My reading of the betfair rules is that Trump is winner even if he has died before election day.
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
Pence may actually become President, but Trump is the candidate.
The market is entitled: "Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?"
Surely this cannot be settled as Trump even though he had died?
If your interpretation is the case the market in play now would not have any other possible outcomes other than Biden and Trump.
BF rules also say, in event of a EC draw, "this market will be settled on the person chosen as President". If a draw they would not choose a dead person. So this reinforces my belief that your interpretation cannot be correct.
Right at the bottom their rules it says: " If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules" Im not sure how helpful or not this sentence is.
Any other views on this?
Your first bit on the "in the event of a draw" bit is parahrasing which slightly misses the key point. In fact, the first bit of the paragraph says:
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
So if the Trump/Pence slate wins most "projected" Electoral College votes at the election, BF pays out on Trump whatever the medical situation.
If, when the Electoral College meet, they chose someone other than Trump (the example of faithless electors is used, but following "such as" so it'd cover where Trump was no longer available for the gig) it doesn't matter - they pay out on Trump. The winner of most "projected" votes won't be President, but that doesn't matter under the terms.
It's only where it is a 269/269 draw* that the tie-breaker comes into play, and "In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It is only in that incrediby limited situation that Pence (and possibly other people) come into play, even if Pence were to become President tomorrow for unfortunate reasons, and remain it due to the Trump/Pence ticket winning in November.
* technically, it comes into play if both tickets fall short of 270, even if one has more EVs than the other, perhaps due to failure of a state to validate due to fraud (unlikely - though there could be court cases), or a third party candidate winning a state (no real chance of that).
I don't think your third paragraph follows from your second.
It is unlikely that Trump will die but it is quite likely that he will withdraw from the race and that the Republican candidate will become Pence. If Pence is "the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election", Betfair will pay up on Pence according to their rules.
At this stage, the name on the ballots is Trump's. Ballots are in fact being cast right now in most states. So that isn't changing.
So, if Trump were to "withdraw" this would mean saying, regrettably, he'd be unable to continue as President (either immediately or from January) and would be telling "his" electoral college voters to seat Pence.
But those would still be projected Trump electoral votes, and the fact (if it transpires) those EVs were ultimately cast for Pence on Trump's advice when the Electoral College does so in December, it makes no difference whatsoever. I hope this is clear.
No it's not clear. It's your interpretation. The fact that the ballot papers had Trump's name on them would not alter the fact that the projected electoral votes (not the same thing as the balloted votes) would be for Pence.
Sorry, Barnesian, it is completely clear on the face of the rules. This isn't an area of ambiguity - the Betfair rules are well written and very, very clear. They have obviously thought about the issues in what is a pretty high value market, and addressed them.
When you vote for a Presidential ticket, you vote for a slate of electoral voters who have formally pledged in advance of the ballots being printed to vote for X for President and Y for Vice President. That isn't a game of opinion - it's the world of fact.
Sorry it isn't clear even if you think it is.
If it were clear then there would only be two names in the next President bet, and the odds on Trump/Biden would be identical to Republican/Democrat.
Betfair are allowing this to happen. Punters are causing it to happen. This wouldn't be the case if the rules were very, very clear.
My basic point is that the rules are not clear, and I have given another interpretation of them which may or may not be correct. We'll see when Batfair settles.
I suspect that betfair would pay out on Pence not Trump because it will just look weird not to based on the title of market.
No chance - they'd be sued. And a court would view the actual terms and conditions as rather more important than the title of the market!
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
Fuck Fox news. Do they wish to suspend the Constitution at the same time ?
Two thoughts a) Presumably President Pence would have very similar economic and social policies to Trump and b) Is the Trump/Pence campaign being suspended?
My reading of the betfair rules is that Trump is winner even if he has died before election day.
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
Pence may actually become President, but Trump is the candidate.
The market is entitled: "Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?"
Surely this cannot be settled as Trump even though he had died?
If your interpretation is the case the market in play now would not have any other possible outcomes other than Biden and Trump.
BF rules also say, in event of a EC draw, "this market will be settled on the person chosen as President". If a draw they would not choose a dead person. So this reinforces my belief that your interpretation cannot be correct.
Right at the bottom their rules it says: " If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules" Im not sure how helpful or not this sentence is.
Any other views on this?
Your first bit on the "in the event of a draw" bit is parahrasing which slightly misses the key point. In fact, the first bit of the paragraph says:
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
So if the Trump/Pence slate wins most "projected" Electoral College votes at the election, BF pays out on Trump whatever the medical situation.
If, when the Electoral College meet, they chose someone other than Trump (the example of faithless electors is used, but following "such as" so it'd cover where Trump was no longer available for the gig) it doesn't matter - they pay out on Trump. The winner of most "projected" votes won't be President, but that doesn't matter under the terms.
It's only where it is a 269/269 draw* that the tie-breaker comes into play, and "In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It is only in that incrediby limited situation that Pence (and possibly other people) come into play, even if Pence were to become President tomorrow for unfortunate reasons, and remain it due to the Trump/Pence ticket winning in November.
* technically, it comes into play if both tickets fall short of 270, even if one has more EVs than the other, perhaps due to failure of a state to validate due to fraud (unlikely - though there could be court cases), or a third party candidate winning a state (no real chance of that).
I don't think your third paragraph follows from your second.
It is unlikely that Trump will die but it is quite likely that he will withdraw from the race and that the Republican candidate will become Pence. If Pence is "the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election", Betfair will pay up on Pence according to their rules.
At this stage, the name on the ballots is Trump's. Ballots are in fact being cast right now in most states. So that isn't changing.
So, if Trump were to "withdraw" this would mean saying, regrettably, he'd be unable to continue as President (either immediately or from January) and would be telling "his" electoral college voters to seat Pence.
But those would still be projected Trump electoral votes, and the fact (if it transpires) those EVs were ultimately cast for Pence on Trump's advice when the Electoral College does so in December, it makes no difference whatsoever. I hope this is clear.
No it's not clear. It's your interpretation. The fact that the ballot papers had Trump's name on them would not alter the fact that the projected electoral votes (not the same thing as the balloted votes) would be for Pence.
Sorry, Barnesian, it is completely clear on the face of the rules. This isn't an area of ambiguity - the Betfair rules are well written and very, very clear. They have obviously thought about the issues in what is a pretty high value market, and addressed them.
If the betfair rules were clear they wouldn't continually suspend the market
I'm not claiming everyone betting understands the rules, and can see why Betfair would suspend to prevent a disorderly market.
What I am saying is that there is no genuine ambiguity as to how bets would be settled as it is, in fact, set out in the small print in a way which is not ambiguous.
There is ambiguity because they don't state what will happen if a candidate dies. Betdaq explicitly have done so. The Betfair further rules deal with Electoral college shenanigans
In legal drafting, not dealing with a thing explicitly is NOT in itself ambiguous. It is more often elegant, parsimonious drafting. That is the case with the Betfair rules in this market.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
We do, 20% VAT on all Chinese tat sold in the UK.
How is VAT a tax on China, it's a tax on consumers.
Fuck Fox news. Do they wish to suspend the Constitution at the same time ?
CNN weren't much better. For the 2hrs they thought Trump might be wheeled out because he was a death door there was a ceasefire, as soon as pictures emerged of him walking to the helicopter, it was back to full on Trump attack mode.
Why didn't Trump take questions, why aren't we being told every detail, they lied, why does he get this special antibody treatment, the American people deserve better. Cuomo and Lemon speculatling about all sorts of theories about when they really knew he had COVID and other unfounded claims.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Yes, it struck all the right notes. I thought him an awful candidate originally, but he has definitely grown on me.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
Tax rises on anyone, rich or poor, are not the answer when we need to revive economic growth
How do we stimulate growth in an economy that post Brexit will operate primarily on the basis of value added imported goods and domestically provided and consumed services? There is only so much Chinese junk we can retail to each other.
It is, but political parties can (and do) seek to persuade their supporters to sign the petition or not.
Who is elected as MP for Hull West is a "matter for constituents"... but parties do in fact campaign for them to chose their candidate over others.
Should there really be national campaigns for a recall petition?
Anyway, is one even possible? I thought you had to be convicted of a crime first.
Why not? Whether an MP has done something so wrong they should be recalled is a political question, and a perfectly fair thing for a party to campaign on.
And yes, a 10 sitting day plus suspension is sufficient. Ian Paisley Jnr was subject to a (failed) petition without criminal conviction.
I wasn't sure she'd get the ten day suspension originally, as I'd thought her conduct was outside her Parliamentary duties. But I am persuaded I was wrong - both because they stretched the definition a bit to suspend Vaz, and because it appears she spoke in a Commons debate (which the Speaker was rightly apoplectic about).
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Yes, it struck all the right notes. I thought him an awful candidate originally, but he has definitely grown on me.
I think it is more of a function of how low the bar has become, that we are now pleasantly surprised when a life long politician can give a reasonable statement.
Its a bit like finding that a Labour leader can ask some awkward questions of the PM with some element of a longer term strategy.
It is, but political parties can (and do) seek to persuade their supporters to sign the petition or not.
Who is elected as MP for Hull West is a "matter for constituents"... but parties do in fact campaign for them to chose their candidate over others.
Should there really be national campaigns for a recall petition?
Anyway, is one even possible? I thought you had to be convicted of a crime first.
The two week suspension would be enough, Paisley was the first case. All a bit silly in a pandemic, it’s up to her and if still around the electors if she stands again, probably as an independent. Who going to go door to door seeking signatures for the petition.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
Agreed 100%
Plus there's no reason not to borrow during a recession - and I don't accept that QE has already been optimised completely, inflation is still on the floor.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Yes, it struck all the right notes. I thought him an awful candidate originally, but he has definitely grown on me.
Even as Trump skeptics, we have been taken in by the Trump propaganda machine. Much like we were by Johnson last year.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Whilst I generally agree now is not the time to raise taxes, am not sure how profits diverted to the Cayman Islands is "in circulation".
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
Export taxes?
Tariffs are payable by the importer.
Import tariffs are. I wasn't being serious. But theoretically a Govt could impose taxes on goods leaving the country.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Whilst I generally agree now is not the time to raise taxes, am not sure how profits diverted to the Cayman Islands is "in circulation".
If you can devise a tax scheme that only hits profits diverted to the Cayman Islands and nothing else then I'd love to hear it.
Its like the death penalty - there's no way to devise a scheme that in reality may not execute an innocent no matter how much you intend to execute the guilty.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Whilst I generally agree now is not the time to raise taxes, am not sure how profits diverted to the Cayman Islands is "in circulation".
Yes and no. Whilst large companies might structure their operations to minimise corporation taxes, they still pay payroll, property and sales taxes. If you taxed Starbucks a billion in corporation tax, they’d likely reduce the size of their operation, and pay less NI and VAT as a result. Maybe they’d instead launch in a new territory or expand elsewhere, where taxes are not so onerous.
That’s not to say that there couldn’t be international agreements on such things as tax havens, but one country acting on its own to raise taxes would simply divert investment elsewhere.
USC Dornsife tracker still getting tighter, Biden lead down to 49.4% vs 46.2% on the 7-day "traditional voting question". It's partly the normal oscillation they have because of this weird thing they do with a 2-week panel rotation but even so it's the closest it's been so far:
Anyone know the rules on how the SCOTUS judge appointment process works? I know there will have to be a Judiciary Committee hearing before it can go to the Senate floor. So what happens if members of the committee are incapacitated? https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1312206408335597569
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Whilst I generally agree now is not the time to raise taxes, am not sure how profits diverted to the Cayman Islands is "in circulation".
If you can devise a tax scheme that only hits profits diverted to the Cayman Islands and nothing else then I'd love to hear it.
Its like the death penalty - there's no way to devise a scheme that in reality may not execute an innocent no matter how much you intend to execute the guilty.
Ha ha. Fair enough. However, it is money likely to be spent, ideally within the UK, which needs to be encouraged at this time. Which is why I oppose tax rises. And, incidentally, also oppose the planned reversion of UC to its previous level.
The reply from any politician should be for them to check the government or LA website. That might just put a stop to the endless attempts at gotcha moment like these.
Anyone know the rules on how the SCOTUS judge appointment process works? I know there will have to be a Judiciary Committee hearing before it can go to the Senate floor. So what happens if members of the committee are incapacitated? https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1312206408335597569
tl;dr: * Judiciary Committee members can vote by proxy if they have an in-person quorum * Even without covid the minority can deny it a quorum, because it has to have 2 minority members * But the GOP majority on the committee can just break its own rules, and has done so before * Failing that the Senate can just ignore the committee and bring a vote straight to the floor
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Well this obviously isn't true, is it?. There are huge amounts of cash tied up in assets or in bank accounts (where banks aren't doing anything productive with it) that is doing no circulating whatsoever. That doesn't mean it should or could easily be targeted - but doesn't mean it's not theoretically possible.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Whilst I generally agree now is not the time to raise taxes, am not sure how profits diverted to the Cayman Islands is "in circulation".
Yes and no. Whilst large companies might structure their operations to minimise corporation taxes, they still pay payroll, property and sales taxes. If you taxed Starbucks a billion in corporation tax, they’d likely reduce the size of their operation, and pay less NI and VAT as a result. Maybe they’d instead launch in a new territory or expand elsewhere, where taxes are not so onerous.
That’s not to say that there couldn’t be international agreements on such things as tax havens, but one country acting on its own to raise taxes would simply divert investment elsewhere.
Another example to back up what Topping, myself and others have been saying. People , inc in the media, seem incapable of understanding that the prize is to increase social distancing generally. This can, and is, being achieved without the need to pin down individuals for this, that and the other.
The reply from any politician should be for them to check the government or LA website.
What if they don't match?
If the rules were obvious, politicians would be able to answer the question, but they aren't and they can't.
They should match, or don't they?
I don't think they would, as there are a litany of different rules and regulations covering different areas. The average person might only need to know about a couple of them, but the politician would be expected to know them all.
Edit: and please can you stop selectively quoting when you hit quote. Just include the fully reply.
Another example to back up what Topping, myself and others have been saying. People , inc in the media, seem incapable of understanding that the prize is to increase social distancing generally. This can, and is, being achieved without the need to pin down individuals for this, that and the other.
Pinning folk down is not social distancing that's for sure.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Well this obviously isn't true, is it?. There are huge amounts of cash tied up in assets or in bank accounts (where banks aren't doing anything productive with it) that is doing no circulating whatsoever. That doesn't mean it should or could easily be targeted - but doesn't mean it's not theoretically possible.
Thanks to the wonders of fractional reserve banking, money sitting in bank accounts is some of the most productive money in the economy! For every pound in the bank, the bank can lend several out in loans.
I’ll agree that high asset prices are a bad thing, especially property. We desparately need to increase the supply of and reduce the demand for housing.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Well this obviously isn't true, is it?. There are huge amounts of cash tied up in assets or in bank accounts (where banks aren't doing anything productive with it) that is doing no circulating whatsoever. That doesn't mean it should or could easily be targeted - but doesn't mean it's not theoretically possible.
"where banks aren't doing anything productive with it" Funny kind of bank business not to use the money that has been deposited with them.
Another example to back up what Topping, myself and others have been saying. People , inc in the media, seem incapable of understanding that the prize is to increase social distancing generally. This can, and is, being achieved without the need to pin down individuals for this, that and the other.
"increase social distancing" is not legally enforceable.
If you are going to have laws (and guidelines) they have to be written down, readable, intelligible, capable of interpretation and enforcement.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Well this obviously isn't true, is it?. There are huge amounts of cash tied up in assets or in bank accounts (where banks aren't doing anything productive with it) that is doing no circulating whatsoever. That doesn't mean it should or could easily be targeted - but doesn't mean it's not theoretically possible.
Thanks to the wonders of fractional reserve banking, money sitting in bank accounts is some of the most productive money in the economy! For every pound in the bank, the bank can lend several out in loans.
I’ll agree that high asset prices are a bad thing, especially property. We desparately need to increase the supply of and reduce the demand for housing.
Absolutely 100%
It makes me shake my head in wonder when people think things so simplistic as "cash in a bank account" doesn't achieve anything productive. People really don't understand how much of the economy, like fractional reserve banking, works.
Its like arguing with Creationists online. People going for really simple answers they can understand rather than understanding the complexities of reality.
Another example to back up what Topping, myself and others have been saying. People , inc in the media, seem incapable of understanding that the prize is to increase social distancing generally. This can, and is, being achieved without the need to pin down individuals for this, that and the other.
"increase social distancing" is not legally enforceable.
If you are going to have laws (and guidelines) they have to be written down, readable, intelligible, capable of interpretation and enforcement.
The guidelines in this case are quite easy to understand. There's just a lot of them, and there's a page like this for each area. It's not all that surprising that he doesn't have all of them committed to memory.
In any case, he was technically correct. She can see her daughter, she's just advised not to.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Surely that depends on what the tax is spent on?
I'd argue that every pound cut from public spending is a pound removed from circulation.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Well this obviously isn't true, is it?. There are huge amounts of cash tied up in assets or in bank accounts (where banks aren't doing anything productive with it) that is doing no circulating whatsoever. That doesn't mean it should or could easily be targeted - but doesn't mean it's not theoretically possible.
Plus, tax gets spent. Furlough payments and eotho bungs go straight into circulation.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
Cancellation of government debt owned by China.
I imagine that might have some unpleasant side-effects. Like not being able to borrow any more money!
The reply from any politician should be for them to check the government or LA website. That might just put a stop to the endless attempts at gotcha moment like these.
Can't you say that for ANY question a Government minister is asked? If they are on to speak about housing policy and are asked why they are proposing to relax various planning rules, they could in theory say "if you want to know that, it's all in the consultation document". But then what's the point of having them there?
The PM and his ministers should - particularly at a time like this - be on a mission to inform the public. Saying "look at the website" isn't informing anyone and is a total waste of everyone's time.
And these aren't "gotcha" moments in the sense of being mean tricks. If the people responsible for setting the rules don't know them and can't explain them, then how in holy hell are the rest of us meant to? It's like going into an exam, and then saying the fact it contains some questions is a "gotcha" moment - no, it's just checking you've done your prep.
The reply from any politician should be for them to check the government or LA website.
What if they don't match?
If the rules were obvious, politicians would be able to answer the question, but they aren't and they can't.
The journalists are much more concerned with getting a “gotcha” of the politician, than they are in communicating the rules and advice in simple terms for their audience.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
Cancellation of government debt owned by China.
A selective default would absolutely destroy what's left of our international reputation. Also, the Chinese state isn't a big holder of gilts, gilts are mostly held by pension funds, the Bank of England and European and UK banks. It would be an absolutely futile gesture that would save us nothing and trash our credit rating.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
BBC: "His doctor said Trump didn’t need supplemental oxygen but that specialists had decided to start treatment with the drug Remdesivir to help boost the president’s lung resilience. "
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Well this obviously isn't true, is it?. There are huge amounts of cash tied up in assets or in bank accounts (where banks aren't doing anything productive with it) that is doing no circulating whatsoever. That doesn't mean it should or could easily be targeted - but doesn't mean it's not theoretically possible.
Plus, tax gets spent. Furlough payments and eotho bungs go straight into circulation.
Most state spending doesn't have a positive economic multiplier though, some forms of investment do but mostly it doesn't.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
The reply from any politician should be for them to check the government or LA website.
What if they don't match?
If the rules were obvious, politicians would be able to answer the question, but they aren't and they can't.
The journalists are much more concerned with getting a “gotcha” of the politician, than they are in communicating the rules and advice in simple terms for their audience.
As usual, for the last six months.
Best thing I think the Government can do now I think is to try and bypass the media.
Get the app to show what the guidelines are for your postcode if you put that in. Answer every question the media throws at you then with "put your postcode in the app and check what it says".
The reply from any politician should be for them to check the government or LA website. That might just put a stop to the endless attempts at gotcha moment like these.
Can't you say that for ANY question a Government minister is asked? If they are on to speak about housing policy and are asked why they are proposing to relax various planning rules, they could in theory say "if you want to know that, it's all in the consultation document". But then what's the point of having them there?
The PM and his ministers should - particularly at a time like this - be on a mission to inform the public. Saying "look at the website" isn't informing anyone and is a total waste of everyone's time.
And these aren't "gotcha" moments in the sense of being mean tricks. If the people responsible for setting the rules don't know them and can't explain them, then how in holy hell are the rest of us meant to? It's like going into an exam, and then saying the fact it contains some questions is a "gotcha" moment - no, it's just checking you've done your prep.
I'm of the view that asking the question is a waste of everyone's time, since the interviewer already knows the answer. The whole point of asking it is to try and trip up the interviewee, so they can get a story about how an incompetent minister doesn't know anything. It doesn't exactly help further the public health message, does it?
In an ideal world the minister responsible would be able to answer every single question on the spot about their specific area, but unfortunately ministers have a finite amount of time to read and be briefed on everything. Do you really expect that ministers should be able to recite from memory every single restriction and piece of advice to all different groups of people? I'd rather they focus on sorting out the bigger problems than spending hours in exam prep in case they get asked one of these questions.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Because it filters through 17 different levels of bureaucracy and your extra £1000 in tax gives a direct benefit of just £500 worth of spending in the economy. Benefits are the classic case study for this.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
Cancellation of government debt owned by China.
A selective default would absolutely destroy what's left of our international reputation. Also, the Chinese state isn't a big holder of gilts, gilts are mostly held by pension funds, the Bank of England and European and UK banks. It would be an absolutely futile gesture that would save us nothing and trash our credit rating.
How about if every country did it ?
I've read that China owns over a trillion dollars of US debt - cancelling that might appeal to Trump.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Surely that depends on what the tax is spent on?
I'd argue that every pound cut from public spending is a pound removed from circulation.
Government spending is some of the most inefficient use of money that exists. Letting people choose how to spend their money is much more productive for the economy than collecting taxes, routing it through an expensive bureaucracy and giving some of it back out again. That expensive bureaucracy is only productive for the people working in it, not for the economy as a whole.
Another example to back up what Topping, myself and others have been saying. People , inc in the media, seem incapable of understanding that the prize is to increase social distancing generally. This can, and is, being achieved without the need to pin down individuals for this, that and the other.
You may be right. But the point of the interview, which is worth watching, is that the Prime Minister is totally and utterly clueless about the guidance and laws his government has implemented. I don't expect him to know all the detail; but nor should he be completely clueless.
Anybody who actually watched the 4-minute ITV interview referenced would see what an embarrassment he is.
The reply from any politician should be for them to check the government or LA website.
What if they don't match?
If the rules were obvious, politicians would be able to answer the question, but they aren't and they can't.
The journalists are much more concerned with getting a “gotcha” of the politician, than they are in communicating the rules and advice in simple terms for their audience.
As usual, for the last six months.
I thought that blonde woman was ghastly, unbelievably pert and schoolmistressish. Nailing Johnson is shooting fish in a barrel, so no credit to her for that. He should of course have said that Jane in the Wirral should read the fucking website and stop wasting his time. I suspect the problem is this: Johnson desperately needs some elementary media training, but as his USP is being a media star - editing the Spectator, being on hignfy and so on, nobody dares tell him so.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
Cancellation of government debt owned by China.
The goal was to get more money to spend on things or avoid taxing people. You can't do that by reneging on a small part of your debts, because you'll have to pay a higher interest rate to the people who lend you the money that you continue to need to borrow.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
I agree that tax messes with complete free market equilibrium such that there are transactions that would happen in the absence of the tax don't happen with it, and the welfare gain that would have occurred from those transactions is "deadweight loss".
But that IN NO WAY equates to "Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy" which is what the discussion is about. That comment is, on its face, just wrong - unless the assumption is that the pound isn't then spent (which is a pretty weird assumption).
The reply from any politician should be for them to check the government or LA website.
What if they don't match?
If the rules were obvious, politicians would be able to answer the question, but they aren't and they can't.
The journalists are much more concerned with getting a “gotcha” of the politician, than they are in communicating the rules and advice in simple terms for their audience.
As usual, for the last six months.
I thought that blonde woman was ghastly, unbelievably pert and schoolmistressish. Nailing Johnson is shooting fish in a barrel, so no credit to her for that. He should of course have said that Jane in the Wirral should read the fucking website and stop wasting his time. I suspect the problem is this: Johnson desperately needs some elementary media training, but as his USP is being a media star - editing the Spectator, being on hignfy and so on, nobody dares tell him so.
It's surprising how crap he is at it. Umming and erring all over the place. Undoubtedly due to a lack of attention to detail so is worried about how to answer the question.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
Cancellation of government debt owned by China.
Owed BY China or TO China?
The debt is owNed *by* China, and owed *to* China.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Because it filters through 17 different levels of bureaucracy and your extra £1000 in tax gives a direct benefit of just £500 worth of spending in the economy. Benefits are the classic case study for this.
But money can’t be destroyed someone ends up with it and it eventually gets spent but maybe not in the UK, as demonstrated by so many of the super rich
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Because it filters through 17 different levels of bureaucracy and your extra £1000 in tax gives a direct benefit of just £500 worth of spending in the economy. Benefits are the classic case study for this.
But money can’t be destroyed someone ends up with it and it eventually gets spent but maybe not in the UK, as demonstrated by so many of the super rich
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
Your faith in economists is beguiling. Just like I can find you other scientists, I can find you other economists who would scorn such concepts as "deadweight welfare loss", and of course the laffer minute curve.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Because it filters through 17 different levels of bureaucracy and your extra £1000 in tax gives a direct benefit of just £500 worth of spending in the economy. Benefits are the classic case study for this.
But money can’t be destroyed someone ends up with it and it eventually gets spent but maybe not in the UK, as demonstrated by so many of the super rich
No but the other £500 ends up being split across 200 different people meaning no real benefit to the economy is seen by it. It is in essence, gone.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
Your faith in economists is beguiling. Just like I can find you other scientists, I can find you other economists who would scorn such concepts as "deadweight welfare loss", and of course the laffer minute curve.
Yep. Like I said, arguing with a Creationist.
Deadweight loss is real and demonstrable. The Laffer curve is real and demonstrable (where we are on the curve is more up for debate).
My reading of the betfair rules is that Trump is winner even if he has died before election day.
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
Pence may actually become President, but Trump is the candidate.
The market is entitled: "Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?"
Surely this cannot be settled as Trump even though he had died?
If your interpretation is the case the market in play now would not have any other possible outcomes other than Biden and Trump.
BF rules also say, in event of a EC draw, "this market will be settled on the person chosen as President". If a draw they would not choose a dead person. So this reinforces my belief that your interpretation cannot be correct.
Right at the bottom their rules it says: " If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules" Im not sure how helpful or not this sentence is.
Any other views on this?
Your first bit on the "in the event of a draw" bit is parahrasing which slightly misses the key point. In fact, the first bit of the paragraph says:
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
So if the Trump/Pence slate wins most "projected" Electoral College votes at the election, BF pays out on Trump whatever the medical situation.
If, when the Electoral College meet, they chose someone other than Trump (the example of faithless electors is used, but following "such as" so it'd cover where Trump was no longer available for the gig) it doesn't matter - they pay out on Trump. The winner of most "projected" votes won't be President, but that doesn't matter under the terms.
It's only where it is a 269/269 draw* that the tie-breaker comes into play, and "In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It is only in that incrediby limited situation that Pence (and possibly other people) come into play, even if Pence were to become President tomorrow for unfortunate reasons, and remain it due to the Trump/Pence ticket winning in November.
* technically, it comes into play if both tickets fall short of 270, even if one has more EVs than the other, perhaps due to failure of a state to validate due to fraud (unlikely - though there could be court cases), or a third party candidate winning a state (no real chance of that).
I don't think your third paragraph follows from your second.
It is unlikely that Trump will die but it is quite likely that he will withdraw from the race and that the Republican candidate will become Pence. If Pence is "the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election", Betfair will pay up on Pence according to their rules.
I'm extremely doubtful about the phrase ' it is quite likely that he (Trump) will withdraw from the race'. On the contrary, I think even his recovery is not as 'good' as Johnson's I suspect (fear?) he'll be back, boasting of his 'strength'.
I'm hating this development. It has thrown a dollop of ??? into an outcome - Trump loss on 3/11 - that was almost done and we now have the spread markets suspended for god knows how long since they will (understandably) not price up the probability profile of Covid-19 progression in this particular 74 year old obese but tee total and smoke free male. I personally do not think Donald Trump will be withdrawing unless he dies (and even then he might refuse) and that is good because we want - we need - to hear the democratic verdict on him and his toxic, aberrational presidency. What is (potentially) not so great is the prospect of him remaining mildly to moderately unwell and milking the situation for all it's worth. We see this happening already with the palpable bollox of the dramatic helicopter trip to hospital and the sickly "love you dad" and "such a warrior" tweets from the motley clan. The ultimate reality TV star has been presented with the ultimate reality TV opportunity. He has all the spotlight now - with the election just around the corner. It is suddenly "bad taste" and "inappropriate" to make the personal attacks that were landing with real impact. Instead of yet more Big Bad Freewheeling Trump - "the Donald" - between now and polling day, the blustering bombastic shtick that has no chance of turning things around for him, we might well get a forced change of tone and messaging, something with a touch of vulnerability, some feigned empathy even, phony as hell but there could just be sufficient sympathy from a sufficient number of simple-minded, uncommitted voters to make a difference. I hope not - I think not - but I do have a slightly queasy feeling about it.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Surely that depends on what the tax is spent on?
I'd argue that every pound cut from public spending is a pound removed from circulation.
Government spending is some of the most inefficient use of money that exists. Letting people choose how to spend their money is much more productive for the economy than collecting taxes, routing it through an expensive bureaucracy and giving some of it back out again. That expensive bureaucracy is only productive for the people working in it, not for the economy as a whole.
Firstly, that simply doesn't equate to "Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy".
Secondly, the pounds in private hands aren't necessarily circulating. In good economic times, that is often a thoroughly good thing - kept aside for a rainy day. In bad times, not so much.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
Your faith in economists is beguiling. Just like I can find you other scientists, I can find you other economists who would scorn such concepts as "deadweight welfare loss", and of course the laffer minute curve.
Yep. Like I said, arguing with a Creationist.
Deadweight loss is real and demonstrable. The Laffer curve is real and demonstrable (where we are on the curve is more up for debate).
Your certainty about your own righteousness is not, however, real and demonstrable. Your rudeness with those who disagree is, however.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Is the point that in context proposals being made to increase taxes (rather than eg. more borrowing/magic mony tree) are not for the purposes of increasing public spending but to reduce the national debt and associated interest payments (largely to the bank of England)
The biggest hole in the Betfair rules is that they don't say what happens if no candidate has a majority in "projected" EC votes but then when electors actually vote there is a majority, and thus the 12th amendment is not invoked. They'd either have to come up with a peculiar definition of "projected" or else void the whole market. The former is unlikely if it all depends on "faithless" electors, because they have specifically said that "faithless" electors won't affect how they settle the market. One could ask the amusing question, "What if it's projected that some electors will vote faithlessly?"
My reading of the betfair rules is that Trump is winner even if he has died before election day.
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
Pence may actually become President, but Trump is the candidate.
The market is entitled: "Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?"
Surely this cannot be settled as Trump even though he had died?
If your interpretation is the case the market in play now would not have any other possible outcomes other than Biden and Trump.
BF rules also say, in event of a EC draw, "this market will be settled on the person chosen as President". If a draw they would not choose a dead person. So this reinforces my belief that your interpretation cannot be correct.
Right at the bottom their rules it says: " If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules" Im not sure how helpful or not this sentence is.
Any other views on this?
Your first bit on the "in the event of a draw" bit is parahrasing which slightly misses the key point. In fact, the first bit of the paragraph says:
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
So if the Trump/Pence slate wins most "projected" Electoral College votes at the election, BF pays out on Trump whatever the medical situation.
If, when the Electoral College meet, they chose someone other than Trump (the example of faithless electors is used, but following "such as" so it'd cover where Trump was no longer available for the gig) it doesn't matter - they pay out on Trump. The winner of most "projected" votes won't be President, but that doesn't matter under the terms.
It's only where it is a 269/269 draw* that the tie-breaker comes into play, and "In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It is only in that incrediby limited situation that Pence (and possibly other people) come into play, even if Pence were to become President tomorrow for unfortunate reasons, and remain it due to the Trump/Pence ticket winning in November.
* technically, it comes into play if both tickets fall short of 270, even if one has more EVs than the other, perhaps due to failure of a state to validate due to fraud (unlikely - though there could be court cases), or a third party candidate winning a state (no real chance of that).
I don't think your third paragraph follows from your second.
It is unlikely that Trump will die but it is quite likely that he will withdraw from the race and that the Republican candidate will become Pence. If Pence is "the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election", Betfair will pay up on Pence according to their rules.
I'm extremely doubtful about the phrase ' it is quite likely that he (Trump) will withdraw from the race'. On the contrary, I think even his recovery is not as 'good' as Johnson's I suspect (fear?) he'll be back, boasting of his 'strength'.
I'm hating this development. It has thrown a dollop of ??? into an outcome - Trump loss on 3/11 - that was almost done and we now have the spread markets suspended for god knows how long since they will (understandably) not price up the probability profile of Covid-19 progression in this particular 74 year old obese but tee total and smoke free male. I personally do not think Donald Trump will be withdrawing unless he dies (and even then he might refuse) and that is good because we want - we need - to hear the democratic verdict on him and his toxic, aberrational presidency. What is (potentially) not so great is the prospect of him remaining mildly to moderately unwell and milking the situation for all it's worth. We see this happening already with the palpable bollox of the dramatic helicopter trip to hospital and the sickly "love you dad" and "such a warrior" tweets from the motley clan. The ultimate reality TV star has been presented with the ultimate reality TV opportunity. He has all the spotlight now - with the election just around the corner. It is suddenly "bad taste" and "inappropriate" to make the personal attacks that were landing with real impact. Instead of yet more Big Bad Freewheeling Trump - "the Donald" - between now and polling day, the blustering bombastic shtick that has no chance of turning things around for him, we might well get a forced change of tone and messaging, something with a touch of vulnerability, some feigned empathy even, phony as hell but there could just be sufficient sympathy from a sufficient number of simple-minded, uncommitted voters to make a difference. I hope not - I think not - but I do have a slightly queasy feeling about it.
I'd much rather have it all be advice, they everyone was envisaged to follow, rather than law, but the government is encouraging people not to follow advice. It's massively self-defeating.
All because Cummings couldn't admit error and apologise for acting contrary to advice.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
Cancellation of government debt owned by China.
The goal was to get more money to spend on things or avoid taxing people. You can't do that by reneging on a small part of your debts, because you'll have to pay a higher interest rate to the people who lend you the money that you continue to need to borrow.
That depends on what timescale you're looking at, what the situation is (do countries pay debts to their enemies during a war for example), the wonders of QE (sometimes claimed to be a reneging of debts through devaluing the currency) and I'm sure many other factors.
But as I said its a policy which might appeal to Trump - someone who has had multiple businesses go bankrupt.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
They can call it what they like, but they're wrong. The money still circulates. A bunch of ideological economists saying otherwise doesn't change that.
My reading of the betfair rules is that Trump is winner even if he has died before election day.
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
Pence may actually become President, but Trump is the candidate.
The market is entitled: "Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?"
Surely this cannot be settled as Trump even though he had died?
If your interpretation is the case the market in play now would not have any other possible outcomes other than Biden and Trump.
BF rules also say, in event of a EC draw, "this market will be settled on the person chosen as President". If a draw they would not choose a dead person. So this reinforces my belief that your interpretation cannot be correct.
Right at the bottom their rules it says: " If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules" Im not sure how helpful or not this sentence is.
Any other views on this?
Your first bit on the "in the event of a draw" bit is parahrasing which slightly misses the key point. In fact, the first bit of the paragraph says:
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
So if the Trump/Pence slate wins most "projected" Electoral College votes at the election, BF pays out on Trump whatever the medical situation.
If, when the Electoral College meet, they chose someone other than Trump (the example of faithless electors is used, but following "such as" so it'd cover where Trump was no longer available for the gig) it doesn't matter - they pay out on Trump. The winner of most "projected" votes won't be President, but that doesn't matter under the terms.
It's only where it is a 269/269 draw* that the tie-breaker comes into play, and "In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It is only in that incrediby limited situation that Pence (and possibly other people) come into play, even if Pence were to become President tomorrow for unfortunate reasons, and remain it due to the Trump/Pence ticket winning in November.
* technically, it comes into play if both tickets fall short of 270, even if one has more EVs than the other, perhaps due to failure of a state to validate due to fraud (unlikely - though there could be court cases), or a third party candidate winning a state (no real chance of that).
I don't think your third paragraph follows from your second.
It is unlikely that Trump will die but it is quite likely that he will withdraw from the race and that the Republican candidate will become Pence. If Pence is "the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election", Betfair will pay up on Pence according to their rules.
I'm extremely doubtful about the phrase ' it is quite likely that he (Trump) will withdraw from the race'. On the contrary, I think even his recovery is not as 'good' as Johnson's I suspect (fear?) he'll be back, boasting of his 'strength'.
I'm hating this development. It has thrown a dollop of ??? into an outcome - Trump loss on 3/11 - that was almost done and we now have the spread markets suspended for god knows how long since they will (understandably) not price up the probability profile of Covid-19 progression in this particular 74 year old obese but tee total and smoke free male. I personally do not think Donald Trump will be withdrawing unless he dies (and even then he might refuse) and that is good because we want - we need - to hear the democratic verdict on him and his toxic, aberrational presidency. What is (potentially) not so great is the prospect of him remaining mildly to moderately unwell and milking the situation for all it's worth. We see this happening already with the palpable bollox of the dramatic helicopter trip to hospital and the sickly "love you dad" and "such a warrior" tweets from the motley clan. The ultimate reality TV star has been presented with the ultimate reality TV opportunity. He has all the spotlight now - with the election just around the corner. It is suddenly "bad taste" and "inappropriate" to make the personal attacks that were landing with real impact. Instead of yet more Big Bad Freewheeling Trump - "the Donald" - between now and polling day, the blustering bombastic shtick that has no chance of turning things around for him, we might well get a forced change of tone and messaging, something with a touch of vulnerability, some feigned empathy even, phony as hell but there could just be sufficient sympathy from a sufficient number of simple-minded, uncommitted voters to make a difference. I hope not - I think not - but I do have a slightly queasy feeling about it.
The reply from any politician should be for them to check the government or LA website.
What if they don't match?
If the rules were obvious, politicians would be able to answer the question, but they aren't and they can't.
The journalists are much more concerned with getting a “gotcha” of the politician, than they are in communicating the rules and advice in simple terms for their audience.
As usual, for the last six months.
Best thing I think the Government can do now I think is to try and bypass the media.
Get the app to show what the guidelines are for your postcode if you put that in. Answer every question the media throws at you then with "put your postcode in the app and check what it says".
It does seem that different rules apply in different places, and however much I dislike our present PM, with a situation like this it's understandable that he, and indeed, other ministers, get advice on specific areas wrong. We've several examples on here of different advice applying in different places and at different times.
The biggest hole in the Betfair rules is that they don't say what happens if no candidate has a majority in "projected" EC votes but then when electors actually vote there is a majority, and thus the 12th amendment is not invoked. They'd either have to come up with a peculiar definition of "projected" or else void the whole market. The former is unlikely if it all depends on "faithless" electors, because they have specifically said that "faithless" electors won't affect how they settle the market. One could ask the amusing question, "What if it's projected that some electors will vote faithlessly?"
They’re specifically ignoring the actual EC vote, and going purely by how the electors from each State *should* vote, based only on the certified result of the vote in each State.
Given everything that’s happened so far in 2020, watching the actual EC vote be decided by faithless electors wouldn’t be surprising at this point!
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
They can call it what they like, but they're wrong. The money still circulates. A bunch of ideological economists saying otherwise doesn't change that.
No you are wrong. Deadweight loss is not circulating, it is gone. Vanished. Finito. Nobody has it. That is why it is called deadweight.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Simple arithmetic implies that public expenditure is paid either by taxes or by borrowing. In the end it is all paid by taxes because borrowing just defers the payment of taxes. In the current circumstances however borrowing is a sensible way to pay for extraordinary expenditure.
As to whether "taxes take money out of circulation", that is a bogus argument. The question, given expenditure commitments, is whether taxes dampen private expenditure more than borrowing. Taxes are impositions that bear directly as a constraint on household budgets and therefore have a direct effect on private spending. Whereas borrowing entails lenders freely lending to the government for their advantage. What they lend would otherwise be invested in some other asset rather than current expenditure on goods and services (for the most part). Hence domestic borrowing is less likely to dampen overall expenditure than taxes. External borrowing (from abroad) has no immediate impact on domestic spending, obviously.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
I agree that tax messes with complete free market equilibrium such that there are transactions that would happen in the absence of the tax don't happen with it, and the welfare gain that would have occurred from those transactions is "deadweight loss".
But that IN NO WAY equates to "Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy" which is what the discussion is about. That comment is, on its face, just wrong - unless the assumption is that the pound isn't then spent (which is a pretty weird assumption).
Government spending is hugely inefficient. It’s a drag on the economy in general, and only benefits those lucky people employed by it - people who could otherwise be employed doing something economically productive with their lives.
The biggest hole in the Betfair rules is that they don't say what happens if no candidate has a majority in "projected" EC votes but then when electors actually vote there is a majority, and thus the 12th amendment is not invoked. They'd either have to come up with a peculiar definition of "projected" or else void the whole market. The former is unlikely if it all depends on "faithless" electors, because they have specifically said that "faithless" electors won't affect how they settle the market. One could ask the amusing question, "What if it's projected that some electors will vote faithlessly?"
That is an interesting point. Yes, I think they'd have to void the market if, say, the result was 269-269 so nobody had majority of Electoral College votes but one of Biden's pledged electors flipped and put Trump in. The 12th amendment wouldn't then have been invoked, so the tie breaker rules wouldn't have broken the tie.
My reading of the betfair rules is that Trump is winner even if he has died before election day.
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
Pence may actually become President, but Trump is the candidate.
The market is entitled: "Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?"
Surely this cannot be settled as Trump even though he had died?
If your interpretation is the case the market in play now would not have any other possible outcomes other than Biden and Trump.
BF rules also say, in event of a EC draw, "this market will be settled on the person chosen as President". If a draw they would not choose a dead person. So this reinforces my belief that your interpretation cannot be correct.
Right at the bottom their rules it says: " If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules" Im not sure how helpful or not this sentence is.
Any other views on this?
Your first bit on the "in the event of a draw" bit is parahrasing which slightly misses the key point. In fact, the first bit of the paragraph says:
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
So if the Trump/Pence slate wins most "projected" Electoral College votes at the election, BF pays out on Trump whatever the medical situation.
If, when the Electoral College meet, they chose someone other than Trump (the example of faithless electors is used, but following "such as" so it'd cover where Trump was no longer available for the gig) it doesn't matter - they pay out on Trump. The winner of most "projected" votes won't be President, but that doesn't matter under the terms.
It's only where it is a 269/269 draw* that the tie-breaker comes into play, and "In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It is only in that incrediby limited situation that Pence (and possibly other people) come into play, even if Pence were to become President tomorrow for unfortunate reasons, and remain it due to the Trump/Pence ticket winning in November.
* technically, it comes into play if both tickets fall short of 270, even if one has more EVs than the other, perhaps due to failure of a state to validate due to fraud (unlikely - though there could be court cases), or a third party candidate winning a state (no real chance of that).
I don't think your third paragraph follows from your second.
It is unlikely that Trump will die but it is quite likely that he will withdraw from the race and that the Republican candidate will become Pence. If Pence is "the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election", Betfair will pay up on Pence according to their rules.
I'm extremely doubtful about the phrase ' it is quite likely that he (Trump) will withdraw from the race'. On the contrary, I think even his recovery is not as 'good' as Johnson's I suspect (fear?) he'll be back, boasting of his 'strength'.
I'm hating this development. It has thrown a dollop of ??? into an outcome - Trump loss on 3/11 - that was almost done and we now have the spread markets suspended for god knows how long since they will (understandably) not price up the probability profile of Covid-19 progression in this particular 74 year old obese but tee total and smoke free male. I personally do not think Donald Trump will be withdrawing unless he dies (and even then he might refuse) and that is good because we want - we need - to hear the democratic verdict on him and his toxic, aberrational presidency. What is (potentially) not so great is the prospect of him remaining mildly to moderately unwell and milking the situation for all it's worth. We see this happening already with the palpable bollox of the dramatic helicopter trip to hospital and the sickly "love you dad" and "such a warrior" tweets from the motley clan. The ultimate reality TV star has been presented with the ultimate reality TV opportunity. He has all the spotlight now - with the election just around the corner. It is suddenly "bad taste" and "inappropriate" to make the personal attacks that were landing with real impact. Instead of yet more Big Bad Freewheeling Trump - "the Donald" - between now and polling day, the blustering bombastic shtick that has no chance of turning things around for him, we might well get a forced change of tone and messaging, something with a touch of vulnerability, some feigned empathy even, phony as hell but there could just be sufficient sympathy from a sufficient number of simple-minded, uncommitted voters to make a difference. I hope not - I think not - but I do have a slightly queasy feeling about it.
It's early days. Bear in mind that medical capacity to do the job is front and centre in the election, largely because Trump put it there. If I were Biden I would be seeding the press with horror stories about Long Covid.
Comments
It depends who and how you tax.
Do they wish to suspend the Constitution at the same time ?
a) Presumably President Pence would have very similar economic and social policies to Trump
and
b) Is the Trump/Pence campaign being suspended?
That's true, although Antigonus was a bit past it by then. He should've snared Lysimachus' contingent earlier.
But then, it was his son who failed him in the battle.
Who is elected as MP for Hull West is a "matter for constituents"... but parties do in fact campaign for them to chose their candidate over others.
I think scientists will look back and report on a wide range of insane risky behaviour during this pandemic.
Anyway, is one even possible? I thought you had to be convicted of a crime first.
Why didn't Trump take questions, why aren't we being told every detail, they lied, why does he get this special antibody treatment, the American people deserve better. Cuomo and Lemon speculatling about all sorts of theories about when they really knew he had COVID and other unfounded claims.
One of the Chuckle Brothers recently died.
And yes, a 10 sitting day plus suspension is sufficient. Ian Paisley Jnr was subject to a (failed) petition without criminal conviction.
I wasn't sure she'd get the ten day suspension originally, as I'd thought her conduct was outside her Parliamentary duties. But I am persuaded I was wrong - both because they stretched the definition a bit to suspend Vaz, and because it appears she spoke in a Commons debate (which the Speaker was rightly apoplectic about).
Its a bit like finding that a Labour leader can ask some awkward questions of the PM with some element of a longer term strategy.
Plus there's no reason not to borrow during a recession - and I don't accept that QE has already been optimised completely, inflation is still on the floor.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Its like the death penalty - there's no way to devise a scheme that in reality may not execute an innocent no matter how much you intend to execute the guilty.
That’s not to say that there couldn’t be international agreements on such things as tax havens, but one country acting on its own to raise taxes would simply divert investment elsewhere.
https://election.usc.edu/
https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1312206408335597569
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1312327121285591046
However, it is money likely to be spent, ideally within the UK, which needs to be encouraged at this time.
Which is why I oppose tax rises.
And, incidentally, also oppose the planned reversion of UC to its previous level.
tl;dr:
* Judiciary Committee members can vote by proxy if they have an in-person quorum
* Even without covid the minority can deny it a quorum, because it has to have 2 minority members
* But the GOP majority on the committee can just break its own rules, and has done so before
* Failing that the Senate can just ignore the committee and bring a vote straight to the floor
If the rules were obvious, politicians would be able to answer the question, but they aren't and they can't.
I don't think they would, as there are a litany of different rules and regulations covering different areas. The average person might only need to know about a couple of them, but the politician would be expected to know them all.
Edit: and please can you stop selectively quoting when you hit quote. Just include the fully reply.
I’ll agree that high asset prices are a bad thing, especially property. We desparately need to increase the supply of and reduce the demand for housing.
Funny kind of bank business not to use the money that has been deposited with them.
If you are going to have laws (and guidelines) they have to be written down, readable, intelligible, capable of interpretation and enforcement.
And politicians are clearly failing that test
It makes me shake my head in wonder when people think things so simplistic as "cash in a bank account" doesn't achieve anything productive. People really don't understand how much of the economy, like fractional reserve banking, works.
Its like arguing with Creationists online. People going for really simple answers they can understand rather than understanding the complexities of reality.
The guidelines in this case are quite easy to understand. There's just a lot of them, and there's a page like this for each area. It's not all that surprising that he doesn't have all of them committed to memory.
In any case, he was technically correct. She can see her daughter, she's just advised not to.
I'd argue that every pound cut from public spending is a pound removed from circulation.
The PM and his ministers should - particularly at a time like this - be on a mission to inform the public. Saying "look at the website" isn't informing anyone and is a total waste of everyone's time.
And these aren't "gotcha" moments in the sense of being mean tricks. If the people responsible for setting the rules don't know them and can't explain them, then how in holy hell are the rest of us meant to? It's like going into an exam, and then saying the fact it contains some questions is a "gotcha" moment - no, it's just checking you've done your prep.
As usual, for the last six months.
Also true that the PM got his own rules wrong, mind.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Get the app to show what the guidelines are for your postcode if you put that in. Answer every question the media throws at you then with "put your postcode in the app and check what it says".
In an ideal world the minister responsible would be able to answer every single question on the spot about their specific area, but unfortunately ministers have a finite amount of time to read and be briefed on everything. Do you really expect that ministers should be able to recite from memory every single restriction and piece of advice to all different groups of people? I'd rather they focus on sorting out the bigger problems than spending hours in exam prep in case they get asked one of these questions.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
I've read that China owns over a trillion dollars of US debt - cancelling that might appeal to Trump.
Anybody who actually watched the 4-minute ITV interview referenced would see what an embarrassment he is.
But that IN NO WAY equates to "Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy" which is what the discussion is about. That comment is, on its face, just wrong - unless the assumption is that the pound isn't then spent (which is a pretty weird assumption).
Deadweight loss is real and demonstrable. The Laffer curve is real and demonstrable (where we are on the curve is more up for debate).
Secondly, the pounds in private hands aren't necessarily circulating. In good economic times, that is often a thoroughly good thing - kept aside for a rainy day. In bad times, not so much.
All because Cummings couldn't admit error and apologise for acting contrary to advice.
But as I said its a policy which might appeal to Trump - someone who has had multiple businesses go bankrupt.
We've several examples on here of different advice applying in different places and at different times.
Given everything that’s happened so far in 2020, watching the actual EC vote be decided by faithless electors wouldn’t be surprising at this point!
As to whether "taxes take money out of circulation", that is a bogus argument. The question, given expenditure commitments, is whether taxes dampen private expenditure more than borrowing. Taxes are impositions that bear directly as a constraint on household budgets and therefore have a direct effect on private spending. Whereas borrowing entails lenders freely lending to the government for their advantage. What they lend would otherwise be invested in some other asset rather than current expenditure on goods and services (for the most part). Hence domestic borrowing is less likely to dampen overall expenditure than taxes. External borrowing (from abroad) has no immediate impact on domestic spending, obviously.