Food Banks

[Stu Monty]

 

 

Really, how many times do I need to post details of the agreements the Treasury has signed with tax havens around the world? Twice isn't enough, clearly.

 

Sorry, you seem to have dodged the question. Why is something that can be stated in almost every single year on record significant, and an indicator of good government performance?

 

Are you now claiming agreements with tax havens have brought about something that can be stated for almost every year on record?

 

You need to explain why you stated that something that happens every year is an indicator of someone taking tax-collection seriously, as you stated and have not proved in any way.

 

Thanks.

[Strontium]

Tax receipts as a proportion of GDP are a full percentage point higher than they were in the year Labour left office. We're taking in more than £1bn extra every week.

 

And for something that happens "every year", it didn't happen in the last two years of Labour, either in percentage or absolute terms.

[Stu Monty]

Tax receipts as a proportion of GDP are a full percentage point higher than they were in the year Labour left office. We're taking in more than £1bn extra every week.

 

And for something that happens "every year", it didn't happen in the last two years of Labour, either in percentage or absolute terms.

 

I'll talk as a percentage of GDP in a minute if you want.

 

Are you standing by the fact that you think that receipts being higher than they ever have been is an indicator of government performance?

[Strontium]

First of all, I want it known that I never actually said anything about record tax receipts being evidence that tax evasion is being taken more seriously. I'm being accused of making an unfounded claim I never actually made.

 

I would say the fact that tax receipts as a proportion of GDP are higher than they have been since 2008 is evidence that tax collection is being taken no less seriously under this government.

 

I would say the agreements we've signed with numerous tax havens is evidence that this government is taking evasion and avoidance more seriously than previous governments.

[Stu Monty]

First of all, I want it known that I never actually said anything about record tax receipts being evidence that tax evasion is being taken more seriously. I'm being accused of making an unfounded claim I never actually made.

 

I would say the fact that tax receipts as a proportion of GDP are higher than they have been since 2008 is evidence that tax collection is being taken no less seriously under this government.

 

I would say the agreements we've signed with numerous tax havens is evidence that this government is taking evasion and avoidance more seriously than previous governments.

 

What you want known is irrelevant. You said:

 

 

"UK tax receipts are at their highest ever level.

 

Obviously someone somewhere is taking something seriously."

 

So, the above post is a blatant lie. You are being deliberately dishonest. Again. Would you like to point out how you are once again "being misrepresented" or agree that you can't stand by that post.

[Strontium]

 

What you want known is irrelevant. You said:

 

So, the above post is a blatant lie. You are being deliberately dishonest. Again. Would you like to point out how you are once again "being misrepresented" or agree that you can't stand by that post.

 

Would you like to point out where I mentioned tax evasion above? I can't see it.

 

Then you can respond to my other points, after withdrawing your accusation of lying.

[Stu Monty]

 

 

Would you like to point out where I mentioned tax evasion above? I can't see it.

 

Then you can respond to my other points, after withdrawing your accusation of lying.

 

How deeply, deeply decietful. You're now pushing back against an accusation that was never made against you (but was actually a rewording of the question you yourself brought to the table, deliberately, in post 204). I won't withdraw it at all. It's all set out in the posts above.

 

We can get onto your other points, I'm very keen to. Once again though. The question that was actually put to you, not one you are creating so you can play the victim and evade answering it, that refers to what you actually said was:

 

Are you standing by the fact that you think that receipts being higher than they ever have been is an indicator of government performance?

asked after you said:

 

 

"UK tax receipts are at their highest ever level.

 

Obviously someone somewhere is taking something seriously."

 

You are not misrepresented, you just refuse to converse honestly.

[General Dryness]

Reading everyones exchanges with Stronts gives an amazing insight into what olympic level slippery bullshitting cunts actual successful politicians must be. Stronts couldn't get elected, and discussing anything with him is like trying to pin smoke to a wall.

[Strontium]

How deeply, deeply decietful. You're now pushing back against an accusation that was never made against you (but was actually a rewording of the question you yourself brought to the table, deliberately, in post 204). I won't withdraw it at all. It's all set out in the posts above.

You made the (implied) accusation, in post #194:

 

http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/index.php?/topic/105110-food-banks/?p=3701000

 

It seems that you are accusing me of saying that higher tax receipts are evidence the government is clamping down on tax evasion.

 

It's quite probably there are some crossed wires here, I'd appreciate clarification.

 

We can get onto your other points, I'm very keen to. Once again though. The question that was actually put to you, not one you are creating so you can play the victim and evade answering it, that refers to what you actually said was:

 

Are you standing by the fact that you think that receipts being higher than they ever have been is an indicator of government performance?

Of course I think government performance is a factor in higher tax receipts, just as government performance was a factor in falling tax receipts in 2009 and 2010.

 

You are not misrepresented, you just refuse to converse honestly.

That's not true, the last page is just deeply confusing.

[Stu Monty]

Very true. No honesty and it's obvious. Post 194 not quoted deliberately so as not to make the now laughable claim of implied accusations (implied by asking the same consistent question not featuring a term you later introduced and then got angry about yourself introducing to the conversation) less obvious to the reader.

 

It's amazing that you keep picking out two of the tiny percentage of years that receipts didn't rise and then using them as evidence. It's almost as if 45 years of evidence (the thing you ALWAYS) form your opinion on isn't as relevant as a couple of years. Perhaps something special happened about then? Wait...wasn't there a little thing where most of the global economy needed bailing out by the public sector around then? But...wouldn't that make them less relevent and more exceptional? Terrible work SD. Terrible.

 

So, does having the highest ever level have much significance then? Or, given it's been the case in almost every year since 1965 would you conceed it isn't much of a claim? One you'd probably not put on your CV only to be questioned and have to go..."but look at these couple of years!"

 

No. It doesn't. It has virtually no significance at all and it massively unexceptional.

 

Now. Would you like to explain to me why you felt the best indicator of how seriously someone was taking the situation was total receipts and not, as you later mentioned, ratio to GDP?  Is it because it would show this government as pretty bang average? Nowt particularly zingy about going:

 

"Well someone must be taking things seriously, it's the 18th best take since 1965!"

 

It'd be more honest though. As an aside, if you want to cherry pick exceptional stats from the last government try one without a global financial disaster, like maybe 2005-06? Where they increased the take by £30bn, or 7%.

 

Silly statement. Pulled up. Jog on.

[Champ]

Reading everyones exchanges with Stronts gives an amazing insight into what olympic level slippery bullshitting cunts actual successful politicians must be. Stronts couldn't get elected, and discussing anything with him is like trying to pin smoke to a wall.

 

Yep. The game is the game

 

Very true. No honesty and it's obvious. Post 194 not quoted deliberately so as not to make the now laughable claim of implied accusations (implied by asking the same consistent question not featuring a term you later introduced and then got angry about yourself introducing to the conversation) less obvious to the reader.

 

It's amazing that you keep picking out two of the tiny percentage of years that receipts didn't rise and then using them as evidence. It's almost as if 45 years of evidence (the thing you ALWAYS) form your opinion on isn't as relevant as a couple of years. Perhaps something special happened about then? Wait...wasn't there a little thing where most of the global economy needed bailing out by the public sector around then? But...wouldn't that make them less relevent and more exceptional? Terrible work SD. Terrible.

 

So, does having the highest ever level have much significance then? Or, given it's been the case in almost every year since 1965 would you conceed it isn't much of a claim? One you'd probably not put on your CV only to be questioned and have to go..."but look at these couple of years!"

 

No. It doesn't. It has virtually no significance at all and it massively unexceptional.

 

Now. Would you like to explain to me why you felt the best indicator of how seriously someone was taking the situation was total receipts and not, as you later mentioned, ratio to GDP?  Is it because it would show this government as pretty bang average? Nowt particularly zingy about going:

 

"Well someone must be taking things seriously, it's the 18th best take since 1965!"

 

It'd be more honest though. As an aside, if you want to cherry pick exceptional stats from the last government try one without a global financial disaster, like maybe 2005-06? Where they increased the take by £30bn, or 7%.

 

Silly statement. Pulled up. Jog on.

 

I dont know where you find the energy, sir

[General Dryness]

Yep. The game is the game

 

 

I dont know where you find the energy, sir

 

I didn't know you were a philospher Champy.

[Strontium]

I dont know where you find the energy, sir

Quite simply, Stu Monty has a masters degree in trolling. I can't make a simple comment along the lines of "the government is doing something right about tax" without him pulling it to pieces. Two years after the worst financial disaster in history, and we're "only" in the 18th best year for tax receipts in the last half century. It's real commitment. Or a silly game, if you want to look at it that way. I don't even care enough to respond to it any more. If someone wants to read so much into a throwaway two line comment, more fool everyone involved.

[General Dryness]

Quite simply, Stu Monty has a masters degree. I can't spout total horseshit without him handing me my arse. Flim flam flar flar flar rhubarb flar flar politician speak harpic bleachmatic flar kirk douglas flar flar mahoobry kinder surprise.

 

Translated that as best I can. I think I managed to pick up the salient points.

[Champ]

I didn't know you were a philospher Champy.

 

I'll make lifey proud of me yet

[General Dryness]

I'll make lifey proud of me yet

 

Star in a pornographic film. Result guaranteed.

[Strontium]

Translated that as best I can. I think I managed to pick up the salient points.

Stu has copious enough quantitites of bullshit all by himself, he doesn't need you holding a bucket full.

[Champ]

Stu has copious enough quantitites of bullshit all by himself, he doesn't need you holding a bucket full.

 

Did you not think General's post was just a little bit funny?

[General Dryness]

Stu has copious enough quantitites of bullshit all by himself, he doesn't need you holding a bucket full.

 

Come on now Dog, you're playing silly games, and moresooverwhatsoever I don't even care to respond sir. If you want to read so much into a couple of lines of gibberish, then the more fool you. And then we ask who is the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who is the fool?

[Champ]

Star in a pornographic film. Result guaranteed.

 

I thought quoting The Wire in everyday conversation might suffice. No?

[General Dryness]

I'm not criticising that course of action, I just think that taking a facefull of manfat would be more effective.

[Champ]

I'm not criticising that course of action, I just think that taking a facefull of manfat would be more effective.

 

Proud? Apparently, I'm everyone's Mum on here. Not gooood

[lifetime fan]

Star in a pornographic film. Result guaranteed.

 

[TheBitch]

Quite simply, Stu Monty has a masters degree in trolling.

The brass balls on you, SD.

 

Fair fucking play.

[Jairzinho]

The brass balls on you, SD.

 

Fair fucking play.

 

The man has a PHD, it was an insult.