|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 10, 2023 22:05:56 GMT
The tax cuts would be unfunded unless the services they were paying for were removed to pay for them, or the money was borrowed whilst the services were retained. Either way, withdrawal of taxes would be unfunded without the cancellation of the services they were funding to pay for them. Jesus christ, you lot, your semantic dances on a pinhead do not change reality. Nothing is for free. I do note the concerted effort by a number of you to derail a previously intelligent thread with this nitpicking semantic rubbish. Do you guys have something against intelligent threads or something? And the worst offender who started it all is a frigging mod, no less. No you simply do not understand my example There is NO tax in existence If there is some desired government spending it must be funded - I gave examples of options in my post To may it even easier for you to understand let's pretend that you currently work 5 days a week at £100 per day ie £500 a week and you spend £500 a week . You reduce your hours to 3 days so now receive £300 a week You will either need to find a different method of funding the spending or reduce spending Your reduced wages are not the unfunded item. The reduced income is the reason that some action needs to be taken, as you have already pointed out. That action regardless of what it is, is the cost paid to cover the cost of the reduced income. Really easy to understand, all it takes is a little thought. This might help you. 'Cost' Is not always financial, for instance. __"COUNTABLE/UNCOUNTABLE damage or loss that is caused to something good or worth having. cost of: the serious environmental costs of the new road network cost to: They decided to divorce, whatever the cost to their children. at a cost of: The plant closed down at a cost of over 1,000 jobs. the social/human costs of something: the social costs of unemployment. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 10, 2023 22:16:43 GMT
Bank base rates rose after Labour won in 97. Oh yes, lets have a look. Lol. Going back almost 10 years is supposed to rewrite history? - is that it? What on earth prevents you just admitting that bank rates rose after Labour won the election in 1997 - some misplaced pride or a bizarre desire to win an 'argument' on an obscure forum on the internet.? How strange.  |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 10, 2023 23:45:58 GMT
No you simply do not understand my example There is NO tax in existence If there is some desired government spending it must be funded - I gave examples of options in my post To may it even easier for you to understand let's pretend that you currently work 5 days a week at £100 per day ie £500 a week and you spend £500 a week . You reduce your hours to 3 days so now receive £300 a week You will either need to find a different method of funding the spending or reduce spending Your reduced wages are not the unfunded item. The reduced income is the reason that some action needs to be taken, as you have already pointed out. That action regardless of what it is, is the cost paid to cover the cost of the reduced income. Really easy to understand, all it takes is a little thought. This might help you. 'Cost' Is not always financial, for instance. __"COUNTABLE/UNCOUNTABLE damage or loss that is caused to something good or worth having. cost of: the serious environmental costs of the new road network cost to: They decided to divorce, whatever the cost to their children. at a cost of: The plant closed down at a cost of over 1,000 jobs. the social/human costs of something: the social costs of unemployment. If anyone ever asks you for financial advice they are nuts Once more for the terminally thick  Spending IS a cost , income is NOT a cost |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 11, 2023 10:26:21 GMT
The reduced income is the reason that some action needs to be taken, as you have already pointed out. That action regardless of what it is, is the cost paid to cover the cost of the reduced income. Really easy to understand, all it takes is a little thought. This might help you. 'Cost' Is not always financial, for instance. __"COUNTABLE/UNCOUNTABLE damage or loss that is caused to something good or worth having. cost of: the serious environmental costs of the new road network cost to: They decided to divorce, whatever the cost to their children. at a cost of: The plant closed down at a cost of over 1,000 jobs. the social/human costs of something: the social costs of unemployment. If anyone ever asks you for financial advice they are nuts Once more for the terminally thick Spending IS a cost , income is NOT a cost You can argue with me all you want, but you have been found out that you did not and do not understand the English language. Proving that you represent the terminally thick. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 11, 2023 10:33:18 GMT
Why did the Tories get kicked out if the economy was booming? Is it because only a few years before people lost everything because of Majors ERM vanity project and the Tories fix which involved 17% interest rates? Would that be it? Feel free to argue that the economy was not booming in 1997 - what do you base this metric on? With regards to your point about the ERM, the biggest advocate for ERM membership was a Mr Gordon Brown - I wonder what happened to him? The Tory government entered the ERM, they were responsible for handling the UK ERM situation, they handled it extremely badly as you no doubt already know. So squirm off with your sick minded attempt to put any of the blame on Brown. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 11, 2023 10:36:36 GMT
I didn't make such a claim. I pointed out the chaos that went before. The classic Tory game of hiking interest rates to fleece the poor and nest the rich.
Those interest rates that miraculously plunged in election year.  Bank base rates rose after Labour won in 97. Bank rates continued to rise for a very short period under NL in 97, before falling well below the many years under Tory administration. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 11, 2023 11:00:17 GMT
If anyone ever asks you for financial advice they are nuts Once more for the terminally thick Spending IS a cost , income is NOT a cost You can argue with me all you want, but you have been found out that you did not and do not understand the English language. Proving that you represent the terminally thick. I'm stating a fact , not arguing with you (that would be a pointless exercise as ,for reasons best known to your ego , you consider your view to be the only opinion worth a light.) |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 11, 2023 11:05:12 GMT
You can argue with me all you want, but you have been found out that you did not and do not understand the English language. Proving that you represent the terminally thick. I'm stating a fact , not arguing with you (that would be a pointless exercise as ,for reasons best known to your ego , you consider your view to be the only opinion worth a light.) You are stating a 'fact' as you understand it. I have just shown you that you do not understand the English Language. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 11, 2023 11:08:58 GMT
People are always talking about their 'unfunded absence of wages', rather than about not having enough money to fund their spending.
You hear it all the time.
lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2023 22:28:05 GMT
People are always talking about their 'unfunded absence of wages', rather than about not having enough money to fund their spending. You hear it all the time. lol You are just trying to be the usual annoying piece of work, killing threads with your bullshit as you seek to goad and annoy on purpose. The entire media talks about funded and unfunded tax cuts. Everyone understands the concept. The lost revenue of a tax cut is the cost of that tax cut. It needs to be funded by cuts in expenditure or else it is unfunded. However much you stupidly try to claim that tax cuts come for free. They have a cost in spending cuts or borrowing increases. Are you so wilfully pig ignorant that you cannot understands that, or is it politically motivated ignorance? Trying to liken it to wages is just a diversion. Wages are not the same as taxes. The former is money earnt. The latter is money paid out. Nevertheless, if I choose to work fewer hours and take home less money, that has a cost and must be funded by cuts in my expenditure, or else I will have to hit the credit card, ie borrow more. Tax cuts also need to be funded by spending cuts, otherwise they are unfunded tax cuts. However much you seek to derail Zanygame's thread by this nonsense that tax cuts come for free. You are either a fool or you are on a deliberate wind up in an attempt to slience me and others and derail one of the few threads around here where intelligent debate occurred. I don't think you are a fool so your intent is malicious, a deliberate attempt tp annoy people with bullshit and derail intelligent debate thatdid not syuit your own political agenda, and only your fellow political and economic right wing ignoramusses seem to like the crap you are spouting. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 11, 2023 23:58:46 GMT
People are always talking about their 'unfunded absence of wages', rather than about not having enough money to fund their spending. You hear it all the time. lol You are just trying to be the usual annoying piece of work, killing threads with your bullshit as you seek to goad and annoy on purpose. The entire media talks about funded and unfunded tax cuts. Everyone understands the concept. The lost revenue of a tax cut is the cost of that tax cut. It needs to be funded by cuts in expenditure or else it is unfunded. However much you stupidly try to claim that tax cuts come for free. They have a cost in spending cuts or borrowing increases. Are you so wilfully pig ignorant that you cannot understands that, or is it politically motivated ignorance? Trying to liken it to wages is just a diversion. Wages are not the same as taxes. The former is money earnt. The latter is money paid out. Nevertheless, if I choose to work fewer hours and take home less money, that has a cost and must be funded by cuts in my expenditure, or else I will have to hit the credit card, ie borrow more. Tax cuts also need to be funded by spending cuts, otherwise they are unfunded tax cuts. However much you seek to derail Zanygame's thread by this nonsense that tax cuts come for free. You are either a fool or you are on a deliberate wind up in an attempt to slience me and others and derail one of the few threads around here where intelligent debate occurred. I don't think you are a fool so your intent is malicious, a deliberate attempt tp annoy people with bullshit and derail intelligent debate thatdid not syuit your own political agenda, and only your fellow political and economic right wing ignoramusses seem to like the crap you are spouting. I gave up on the thread when Mags first started this malarkey. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 12, 2023 7:52:20 GMT
People are always talking about their 'unfunded absence of wages', rather than about not having enough money to fund their spending. You hear it all the time. lol You are just trying to be the usual annoying piece of work, killing threads with your bullshit as you seek to goad and annoy on purpose. The entire media talks about funded and unfunded tax cuts. Everyone understands the concept. The lost revenue of a tax cut is the cost of that tax cut. It needs to be funded by cuts in expenditure or else it is unfunded. However much you stupidly try to claim that tax cuts come for free. They have a cost in spending cuts or borrowing increases. Are you so wilfully pig ignorant that you cannot understands that, or is it politically motivated ignorance? Trying to liken it to wages is just a diversion. Wages are not the same as taxes. The former is money earnt. The latter is money paid out. Nevertheless, if I choose to work fewer hours and take home less money, that has a cost and must be funded by cuts in my expenditure, or else I will have to hit the credit card, ie borrow more. Tax cuts also need to be funded by spending cuts, otherwise they are unfunded tax cuts. However much you seek to derail Zanygame's thread by this nonsense that tax cuts come for free. You are either a fool or you are on a deliberate wind up in an attempt to slience me and others and derail one of the few threads around here where intelligent debate occurred. I don't think you are a fool so your intent is malicious, a deliberate attempt tp annoy people with bullshit and derail intelligent debate thatdid not syuit your own political agenda, and only your fellow political and economic right wing ignoramusses seem to like the crap you are spouting. Why are spending cuts a 'cost' - if they allow us to keep more of our own money most people would see that as a benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 12, 2023 7:58:07 GMT
You are just trying to be the usual annoying piece of work, killing threads with your bullshit as you seek to goad and annoy on purpose. The entire media talks about funded and unfunded tax cuts. Everyone understands the concept. The lost revenue of a tax cut is the cost of that tax cut. It needs to be funded by cuts in expenditure or else it is unfunded. However much you stupidly try to claim that tax cuts come for free. They have a cost in spending cuts or borrowing increases. Are you so wilfully pig ignorant that you cannot understands that, or is it politically motivated ignorance? Trying to liken it to wages is just a diversion. Wages are not the same as taxes. The former is money earnt. The latter is money paid out. Nevertheless, if I choose to work fewer hours and take home less money, that has a cost and must be funded by cuts in my expenditure, or else I will have to hit the credit card, ie borrow more. Tax cuts also need to be funded by spending cuts, otherwise they are unfunded tax cuts. However much you seek to derail Zanygame's thread by this nonsense that tax cuts come for free. You are either a fool or you are on a deliberate wind up in an attempt to slience me and others and derail one of the few threads around here where intelligent debate occurred. I don't think you are a fool so your intent is malicious, a deliberate attempt tp annoy people with bullshit and derail intelligent debate thatdid not syuit your own political agenda, and only your fellow political and economic right wing ignoramusses seem to like the crap you are spouting. Why are spending cuts a 'cost' - if they allow us to keep more of our own money most people would see that as a benefit. Stop insuring your house then. that will allow you to keep more of our own money and benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 12, 2023 8:13:23 GMT
Why are spending cuts a 'cost' - if they allow us to keep more of our own money most people would see that as a benefit. Stop insuring your house then. that will allow you to keep more of our own money and benefit. And the cost could be the complete loss of house and home. As you so eloquently explained. It's so obvious to thinking people one might wonder how the mind works for the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 12, 2023 8:16:39 GMT
Why are spending cuts a 'cost' - if they allow us to keep more of our own money most people would see that as a benefit. Stop insuring your house then. that will allow you to keep more of our own money and benefit. Everybody makes different decisions about the level of insurance they want on their property - for some a low level of cover is indeed a benefit as it allows them more money to spend on other things. I'm surprised that I have to explain insurance to you. |
|
