BBC Blog Network

User Profile

AndyC555

Listed below are comments made by AndyC555 between Monday, 30th November 2009 (17 Hours Ago) and Tuesday, 1st December 2009 (21 Minutes Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 09:47am on 01 Dec 2009 #192 "Why one earth is economics a prerequisite for the job of chancellor?"

A good economist can always explain why his predictions went wrong.
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 7:10pm on 30 Nov 2009 #158

Strictlypickled. You need to have a look at post 123. Apparently Sagamix has fooled us. Apparently by either not meaning what he said, by meaning what he said, by not saying what he means or by not saying what he didn't mean.

No, I can't figure it out either but you know Sagamix. You may be able to gently point out to him one day that unicorns don't exist but that won't stop him from saying on the following day that the existence of unicorns prooves that left-wing policies are best.

By the way Sagmix.

Anything happened yet? Anything? First steps? Initial plans? Anything? At all? All those children, their educational aspirations collapsing like a socialist souffle. And still only talk from you?
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 6:41pm on 30 Nov 2009 ~151

At the risk of Sagamix thiking we're bickering, I stand corrected if the Liberal party has no £150,000 limit as Labour do.

On the one hand, thank God the liberal's won't get in. On the other hand, if Labour do get in it would only be a matter of time before they drop the £150,000 limit. Don't worry, though, tax planners are on the case. We'll think of something.

as far as employer's contributions are concerned, Labour aren't currently thinking about passing a tax burden on to the employee but they ARE setting up anti-avoidance legislation aimed at any form of salary sacrifice.
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 6:34pm on 30 Nov 2009 "148. At 6:14pm on 30 Nov 2009, sagamix wrote:
ghm @ 115

"Dare I suggest that in my professional capacity, I would have encountered a good many more (lazy fatcats) than you"

Well K said they've met loads of them ... and here's you boasting that you've met "many more" ... so what are we concluding?"

We're concluding that you don't read posts properly and/or selectively quote from them.

**********************************

gHm said - "Your invention of the stereotype of lazy fat cat does not hold true I'm afraid. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they are few and far between, smacks of envy to me."

K said "Few and far between in your experience; not nearly so in mine."

gHm replied - "Dare I suggest that in my professional capacity, I would have encountered a good many more than you."

******************************************

gHm clearly said that such fat cats are few and far between. I read his second post as meaning "my professional capacity brings me into contact with many businessmen. IF fat cats existed in the numbers you think they do, I WOULD HAVE met them". He's saying he didn't.

That's my interpretation of that exchange. I'm sure yours is something along the lines of "David Cameron admits to eating babies for breakfast and gHm cooks them for him"
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 6:23pm on 30 Nov 2009 #147

"But could she contribute just a teeny bit more? - that's the question."

Could you? That's another question. But we already know you don't want to. All those people worse off than you, having to help out to pay for Brown's bumbling and although you could help them, even if only a teeny bit, but you won't.

"Hey Gordon, here's my little extra bit so someone worse off is a teeny bit better off". Surely you can do that, Sagamix? A man of your lofty principles?
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 6:17pm on 30 Nov 2009 #147

"I mean, have you sat her down and explained about the importance of maintaining a decent level of public services and at the same time dealing with this wretched deficit? Have you ever tried doing that? No? ... well would you like ME to try?"

As she worked her entire life in public services I am sure she would find your attempts to patronise her as funny as we all do on here whenever you say anything.
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 5:56pm on 30 Nov 2009 #142

At the risk of being accused of 'bickering' with you, I ought to point out that the reducation in tax relief on pension contributions only affects those earning over £150,000. No-one on £60,000 will be affected.

As for what the legislation does to Employer's contributions, honestly you don't want to go there, it's horrendous ("contributions to defined benefit arrangements are not tested but enhancement of benefit is the measure of 'pension input amount' used for the legislation").

So what have we ended up with? Something horribly complicated that will raise little in tax and affect only the higher paid (and benefit tax-planning accountants). Just the Gordon seems to like it.
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 5:43pm on 30 Nov 2009 137 "also having no school fees."

We currently do have such a system. YOU don't have to pay school fees if YOU don't want to. It's called democracy. Hooray.

Have you started your campaigning yet? You know DOING something to put you in position to do something about the education system instead of just talking? After all, you're the one who thinks the system is so awfully wrong.

Have you done anything yet? Have you? Anything? Have you? At all? Anything?
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 5:33pm on 30 Nov 2009 My 132 - Sorry this should have referred back to 123, not 127.
The Lib Dems and a taxing subject 5:25pm on 30 Nov 2009 #130 "Essentially to answer your question, I'll answer that the difference between a bakers and a public school is that a baker's doesn't really discriminate by selling products that are only available to the fairly rich or richer. Bad analogy though - bakers, providing our daily bread/exclusive public school providing education to the rich.

So really my objection is one of principle.... why, in a meritocratic and equal society, are some able to buy such an advantage for their children? I'm not saying it guarantees a decent life but Oundle certainly beats North Manchester High School, etc, etc."

Dunno, could be a high end patesserie, selling very expensive pastries.

But, look, as far as your objection goes, that applies to just about anything. If you had more money, you'd buy your children a nicer house to live in, perhaps out in the country. They would join clubs, take part in activities, be taken on nice holidays. Would any of that be wrong? It would give them an advantage. To turn round what you are saying, how could it be right that you could buy the very best of everything for your child but not education, probably the most important thing to them.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

AndyC555