This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 9899100 101102 ... 502
2971
« on: October 22, 2015, 04:19:13 PM »
...so only businesses and organizations who are running in the red pay taxes?
. . . Companies which don't make a profit don't pay the tax anyway.
2972
« on: October 22, 2015, 04:02:11 PM »
Firms which make a profit shouldn't be taxed anyway.
2973
« on: October 22, 2015, 09:27:57 AM »
Independent.Former Conservative Chancellor Lord Lawson has become the most senior figure yet to call on George Osborne to soften the impact of his £4.4bn a year cuts to working tax credits.
He said there “could be some tweaking” to spare those at the lowest end of the income scale suffering, accepting there was “a problem” with the controversial move to cut the subsidies for people in low-paid work.
Mr Osborne is coming under increasing pressure to introduce safeguards to protect the hardest hit, with several Tories threatening to rebel against the Government in a key vote in the Commons next week.
An estimated 3.2 million families are set to lose an average of £1,300 a year when the cuts come into effect.
David Cameron sparked outrage at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday when he said he was “delighted” that the tax credit cuts had passed a Commons vote on Tuesday.
It followed an extraordinary intervention by new Tory MP Heidi Allen, who used her maiden speech to warn that the “poorest and most vulnerable” would be hit the hardest by the cuts.
Her comments were seized upon by Jeremy Corbyn to ask Mr Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions: “where was she wrong?”
Speaking on the Today programme, Lord Lawson said: "You cannot remove these tax credits without people being worse off. The question is who is going to be worse off," he said.
"People are going to get better off as the economy grows, and it is growing and we want a successful economic policy to ensure it continues to. But there is a problem.
"Tax credits go a long way up the scale. It goes up to half the families in the land. And so the tweaking would be to make the burden - and there is always a burden when you make these tough decisions to cut tax credits - rather less for the people towards the bottom end of the scale."
The reforms will lower the amount you can earn before working tax credit starts to reduce from £6,420 to £3,850 from April 2016.
Mr Osborne faces a tricky choice as he tries to balance widespread concerns about the impact on the lowest paid with his manifesto pledge to cut £12bn from the welfare bill, which are crucial to his plan to balance the books by 2019.
The Resolution Foundation think tank published a report saying there was “no easy solutions” as he considers how to soften the blow of the cuts.
It found that some options being canvassed by MPs would cost much more than the £4.4bn savings from his proposals.
Reports in The Times have suggested Number 10 and the Treasury are split over whether to cave in to demands from figures such as Lord Lawson, Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith and introduce safeguards.
But in public Mr Cameron appears to back his Chancellor in refusing to budge over the cuts.
On Wednesday he indicated his willingness to go nuclear with the House of Lords if peers go ahead with a plan to table a so-called ‘fatal motion’ to defeat the £4.4bn tax credits, which would be an unprecedented move by the upper chamber in challenging a key plank of the Government’s financial policy, which was introduced through a parliamentary procedure called a statutory instrument rather than as legislation in the Financial Bill.
The Prime Minister warned the Lords not to defy convention and signalled he would be willing to flood the House with Tory peers to make sure the Government had enough to vote through the measures.
2974
« on: October 22, 2015, 09:07:50 AM »
What basis are you guys using that Christianity was a beneficial force throughout history? Just curious, because a lot of this just seems to be conjecture and speculation.
Work by social psychologists like Jonathan Haidt. Descriptively, at least, morality is a social force that predates religion among humans. It's essentially the way we self-domesticated ourselves, by killing those who would threaten the group. Group loyalty is a central part of human psychology; we have essentially evolved to be religious. To make something sacred, and use it to bind us together. I don't think religion is necessary now because certain aspects of art and culture can make up for the gap in sacredness. But prior to our development something like a strong religious influence was necessary. If the counter-factual is that humans remain secular and utterly non-religious--while being totally the same in every other way--I doubt we would've made it very far.
2975
« on: October 21, 2015, 12:05:14 PM »
 I honestly have no idea how this myth persists.
2976
« on: October 21, 2015, 09:40:46 AM »
I'm almost convinced that some of these questions are politically loaded.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq1
Some of the questions are poorly-formed, at best. Like, globalisation should serve humanity over transnat'l corporations. Well, yeah, duh. I can conceive of a specific situation where the two would be in conflict but the point is that--in general--I don't see them as misaligned. Asking me a question like that and then moving me leftwards because of it isn't at all revealing and is a bad way to position me. I mean, who even disagrees with that? The only people who would say no to that are largely irrelevant or they're the ones who know it will push them rightward and want to doctor the results to reflect that.
2977
« on: October 21, 2015, 06:27:01 AM »
>any unit but individual having rights
>the unit does when it's a collection of individuals with some institutional position, not when the unit it based on sex or race or class. If you want me to be specific, then the people who create, interpret and enforce the law collectively have the right to ban the consumption of some substances. But they ought not.
2978
« on: October 20, 2015, 10:24:52 PM »
Friedman is disappointed
YOU AND ME BABY AIN'T NOTHING BUT MAMMALS
2979
« on: October 20, 2015, 10:21:42 PM »
2980
« on: October 20, 2015, 10:15:17 PM »
Of course they have the right to.
They just shouldn't.
2981
« on: October 20, 2015, 07:42:05 AM »
The US is so polarised due to a long line of political changes beginning with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and culminating in Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract With America.
2982
« on: October 19, 2015, 09:46:16 PM »
78pc Rubio.
Fiorina in a close second?
Yeah, but she's fucking nuts though.
2983
« on: October 19, 2015, 09:40:32 PM »
2984
« on: October 19, 2015, 07:43:15 AM »
fuck, move this
2985
« on: October 19, 2015, 07:42:58 AM »
2986
« on: October 18, 2015, 09:41:03 PM »
fuck off
2987
« on: October 18, 2015, 09:30:11 AM »
Fuck you, cunt.
2988
« on: October 17, 2015, 06:45:31 AM »
Greenspan is garbage.
You take that back. Or I'll walk from Colchester to London and fill you in, mate.
2989
« on: October 17, 2015, 06:19:40 AM »
He comes off as an incredibly sanctimonious cunt to Greenspan here. For a guy who seems to want to take the venom and personal attacks out of politics, he seems pretty insistent on emotionally-charged rhetoric and insinuations which suggest he isn't as consistent as people like to think he is. I mean, fuck. The guy's a prick.
2990
« on: October 16, 2015, 11:37:18 PM »
inductive thought
 Triggered.
2991
« on: October 16, 2015, 11:30:15 PM »
Being ignorant is not the same as being deceived.
Oh shit.
2992
« on: October 16, 2015, 10:23:23 PM »
It's literally about TV
I know, but Bradbury is being a fucking puritan when he insists it's only relevant to that theme. Of course TV takes a role--it's the thing taking up so many people's time--but it's ridiculous to deny the undercurrent of self-censorship in the book; books are burned literally because they promote dissenting/uncomfortable thought, the whole situation came about (as Montag is told by the fire chief) because people's emotions were placed as paramount, and anything that upset anybody was immediately suppressed.
2993
« on: October 16, 2015, 10:16:41 PM »
I'd recommend Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. One of my favorite books, and basically sums up the direction society is going in, at least in my opinion.
I hope you're not talking about censorship because the book isnt about censorship, and Bradbury would be rolling in his grave over that.
I'm pretty sure he means consensual censorship; the self-policing of thought and ideas.
2994
« on: October 16, 2015, 05:24:48 PM »
why care?
Because this is a growing trend among academia and students. I don't care so much that I was personally accused of racism, I care that such accusations can be thrown around on a limb by individuals who really should know better.
And? Higher ed has ALWAYS done this. Just write the papers to get the grade and tell all the University Warriors to pound sand.
True story: when I was a senior at UCSD, one of the barefoot PETA wannabes took issue with my leather jacket. His dumb ass came running up with a bucket of red paint. I reared up to punch him, and he backed off and started calling me a fascist.
Do you know what happened from this? Nothing. Not one thing.
I'm pretty liberal, that's well known. There are some causes I support, some I couldn't care less about. But those little bastards are just wannabes that only have what power you give them. Tell them to fuck themselves and all they can do is call you names. That's it.
Do you care when I say that every time I create a thread your aggressively gay uncle rapes your face? I hope not. So why care when one of these milktoasts call you racist?
Probably the best thing I've ever seen you post. Although I don't think it fundamentally undermines my concerns regarding academia, kudos.
2995
« on: October 16, 2015, 05:23:35 PM »
How can you keep all 50 states teaching the same curriculum if you remove the DoE's ability to do so?
Not sure, and that's certainly an important question, but I think it's a mis-characterisation to say this is a likely outcome of his policy. Nevertheless, I'm more concerned about his balanced budget amendment. Now that is fucking dumb.
2996
« on: October 16, 2015, 04:13:50 PM »
why care?
Because this is a growing trend among academia and students. I don't care so much that I was personally accused of racism, I care that such accusations can be thrown around on a limb by individuals who really should know better.
2997
« on: October 16, 2015, 04:09:14 PM »
• Education: End Washington’s education micromanagement, shrink the federal education bureaucracy by consolidating more than 100 programs into four key block grants and funds back to the states, repurpose the Department of Education to support the states with research and suggested innovations—and end its interference.
lawl
yeah, let's just have 50 different states teaching different curriculum at different rates. Shit, you know the South will end up teaching creationism or some shit.
You're inserting your biases; nothing there speaks about curriculum, and IIRC Kasich, like Bush, supports Common Core.
2998
« on: October 16, 2015, 03:56:23 PM »
If you're a racist prick, stop acting like you shouldn't be called out on it.
>implying I'm racist
2999
« on: October 16, 2015, 02:22:21 PM »
Socialistic societies like Sweden like to share Sweden isn't even mildly socialist; nor is the welfare state particularly impressive: it doesn't redistribute any more than Britain. But if everyone were truly equal, most people would be allowed in, and it'd be impossible to choose who gets to stay and who doesn't.
3000
« on: October 16, 2015, 01:41:12 PM »
also please change your profile pic
lolno
Pages: 1 ... 9899100 101102 ... 502
|
Show Posts