clinton, and now Trump. Tax rates have been falling steadily across the west for decades and we have become steadily more prosperous and productive. Lower taxes, what's not to like?

[eggsarascal]

2 hours ago, difflock said:

Anyone relying on statistics to prove an argumentative point, should remember, that a degree or professional Level Accountancy exam once opened with the various financial facts pertaining to a fictitious business, a quite long winded account, then asked  1 simple question at the bottom of the page;

1. Using the data provided show that the above firm is in a parlous financial condition and should be put into recievership.

Having answered the question to the best of their abilities, the candidates turned over the page for Question 2.

2. Using the information already provided prove this firm is financially sound and would be a good investment opportunity.

Whether true, or not, it neatly describes the use of statistics,

or, more succiently, as me Uncle Arthur a retired Schoolteacher expressed it;

"lies, dammned lies and statistics"

marcus

2 hours ago, difflock said:

Anyone relying on statistics to prove an argumentative point, should remember, that a degree or professional Level Accountancy exam once opened with the various financial facts pertaining to a fictitious business, a quite long winded account, then asked  1 simple question at the bottom of the page;

1. Using the data provided show that the above firm is in a parlous financial condition and should be put into recievership.

Having answered the question to the best of their abilities, the candidates turned over the page for Question 2.

2. Using the information already provided prove this firm is financially sound and would be a good investment opportunity.

Whether true, or not, it neatly describes the use of statistics,

or, more succiently, as me Uncle Arthur a retired Schoolteacher expressed it;

"lies, dammned lies and statistics"

marcus

 

[eggsarascal]

Just now, eggsarascal said:

 

Not quite sure how I managed that!

 

Anyway, I was agreeing with you Marcus. Figures can be massaged to skew anything one wants. Our kid was on trial for a £300 million fraud a few years back, they all walked, they might have "cooked the books" but were found to have done nothing wrong. Note who the judge was.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/e4c16e3c-47ae-11da-a949-00000e2511c8

[Stubby]

4 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

Not quite sure how I managed that!

 

 

Pure genius mate .  

[eggsarascal]

4 minutes ago, Stubby said:

Pure genius mate .  

Something like that.....

 

I forgot to send you that article from Sporting Shooter, I'm onto it.......

[Lucan]

15 minutes ago, Haironyourchest said:

Why the hate for Supply Side? It worked for America under Reagan, and Bill Clinton, and now Trump. Tax rates have been falling steadily across the west for decades and we have become steadily more prosperous and productive. Lower taxes, what's not to like?

I am against supply side economics because I do not agree that producers are the most important element of economic growth, I believe that the consumer and their demand for goods and services far more sets the pace of economic growth in 21st C markets. Supply side economics even goes so far to suggest demand side is relatively unimportant as supply creates its own demand.

 

As for Regan's tax cuts, they "worked" as he brought them down from 70% to 30%, this (as your laffer curve shows) is a very different kettle of fish than bringing them down from 30% to 18%. The economic success of Bush's tax cuts was more from the low interest rate at that time than the tax cuts. As for Trump's tax cuts "working" we'll have to disagree.

 

I think our difference is over our definitions of "working". GDP growth should not be the only proxy for success of an economic policy. I believe that income distribution/equality should play a far larger role. From 1980-2010 GDP in America grew by 75%, however at the same time most working and middle class workers incomes' decreased. I would argue against that being an example of a economic policy "working". Reganomics or "trickle down economics" has been widely dismissed, however we still use it due to the lobbying power of our super wealthy (for whom I admit is has indeed "worked").

 

In the 30yrs after WW2, the UK had a form of capitalism that saw rapid growth occur whilst being "relatively" equally amongst the working, middle and elite. We (Thatcher) then swapped that for an American free market fundamentalism and our income inequality between the 1% and the rest of us skyrocketed, and our wages stagnated.

 

I am a capitalist, I just believe in a different form of capitalism than trickle down economics and neo-liberalism. We have been shown that we can have a different form capitalism that sees economic growth for all those who work. I don't think it's too much we ask that from our government.

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, eggsarascal said:

Something like that.....

 

I forgot to send you that article from Sporting Shooter, I'm onto it.......