"a tax on jobs"

[eFestivals]

Are you going to describe equitable taxation or are you just going to contradict Coolphil as a matter of polemical debate instead?

the simple version is this: all tax should be income tax.

[eFestivals]

Brilliant. This is the second time in a fortnight where you have been unable to explain something and blamed the stupidity on the listener as the reason you aren't going to try.

It must be really difficult for you because whilst your insecurity prevents you ever being able to admit publically that you are wrong, inside it's knawing away at you. But hey, Im secure enough in my own skin and my own identity, I'll shoulder that burden. I proved you totally wrong earlier in the week - I'll not embarrass you again this week.

1. you demonstrated with your post that was in reply to that you don't understand taxation.

2. I gave you an answer anyway, which "by accident" () you appear to have cut out of what you've quoted.

I wonder why that "accident" happened? It wouldn't be because phil wants to pretend something different to the indisputable truth, oh no.

Edited October 28, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

I've criticised it because it puts greater PROPORTIONAL costs on the poorest than the richest.

Edited October 29, 2010 by worm

[llcoolphil]

the simple version is this: all tax should be income tax.

[eFestivals]

Which is exactly the same as what happens with HE funding.

I know. And I don't approve of it.

[eFestivals]

Why are there none of the quotes of mine you've promised yet, Phil?

I'll wait for you to present them, or for you to admit you're talking out of your arse before I bother addressing anything further here that you're asking for.

So give me your full admission that you've wrongly accused me, and we can move on.

[llcoolphil]

Why are there none of the quotes of mine you've promised yet, Phil?

I'll wait for you to present them, or for you to admit you're talking out of your arse before I bother addressing anything further here that you're asking for.

So give me your full admission that you've wrongly accused me, and we can move on.

[eFestivals]

If you notice, Im not logged permanently into eFestivals on account of being at work - Im dipping in and out. This explains the absence of the quotes. But rest assured when I get home and log on this evening, I shall find them for you.

Now are you going to explain equitable taxation and how we raise 100% of revenue via income tax or not?

Nah, as I said, I'll wait for your apology.

There's no way on earth you can find me saying that I think HE fees are a good idea, unless you abuse the context my words were written within.

I have said that within the idea of fees, some of what is proposed is done well (specifically, the starting point for paying them back being set at around the median average wage [£20k] rather than a lower point [£15k] as it is currently). But that is not any approval of the idea of fees, that's merely an acceptance of there being fees and then working from that reality.

So anyway: give me the quotes that don't exist, or the apology that's due.

So that'll be an apology then.

[philipsteak]

this is copying the dutch system isn't it? reports suggest it works quite well over there

[llcoolphil]

There's no way on earth you can find me saying that I think HE fees are a good idea, unless you abuse the context my words were written within.

Edited October 28, 2010 by llcoolphil

[eFestivals]

Now that you've posted this, I don't need to trawl for old posts because ....

... they don't exist and you've been talking complete crap.

Apology please.

[eFestivals]

Those are the figures Neil. Explain how abolishing fees makes a fairer system. It doesn't. It means that the most privileged 7% - who prior to HE have already had the best education - get a hugely disproportionate amount of the best HE - and you want to give them that for free and simply perpetuate the status quo. They go on to get the best jobs with the best salaries and get to buy the best education for the next generation. And you want to pay for them to do it.

We were talking specifically about fees. I addressed specifically fees. What you say above is nothing to do with fees (or no fees).

Fees are not the only issue that needs addressing within HE or within the wider education system, as the non-fee related stuff you've posted gets to show.

As for "And you want to pay for them to do it", you'd have to first know my thoughts on how the tax regime would work; how the admissions policies of Uni's would operate; and what would happen with private education.

I've said not a jot about those things, so I guess you've been able to reach the idiot conclusion that you have via your undiscovered genius making it up out of nothing and believing that your inventions hold true.

But all that aside, you do not stop the establishment retaining the machinery of business and govt for their children by charging fees for HE. By narrowing the path for others, the only thing that is achieved is a guarantee of the establishment retaining that machinery.

[llcoolphil]

... they don't exist and you've been talking complete crap.

Apology please.

[eFestivals]

You haven't got a single point of detail to offer about anything. I dont know what you think about these things because you repeatedly refuse to give any detail on any issue you criticise or rant about.

Really???

But only yesterday you were saying you could pull up specific things I'd said on this subject giving explicit details.

So which is it? Are you talking crap now, or were you talking crap then?

What is beyond all dispute is that you're talking crap.

You repeatedly refuuse because you cant substantiate any of it with either cohesive argument ('You dont understand so Im not telling you' is, frankly, a level of pathetic deserving of oaf)or independent evidence. You like to bandy about the insults as if to detract from your own absolute lack of coherence (and trust me, my intelligence is very much not undiscovered - you call it genius if you like).

Yet I didn't say "I'm not telling you", did I?

I said I'd hold back from saying more until after you presented the quotes that backup what you've claimed I said, or you apologised for talking absolute bollocks.

Now, as we both know, you can't pull up those quotes.

So, as I said, I'll have the apology, and then we can move on.

Now, one last chance. Do you want to offer detail on how we raise 100% of revenue through income tax or not? Would you care to expand your views on admissions policies or private education? If not, just say so. Everyone can already see you have zero to offer the debate beyond rhetoric and smilies

I'm more than happy to give you what you're wanting.

But only after you act on the request I made before you made yours - those quotes, or the admission you've been talking bollocks along with the apology.

The person with nothing to offer is you ... until you do what you said, and provide those (non-existent) quotes.

You do make me smile.

and you make me think you're a worthless idiot, because you're acting like one.

those quotes, or the admission you've been talking bollocks along with the apology.

Edited October 29, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

As it's passing your dim brain by phil, here it is again. No avoidance of answering your questions by me, but funnily enough an avoidance by you of addressing what I'd asked you for.

As I said yesterday, once you address this, we can move on.

Why are there none of the quotes of mine you've promised yet, Phil?

I'll wait for you to present them, or for you to admit you're talking out of your arse before I bother addressing anything further here that you're asking for.

So give me your full admission that you've wrongly accused me, and we can move on.

Edited October 29, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

As it's passing your dim brain by phil, here it is again. No avoidance of answering your questions by me, but funnily enough an avoidance by you of addressing what I'd asked you for.

As I said yesterday, once you address this, we can move on.

Why are there none of the quotes of mine you've promised yet, Phil?

I'll wait for you to present them, or for you to admit you're talking out of your arse before I bother addressing anything further here that you're asking for.

So give me your full admission that you've wrongly accused me, and we can move on.

[llcoolphil]

As it's passing your dim brain by phil, here it is again. No avoidance of answering your questions by me, but funnily enough an avoidance by you of addressing what I'd asked you for.

As I said yesterday, once you address this, we can move on.

[worm]

As it's passing your dim brain by phil

[llcoolphil]

explain how increasing the fees makes it fairer

[eFestivals]

I have illustrated exactly how the poorest subsidise the better off in HE and how that subsidy gets even worse when you abolish fees. I explained why I don't need to pull up old posts because you restated your beliefs yesterday and I used that as an example.

Fair enough. But what I restated was something 100% different from your accusations.

So I'll still be wanting your retraction. Or you need to pull out those posts I never made.

You clearly don't want to make the case for abolishing fees. You clearly don't want to make the case for raising 100% of revenue through income tax

I can make the case for all I've said.

And I will when you've done what you said prior to me saying that - so pull out those posts, or admit you've been talking crap.

the only thing you have ever said on admissions is that it should always be based on ability at the age of 18, though you have offered nothing as to how you would level the playing field so that many children at birth and by the age of 3, 5, 8 and 11 will never have the ability to go to university at the age of 18. And I've shown you exactly why that is the poorest subsidising education for the better off. Ive already shown you all this. Let's leave it at that. Throw some smilies about, a couple of pricks, maybe an emptyheaded or two and some general lined through insults. But rest assured you have been furnished with evidence but have absolutely NOTHING to say in response.

Meanwhile, you're also not able to offer anything that "would level the playing field" (because it's an impossibility, outside of a 'Brave New World' sort-of solution). All you can do is - the same as me - implement some things which make it less unfair, while not making it fair.

But we can get onto that when either you present those quotes, or you admit to talking out of your arse.

[worm]

explain how increasing the fees makes it fairer

Edited October 29, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

You've been questioned because your criticisms are contradictory, despite what you think.

If that's the case, phil will have no problem pulling out those quotes he says he can pull out.

There's a reason why he hasn't, which has nothing to do with "contradictory".

This means that your readers don't get you, even if you do.

Unlike yourself, I don't have any pretence in the bullshit idea that I'm the world's only perfect communicator.

I'm more than willing to explain myself, but there's no point trying to do so with the bullshit that phil has flying around - he'll just resort to more bullshit.

Once he's put away his bullshit, we can move on. As I keep making clear to him.

Edited October 29, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: while I'm more than willing to explain myself, what I won't be doing is re-writing all 10,000 pages of the current tax regime.

I don't have the inclination, and along with that I don't have access to all of the data that would be necessary to develop my ideas into a fully workable replacement tax system.

What I will do is lay out the general ideas, and hope that people are able to grasp the logic behind those ideas.

[worm]

If that's the case, phil will have no problem pulling out those quotes he says he can pull out.

[worm]

PS: while I'm more than willing to explain myself, what I won't be doing is re-writing all 10,000 pages of the current tax regime.

Edited October 29, 2010 by worm