David Cameron was nothing like her. He always came across as a decent, caring bloke trying to do his best. May comes across as a power hungry miserable old hag who dismisses confrontation, the poor and the disabled. A world of difference.
Poll: Exit Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Results discussion and OcUK Exit Poll - Closing 8th July
- Thread starter JohnnyG
- Start date
- Status
Did you reply to my quote, which I have re quoted with your own suggestion of a new tax, yes or no?
Did you suggest that tax even though there you believe there is no problem, or do you accept that there is a problem and that current regulation is inadequate?
I'm not obliged to list all housing regulations in the UK for you to be able to answer it clearly will follow from you accepting the problem that the current state regulation is inadequate and you did threaten to overrule him
you're not making much sense now...
to sum up my position - which ought to be pretty clear already: under occupancy is bad, you appear to agree with me on this though for some reason have quoted me a bunch of times to see if I also agree with this despite me already stating it several times
I've proposed that we increase taxation (council tax) on empty properties
you've then mentioned regulation a few times and asked me to comment on it, I'm not sure what exactly you want to change re: regulation and am asking you to clarify? I've not proposed anything to do with regulation.
is that clear enough for you?
Yes David was a more effective liar that much is true.
Soldato
Hence why i said it's a bit more complex. But regarding your point about 100,000 years ago, our way of living has changed dramatically but our emotions and what drives us hasn't really. It's why we look at animals in psychology, they show us our pillar block emotions at work without the lens of complexity that humans have.
Tax is a form of regulation, you have proposed an entirely new one, is this because the current regulation is perfect, or is the current regulation(s) inadequate, specifically for the problem of un occupied housing, in your view?
And FFS did you threaten to over rule him?
no, council tax already exists - I've proposed increasing it for empty properties
what regulations are you referring to?
So you are not proposing a regulatory change?
look, I've been fairly patient in answering your rather tedious questions/fantasy that in asking for things that are already clear you're somehow the forum Paxman...
what I'm proposing is that we increase council tax on empty properties
is that not clear?
It is clear that there is an issue and you agree it requires a regulatory change, which whilst you wont say it, means you think current regulation(s) are inadequate (in reference to dealing with the un occupied housing issue I have mentioned).
Say after me "I did overrule him"
Soldato
Just as Paxman understood Howard's, I understand yours.
We agree tax is a form of regulation?
you'd propose to change regulation to fix a problem.
It follows that you believe (whatever) current regulation is in effect to be inadequate.
Like Howard, for some bizarre reason you seem afraid you'd look worse with giving a straight answer, than a collection of evasive ones, in both cases that is wrong.
In this case though, accepting that the Labour tweets highlight an issue you yourself agree requires amended regulation is useful, now people can move onto which state intervention/regulation can solve the issue most effectively
Apparently he's a proponent of Universal Basic Income, an idea which seems to be largely discredited, from what I can tell (read: what I can Google
).I did try thinking about it, but discovered I'm nowhere near smart enough to see how it could possibly work.
Basically, as far as I can tell, this is what would happen:
Introduce UBI set to NMW (or living wage).
1. People quit their jobs, if their jobs are low-paid and menial. This includes factory workers, people emptying bins, etc.
2. Wages for these jobs increase drastically because we need them to be done.
2a. Alternatively, all these workers are migrants workers who do not receive UBI.
2b. Alternatively, services are withdrawn (bins are removed).
3. Prices increase for products affected by wage increases. This includes food production.
4. Employers rush to automate as much as possible to reduce wages (a good thing, esp for menial jobs).
5. Those on UBI find that due to increased prices, they are struggling again.
6. Tax!!! Where do we get the billions to pay UBI in the first place? Where do we get it when people stop working?
Now I'm sure John McDonnell has thought about this much longer than I have
And perhaps the system would find some kind of balancing point.But I'm not sure how you would begin to model this system when it so drastically changes the fundamentals of our society. Whoever successfully decouples income from labour probably deserves the Nobel prize
Just as Paxman understood Howard's, I understand yours.
We agree tax is a form of regulation?
you'd propose to change regulation to fix a problem.
It follows that you believe (whatever) current regulation is in effect to be inadequate.
Like Howard, for some bizarre reason you seem afraid you'd look worse with giving a straight answer, than a collection of evasive ones, in both cases that is wrong.
In this case though, accepting that the Labour tweets highlight an issue you yourself agree requires amended regulation is useful, now people can move onto which state intervention/regulation can solve the issue most effectively
what on earth are you waffling about - I gave a straight opinion from the start
Serious question - have you ever been diagnosed with autism? If so I'll know to carry on being patient with this sort of thing in future, if not I'll suspect that you're just trolling because your previous questions/demands and this Paxman nonsense are frankly bizarre.
Apparently he's a proponent of Universal Basic Income, an idea which seems to be largely discredited, from what I can tell (read: what I can Google
I did try thinking about it, but discovered I'm nowhere near smart enough to see how it could possibly work.
Basically, as far as I can tell, this is what would happen:
Introduce UBI set to NMW (or living wage).
1. People quit their jobs, if their jobs are low-paid and menial. This includes factory workers, people emptying bins, etc.
2. Wages for these jobs increase drastically because we need them to be done.
2a. Alternatively, all these workers are migrants workers who do not receive UBI.
2b. Alternatively, services are withdrawn (bins are removed).
3. Prices increase for products affected by wage increases. This includes food production.
4. Employers rush to automate as much as possible to reduce wages (a good thing, esp for menial jobs).
5. Those on UBI find that due to increased prices, they are struggling again.
6. Tax!!! Where do we get the billions to pay UBI in the first place? Where do we get it when people stop working?
Now I'm sure John McDonnell has thought about this much longer than I have
But I'm not sure how you would begin to model this system when it so drastically changes the fundamentals of our society. Whoever successfully decouples income from labour probably deserves the Nobel prize
Currently the annual spend on the Department For Work and Pensions Admin costs is larger than the Annual Job Seekers Allowance spend, I'm not sure about the detail but simplifying tax and benefits should probably be a priority.
UBi will be essential and it needs to be thought about now in the view of planning towards it. the bit you have missed is automation and robots. which will do the jobs for a fraction of the cost and mean there nowhere near enough jobs for us. However, this also means vast wealth is still be created. So you move the tax away from people and towards corporations and then pay everyone a UBI. For the foreseeable future, there will still be higher levels jobs, where such people can do work and get more money.Apparently he's a proponent of Universal Basic Income, an idea which seems to be largely discredited, from what I can tell (read: what I can Google
I did try thinking about it, but discovered I'm nowhere near smart enough to see how it could possibly work.
its no good waiting for self driving cars then realise employment suddenly grows massively. It needs to be planned for, thought about and worked out. Then it can be slowly introduced at panned stages.
But I'm not sure how you would begin to model this system when it so drastically changes the fundamentals of our society. Whoever successfully decouples income from labour probably deserves the Nobel prize
Problem is many of these ideas can be reduced down to mathematically solvable problems which sways some people the reality is you can't ignore the human element. Hence for these great sounding ideas to succeed you'd have to turn to something like totalitarianism.
Potentially as above automation, etc. can make some of it solvable but there are still many complications.
Most people with autism would not be likely to respond to you with this.
Toys, pram, handbags at dawn
Still as I understand ASD to be quite the spectrum, perhaps we should accept we all have a little, perhaps you could apply a little of that meticulous style of method to, not asking what I'm waffling on about, but showing how the following simple/short statements were wrong:
- Status