by Bo-Gilly » Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:10 am
[quote="Paul H"]Thats my last post on this matter.
[quote="Paul H"]Perhaps some of the money could go to teaching left wing activists basic maths.
It might help me, my maths is rubbish - apparently.
I thought "last" meant that there were "no more".......but it clearly doesn't !
[quote]I commend you for an imaginative reading between my lines; keep after the tax cheats but don't give aid to countries that can afford their own nuclear weapons and space programs, and certainly not those that give safe harbour to our enemies.
Imaginative reading between your lines ? I copied and pasted your "lines"
If there is no connection between tax evasion and foreign aid, why did you bother to mention it then ? I didn't ask you to - you freely chose to make the association between the two. The inference was very clear, ie, never mind the tax cheats, look at foreign aid.
Although you presumably now realise how absurd your remark was, because you appear to be desperately trying to qualify it by suggesting that it was only aimed at "countries that can afford their own nuclear weapons and space programs, and certainly not those that give safe harbour to our enemies". You very clearly suggested "ending foreign aid". If you wanted to be specific, then you should have been - specially if you are going to accuse people of 'reading between your lines'.
You also try to qualify your knee-jerk comment with "My point is that there are certain things we cannot afford". So why choose foreign aid ? Surely we can't afford to the £15 billion lost to the Treasury due to tax cheats, which was the point I was making, and which you bizarrely attempted to counter by waffling on about "foreign aid".
Yes you're right - there are certain things we can't afford. Two of them is the £1 billion lost per year due to benefit cheats, and the £15 billion lost per year due to tax cheats. Next on the list I would suggest looking at the mind boggling astronomical sums lost to the Treasury through legal tax avoidance. Close a few tax loop holes and the billions saved every year would go a long way in reducing the deficit - which we are told is apparently what we should be doing. It certainly makes more sense than cutting funding for charities, doesn't it ?
But as a taxpayer foreign aid is one area of government spending which I'm very happy with - and why wouldn't I be ? I'm certainly happier that my taxes should be spent on foreign aid than on bombing a country. And it's normally considerably cheaper. Or is spending billions bombing countries and killing their inhabitants the only sort of "foreign aid" which you approve of Dombo ?
by Dombo » Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:02 am
[quote="Grahame"][quote="Dombo"]How about [url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/12/04/uk-britain-banks-costs-idUKTRE5B300J20091204]Reuters[/url]?
Or [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html]the Inedpendent[/url]?
Or the original report from the [url=http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0910/uk_banking_system.aspx]National Audit Office[/url]?
Oh, and please don't accuse me of ignorace. I'm a Chartered Engineer ( a proper one, not a motor technician) with three degrees, not an overblown, overpaid bank clerk, and my wife teaches econiomics. Between us, I suspect we have a better than reasonable understanding of economics, whehter it be micro-, macro- or simple market-.
I wasn't referring to
you being ignorant. But if we're going to bandy around personal insults you'll be aware of the phrase those who can, do? Glad you don't teach spelling
I expect Marco will lock this before long.
by Grahame » Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:12 am
[quote="Dombo"][quote="Grahame"][quote="Dombo"]How about [url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/12/04/uk-britain-banks-costs-idUKTRE5B300J20091204]Reuters[/url]?
Or [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html]the Inedpendent[/url]?
Or the original report from the [url=http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0910/uk_banking_system.aspx]National Audit Office[/url]?
Oh, and please don't accuse me of ignorace. I'm a Chartered Engineer ( a proper one, not a motor technician) with three degrees, not an overblown, overpaid bank clerk, and my wife teaches econiomics. Between us, I suspect we have a better than reasonable understanding of economics, whehter it be micro-, macro- or simple market-.
I wasn't referring to
you being ignorant. But if we're going to bandy around personal insults you'll be aware of the phrase those who can, do? Glad you don't teach spelling
I expect Marco will lock this before long.
It was me who dug out the £850 billion to bail out the failed gamblers, so it does rather look like it was me you were accusing of ignorance, doesn't it?
Oh, and at least I can work the quote function competently
by Bo-Gilly » Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:10 pm
[quote="Dombo"]Sorry, i got it off Bo-gilly's lengthy post.
With three degrees and an Engineering Charter I'd hope you could work the technical aspects of the forum better than me.
I'm just wondering where to spunk the next 850 big ones.
No you didn't get it from my "lengthy post", as he says, it was Grahame who originally mentioned 850 billion, I never mentioned 850 anything.
And yes, I suspect most people can 'work the technical aspects of the forum better than you' .....it's not exactly rocket science working out who said what.
[quote]your ignorance of maths is matched only by your lack of understanding of market economics
At least I have the intellectual ability to follow a thread on a cycling forum
