* Posts by codejunky

7050 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Oct 2011

Bernie Sanders clocks in with 4-day workweek bill thanks to AI and productivity tech

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hmm

@cmdrklarg

"Agreed. Now imagine how much better it would be if people's wages had increased at the same rate instead of going to make the owner's wallets fatter."

Wages as in the amount of money handed over? The minimum wage in the 40's (Sanders choice of year) was apparently less than 50 cent. That of course is just the numerical value on the piece of paper, would you try to suggest the standard of living has not improved since then? You mention wallets but the population seems to have grown in girth. Plentiful and abundant food, water, communication, transport, etc. I guess people could be banned from spending any money they earn so they accumulate it but that might not make them much better off.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: bread

@Snake

"Yes, a full line of chalk breads (see 20:00 and after) were available to the Victorian-era workers."

The Victorian era was 1820 and 1914. Are you saying that was the advancement level of the communists? No wonder they looked in amazement at the west.

codejunky Silver badge

Hmm

I am guessing he isnt expecting 4 days pay for the 4 days work? I do wonder how he tortured the result of people working more for less. Increasing productivity is what makes our lives better. That is why people were living better than the communist countries that stagnated.

codejunky Silver badge

@Snake

"Next thing you know workers will demand that they have money left after buying bread & water from the company store! Damn communists!"

You are mistaken. The long lines for bread were disappointed as there was none left. Unlike the vile capitalists with a variety of different breads and bread makers making a strong supply

UK minister tells telcos to share telegraph poles if they can't lay cable underground

codejunky Silver badge

Hmm

"This seems fair enough, but the text of the letter to the operators reveals what the real beef is: complaints to MPs from residents angry about the installation of new broadband infrastructure."

I thought the complaint was a lack of internet speed or whatever? That connectivity jabbering that goes on demanding more coverage of better speeds etc.

Home Office’s shiny immigration system glitches causing delays

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hmm

@heyrick

"What? That I have an ID card and that the police... oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. You don't have police that actually police any more do you?"

No we dont I agree. But stopping you to see if you have a permission slip to leave your house, that is both freaking hilarious and terrifyingly bad. I think even V for vendetta had a scene of a character out after curfew being stopped by such 'enforcers'.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hmm

@heyrick

Maybe, just maybe, a little event in the middle of the 20th century demonstrated the dangers of holding too much unnecessary information?

twice during lockdown (yes, I have the paper that says I'm going to work...)

The irony of these two statements in a single comment. Its a shame the ID cards dont stop people from travelling through Europe, entering France and then making dangerous attempts to get across the channel. And noting history I would have to agree with the previous poster with- "Nothing irrational about paranoia of a mega everything-here database"

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Now we know how Rishi and Dummerly could say the immigration figures were dropping

@heyrick

"Honestly, comptence, integrity, professionalism, accountability...all words I would not use when describing the last decade of governance."

Agreed. And the decade before that too.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hmm

@heyrick

"Well, you guys do have some weird irrational paranoia of having identity cards, so why are you surprised that it's a bit of a shitshow?"

We are also surrounded by water.

codejunky Silver badge

Hmm

It seems the UK immigration system has never recovered from the open border policy that flooded the country. That the country for some reason is unable to remove law breakers who come here is ridiculous. I am not surprised our immigration system doesnt work correctly, it doesnt even know how many people have entered the country.

Trump, who tried kicking TikTok out of the US, says boo to latest ban effort

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hmm

The two tiered justice system being exposed because Biden is senile but Trump is not-

https://youtu.be/wuSZ4CX5DMQ

If Trump wins this could get very interesting.

codejunky Silver badge

Hmm

I get the feeling the writer of this article isnt a fan of Trump. As he has defied the lawfare effort to be (as we already knew and the reason for the lawfare) the republican presidential candidate will you possibly be on your knees screaming 'noooooooooooooo' if he wins? If so can you please record it for our amusement.

Wasnt the conclusion that the security services violated the constitution by effectively making social media platform policy last election? Musk buying Twitter and releasing the twitter files changed another conspiracy theory into a fact. I wonder if thats why Trump considers Facebook a problem?

Dutch government in panic mode over keeping ASML in the country

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hmm

@AC

"Amirite?"

No. Actually I responded as I did to naive because he sounds like the people over there that I know. When I was there the dislike for their government as sell outs and not representing the people was in the open and their support for Wilders as a last hope to stop the country falling into increasing madness. It wasnt extremist opinions pushing them that way, it was their country being dragged down and the gov not seemingly doing much to stop it.

codejunky Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: Hmm

@naive

From your comment it sounds like you live there or know someone who does.

codejunky Silver badge

Hmm

Reports in The Netherlands say the government has even set up a task force dubbed "project Beethoven"

So government create a problem. Government set up a task force (likely to cost more) to put a patch over the problem. Probably to cause another problem. And this isnt a shot at the Dutch, this is government.

Brit chip industry wonders if UK budget will put its money where its silicon is

codejunky Silver badge

Re: “lack of funding to support later stage growth … to scale up and become globally competitive”

@Roland6

"Yes we don’t get one funded via the EU, which means any chip foundry we build will be in competition with those the EU are funding, so potentially we do get a polluting foundry and so does an EU member - double green misery."

It doesnt make much difference if it was funded by the UK or EU it is a glorious way to spaff a load of tax payer money to try to compete with a much cheaper and better producer. For the UK the smart move is not to play and with the small amount of funding announced by the gov it seems we are not playing that game.

"So the sub text to my point 8s that the UK has to decide on what its niches are and invest accordingly. However, we do need to diversify away from financial services…"

That we can agree on.

"Yet whilst in the EU, the UK’s non-EU exports grew to the point where they exceeded our EU “exports”…"

And now we are outside the EU we can still do so.

"Those are wholly due to the ineptitude of “British” management and their equally inept trade unions and labour relations their inept management practises nurtured."

Which of course is not exclusive to "British" but is due to a lack of competition.

codejunky Silver badge
Trollface

Re: “lack of funding to support later stage growth … to scale up and become globally competitive”

@AC

"Those with zero knowledge or understanding if technology making sweeping negative pronouncement"

There is no need for you to comment. You are not compelled to. Its your choice to do so.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: “lack of funding to support later stage growth … to scale up and become globally competitive”

@elsergiovolador

"If you don't own the means of production, you are depending on those countries. They may be relatively friendly today but that is not a given."

That is true. I rely on the farmer, trucker, and god knows how many others only for my food. As a country we depend on other countries for a vast quantity of production. We could own the means of production for everything we have but that takes us back to a peasantry time, Even N.Korea isnt that crazy and depends on the outside. In this case even if we have fabs in this country we still need to import and depend on others for the technology and resources required for these fabs to make anything.

On the flip side the chance that we will be at war with the US, EU and Asia at the same time is pretty low. Just one of those would wipe us out if we dont have support from others.

"The longer we don't have any meaningful high tech industry"

But we do.

"This is essentially a managed decline."

I wont argue with that. But if fabricating mass produced low value at high cost to the country the way to go? The UK still designed stuff, then sent it to cheaper places to produce. We would need to seriously make changes to environmental protection rules as well as build as much cheap coal energy production as possible while removing minimum wage and still we wouldnt be as competitive.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: “lack of funding to support later stage growth … to scale up and become globally competitive”

@Roland6

"With respect to chip foundries, well being outside the EU meant the UK missed out on the EU monies to be the host of an EU foundry…"

So we dont get a polluting foundry (greenies will be happy). At least the UK wont be net contributing to this when we already have high energy costs and are uncompetitive with Asian foundries. Instead thanks to brexit the US and EU can pump tax payer money into competing with Asian foundries and the UK get cheap chips. Sounds like a win.

"(*) Yes protected, those trade barriers the Brexiteers went on and on about were there for a reason - to benefit UK interests !"

Just as the trade barriers that borked our industries and brought us sub-par products until we got foreign cars, technology, etc.

US and Europe try to tame surveillance capitalism

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Just ban tracking/targeting

@John Robson

"I see you've recently bought a car, would you like a new car? That's the level of accuracy of the massive intrusion that is current practise."

As I said- 'which I am sure most agree has laughable results currently'

"You can't get personally targeted advertising without the security concerns."

Possibly, probably.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Just ban tracking/targeting

@Jeff Smith

"Baffles me that anyone considers targeted advertising to be even the slightest bit necessary, as if no one ever bought anything before 2005."

What John Robson mentioned is targeted advertising. The magazine advertising what readers might also be interested in is targeting. The online tracking/targeting is an attempt to be even more accurate (which I am sure most agree has laughable results currently).

While I am somewhat concerned of private entities abusing data I am also concerned of the government demanding such data for abuse and even inserting a 'back door'. Currently governments are arguing for encryption they can decrypt at will, in the US the security services installed agents at social platforms.

Without the security concern I would be happy for more accurate advertising to be honest. Seeing things I am interested in is better than stuff I dont care about, and that also works for the advertiser.

UK tax agency's digital services not good enough to take strain off phone lines

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Tax nonsense

I remember a time they used the phrase 'tax doesnt have to be taxing'. I doubt anyone with sense could accept that as truth.

British businesses told: Compliance with EU AI law will satisfy UK guidance

codejunky Silver badge

Re: RE: And yet they did

@I am the liquor

"They did not do the thing that about which you claimed "And yet they did.""

I said "both you and GStern didnt think the EU stupid enough to consider such a thing. And yet they did.". According to Frans Timmermans the Executive Vice President of the European Commission they actually did consider it. So you are saying the EU didnt consider what Executive Vice President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans claims they did?

"The Reuters article does not say the EU wanted to limit the power output of kettles, it says that some people fear that."

You either lie or didnt read it. I quote the article as I did before for you-

The European Commission has identified six types of electrical products where it wants to see lower energy consumption in order to help meet Europe's climate goals, among them kettles and hand dryers, Vice President Frans Timmermans said on Tuesday.

"What we are doing is evidence-based. We want to put the products on the list that have the highest energy yield. That is why kettles are on the list, because they are very high in terms of energy yields, and toasters are not on the list," Timmermans added.

"The Full Fact article is not terribly well written, but it is saying that not all of the 29 product categories would be regulated based on power output."

I think maybe you have moved the goal posts which might be where you are getting this wrong. The EU considered making such a change, I didnt say they did it. I quote myself responding to I am David Jones above-

@I am David Jones

"Re the kettle: yes, on the face of it it is daft. Is it actually a thing or just a proposal?"

I am not certain but I think the stupidity died when we left. It was too easy fodder to demonstrate the state of governance from the EU.

"It takes a fixed amount of energy to boil a quantity of water. Reducing the power used does not change that; if anything, energy losses would be greater. The EU wants to reduce the energy consumption of appliances. Reducing the power consumption of a kettle would be counter to that goal, so they would not and did not consider that."

And this is where I think you want your cake and eat it. This paragraph suggests you understand the stupidity, but then you claim (against Executive Vice President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans) that the EU would not and did not consider it.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: RE: And yet they did

@I am the liquor

"They did not"

They did not what?

"You've read the European Commission's study on the matter? No, of course you haven't. You've read the Daily Mail's lies about that study, and chosen to believe them, despite the fact that those lies should have been quite transparent, for the reasons already explained."

Erm... did you read my comment? Granted its not the study I quoted but reuters and full fact which were quoting Vice President Frans Timmermans the Executive Vice President of the European Commission.

*edit: wernt you going to explain how I somehow got the power/energy thing wrong or was I right and it doesnt matter now?

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@I am the liquor

"yes, they came up with all sorts of ideas about how to reduce the energy consumption of kettles. You do understand the difference between energy and power, don't you?"

Again, it takes a given amount of power/energy to boil a kettle. Why you think being pedantic is gonna change this I dont know (maybe you will explain?). We have so far come to the conclusion such a proposal is stupid (you and GStern so far) and both you and GStern didnt think the EU stupid enough to consider such a thing. And yet they did. So yes it would be a stupid rule and good fodder for brexit supporters as the EU was considering it.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@AC

"Just one of many examples of abject brexit/brexiteer failure."

I wasnt gonna feed the troll but others may read this and also believe this. This is not a failure of brexit but success. Regardless of your opinion of the governments stance on this deal they can walk away from it, because it is the UK negotiating a deal for the UK.

In the EU the competency of trade deals was the EU and the EU ass negotiating for 27 countries with conflicting economic interests. Due to brexit the EU decided all members must unanimously agree on the next trade deal, which was then held up by *not even a country*. What back room deals and brown envelopes were needed we dont know to get that final agreement.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@I am the liquor

"No, reducing the power of electric kettles was never suggested in any EU consultation or legislation. It was a fiction created by the UK right-wing press, one contributor being Stephen Johns in the Daily Mail."

Is it maybe possible that it was suggested? Maybe by the European Commission? Maybe according to one the EU's very own?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-energy-idUSKBN1331Q5/

The European Commission has identified six types of electrical products where it wants to see lower energy consumption in order to help meet Europe's climate goals, among them kettles and hand dryers, Vice President Frans Timmermans said on Tuesday.

"What we are doing is evidence-based. We want to put the products on the list that have the highest energy yield. That is why kettles are on the list, because they are very high in terms of energy yields, and toasters are not on the list," Timmermans added.

Even the pro-EU Full fact report it-

https://fullfact.org/europe/first-they-came-vacuum-cleaners-will-it-be-kettles-next/

"Of course the idea of it would be daft, anyone with a bare passing grade in O-level physics can see that"

Thank you, yes, I agree, as did leave voters, some of which still get a kick out of the classics. I do like how derogatory your comment is about the idea because I too agree, except it wasnt some right wing conspiracy or prejudice but the truth coming from the Brussels horses mouth

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@SundogUK

Pretty sure its just a bot that posts the same thing every time. Randomly shows up to reprint the useless post

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@GStern

"Do you really think the European Commission doesn't have access to scientists and engineers who would spot a law if it was as daft as you present the kettle issue?"

No. Oddly I have about as much faith in them as other governments.

"has it not occurred to you that maybe there was a good reason for the proposal, which you have not spotted?"

So you start with they wouldnt be so stupid to do it. Then suggest maybe they know how to break the laws of physics.

"Accept that Leave was dominated by lies."

As remain was. Shockingly even with the tonne of FUD remain also had the government using the threat of the state against us.

"How about the EU regulating bananas"

Which was a true issue of making it a criminal offense with a fine and/or prison! The EU not defining new standards as you say but instead taking the existing into criminal law.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@AC

"Putting aside the non-sequitur of comparing kettles to generative AI."

The point that I made to correct your assumption that a rule is good because its a rule and everything else is worse.

"Do you see now?"

Yes and my point still being correct. It isnt about the UK waiting for the EU to fumble the ball. Its about not fumbling the ball here to make it a good place for business.

"Where is the initiative? Where is the UK taking business now from the EU with its laxer laws? I don't see it happening and you didn't suggest it as a possibility."

It isnt quite limited to the UK taking business from elsewhere, but allowing development to happen which may not be possible in more restrictive countries. Maybe you dont see it happening but I assumed it as given understanding that the UK would be easier to work with the EU but also any other country in the world including where the EU rules wont let EU business.

"Perhaps there are small businesses which sell innovative jams just to the domestic market. That's fine. But I don't think pre-Brexit UK/EU standards were ever a barrier to that because it was already happening."

Nope. That is to not understand the opportunity costs. The jams thing is funny, I think it was something to do with the EU dictating what could be called jam or something just as stupid. But if you want to know domestic markets being pushed by EU regs just look at the arse kicking the EU just got over its rules against farmers. We dont know what development has been lost and costs inflicted due to higher regs.

"This was bureaucracy entirely of the UK's making and it affects just the GB market."

Thats the insanity of appeasing the scum during negotiations. This could have easily been resolved if May didnt try to keep us half in half out to appease both sides

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@I am David Jones

"Or are you actually suggesting that it’s the primary reason for Brexit?"

The kettle rules you agree to be daft (actually is friggin stupid on every level).

codejunky Silver badge

Re: To not have to apply foreign laws domestically.

@Flocke Kroes

"When the UK was part of the EU we had some say in what EU laws were and they were not foreign laws because we were part of the EU."

And now they are foreign laws. Back then they were still foreign laws of an organisation we joined.

"Now we have no say over what EU laws are"

Should we have say in US law? China's laws? Other countries? Maybe we should invade some countries to enforce our laws?

"we have to obey them to access the larger market"

No we dont. We do as we wish. If some business needs to apply export laws they can. If domestic or export elsewhere they do things correctly for that.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@I am David Jones

"Re the kettle: yes, on the face of it it is daft. Is it actually a thing or just a proposal?"

I am not certain but I think the stupidity died when we left. It was too easy fodder to demonstrate the state of governance from the EU.

"But I can’t imagine that being an issue for any other eu country"

That is actually a solid argument for leave. In fact one of the primary reasons

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@Doctor Syntax

"Spot the straw man."

Only straw if not real. That it was a consideration at one point Made for easy pickings as to why getting out was a good idea

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@AC

"Hardly post-Brexit UK being the master of its own destiny, rather just waiting and hoping that EU countries fumble the ball."

Eh? Nothing to do with that at all. Any business wishing to do business with another country must make sure their exports meet the legal requirements of the importing country. Doesnt matter if it is UK, US, EU, China or anywhere. Post brexit we dont need to apply EU requirements domestically. Its pretty simple and actually does point to "the UK being the master of its own destiny" if you wish to put it like that.

"Why would they have two herds of cattle and treat one worse for domestic consumption"

Its its only for domestic consumption or export to somewhere other than the EU, why apply EU requirements? Why would the smaller domestic providers apply large global business rules for other countries? I also note the huge mistake of saying treat worse or more dangerous, which is to make the flawed assumption that a rule is good because its a rule. A good rule can be good but a rule is not necessarily good.

"It makes no sense and it's cheaper just for UK businesses just to follow the higher standard (whoever has it, although given the direction of travel it's probably the EU) and sell to both markets."

Assuming the trade is with the EU and the domestic market is small enough to prefer export market rules. Also assumes no domestic models that may work better.

Here is an example of rule stupidity. It takes the same amount of energy to boil a kettle (excluding losses from slower boiling). Should the EU decide its a good idea to limit the power of a kettle they are only increasing the amount of time to boil water, not making it more efficient. Add the loss of slower boiling and the rule would be less energy efficient. The UK could ditch said rules and have working kettles for domestic and export to non-stupid countries but export only inefficient ones for the EU if a business so wished.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@elsergiovolador

"Not exactly. Tories UK wants less regulation for multinational corporations, while burdening SMEs with as much regulation as they can."

Not just the Tories. We do need better options to vote for.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@AC

"But businesses that sell into the EU or offer services to it do have to follow EU law though."

That is not amazing. If you sell into any country your product/service must follow the laws of the importer. That was something I repeatedly stated back when people were arguing leave/remain.

"So the UK government gets to enact performative divergence and trumpet about how light touch the UK is (as if that were a good thing) but to UK businesses it means absolutely nothing."

Why does it mean nothing? Lets say the EU regulates so hard that development moves out of the EU. The UK doesnt need to change anything to support the businesses now pivoting to other countries.

"Was that the point of brexit?"

To not have to apply foreign laws domestically. Business selling to the EU must meet EU requirements on said exports just as they meet the differing requirements to any country their product exports to. But domestically they are not so restricted.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Hold your horses!

@I am David Jones

"It could be fixed with a something like a statutory legal fiction along the lines of ‘businesses that meet the EU reqs are deemed to meet the UK reqs’. But that wasn’t the point of Brexit now, was it?"

Why? The EU wants more regulation, the UK less, what is wrong with that and that is the point of brexit. The UK doesnt have to do what the other government away from the country wants.

Ford pulls the plug on EV strategy as losses pile up

codejunky Silver badge

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"Don't know why my response to this ended up several comments up..."

Not sure if we have broken the formatting by too many replies.

"No - the question of "how much tax does the government take" is completely irrelevant to a discussion about the distribution of those taxes being affected by tax cuts."

If the amount taken doesnt matter why would the gov pass on tax increases for some when making tax cuts for others as if there was an arbitrary target amount?

codejunky Silver badge

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"Because that's not relevant to the discussion of how we finance tax cuts."

Actually that is entirely relevant to your claim that not taxing one increases tax on another. You seem to think there is 'an amount' the gov rightfully gets, I say the gov would take 100%, people want to keep more of what they earn and the tax take is what both sides agree on. As a feature of this discussion with you it seems very relevant.

"I suspect we both agree that we need to give _some_ money to provide services that enable society to function - the amount of money that is required is irrelevant, except in that we need to raise approximately that much in taxes (some years will be more, some will be less)"

The amount is the problem. The gov likes to spend, the NHS likes to spend, the education system, MOD and every department of government likes to spend. Local councils like to spend. The entire structure including off the books public workers moved into the private sector like to spend. Not just on the essentials to enable society to function, but to spend. Even to our detriment they will spend because it suits them. They will borrow against the tax payer because they will tax you more later. They believe your moneys and possessions belong to them, as long as they can get away with it.

Until you can provide the arbitrary amount the rest of your beliefs about reducing tax on one increases on another doesnt work. The more they collect the more they spend. They reduce tax and they still keep spending.

"Encouraging more car use can not be an efficient use of government funds - it therefore increases the tax burden on others."

Why? The entirety of transport is a huge part of what makes your rich country with civilised society possible. Without it you would be in a much worse situation and the government would absolutely lose a lot of tax (overtaxing fuel, road tax, etc which collects more than it returns to drivers).

"Again it doesn't matter why you owe me... and tax is a paid for service, in fact it's *many* services which we pay for"

If you go to the shop and buy product/service you choose to pay them for it. I dare you to 'choose' not to pay your tax. Paying for a service and having your earnings taken by force are extremely different things. Government may 'incentivise' actions by not taxing as a mugger may 'incentivise' you dont enter a certain area.

"If you don't want to pay tax to your countries government then a) you're a selfish jerk"

Perfect response you selfish jerk. I say that because all probability says you only pay the exact amount of tax you owe and dont send the government extra? And if you wernt such a selfish jerk and in your opinion of how this money is spent, you could reduce the tax bill of everyone else. However in reality the gov would take that money and spend it on top of everything else it takes. (obviously I dont actually believe you a selfish jerk)

"b) you're free to go and opt out of society entirely"

100% as I say. But instead of eating berries people move their money off shore, use tax efficient structures and some even evade tax (at many levels of society) which of course limits what the government can take. The more they take the more moves away, especially when its seen to be unjust.

Surely from all of the above you can see why I would completely disagree with your last paragraph as completely wrong.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"If you owe me £11 and I say "don't worry about the pound, just give me a tenner" then I have given you a pound."

Why do I owe you? You provide a service at an agreed cost in which you say keep the change. Tax is not a paid for service 'oh just keep the change', it is money taken from you by force because someone else wants to spend it.

Again at no point have you told me what this arbitrary figure we should be paying the government (in any terms) yet claim the gov must tax others more for reducing tax on some as if there is a fixed cost of government. Government takes as much as it can get away with, what they can get away with is determined by people refusing to pay. Your example assumes some sort of choice in the transaction, this is a forced transaction where your money is taken from you by force.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

Gonna chop your comment to make the point-

"you don't get taxed"..."then you are being given"

Tax is taking. It is removing from you. So not being taxed isnt being given. Someone not taking from you is not giving to you. I know you started with a 10% tax rate, but that is the gov taking 10%. If they dont not take they are not giving you something, they are not taking it away from you. You earned it, you worked for it, its yours and then it gets taxed.

"A tax break costs the government money"

So the interesting experiment is when the gov collects more money do they reduce tax for us all? If there is a set amount the gov should collect what is that arbitrary number? Have you any idea what it is? When they hit that figure with they give the money back?

The answer is no. They will collect more and more and demand more and more. Each department demands more and more each year. Those relying on the public money have to spend it before the end of the financial year so they can demonstrate they need the same or more from the next payout. I was on the receiving end of some of this money they were desperate to get rid of locally.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"Huh - it's a tax break - the reason bloody well ought to be to encourage a certain behaviour which is societally beneficial."

You would hope. It does seem to be beneficial to people to keep what they earn (I like keeping what I earn).

"Any money you give back to people in the form of *not* taxing"

That makes no sense. You are not giving back if you are not taking. If you have £10 and the tax man doesnt take it, the tax man did not give you £10. A thief is not giving to you by not stealing from you.

"otherwise be taxable costs the taxpayer, since they all need to make up the difference"

Why would it be otherwise taxable and others need to make up the difference? How much should the gov get (what is the arbitrary number?). That doesnt work, the gov wants 100% and more, people want to keep what they earn. There is no arbitrary figure the gov should get that tax payers must make up. Government is what we will pay for.

"The trick is to encourage behaviours that benefit society"

That is a whole other topic for how much of a trick that is.

"for some reason we rarely tax enough to make up for the costs of the disbenefit."

Really? Seems we over tax at least some of these (including fuel).

"And "to maintain spending" in a fictional country with two taxpayers and you invoke "NHS bad" as your straw man..."

Actually no, you missed the point. The maw can never be filled. If we maintain funding with no consequence then (in this case) the NHS doesnt improve and costs more. Not just NHS its generally a public money service issue.

"The government needs to spend money on things, that's kind of the deal we have with them"

I agree with that. They serve us and so should spend on what we want to the degree we are willing to fund it.

"and whatever they spend money on needs funding, and if they are giving that funding back to one person then they're going to have to increase the costs for the other."

No. This falls over throughout history. The gov will happily do everything, and badly, and demand more from you. The gov can spend whatever you give them and more. Just because they dont steal something from one person does not mean they must steal more from another.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"Well let's take the hypothetical case of a country with two tax payers.

One of whom is given a tax break of a hundred currency units."

And what is the reason not to take that money? If they didnt agree to this then (as happens through history) a revolt changes the mind of the taxer.

"That means that, in order to maintain government spending on such mundane and useless things as a health service"

And there is the logical flaw. Why maintain spending? The NHS as an example is a maw that can never be filled. At 100% taxation of the whole country it would forever demand more. No matter how useless it performs the demand is always for more. Also going back to working your arse off for an income, it belongs to you not the NHS (in this example), the NHS is supposed to be a health 'service' and we pay as much as we are willing to part with to the gov.

The sacrosanct funding of the NHS is why it was such a large purchaser of fax machines long after everyone else moved on.

"I don't believe that 100% taxation is necessary, and I rather doubt you do either."

Of course not and I didnt believe you did either, which demonstrates that the gov is only entitled to what it has rules to take, and if they take the piss people leave with their money/assets or revolt. There is no maintaining what the government believes its entitled to.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"That's an explicit subsidy, i.e. it's a cost to the taxpayer to pay for people's company cars."

What does it cost the tax payer for the government not taking money from the tax payer? And the car isnt just part of the income it is part of conducting business.

"I'm not saying that the lower tax is illegal, but to say that it doesn't cost tax payer money is plainly wrong"

So 100% tax on everyone otherwise its a cost to the tax payer. See how that is wrong?

"Because if it was taxed at the same rate as a person's other remuneration then the treasury would have higher income."

The treasury does not own your income. If everyone was taxed the same as the highest rate the treasury would (theoretically) have higher income. You think it costs the taxpayers because taxpayers dont pay more?

codejunky Silver badge

Re: The UK used to be a part of the EU

@DaveLS

"You certainly have "missed it"; perhaps if you had bothered to read the paper"

Thanks for pointing it out, I skimmed because I have a job and reading the 3 papers isnt part of it.

"I guess that instead of bothering to read anything beyond an offending title, you simply searched for a few triggers like "co2" and "uk""

Very quick skim read and search for UK. I opened the leeds link, I did mistake the EU unite for the UK unite.

"Really. You wrote that on the basis of...??? No, don't bother."

Because I didnt see (again I admit skim read) the section that accounts for the benefits against these externalities. The MMCC co2 section can be ignored as its effects and causes are still in question outside politics and extremism. The health affects and potential surrounding damage are legitimate problems, but I dont see where it balances that with a healthier and wealthier population. Again if you see such a section let me know but the 'costs' dont seem to outweigh the benefits.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"Of course it does - it's a (legal) mechanism to pay less tax than would otherwise be due. It's explicitly a subsidy by the treasury (i.e. tax payers)."

That is the wrong way around. The legal mechanism is to tax money which belongs to the person who earned it. To not tax what not legally taxable is not a subsidy.

To view it your way the money does not belong to you no matter how much you earn. By not paying 100% tax you are being subsidised by the treasury.

The rules are for what the government can take (by force).

codejunky Silver badge

Re: The UK used to be a part of the EU

@DaveLS

"It's from 2012, when the UK was a part of the EU. The UK coverage is essentially the same as France, Spain, Italy etc. Some (like Germany) get more mentions in footnotes, others fewer."

Thats fine but the graphic and text seems to leave out the UK from what I could see (I might have missed it). The only reference being the literature section mentioning a link to leeds Unite union.

"Clearly, no further comment needed, or maybe just "Hmm" as you might say."

Exactly. If they have written something severely biased as well as hopping on the latest 'fashionable trend' to make their case it doesnt bode well.

Billions lost to fraud and error during UK's pandemic spending spree

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Well

@Roland6

"Yes, it was flagged back in the mid to late 1990s that the UK economy was overly exposed to the health of the global financial market; from looking at the balance of trade figures, it would seem we still are…"

That really isnt a shock. For all the hare brained schemes of government I dont see much changing either.

"I thought that was part of the problem, there were no real plans as the plans that existed were based on assumptions CoViD invalidated"

Unfortunately not. There were plans, Before Boris caught it and was then fell into the same panic as other countries we were following it. Unfortunately even though Covid was bad it was still gonna infect everyone and was also nowhere near as deadly as initially suspected. The severe FUD and confused policies were a knee-jerk reaction to following peoples cries instead of leading through the pandemic.

"I had cousins who were working these wards during this time…"

I can sympathise. The NHS tried to kill my family member during covid by not treating them but dumping them on a covid ward (she had a stroke). The procedures to visit her were so incompetent it could easily be the cause of more infections and even deaths.

codejunky Silver badge

Re: Well

@Roland6

"What is notable is with 2008 the government decided to throw money directly at the banks"

The last equivalent situation was the 1930s. I wasnt a fan of dumping money on the banks at the time but it was about saving the currency and avoiding another great depression.

"With Covid the government bypassed the banks and directly subsidised people’s wages and thus companies. This approach seems to have cost significantly less and maintained a level of capacity in the economy to more quickly pickup (whether it did or did not is a separate discussion point)."

With covid the gov caused the crisis by abandoning science and the preprepared plans to trash the economy. Initially nobody knew anything about the virus and the assumption was a new black death. I am not sure how you think it costs less although maybe there was a hope it would. Instead its inflicted long term harm we will be paying for the foreseeable future.