Lords defeat government over tax credits cut

[Dolph]

Maybe if Cameron had answered the question - a simple yes or no would have sufficed - then Corbyn wouldn't have had to ask it 6 times.

And that is the loaded question fallacy in a nutshell.

Have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[MrMoonX]

Lol @ the idea the Queen would block anything foreseeable/normal. I can only imagine it happening if some crazy stuff went down and we were like the Nazis reborn.

This is why we should get rid of the monarchy, the very notion that an unelected freeloader can block legislation is undemocratic.

We need an elected upper house too. In any case we can't have an upper house that rubber stamps parliament, the tax credits stuff being proof of why we need it.

Cameron was sweating like a pig at PMQs and Labour have a massive stick to beat him on with this tax credit stuff. millions have seen that video of pig ****er dave saying he wouldn't cut tax credits.

I disagree with tax credits, what we should have is legislation to force a living wage.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

You're easily pleased.

So easy then,

Why does he not just answer the bloody simple question?

Seriously they sound like they are in school and the teacher is asking them if they did it and they sit there and don't answer...

And that is the loaded question fallacy in a nutshell.

Have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes or no will suffice.

You can't exactly compare beating your wife to answering a simple question about tax credits broseph. Whatever crazy way you want to re frame it in your mind it's just absurd the most powerful man in britain can't stand up and answer a simple damn question.....

Even if he says yes, they may be/will be worse off but what we want to do is x and y fine.

 

[Nix]

So easy then,

Why does he not just answer the bloody simple question?

Seriously they sound like they are in school and the teacher is asking them if they did it and they sit there and don't answer...

He's been caught red-handed lying and in the middle of more spin. That's why he won't answer; he's ****ed either way.

 

[Roar87]

I don't understand why I have to keep supporting people's poor life decisions. If you work 20 hours a week and aren't married/in a stable relationship, maybe don't have kids. If your business isn't turning over a profit and you have kids to support, maybe get a job instead.

 

[Dolph]

So easy then,

Why does he not just answer the bloody simple question?

Seriously they sound like they are in school and the teacher is asking them if they did it and they sit there and don't answer...

He did answer the question, he said it would become clear in the autumn statement. Those wanting a yes or no answer want something that he (a) can't give, because it is for the chancellor to bring to the next budget and (b) may not have the full facts for depending on whether the revisions are yet complete. The question also starts from an assumption that the cuts should be overturned, and that the issue should be looked at in isolation, rather than as part of the wider package, assumptions not accepted by all parties.

Is it any wonder the standard of political debate in this country is so poor when people cheer crappy fallacies as if they were policy.

 

[scorza]

And that is the loaded question fallacy in a nutshell.

Have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes or no will suffice.

It's not a loaded question at all - either the PM expects people to be better off under the finance bill or he doesn't. The fact that he didn't answer that they'll be better off means we all know the answer.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

It's not a loaded question at all - either the PM expects people to be better off under the finance bill or he doesn't. The fact that he didn't answer that they'll be better off means we all know the answer.

Yup.

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this out.

I don't understand why I have to keep supporting people's poor life decisions. If you work 20 hours a week and aren't married/in a stable relationship, maybe don't have kids. If your business isn't turning over a profit and you have kids to support, maybe get a job instead.

Whilst I agree it's not always this black and white.

 

[Dolph]

So easy then,

Why does he not just answer the bloody simple question?

Seriously they sound like they are in school and the teacher is asking them if they did it and they sit there and don't answer...



You can't exactly compare beating your wife to answering a simple question about tax credits broseph. Whatever crazy way you want to re frame it in your mind it's just absurd the most powerful man in britain can't stand up and answer a simple damn question.....

Even if he says yes, they may be/will be worse off but what we want to do is x and y fine.

Yes, you can. Both questions start with suppositions not accepted by all parties and create a yes no trap. In the case of tax credits, yes makes him look heartless, no makes him look indecisive. For the spousal beating question (which is a classic example for a loaded question fallacy), yes implies you beat your wife in the past, no implies you won't stop.

The demands to answer the question just add to the fallacy, especially when it has been answered, just not in the way you wanted.

 

[Dolph]

It's not a loaded question at all - either the PM expects people to be better off under the finance bill or he doesn't. The fact that he didn't answer that they'll be better off means we all know the answer.

It absoultely is a loaded question, as explained above.

 

[scorza]

Yes, you can. Both questions start with suppositions not accepted by all parties and create a yes no trap. In the case of tax credits, yes makes him look heartless, no makes him look indecisive. For the spousal beating question (which is a classic example for a loaded question fallacy), yes implies you beat your wife in the past, no implies you won't stop.

The demands to answer the question just add to the fallacy, especially when it has been answered, just not in the way you wanted.

Surely answering No is less indecisive than not answering the question at all?

 

[MrMoonX]

It absoultely is a loaded question, as explained above.

I've yet to see cameron answer a question at PMQs

 

[Dolph]

Surely answering No is less indecisive than not answering the question at all?

He did answer the question. The answer was:

"We remain committed to a high-pay, low-tax, lower welfare economy,” replied the prime minister. “As for our changes, the chancellor will set them out in the autumn statement.”

That you didn't like that answer doesn't make it less of an answer. Are you being ignorant or dishonest?

 

[Dolph]

I've yet to see cameron answer a question at PMQs

This has been true of PM's from both parties for as long as I can remember...

 

[semi-pro waster]

He probably has ownership in some business that sells sofa and gets a discount as well as no vat tax on it. But that is just a guess.

Rich people often do make purchases through a company, at the least far more often than poor people.

The solution to the government spending more than it takes in problem has never been more tax or more revenue. The evidence shows that in spite of increases the "tax revenue" the government still manages to spend more than it takes in per budget year.

You might be getting a bit distracted on the sofa argument, Alan Sugar could potentially buy up businesses (or maybe already holds some) which could give him cheap goods to furnish his house but realistically it's quite a lot of effort to own a company just to get the VAT back on your home purchases.

I'm sure rich people do put more purchases through a company than poor people do but as far as statements go it's a bit meaningless given most of the people you'd call poor probably don't own a company to put purchases through. Professional footballers are more likely to score a goal than people who don't play football.

There are competing economic theories about which is the best approach so I don't think it's as straightforward as you're presenting it but I may be wrong on that.

Heh! I know some people who put nice big vans against theirs for motocross. Must be nice when they shell out £25,000 - £30,000 for a new van or two for the company.

Do they use the vans for advertising their business? Or otherwise does it have a plausible use in their occupation even if they don't use it for that? If not that's a bit of a risky game to be playing even if HMRC don't twig for a while.

without reading the thread....the elected government cannot and should not ever be able to be overruled by a group of people who have been put in position via their connections and are there for life, get rid

Would you agree there needs to be some sort of oversight function for the House of Commons? If so then what would be the point if they cannot overrule the House of Commons on occasion? There has to be some form of checks and balances - whether what we've got at the moment is right or whether it should be composed differently is not the same question.

 

[MrMoonX]

He gave an answer to the question. He said that the detail would be laid out in the Autumn statement. It's quite simple.



Technically can doesn't mean there's any appreciable chance of it happening, save for extreme circumstances where we'd want her to anyway! If a monarch ever blocked anything without good cause, it'd trigger a constitutional crisis which would lead to the end of the monarchy's involvement in politics.



Do you know what you're talking about?! You think the Lords, as is, just rubber stamps stuff? Do you realise how much work it does as a revising chamber (which is its job)?

So you think the tory threat of flooding the lords with new tory peers is democratic?

This is why it needs to be reformed and elected

 

[V F]

Do they use the vans for advertising their business? Or otherwise does it have a plausible use in their occupation even if they don't use it for that? If not that's a bit of a risky game to be playing even if HMRC don't twig for a while.

Some and some not. Most of the time it is just a white or silver van that is cleared out for a day through the week and weekend. Any other time it is full of wooden frames, copper, plumbing, electrics and such.

The milkmen were the same. Was funny seeing a dairy van appear at the tracks.

 

[mattyfez]

I'm not against cutting it per se, I just think it's poorly targeted. I don't see why my tax should line the pockets of households who have a higher joint income than mine when I get nothing.

I also agree it seems ridiculously inefficient to have to pay tax and then claim it back again in the form of tax credits.

But like a lot of government cuts.. This seems to be poorly targeted.. I'm all for cuts, they are nessesary, but they need to be targeted and surgical.

 

[scorza]

He did answer the question. The answer was:



That you didn't like that answer doesn't make it less of an answer. Are you being ignorant or dishonest?

So what were the Lord's voting on this week then? Not the chancellor's autumn statement because that hasn't happened yet.

 

[estebanrey]

Yes, you can. Both questions start with suppositions not accepted by all parties and create a yes no trap. In the case of tax credits, yes makes him look heartless, no makes him look indecisive. For the spousal beating question (which is a classic example for a loaded question fallacy), yes implies you beat your wife in the past, no implies you won't stop.

The demands to answer the question just add to the fallacy, especially when it has been answered, just not in the way you wanted.

What a load of horse ****.

"When did you stop beating your wife" contains a presupposition (that you are already beating your wife), whereas "can you guarantee that no one will be be worse off under your plans to change tax credits" doesn't contain any presuppositions other than the Tories are planning to change tax credits (which they are so not a presupposition). You're comparing apples with oranges.

Just because you personally think whether Cameron says 'yes' or 'no' he can't win doesn't make the two questions synonymous.

Besides I disagree that he'd look bad whatever he said. He could have said...

"Yes, we will revise our plans to ensure that tax credits will reduce in line with minimum wage increase"

..or he could have said

"No, I can't. Changing any state benefit will always leave some people worse off but our job is to ensure that number is as small as possible and to ensure there is a greater good for everyone"