Jump to content

Left Back

Gold Members
  • Posts

    6,711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Left Back

  1. 4 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

    Patrick Harvie said on a recent Question Time that the Scottish Government are raising income but because it is a progressive tax, that is OK. so 3ither he is wrong, or you are.

    Less revenue from a tax hike is possible, if a lot of taxpayers leave the workforce, or the country.

    Do you mean Debate Night last night?

  2. 7 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

    What perfectly valid question? All I saw was @Todd_is_God trying to get me to agree with his view that some pay rises were "unfunded". These rises have been paid. Has the SG gone into debt to pay them, or have they just restructured their budget?

    With regard to your question, and leaving aside the fact that overall taxation revenues will pretty definitely rise due to wage inflation, let me set out a simple example.

    Lets assume that we have a society whrere 95% of taxpayers pay an average of £3500 in income tax and 5% of taxpayers pay £19500 in income tax per year (That equates to around £30000 & about £75000 pre-tax average incomes.

    Now, lets assume that the proposed tax changes reduce the yearly tax payable by an average of £50 for the 95%, and increase the average yearly tax payable by the 5% by £1000.

    Result - a slight reduction in income tax for the vast majority & an increased overall tax revenue through a more progressive system. 

    Obviously, in reality, it's far more complex than this extremely simple example, but it gets the point over, I hope?

    Word salad.  The rises were unfunded.  That’s why services are being cut.  You can call it re-balancing a budget but we all know what it is.

    As to your nonsense maths deflection attempt 🤦‍♂️.  By the SG’s own admission it doesn’t work like that.  Behavioural change will reduce (if not negate) any of the planned increases in income tax.  You’re then ignoring the unfunded freeze in Council tax.  This is also one of the changes.  I didn’t specify which tax changes I was referring to, I was talking in the round about tax changes in general.

    Maybe more overall revenue will be raised.  That’s debatable though.  The council tax freeze is costing around £140m and the income tax raises are aiming to raise about £80m.  Doing this from memory so might be slightly off with those figures but good luck trying to square that circle.

    As I asked.  Is this simply an attempt at conning the gullible about progression?  I know you’re one of the disciples and you’d defend the SNP if they announced a policy of bayonetting babies for kicks so I don’t expect any kind of honest response from you.

  3. 5 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

    If, as you posit, they result in less tax revenue, how does this constitute a hike?

    Interesting that you think that supporting a more progressve tax system that reduces taxes on low earners is "being an arse" though. 

    Fair point.  They’re attempting to hike taxes then.

    You were being an arse by not answering a perfectly valid question.

    Here’s another one then.  If the changes don’t result in increased tax revenue has Humza made s complete c**t of it or has he successfully conned the gullible that he’s taxing the rich?

  4. 4 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

    I didn't comment on any of the reasons for the increases in tax for the top earners. I disagree with you (and various uber-Yoons) pretence that "HumZa hAz iNcEeaSed aRe taXEs"

    For the vast majority of taxpayers, he hasn't

     

    If you’re going to be an arse then @Todd_is_God didn’t say whose taxes were being hiked, just that taxes are being hiked.  The SG’s own published figures say they are aiming to increase tax revenue so yes, they are being hiked.

    Whether the changes result in more or less tax revenue is yet to be seen.

  5. 21 minutes ago, Schmoo said:

    A neighbour often ‘walks’ her cat on a lead, she puts it in on the high wall of the car park at the corner and walks it back and fore. I worry in case it takes a leap and strangles itself but it’s quite laid back. Often sits there for a spell while she talks to it.

    She’s German.
    Unsure if relevant.

    A PM where I used to work told us she walked her cat on a lead.  Round the streets of Ratho.  She sent us videos of this.  It was about 2 years ago.  I got no work done that day as I couldn’t stop laughing at the stupidity of it.  She was from Arbroath and a bit odd.

    I assumed she was the only one until one of Mrs B’s pals told us she got a new cat and was taking it walks on a lead.  She’s also a fucking weirdo.

    I’m assuming this is a new thing but get it launched into the sun.

  6. 1 minute ago, Billy Jean King said:

    I saw that twat on breakfast telly this morning. "Hey I don't set my pay, it's a board that decide what I'm worth" pretty much summed him up. The response was to a Q asking if he felt comfortable earning what he did while 3m households are in fuel poverty.  Total kunt of a man.

    He was doing the “I can’t justify why I get paid so much but it’s not my fault” routine a few weeks back.

  7. 9 hours ago, doulikefish said:

    But British Gas made record profits so it's all good 😬

     

    8 hours ago, Highlandmagar said:

    Ah well! Panic over. Got make sure that the shareholders get their dividends do they can brush the crumbs down under their tables to us peasants.

    I see the boss man has said there should be a social tariff to help the poorest pay for energy.  No doubt paid for by hiking up the bills for everyone else rather than any of it coming out of his £4.5m a year salary or any of the profits.

  8. 1 hour ago, velo army said:

    Aye it's all a bit cringey. While it can be tempting to laugh at folk getting angry at "wokeness" I find myself more on their side with this as it's so half arsed and patronising.

    Lioness is a fucking shite name as is Suffragette. Pankhurst Line would sound class and also grounds you in London. As said above "Windrush" is dreadful given the association most have with that word is of people being detained and deported. 

    It feels like these lines were named by an algorithm.

    Why would Pankhurst line ground you in London.  She was from Manchester wasn't she?

  9. 39 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

    Maybe a touch against the grain here but since I just read yet another "should have had the game sewn up anyway" take, I am 100% firmly.against this patter. 

    Not only are France an excellent team who put on some unbelievable rugby in the very recent WC, we are Scotland. We are going to be in tight games, even before you consider that this was v France. We have the same right as anyone else to come out on the winning side of a tight, nervy match. 

    Scotland done everything that was required of them to deliver a win in that match. Handwaving away a wildly wrong and incompetent refereeing call for some reason makes absolute no sense. 

    Correct.  Not every game is won in the first half a la Wales.

  10. 7 hours ago, SH Panda said:

    You should take advantage of any share save schemes they have as they are often quite generous (i.e. you buy 5 shares and they give you 6).

    Beyond that, you should sell as soon as you can though. You already want the company to succeed, no need to have your equity tied up in it too. If it goes well you still have the upside of working in a thriving company, if it goes badly you don't want to lose your job and all your savings.

    No doubt long term RBS employees who didn't diversify got wiped out by the firms collapse.

    This definitely happened.  I know a few people that lost hundreds of thousands as well as their jobs because most of their bonus was paid in shares and they left it there thinking it was bomb proof.

  11. 42 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

    Has QAnon or similar crackpots taken over the road signs around the outskirts of Edinburgh? For a few days now, instead of the overhead motorway matrix signs displaying “Don’t drive when tired as you may cause an accident and endanger a other people and if you’ve read this you’ve travelled a quarter of a mile without looking at the road” or “don’t take drugs” or “this sign is not in use” they are saying “RED X IS MANDATORY”. WTF are they on about? 

     

    Noticed this the about a week ago when there was an accident on the M9 spur and a lane was closed.  I assumed someone hadn’t got round to the part of the checklist that said “put signs back to normal”.  Fucked off on half-term holiday I reckon.

  12. 23 minutes ago, Binos said:

    As I said,  did well to find it

    Just looked on mirror news uk headlines,  story doesn't feature 

    Nor does it on guardian uk news headlines 

    Neither on bbc news Scotland headlines,  though they do have story about cosla being in dispute with ministers and another on long awaited ferry trial 

    What do you think people care more about?  Whether their council tax is going to go up or pubic services be cut or whether some nag is going to run in a horse race?

  13. 48 minutes ago, Caledonian1 said:

    Appears GB News knew what they were getting by getting that coke-heid on their programme.  He has been allowed to spout his nonsense previously on their channel.

    https://m.facebook.com/GBNewsOnline/videos/john-watt-joins-mark-to-discuss-his-health-issues-following-his-covid-vaccine/845663076572256/

    Claims 30,000 people in Scotland have been injured by the Covid vaccine.....would challenge him to name five that have been genuinely injured.

    I’d imagine there would be at least 5 of this group in Scotland.

    https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-updates-evidence-on-rare-blood-clotting-condition-after-covid-19-vaccination/


    All medical treatments can have unforeseen side effects.  Your claim of less than 5 is probably as outlandish as the claim of 30,000.

  14. I have no idea why people are being obtuse here.  We all know the game doesn’t end exactly when the clock hits 80.  That doesn’t set a precedent for continuing indefinitely.

  15. 52 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

    I’d be more tempted to agree with you if the game ended at exactly 80 minutes like an ice hockey or basketball game but it’s 80 minutes + however long it takes for the ball to go out of play and even at that, a penalty is allowed to be taken if awarded (and even if they kick into touch, the lineout and ensuing play can go ahead too).

     

    IMO there should be 3 possible verdicts for the TMO. On-field decision is confirmed, on-field decision stands, decision is overturned.

     

    Decision can only be confirmed or overturned if we have conclusive evidence that the on-field decision was correct or wrong. Anything else (like Saturday) leads to the decision standing, but I don’t think the game should be allowed to end when that happens. Instead we restart with a scrum 5 to Scotland, from which they either score a try and win, or France get the ball back, hoof it into touch and win.

     

    If it has to go to the TMO again then the process would be repeated. 

     

     

    The game only continues over 80 in the event of an act of foul play.  This stops the team in the lead from  ending the game by deliberately committing an offence.  That’s an entirely different scenario to running out of time.

  16. 3 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

    As an absolute minimum, I’d like to see a rule change where a game can’t end when there is significant doubt on whether a try was scored or not. Surely the “fair” solution would have been for Scotland to get a scrum 5 and then play one more phase? 

    Where do you draw the line?  What if the 8 picked it from the back of the scrum then the same scenario of a melee of bodies obscuring a try ensued?  Do you then keep repeating?

    The game lasts 80 minutes.  Can’t have arbitrary extensions although I do think I recall a game being restarted with a scrum after time when the ref was unsure about something.  Can’t remember the details though.

  17. 4 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

    Waste of time imo.    How many times have WR said one of their officials was definitely wrong?  They did with Joubert.  Have there been any others?

    Given all the stuff during/after the World cup and the abuse referees got I'd be surprised if they didn't publicly back the officials.  If WR hang them out to dry it'll be open season.

×
×
  • Create New...