So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
Well for one I don't think a choice of education options can be equated to choices which result in letting a person die, so I think the comparison is idiotic. The cost to holding to some political principle is not equal in those cases.
As for whether it would be hypocritical if one had expressed moral outrage about the existence of option A and then chose option A, yes I do think that - but I also don't think being a bit of a hypocrite is a big deal.
If someone did not stand by their principles when they had expressed a high level of outrage about something they then chose to do they can make the choice that you have suggested, and which I would probably make in the same situation, which is to be happy to be a hypocrite in that situation - accepting that it is a relxation of principle, but putting myself and family first.
As Richard Tyndall suggests, holding to a principle is not always admirable on a personal level. I simply don't think it would erase any hypocrisy.
The solution would be to be more open minded about choices in the first place.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
Joe Rogan too spicy for you?
He's as madras a fish.
I don't know what he talks a balti..
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night. Most pleasant.
A deliberate maturing, or that after all the effort you were too tired to eat?
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
It depends. Jefferson was a hypocrite, no ifs or buts. He wrote eloquently about how evil slavery was, but slave labour paid for his mansion, paintings, books, and vintage wines. And he enjoyed Sally Hemmings’ hot 14 year old body. For most of his life, Virginia allowed manumission.
But other people found themselves inheriting plantations that were heavily indebted, or in States which refused manumission. Free blacks bought relatives as slaves, to get them out of plantations.
Then, the principle of the lesser evil applies. Owning slaves is evil, but selling them to pay off debt, or to clear your conscience, would be worse.
Hypocrisy is when you decry slavery, but fail to free your slaves, as soon as you can.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
I thought he actually gave them up for Diane Abbott.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
I thought he actually gave them up for Diane Abbott.
After dissing Montevideo as LITERALLY the most boring capital city in the world (spoiler: probably true) turns out my tour guide is LITERALLY the most interesting tour guide in history
As much fun as the guy that takes you round the Seoul food markets and teaches you Korean drinking games ?
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
Similarly if I had work health care (I never did) I would not turn it down on principle even though I am not a fan (although I wouldn't ban it).
Yes. There are shades (as kle4 is teasing out like only he can) but there's a clear general broadbrush, I think.
If somebody makes a big deal of saying certain behaviour is wrong, implying they are a better person than those engaging in it, whilst at the same time doing it themselves, said person is a hypocrite (on that topic).
The most common example that leaps to mind are "family values" politicians or preachers who turn out to be up to their armpits in vice.
Quite so. If there's an element of preaching or moralising (religious or otherwise) it impacts on the perceived hypocrisy.
But even if that is the case, I don't think that's the be all and end all of the debate, eg person X is a hypocrite and that is that. How they respond to their action may be relevant - for example, still maintaining they don't like it, but perhaps not being as condemnatory of others who make the same choice they did.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
I thought he actually gave them up for Diane Abbott.
Come along. PB surely has standards. (Even if Corbyn doesn't)
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
I thought he actually gave them up for Diane Abbott.
Maybe the political beliefs thing was a cover so he could justify walking away from his wife and children in his mind
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
I think that's too simplistic. The basic income tax rate is 20%. If I think it should be 21%, should I voluntarily pay extra tax to HMRC as if it was 21%? I don't think so. I also think that tax should be fair, so I don't think you should have to pay more tax if you are ginger, or like folk music, or cosplay as a blobfish, or have particular political views, so I don't think people who support a 21% rate should have to pay more.
I note that if you think the income tax rate should be 19%, you don't get to pay 19%, so why should someone who thinks it should be 21%, pay 21%?
There is a difference between views on the optimal tax rate and owning a slave.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
Using however private health to get that drug is not taking away from others, kinablu going down the limited company route definitely is because he is depriving the state of money it would otherwise have to spend. I as a right winger could have done that easily too...I chose not too and pay my way
As a right wing person I think the state is bloated and spends too much, democracy disagreed with it I did my bit....Kinablu thinks the state isn't big enough and needs more money....when he had the choice he chose not to pay his fair tax
You're being very harsh. But you're one of my favourite posters and I really like being called "Kinablu" so I'm feeling ok about it.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
Never going against one of your own principles would be very odd, people are not that consistent. Never sticking to a principle would also be very odd, people are not that flaky either.
Goes back to ideology being a good thing in doses, but you shouldn't try to indulge in it 100% of the time.
And I think we are generally accepting of that in others, even politicians to a degree, so long as they follow the moral of a christmas carol - don't be a dick.
After dissing Montevideo as LITERALLY the most boring capital city in the world (spoiler: probably true) turns out my tour guide is LITERALLY the most interesting tour guide in history
As much fun as the guy that takes you round the Seoul food markets and teaches you Korean drinking games ?
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
I think that's too simplistic. The basic income tax rate is 20%. If I think it should be 21%, should I voluntarily pay extra tax to HMRC as if it was 21%? I don't think so. I also think that tax should be fair, so I don't think you should have to pay more tax if you are ginger, or like folk music, or cosplay as a blobfish, or have particular political views, so I don't think people who support a 21% rate should have to pay more.
I note that if you think the income tax rate should be 19%, you don't get to pay 19%, so why should someone who thinks it should be 21%, pay 21%?
There is a difference between views on the optimal tax rate and owning a slave.
That is far different to what kinablu did...there was a legal tax rate for paye....he went limited company to reduce the tax he paid. I could as a software engineer do the same quite easily. However I had a two principles that would have violated. A belief I had to obey democracy and the laws they passed and that despite thinking the state was spending too much that I should pay my fair share of it.
Kinablu on the other hand thinks the state should do more and spend more but when he had a chance to pay his fair share he opted out and reduced his tax. Sorry that is a hypocrite in my book
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
There is something in that, in that if we don't ever hold the line on something it does not really mean anything.
But we're also a work in progress. One failure to abide by some principle doesn't mean we are tainted forever, we're not paladins. Especially when it's a general ideology, which I would maintain is impossible to adhere to constantly in real life.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
But is, say, an opinion on the best way to enact a particular bit of tax legislation a "principle" in the same way opposing slavery is a "principle"? That seems demeaning to the campaign against slavery.
I might disagree with the details of some law or tax, but I accept it is appropriate to follow the rules set by society on the matter. If a government tried to bring in slavery, on the other hand, that would warrant civil disobedience. You can't equate them so simply.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
Wash you mouth out!
My sons went to the Catholic Comp. in Barry. No Kings Monkton or St John's Porthcawl on principle for me. I kept my money and my principles and they both graduated with 2:1s.
A two year wait for diagnostic healthcare might test my resolve mind.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
But is, say, an opinion on the best way to enact a particular bit of tax legislation a "principle" in the same way opposing slavery is a "principle"? That seems demeaning to the campaign against slavery.
I might disagree with the details of some law or tax, but I accept it is appropriate to follow the rules set by society on the matter. If a government tried to bring in slavery, on the other hand, that would warrant civil disobedience. You can't equate them so simply.
Kind of a variation on the idea not all sins are equal. Not all principles are equal either, and sometimes they will even conflict with one another. What are you supposed to do then? The principle of, in general, not liking policy A, will conflict with the principle of supporting family or whatever. Still means some hypocrisy inevitably will occur.
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
We do the same. It’s never caused us any issues TBH. Usually when it’s in a stew or a curry.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
As my post about slavery demonstrates, sometimes the lesser evil applies.
If you live in a society where freed slaves can be seized and re-enslaved ( a reality in the ante-bellum South), then it may be the lesser evil to retain legal ownership, while being as decent as possible.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
I think that reheating to a sufficient extent to control bacteria is probably the thing.
If I have a tin of chopped tomatoes open I will reheat to bubbling every day or two to make them last.
An experiment is to ahve 2 in the fridge and do reheating to one, but not the other, and see which one grows mould first.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
Similarly if I had work health care (I never did) I would not turn it down on principle even though I am not a fan (although I wouldn't ban it).
Yes. There are shades (as kle4 is teasing out like only he can) but there's a clear general broadbrush, I think.
If somebody makes a big deal of saying certain behaviour is wrong, implying they are a better person than those engaging in it, whilst at the same time doing it themselves, said person is a hypocrite (on that topic).
The most common example that leaps to mind are "family values" politicians or preachers who turn out to be up to their armpits in vice.
Quite so. If there's an element of preaching or moralising (religious or otherwise) it impacts on the perceived hypocrisy.
But even if that is the case, I don't think that's the be all and end all of the debate, eg person X is a hypocrite and that is that. How they respond to their action may be relevant - for example, still maintaining they don't like it, but perhaps not being as condemnatory of others who make the same choice they did.
Yes, and then there's the 'noun v adjective' thing.
The noun is hard and very insulting. You are a hypocrite. Implying that defines you. You're a bad bad person. A piece of work.
As opposed to the gentler and more forgiving "you are being rather hypocritical on this, if I may say so".
Mr Trump seems to have walked into several Judicial lamp posts today.
Including the injunctions instructing him to re-employ many thousands of unlawfully removed staff across 18 departments, and reconstitute USAID - including their occupation of their former building.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
Similarly if I had work health care (I never did) I would not turn it down on principle even though I am not a fan (although I wouldn't ban it).
Yes. There are shades (as kle4 is teasing out like only he can) but there's a clear general broadbrush, I think.
If somebody makes a big deal of saying certain behaviour is wrong, implying they are a better person than those engaging in it, whilst at the same time doing it themselves, said person is a hypocrite (on that topic).
The most common example that leaps to mind are "family values" politicians or preachers who turn out to be up to their armpits in vice.
I do understand that 'everyone was doing it' pre IR35. But at the same time everyone knew it was dodgy. I can say that with a clear conscience as I was working in Norway at the time where you pay vast amounts of tax and there are no obvious loopholes, mostly because the Norwegian system is much simpler which makes avoidence more difficult.
By the time I came back to the UK IR35 was in place. But it was a much more balanced system and it was easy in my line of work to make the case I was outside - I had three HMRC investigations in ten years and on all three occasions they found I was easily compliant. On a couple of occasions I had longer contracts and on the advice of my accountant submitted them as inside IR35.
The problem is that there were lots of clever court cases challenging HMRC and they lost a lot of them because they had been over zealous with their pursuit of those they thought were non compliant. Hence the eventual change in the law to make it the responsibility of the end user.
They tried to say that the end user was not allowed to make blanket decisions and had to judge each contract on its own merits. Of course none of them do. The risk of getting it wrong and the ease with which they can make the blanket decisions means there is nothing to gain by following the guidance. Eventually I suppose some contractor might challenge them but who wants to take their own client to court? A sure way to ensure you never get another contract.
So the contractor ends up paying tax, Employee NI, Employer NI and the Apprenticeship levy. And because the clients insist on contractors being through a body shop to ensure compliance where previously you could have a contract direct with the client, there is an additional 10% of the day rate gone.
So as I say, my basic tax cost is 51% of my day rate. All because the Government introduced sloppy law which favours the big companies and screws the small contractors.
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
We do the same. It’s never caused us any issues TBH. Usually when it’s in a stew or a curry.
As long as it's heated all the way through to a sufficient temperature to kill any bacteria, you can reheat it as many times as you want. Though it could get a bit mushy after a few times.
See this for some detail. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization The mean log10 reductions and temperatures of inactivation of the major milk-borne pathogens during a 15-second treatment are: Staphylococcus aureus > 6.7 at 66.5 °C (151.7 °F) Yersinia enterocolitica > 6.8 at 62.5 °C (144.5 °F) Pathogenic Escherichia coli > 6.8 at 65 °C (149 °F) Cronobacter sakazakii > 6.7 at 67.5 °C (153.5 °F) Listeria monocytogenes > 6.9 at 65.5 °C (149.9 °F) Salmonella ser. Typhimurium > 6.9 at 61.5 °C (142.7 °F)[47] (A log10 reduction between 6 and 7 means that 1 bacterium out of 1 million (106) to 10 million (107) bacteria survive the treatment.)
This is a rather fun detail in the rather convenient story about Erdogan arresting a potential opponent, showing more creative approaches.
Imamoglu's arrest came a day after Istanbul University annulled his degree due to alleged irregularities - a decision which, if upheld, would prevent him from running in presidential elections.
According to the Turkish constitution, presidents must have completed higher education to hold office.
I know it is unusual for it not to the case here for PMs and even most MPs now not to have them (though a few prominent examples exist), but curious it is a formal rule for President there. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yren8mxp8o
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
Well for one I don't think a choice of education options can be equated to choices which result in letting a person die, so I think the comparison is idiotic. The cost to holding to some political principle is not equal in those cases.
As for whether it would be hypocritical if one had expressed moral outrage about the existence of option A and then chose option A, yes I do - but I also don't think being a bit of a hypocrite is a big deal.
If someone did not stand by their principles when they had expressed a high level of outrage about something they then chose to do they can make the choice that you have suggested, and which I would probably make in the same situation, which is to be happy to be a hypocrite in that situation - accepting that it is a relxation of principle, but putting myself and family first.
As Richard Tyndall suggests, holding to a principal is not always admirable on a personal level. I simply don't think it would erase any hypocrisy.
The solution would be to be more open minded about choices in the first place.
I think it sounds like we are in agreement.
Regarding the health care situation and grammar school I wasn't comparing them or equating them. I was just giving another example as I did in another post about whether one should take out an ISA if you disagree with tax avoidance. I was deliberately giving some examples that were clearly hypocritical and yet just about everyone would be a hypocrite and happy about it.
The point I was making is that you would have to be some strange type of person that you are so principled that you refuse to be a hypocrite at cost to yourself or loved ones all the time.
And here is where I agree with @Richard_Tyndall (as I often do) with the example he gives. Absolutely. So in my case I will argue for many things and want them for the greater good of the population, but I will be a hypocrite individually and will not criticise others for being hypocrites in many cases because they are playing the hand dealt them.
I gave the example of ISAs which is a Govt sponsored tax avoidance. It is legal tax avoidance. I can't think that there is a single person who would not take one out on a matter of principle. The government positively encourages you to do so. You have to be some strange type of person to look down on people who do, but it is avoidance of tax.
So where do you draw the line. We all draw it in different places and in different ways.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
We do the same. It’s never caused us any issues TBH. Usually when it’s in a stew or a curry.
As long as it's heated all the way through to a sufficient temperature to kill any bacteria, you can reheat it as many times as you want. Though it could get a bit mushy after a few times.
See this for some detail. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization The mean log10 reductions and temperatures of inactivation of the major milk-borne pathogens during a 15-second treatment are: Staphylococcus aureus > 6.7 at 66.5 °C (151.7 °F) Yersinia enterocolitica > 6.8 at 62.5 °C (144.5 °F) Pathogenic Escherichia coli > 6.8 at 65 °C (149 °F) Cronobacter sakazakii > 6.7 at 67.5 °C (153.5 °F) Listeria monocytogenes > 6.9 at 65.5 °C (149.9 °F) Salmonella ser. Typhimurium > 6.9 at 61.5 °C (142.7 °F)[47] (A log10 reduction between 6 and 7 means that 1 bacterium out of 1 million (106) to 10 million (107) bacteria survive the treatment.)
What if my pottage is kept constantly on the heat?
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
As long as you heat it to a good temeprature to kill off any bugs then it is fine. Some dishes actually benefit from being reheated several times - especially if they are frozen as well at some point. The Polish dish Begos along with many other stews is a good example.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
But is, say, an opinion on the best way to enact a particular bit of tax legislation a "principle" in the same way opposing slavery is a "principle"? That seems demeaning to the campaign against slavery.
I might disagree with the details of some law or tax, but I accept it is appropriate to follow the rules set by society on the matter. If a government tried to bring in slavery, on the other hand, that would warrant civil disobedience. You can't equate them so simply.
I don't actually agree on this a principle is a principle One of my principles is I wont ever buy a slave even if its legal One of my principles is even if I disagree with the amount the state is spending I will pay my fair share of tax for it I don't see either principle as being a precedence thing, I wont say well I kept to principle 1 but failed principle 2 because....
You live by all of them and if you fail then you are a moral failure
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
We do the same. It’s never caused us any issues TBH. Usually when it’s in a stew or a curry.
As long as it's heated all the way through to a sufficient temperature to kill any bacteria, you can reheat it as many times as you want. Though it could get a bit mushy after a few times.
See this for some detail. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization The mean log10 reductions and temperatures of inactivation of the major milk-borne pathogens during a 15-second treatment are: Staphylococcus aureus > 6.7 at 66.5 °C (151.7 °F) Yersinia enterocolitica > 6.8 at 62.5 °C (144.5 °F) Pathogenic Escherichia coli > 6.8 at 65 °C (149 °F) Cronobacter sakazakii > 6.7 at 67.5 °C (153.5 °F) Listeria monocytogenes > 6.9 at 65.5 °C (149.9 °F) Salmonella ser. Typhimurium > 6.9 at 61.5 °C (142.7 °F)[47] (A log10 reduction between 6 and 7 means that 1 bacterium out of 1 million (106) to 10 million (107) bacteria survive the treatment.)
That's true, but bacteria leave behind toxins, some of which can't be killed off by heat. Particularly the case with rice.
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
We do the same. It’s never caused us any issues TBH. Usually when it’s in a stew or a curry.
As long as it's heated all the way through to a sufficient temperature to kill any bacteria, you can reheat it as many times as you want. Though it could get a bit mushy after a few times.
See this for some detail. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization The mean log10 reductions and temperatures of inactivation of the major milk-borne pathogens during a 15-second treatment are: Staphylococcus aureus > 6.7 at 66.5 °C (151.7 °F) Yersinia enterocolitica > 6.8 at 62.5 °C (144.5 °F) Pathogenic Escherichia coli > 6.8 at 65 °C (149 °F) Cronobacter sakazakii > 6.7 at 67.5 °C (153.5 °F) Listeria monocytogenes > 6.9 at 65.5 °C (149.9 °F) Salmonella ser. Typhimurium > 6.9 at 61.5 °C (142.7 °F)[47] (A log10 reduction between 6 and 7 means that 1 bacterium out of 1 million (106) to 10 million (107) bacteria survive the treatment.)
What if my pottage is kept constantly on the heat?
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
But is, say, an opinion on the best way to enact a particular bit of tax legislation a "principle" in the same way opposing slavery is a "principle"? That seems demeaning to the campaign against slavery.
I might disagree with the details of some law or tax, but I accept it is appropriate to follow the rules set by society on the matter. If a government tried to bring in slavery, on the other hand, that would warrant civil disobedience. You can't equate them so simply.
I don't actually agree on this a principle is a principle One of my principles is I wont ever buy a slave even if its legal One of my principles is even if I disagree with the amount the state is spending I will pay my fair share of tax for it I don't see either principle as being a precedence thing, I wont say well I kept to principle 1 but failed principle 2 because....
You live by all of them and if you fail then you are a moral failure
You've used two principles as examples which do not conflict. Do you not think there could be occasions when some principles might? No one is 100% ideologically coherent, and unexpected contradictions can occur.
Consider being an MP and saying on principle you'd never cut benefits, but you also have a principle that defence is the primary role of government, or that you will only ever vote for a balanced budget with no borrowing above X or whatever.
Your options might not allow you to maintain all your principles at once, and force you to create a precedence.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
Wash you mouth out!
My sons went to the Catholic Comp. in Barry. No Kings Monkton or St John's Porthcawl on principle for me. I kept my money and my principles and they both graduated with 2:1s.
A two year wait for diagnostic healthcare might test my resolve mind.
Personal interest and principles in alignment! That's premier league life hacking.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
Well for one I don't think a choice of education options can be equated to choices which result in letting a person die, so I think the comparison is idiotic. The cost to holding to some political principle is not equal in those cases.
As for whether it would be hypocritical if one had expressed moral outrage about the existence of option A and then chose option A, yes I do - but I also don't think being a bit of a hypocrite is a big deal.
If someone did not stand by their principles when they had expressed a high level of outrage about something they then chose to do they can make the choice that you have suggested, and which I would probably make in the same situation, which is to be happy to be a hypocrite in that situation - accepting that it is a relxation of principle, but putting myself and family first.
As Richard Tyndall suggests, holding to a principal is not always admirable on a personal level. I simply don't think it would erase any hypocrisy.
The solution would be to be more open minded about choices in the first place.
I think it sounds like we are in agreement.
Regarding the health care situation and grammar school I wasn't comparing them or equating them. I was just giving another example as I did in another post about whether one should take out an ISA if you disagree with tax avoidance. I was deliberately giving some examples that were clearly hypocritical and yet just about everyone would be a hypocrite and happy about it.
The point I was making is that you would have to be some strange type of person that you are so principled that you refuse to be a hypocrite at cost to yourself or loved ones all the time.
And here is where I agree with @Richard_Tyndall (as I often do) with the example he gives. Absolutely. So in my case I will argue for many things and want them for the greater good of the population, but I will be a hypocrite individually and will not criticise others for being hypocrites in many cases because they are playing the hand dealt them.
I gave the example of ISAs which is a Govt sponsored tax avoidance. It is legal tax avoidance. I can't think that there is a single person who would not take one out on a matter of principle. The government positively encourages you to do so. You have to be some strange type of person to look down on people who do, but it is avoidance of tax.
So where do you draw the line. We all draw it in different places and in different ways.
There's also the question of ideals and aspirations vs achievements. It's not all black and white.
Simple eg "I try not to lie". Some of our media would jump on a minor discrepancy and jump up and down yammering HYPOCRITE !!!!!!
But that does not invalidate the underlying principle, or the value of aspiring to be better. There has to be space for human failure. Then there is that the principle itself will not be black and white, nor will the circumstances around it, and there will be different circumstances in different cases.
On a sharper level affairs in a marriage, and whether they kill it or not. See Mark Harper and Liz Truss - one marriage survived, the other ended.
(It's tempting to argue that Mr Truss has to be more inherently tolerant than Mrs Harper, but that would not be kind in the absence of complete information. )
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
But is, say, an opinion on the best way to enact a particular bit of tax legislation a "principle" in the same way opposing slavery is a "principle"? That seems demeaning to the campaign against slavery.
I might disagree with the details of some law or tax, but I accept it is appropriate to follow the rules set by society on the matter. If a government tried to bring in slavery, on the other hand, that would warrant civil disobedience. You can't equate them so simply.
I don't actually agree on this a principle is a principle One of my principles is I wont ever buy a slave even if its legal One of my principles is even if I disagree with the amount the state is spending I will pay my fair share of tax for it I don't see either principle as being a precedence thing, I wont say well I kept to principle 1 but failed principle 2 because....
You live by all of them and if you fail then you are a moral failure
You've used two principles as examples which do not conflict. Do you not think there could be occasions when some principles might? No one is 100% ideologically coherent, and unexpected contradictions can occur.
Consider being an MP and saying on principle you'd never cut benefits, but you also have a principle that defence is the primary role of government, or that you will only ever vote for a balanced budget with no borrowing above X or whatever.
Your options might not allow you to maintain all your principles at once, and force you to create a precedence.
I am not an mp nor ever want to be because I will not budge on what I hold as a principle. I have no desire to be a moral vacuum
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
I like to think I have principles but when it comes to tax I think the main reason I stick to the rules absolutely is because I am too frightened of getting caught. I pay everything they ask of me and have insurance for the (vast) accountants fees for HMRC investigations and I sleep soundly in my bed knowing if they knock on the door I am good.
There is nothing moral or hnourable about this. I am very risk averse and the risk of getting caught is greater in my mind than the possible marginal benefits of doing anything dodgy.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
But is, say, an opinion on the best way to enact a particular bit of tax legislation a "principle" in the same way opposing slavery is a "principle"? That seems demeaning to the campaign against slavery.
I might disagree with the details of some law or tax, but I accept it is appropriate to follow the rules set by society on the matter. If a government tried to bring in slavery, on the other hand, that would warrant civil disobedience. You can't equate them so simply.
I don't actually agree on this a principle is a principle One of my principles is I wont ever buy a slave even if its legal One of my principles is even if I disagree with the amount the state is spending I will pay my fair share of tax for it I don't see either principle as being a precedence thing, I wont say well I kept to principle 1 but failed principle 2 because....
You live by all of them and if you fail then you are a moral failure
You've used two principles as examples which do not conflict. Do you not think there could be occasions when some principles might? No one is 100% ideologically coherent, and unexpected contradictions can occur.
Consider being an MP and saying on principle you'd never cut benefits, but you also have a principle that defence is the primary role of government, or that you will only ever vote for a balanced budget with no borrowing above X or whatever.
Your options might not allow you to maintain all your principles at once, and force you to create a precedence.
I am not an mp nor ever want to be because I will not budge on what I hold as a principle. I have no desire to be a moral vacuum
Well that is fine and dandy, but even not being an MP we cannot always avoid choices. Do you really believe, not being an MP, that it is impossible for your principles to ever be in conflict?
I assume a classic philosophical example would be something like 'I will never take a life in any circumstances' vs 'I will do whatever I have to preserve my family' with a trolley problem type scenario.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
I think that's too simplistic. The basic income tax rate is 20%. If I think it should be 21%, should I voluntarily pay extra tax to HMRC as if it was 21%? I don't think so. I also think that tax should be fair, so I don't think you should have to pay more tax if you are ginger, or like folk music, or cosplay as a blobfish, or have particular political views, so I don't think people who support a 21% rate should have to pay more.
I note that if you think the income tax rate should be 19%, you don't get to pay 19%, so why should someone who thinks it should be 21%, pay 21%?
There is a difference between views on the optimal tax rate and owning a slave.
That is far different to what kinablu did...there was a legal tax rate for paye....he went limited company to reduce the tax he paid. I could as a software engineer do the same quite easily. However I had a two principles that would have violated. A belief I had to obey democracy and the laws they passed and that despite thinking the state was spending too much that I should pay my fair share of it.
Kinablu on the other hand thinks the state should do more and spend more but when he had a chance to pay his fair share he opted out and reduced his tax. Sorry that is a hypocrite in my book
No, I had to be ltd company to get the gig. That's how it was back then. You have to take this into account before passing sentence.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
But is, say, an opinion on the best way to enact a particular bit of tax legislation a "principle" in the same way opposing slavery is a "principle"? That seems demeaning to the campaign against slavery.
I might disagree with the details of some law or tax, but I accept it is appropriate to follow the rules set by society on the matter. If a government tried to bring in slavery, on the other hand, that would warrant civil disobedience. You can't equate them so simply.
I don't actually agree on this a principle is a principle One of my principles is I wont ever buy a slave even if its legal One of my principles is even if I disagree with the amount the state is spending I will pay my fair share of tax for it I don't see either principle as being a precedence thing, I wont say well I kept to principle 1 but failed principle 2 because....
You live by all of them and if you fail then you are a moral failure
You would never buy a slave, even if the alternative is that person will fall into the hands of someone who will use them cruelly?
Again, that was the reality for many black Southerners.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
I like to think I have principles but when it comes to tax I think the main reason I stick to the rules absolutely is because I am too frightened of getting caught. I pay everything they ask of me and have insurance for the (vast) accountants fees for HMRC investigations and I sleep soundly in my bed knowing if they knock on the door I am good.
There is nothing moral or hnourable about this. I am very risk averse and the risk of getting caught is greater in my mind than the possible marginal benefits of doing anything dodgy.
Principles are not always about tax or sticking to the rules indeed sometimes your principles mean you break the rules it was just the example we are talking about in this case.
Perfectly possible to have principles you will not violate and them not involving tax you pay
Most MPs are also not moral vacuums. Many are indeed very moral. They find they have to work with others and compromise in order to achieve something, rather than nothing - it is hardly a moral victory to just posture after all. The tricky part is not being useless in convincing others to achieve your moral outcomes, which involves give and take, whilst not abandoning all moral grounding altogether and just being duplicitous and weak.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
I like to think I have principles but when it comes to tax I think the main reason I stick to the rules absolutely is because I am too frightened of getting caught. I pay everything they ask of me and have insurance for the (vast) accountants fees for HMRC investigations and I sleep soundly in my bed knowing if they knock on the door I am good.
There is nothing moral or hnourable about this. I am very risk averse and the risk of getting caught is greater in my mind than the possible marginal benefits of doing anything dodgy.
Principles are not always about tax or sticking to the rules indeed sometimes your principles mean you break the rules it was just the example we are talking about in this case.
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
As long as you heat it to a good temeprature to kill off any bugs then it is fine. Some dishes actually benefit from being reheated several times - especially if they are frozen as well at some point. The Polish dish Begos along with many other stews is a good example.
Stew is the prime example, because it also tastes much better in a big pot. You need a good batch to get the right flavour, and then it takes several sittings to eat it all
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
If you’ve got to the stage where you’re married with children and you can’t moderate your views to accommodate others in your family then it marks you out as immature, in my humble opinion.
Life is give and take and family life especially so. You have to be able to accommodate opposing viewpoints in a partnership. I hadn’t actually read that about Corbyn, but it makes me like him less, and I wasn’t a fan to begin with:
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
As long as you heat it to a good temeprature to kill off any bugs then it is fine. Some dishes actually benefit from being reheated several times - especially if they are frozen as well at some point. The Polish dish Begos along with many other stews is a good example.
Stew is the prime example, because it also tastes much better in a big pot. You need a good batch to get the right flavour, and then it takes several sittings to eat it all
Stew - tick Big pot - tick Good batch - tick Right flavour - tick Several sittings - err.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Thai thread reminds me why I despise lefties. They are always like this. Grotesque hypocrites who ALSO preach and lecture. And they’re inevitably dull
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
And then someone flagged this. I hope it was a mischievous but noble right winger. Not yet another example of the pb Left at its craven, cowardly, hypocritical and repulsive worst
Thai thread reminds me why I despise lefties. They are always like this. Grotesque hypocrites who ALSO preach and lecture. And they’re inevitably dull
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
We are having a very civilised and enjoyable and informative conversation, and I might add many of which are not 'lefties' (eg Richard) and you come on and lower the tone spectacularly. If you haven't got anything positive to add why bother? @Pagan2 is doing well enough without your help.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
Sounds like the only objection you have then is people are using the word principle a little more broadly than you do.
Which is fine as a personal choice, but it is not uncommon for something to be, for example, a general principle - which is more of a framework type of thing rather than fundamental prohibition on specific actions.
Thai thread reminds me why I despise lefties. They are always like this. Grotesque hypocrites who ALSO preach and lecture. And they’re inevitably dull
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
We are having a very civilised and enjoyable and informative conversation, and I might add many of which are not 'lefties' (eg Richard) and you come on and lower the tone spectacularly. If you haven't got anything positive to add why bother? @Pagan2 is doing well enough without your help.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
I think that's too simplistic. The basic income tax rate is 20%. If I think it should be 21%, should I voluntarily pay extra tax to HMRC as if it was 21%? I don't think so. I also think that tax should be fair, so I don't think you should have to pay more tax if you are ginger, or like folk music, or cosplay as a blobfish, or have particular political views, so I don't think people who support a 21% rate should have to pay more.
I note that if you think the income tax rate should be 19%, you don't get to pay 19%, so why should someone who thinks it should be 21%, pay 21%?
There is a difference between views on the optimal tax rate and owning a slave.
That is far different to what kinablu did...there was a legal tax rate for paye....he went limited company to reduce the tax he paid. I could as a software engineer do the same quite easily. However I had a two principles that would have violated. A belief I had to obey democracy and the laws they passed and that despite thinking the state was spending too much that I should pay my fair share of it.
Kinablu on the other hand thinks the state should do more and spend more but when he had a chance to pay his fair share he opted out and reduced his tax. Sorry that is a hypocrite in my book
No, I had to be ltd company to get the gig. That's how it was back then. You have to take this into account before passing sentence.
That is still the case for many (most?) contractors. Big clients won't deal with anyone who is not a Ltd Company. I know there is some reason for this (legal liabilities?) although I have never worked out what it is.
Thai thread reminds me why I despise lefties. They are always like this. Grotesque hypocrites who ALSO preach and lecture. And they’re inevitably dull
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
And then someone flagged this. I hope it was a mischievous but noble right winger. Not yet another example of the pb Left at its craven, cowardly, hypocritical and repulsive worst
Come along. You're not this sad Leon - you're a rather more colourful and characterful chap. Think back to when you first made a post on PB - no doubt smited down by the then lunactic Tim.
Leavitt: This judge is a Democrat activist. He was appointed by Barack Obama
Reporter: He was originally appointed by George W. Bush and elevated by Obama. Feel I should clear that up.
There is a usually unspoken but sometimes spoken argument on the right that judges appointed by Democrats are all activists who cannot be trusted as they are political hacks, yet the many many judges appointed by Trump are just fine.
You do see that on the left as well, but it is not to the same degree at present.
When judges are indeed openly appointed or elected on party tickets, and so are prosecutors in many areas, it is perhaps surprising it has taken this long for acceptance of justice from the 'wrong' side to be rejected. Well done Trump.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
That's not quite true - the savings allowance means that you can have quite substantial non-ISA savings income and not pay tax on it if you have low income overall. OTOH, people on even the lowest incomes can aspire to save up a substantial enough pot by the time of their retirement for ISAs to become useful.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
Sounds like the only objection you have then is people are using the word principle a little more broadly than you do.
Which is fine as a personal choice, but it is not uncommon for something to be, for example, a general principle - which is more of a framework type of thing rather than fundamental prohibition on specific actions.
Yes in a way, dont declare its a principle well you will abandon it when convenient
Leavitt: This judge is a Democrat activist. He was appointed by Barack Obama
Reporter: He was originally appointed by George W. Bush and elevated by Obama. Feel I should clear that up.
There is a usually unspoken but sometimes spoken argument on the right that judges appointed by Democrats are all activists who cannot be trusted as they are political hacks, yet the many many judges appointed by Trump are just fine.
You do see that on the left as well, but it is not to the same degree at present.
When judges are indeed openly appointed or elected on party tickets, and so are prosecutors in many areas, it is perhaps surprising it has taken this long for acceptance of justice from the 'wrong' side to be rejected. Well done Trump.
There's a chart somewhere on Twix that shows the judges that have ruled against Trumpski are politically very evenly balanced
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There's no demeaning going on. Of course you have principles. But you also (like everybody) have lots of views and opinions that are not principles. You couldn't operate in this world otherwise. You'd be incredibly rigid and judgemental the whole time.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
That's not quite true - the savings allowance means that you can have quite substantial non-ISA savings income and not pay tax on it if you have low income overall. OTOH, people on even the lowest incomes* can aspire to save up a substantial enough pot by the time of their retirement for ISAs to become useful.
Im not entirely convinced the savings allowance is strictly needed. I assume it’s there to avoid HMRC having to administer relatively de minimis levels of taxation on savings, but I don’t understand why you wouldn’t just stick it in an ISA wrapper. If you’re saving above the ISA threshold per annum then I think it’s safe to assume that you’re earning a relatively decent income, and for those that baulk at paying any tax whatsoever on savings income there’s places like pensions and premium bonds that are more efficient.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
That's not quite true - the savings allowance means that you can have quite substantial non-ISA savings income and not pay tax on it if you have low income overall. OTOH, people on even the lowest incomes can aspire to save up a substantial enough pot by the time of their retirement for ISAs to become useful.
Ok explain what income we have to save please....considering for many the last week of each month is trying to eke out the money by living on things like beans on toast because they have 20£ left to last a week....how much of that 20£ due you think they have left to save?
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a holiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
Thai thread reminds me why I despise lefties. They are always like this. Grotesque hypocrites who ALSO preach and lecture. And they’re inevitably dull
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
We are having a very civilised and enjoyable and informative conversation, and I might add many of which are not 'lefties' (eg Richard) and you come on and lower the tone spectacularly. If you haven't got anything positive to add why bother? @Pagan2 is doing well enough without your help.
Why not ask for me to be banned
Oh not this again! You're becoming quite boring about this.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
But is, say, an opinion on the best way to enact a particular bit of tax legislation a "principle" in the same way opposing slavery is a "principle"? That seems demeaning to the campaign against slavery.
I might disagree with the details of some law or tax, but I accept it is appropriate to follow the rules set by society on the matter. If a government tried to bring in slavery, on the other hand, that would warrant civil disobedience. You can't equate them so simply.
I don't actually agree on this a principle is a principle One of my principles is I wont ever buy a slave even if its legal One of my principles is even if I disagree with the amount the state is spending I will pay my fair share of tax for it I don't see either principle as being a precedence thing, I wont say well I kept to principle 1 but failed principle 2 because....
You live by all of them and if you fail then you are a moral failure
You would never buy a slave, even if the alternative is that person will fall into the hands of someone who will use them cruelly?
Again, that was the reality for many black Southerners.
That's a slippery moral slope. The nicest guard at Auschwitz isn't something to aspire to.
Thai thread reminds me why I despise lefties. They are always like this. Grotesque hypocrites who ALSO preach and lecture. And they’re inevitably dull
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
And then someone flagged this. I hope it was a mischievous but noble right winger. Not yet another example of the pb Left at its craven, cowardly, hypocritical and repulsive worst
It wasn't me. I was down the chip oil in Llantwit Major, and who should come in but (genuinely) the village k**** fiddler. So I decided to exit pronto with my chippy tea before he engaged in conversation,and completely forgot about replying to your posts.
To raise the tone above the likes of @kinabalu and @kjh - this is why my tour guide was so amazing
He met me at the cathedral and we spent a pleasant couple of hours touring pleasant, safe, unexciting Montevideo
Then there was a thunderstorm and we were forced inside a very atmospheric old cafe (Caffe Braziliano). 19th century. Great coffee. At this point he opened up about his prior life in the Uruguayan army - mainly in their UN peacekeeping force (I had no idea Uruguay did so much peacekeeping)
By the time we got to the famous old market in the port for a famous Uruguayan barbecue lunch we’d bonded so much he admitted that not only had he spent years in the Congo and Georgia (where he was held hostage at gunpoint for a week) in his UN mission, he was also in Rwanda (again for the UN) where he witnessed, personally, the entire genocide from before it began to the aftermath - seeing the killings, driving through corpses, everything. He showed me the evidence and discussed how it changed him
Maybe the most compelling single hour of conversation I’ve ever had. To arrive BEFORE that genocide and leave AFTER. What does that do to you? He tried to explain and he was very articulate
To accompany this extraordinary conversation we had excellent steaks, chorizo, provolone, a good bottle of Tannat red wine and this secret Uruguayan wine they call “half and half”
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
But is, say, an opinion on the best way to enact a particular bit of tax legislation a "principle" in the same way opposing slavery is a "principle"? That seems demeaning to the campaign against slavery.
I might disagree with the details of some law or tax, but I accept it is appropriate to follow the rules set by society on the matter. If a government tried to bring in slavery, on the other hand, that would warrant civil disobedience. You can't equate them so simply.
I don't actually agree on this a principle is a principle One of my principles is I wont ever buy a slave even if its legal One of my principles is even if I disagree with the amount the state is spending I will pay my fair share of tax for it I don't see either principle as being a precedence thing, I wont say well I kept to principle 1 but failed principle 2 because....
You live by all of them and if you fail then you are a moral failure
You would never buy a slave, even if the alternative is that person will fall into the hands of someone who will use them cruelly?
Again, that was the reality for many black Southerners.
That's a slippery moral slope. The nicest guard at Auschwitz isn't something to aspire to.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
Similarly if I had work health care (I never did) I would not turn it down on principle even though I am not a fan (although I wouldn't ban it).
Yes. There are shades (as kle4 is teasing out like only he can) but there's a clear general broadbrush, I think.
If somebody makes a big deal of saying certain behaviour is wrong, implying they are a better person than those engaging in it, whilst at the same time doing it themselves, said person is a hypocrite (on that topic).
The most common example that leaps to mind are "family values" politicians or preachers who turn out to be up to their armpits in vice.
I do understand that 'everyone was doing it' pre IR35. But at the same time everyone knew it was dodgy. I can say that with a clear conscience as I was working in Norway at the time where you pay vast amounts of tax and there are no obvious loopholes, mostly because the Norwegian system is much simpler which makes avoidence more difficult.
By the time I came back to the UK IR35 was in place. But it was a much more balanced system and it was easy in my line of work to make the case I was outside - I had three HMRC investigations in ten years and on all three occasions they found I was easily compliant. On a couple of occasions I had longer contracts and on the advice of my accountant submitted them as inside IR35.
The problem is that there were lots of clever court cases challenging HMRC and they lost a lot of them because they had been over zealous with their pursuit of those they thought were non compliant. Hence the eventual change in the law to make it the responsibility of the end user.
They tried to say that the end user was not allowed to make blanket decisions and had to judge each contract on its own merits. Of course none of them do. The risk of getting it wrong and the ease with which they can make the blanket decisions means there is nothing to gain by following the guidance. Eventually I suppose some contractor might challenge them but who wants to take their own client to court? A sure way to ensure you never get another contract.
So the contractor ends up paying tax, Employee NI, Employer NI and the Apprenticeship levy. And because the clients insist on contractors being through a body shop to ensure compliance where previously you could have a contract direct with the client, there is an additional 10% of the day rate gone.
So as I say, my basic tax cost is 51% of my day rate. All because the Government introduced sloppy law which favours the big companies and screws the small contractors.
There was the Westminster Doctrine - essentially you are not obliged to arrange your tax affairs to suit HMRC/Inland Revenue. But somewhere a line was crossed in that actively engaging to game the legislation was considered to be ungentlemanly.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last
Powell is asked about the revision to inflation forecasts & how much of it is due to tariffs. He says it’s hard to parse how much of inflation is driven by tariffs but that they’re going to try to figure it out: “Clearly some of it, a good part of it is coming from tariffs.”
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
Clearly not, since the world revolves around my chosen principles.
That's why everything takes 5 times longer than it feels like it should.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
I think that's too simplistic. The basic income tax rate is 20%. If I think it should be 21%, should I voluntarily pay extra tax to HMRC as if it was 21%? I don't think so. I also think that tax should be fair, so I don't think you should have to pay more tax if you are ginger, or like folk music, or cosplay as a blobfish, or have particular political views, so I don't think people who support a 21% rate should have to pay more.
I note that if you think the income tax rate should be 19%, you don't get to pay 19%, so why should someone who thinks it should be 21%, pay 21%?
There is a difference between views on the optimal tax rate and owning a slave.
That is far different to what kinablu did...there was a legal tax rate for paye....he went limited company to reduce the tax he paid. I could as a software engineer do the same quite easily. However I had a two principles that would have violated. A belief I had to obey democracy and the laws they passed and that despite thinking the state was spending too much that I should pay my fair share of it.
Kinablu on the other hand thinks the state should do more and spend more but when he had a chance to pay his fair share he opted out and reduced his tax. Sorry that is a hypocrite in my book
No, I had to be ltd company to get the gig. That's how it was back then. You have to take this into account before passing sentence.
That is still the case for many (most?) contractors. Big clients won't deal with anyone who is not a Ltd Company. I know there is some reason for this (legal liabilities?) although I have never worked out what it is.
Not sure either. I used to know but I no longer do. A theme with me. I'm only 64 but with retiring so early I've kind of gone off the boil.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
Clearly not, since the world revolves around my chosen principles.
That's why everything takes 5 times longer than it feels like it should.
This could rapidly turn into the existentialist thread. For gods sake don't let Leon mention L'Etranger.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
Clearly not, since the world revolves around my chosen principles.
That's why everything takes 5 times longer than it feels like it should.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
Terrifying stat if true. So many people are totally screwed if they lose their jobs.
Comments
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
As for whether it would be hypocritical if one had expressed moral outrage about the existence of option A and then chose option A, yes I do think that - but I also don't think being a bit of a hypocrite is a big deal.
If someone did not stand by their principles when they had expressed a high level of outrage about something they then chose to do they can make the choice that you have suggested, and which I would probably make in the same situation, which is to be happy to be a hypocrite in that situation - accepting that it is a relxation of principle, but putting myself and family first.
As Richard Tyndall suggests, holding to a principle is not always admirable on a personal level. I simply don't think it would erase any hypocrisy.
The solution would be to be more open minded about choices in the first place.
But other people found themselves inheriting plantations that were heavily indebted, or in States which refused manumission. Free blacks bought relatives as slaves, to get them out of plantations.
Then, the principle of the lesser evil applies. Owning slaves is evil, but selling them to pay off debt, or to clear your conscience, would be
worse.
Hypocrisy is when you decry slavery, but fail to free your slaves, as soon as you can.
But even if that is the case, I don't think that's the be all and end all of the debate, eg person X is a hypocrite and that is that. How they respond to their action may be relevant - for example, still maintaining they don't like it, but perhaps not being as condemnatory of others who make the same choice they did.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
I note that if you think the income tax rate should be 19%, you don't get to pay 19%, so why should someone who thinks it should be 21%, pay 21%?
There is a difference between views on the optimal tax rate and owning a slave.
If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
Goes back to ideology being a good thing in doses, but you shouldn't try to indulge in it 100% of the time.
And I think we are generally accepting of that in others, even politicians to a degree, so long as they follow the moral of a christmas carol - don't be a dick.
What did he do for you ?
Kinablu on the other hand thinks the state should do more and spend more but when he had a chance to pay his fair share he opted out and reduced his tax. Sorry that is a hypocrite in my book
But we're also a work in progress. One failure to abide by some principle doesn't mean we are tainted forever, we're not paladins. Especially when it's a general ideology, which I would maintain is impossible to adhere to constantly in real life.
I might disagree with the details of some law or tax, but I accept it is appropriate to follow the rules set by society on the matter. If a government tried to bring in slavery, on the other hand, that would warrant civil disobedience. You can't equate them so simply.
My sons went to the Catholic Comp. in Barry. No Kings Monkton or St John's Porthcawl on principle for me. I kept my money and my principles and they both graduated with 2:1s.
A two year wait for diagnostic healthcare might test my resolve mind.
If you live in a society where freed slaves can be seized and re-enslaved ( a reality in the ante-bellum South), then it may be the lesser evil to retain legal ownership, while being as decent as possible.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
If I have a tin of chopped tomatoes open I will reheat to bubbling every day or two to make them last.
An experiment is to ahve 2 in the fridge and do reheating to one, but not the other, and see which one grows mould first.
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
The noun is hard and very insulting. You are a hypocrite. Implying that defines you. You're a bad bad person. A piece of work.
As opposed to the gentler and more forgiving "you are being rather hypocritical on this, if I may say so".
Including the injunctions instructing him to re-employ many thousands of unlawfully removed staff across 18 departments, and reconstitute USAID - including their occupation of their former building.
By the time I came back to the UK IR35 was in place. But it was a much more balanced system and it was easy in my line of work to make the case I was outside - I had three HMRC investigations in ten years and on all three occasions they found I was easily compliant. On a couple of occasions I had longer contracts and on the advice of my accountant submitted them as inside IR35.
The problem is that there were lots of clever court cases challenging HMRC and they lost a lot of them because they had been over zealous with their pursuit of those they thought were non compliant. Hence the eventual change in the law to make it the responsibility of the end user.
They tried to say that the end user was not allowed to make blanket decisions and had to judge each contract on its own merits. Of course none of them do. The risk of getting it wrong and the ease with which they can make the blanket decisions means there is nothing to gain by following the guidance. Eventually I suppose some contractor might challenge them but who wants to take their own client to court? A sure way to ensure you never get another contract.
So the contractor ends up paying tax, Employee NI, Employer NI and the Apprenticeship levy. And because the clients insist on contractors being through a body shop to ensure compliance where previously you could have a contract direct with the client, there is an additional 10% of the day rate gone.
So as I say, my basic tax cost is 51% of my day rate. All because the Government introduced sloppy law which favours the big companies and screws the small contractors.
Though it could get a bit mushy after a few times.
See this for some detail.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization
The mean log10 reductions and temperatures of inactivation of the major milk-borne pathogens during a 15-second treatment are:
Staphylococcus aureus > 6.7 at 66.5 °C (151.7 °F)
Yersinia enterocolitica > 6.8 at 62.5 °C (144.5 °F)
Pathogenic Escherichia coli > 6.8 at 65 °C (149 °F)
Cronobacter sakazakii > 6.7 at 67.5 °C (153.5 °F)
Listeria monocytogenes > 6.9 at 65.5 °C (149.9 °F)
Salmonella ser. Typhimurium > 6.9 at 61.5 °C (142.7 °F)[47]
(A log10 reduction between 6 and 7 means that 1 bacterium out of 1 million (106) to 10 million (107) bacteria survive the treatment.)
Imamoglu's arrest came a day after Istanbul University annulled his degree due to alleged irregularities - a decision which, if upheld, would prevent him from running in presidential elections.
According to the Turkish constitution, presidents must have completed higher education to hold office.
I know it is unusual for it not to the case here for PMs and even most MPs now not to have them (though a few prominent examples exist), but curious it is a formal rule for President there.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yren8mxp8o
Regarding the health care situation and grammar school I wasn't comparing them or equating them. I was just giving another example as I did in another post about whether one should take out an ISA if you disagree with tax avoidance. I was deliberately giving some examples that were clearly hypocritical and yet just about everyone would be a hypocrite and happy about it.
The point I was making is that you would have to be some strange type of person that you are so principled that you refuse to be a hypocrite at cost to yourself or loved ones all the time.
And here is where I agree with @Richard_Tyndall (as I often do) with the example he gives. Absolutely. So in my case I will argue for many things and want them for the greater good of the population, but I will be a hypocrite individually and will not criticise others for being hypocrites in many cases because they are playing the hand dealt them.
I gave the example of ISAs which is a Govt sponsored tax avoidance. It is legal tax avoidance. I can't think that there is a single person who would not take one out on a matter of principle. The government positively encourages you to do so. You have to be some strange type of person to look down on people who do, but it is avoidance of tax.
So where do you draw the line. We all draw it in different places and in different ways.
One of my principles is I wont ever buy a slave even if its legal
One of my principles is even if I disagree with the amount the state is spending I will pay my fair share of tax for it
I don't see either principle as being a precedence thing, I wont say well I kept to principle 1 but failed principle 2 because....
You live by all of them and if you fail then you are a moral failure
Consider being an MP and saying on principle you'd never cut benefits, but you also have a principle that defence is the primary role of government, or that you will only ever vote for a balanced budget with no borrowing above X or whatever.
Your options might not allow you to maintain all your principles at once, and force you to create a precedence.
You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
Simple eg "I try not to lie". Some of our media would jump on a minor discrepancy and jump up and down yammering HYPOCRITE !!!!!!
But that does not invalidate the underlying principle, or the value of aspiring to be better. There has to be space for human failure. Then there is that the principle itself will not be black and white, nor will the circumstances around it, and there will be different circumstances in different cases.
On a sharper level affairs in a marriage, and whether they kill it or not. See Mark Harper and Liz Truss - one marriage survived, the other ended.
(It's tempting to argue that Mr Truss has to be more inherently tolerant than Mrs Harper, but that would not be kind in the absence of complete information.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
There is nothing moral or hnourable about this. I am very risk averse and the risk of getting caught is greater in my mind than the possible marginal benefits of doing anything dodgy.
I assume a classic philosophical example would be something like 'I will never take a life in any circumstances' vs 'I will do whatever I have to preserve my family' with a trolley problem type scenario.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
Again, that was the reality for many black Southerners.
Perfectly possible to have principles you will not violate and them not involving tax you pay
Life is give and take and family life especially so. You have to be able to accommodate opposing viewpoints in a partnership. I hadn’t actually read that about Corbyn, but it makes me like him less, and I wasn’t a fan to begin with:
@acyn.bsky.social
Leavitt: This judge is a Democrat activist. He was appointed by Barack Obama
Reporter: He was originally appointed by George W. Bush and elevated by Obama. Feel I should clear that up.
I have never struck a woman
I have never raped
I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it
I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient
I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient
I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough
I have never taken from someone things they need
I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
Big pot - tick
Good batch - tick
Right flavour - tick
Several sittings - err.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
I'm binge watching Adolescence, (someone mentioned it earlier)
It's very heart wrenching. Brilliant actors, especially the lad. I must commend the one shot approach. Very intimate.
Which is fine as a personal choice, but it is not uncommon for something to be, for example, a general principle - which is more of a framework type of thing rather than fundamental prohibition on specific actions.
You do see that on the left as well, but it is not to the same degree at present.
When judges are indeed openly appointed or elected on party tickets, and so are prosecutors in many areas, it is perhaps surprising it has taken this long for acceptance of justice from the 'wrong' side to be rejected. Well done Trump.
I agree about not preaching and lecturing. That isn't the preserve of the left. You're a good example.
1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
But - the traditional response - that shouldn't stop us looking at, and aiming for, the stars.
Per ardua ad astra
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a holiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjd8xx8wvlo
I'm not sure what that means for Ferguson Marine, but I hope they don't close.
In recent years, Judge Boasberg has:
- ordered the release of Hillary’s emails
- ensured Trump’s tax returns never became public
- restricted disclosure from the Mueller investigation
- limited disclosure of grand jury material in the Trump classified docs case.
The resistance, he ain’t.
The nicest guard at Auschwitz isn't something to aspire to.
"This morning I went to brush my teeth and couldn't tell which was the cold tap. It reminded me of why I despise lefties."
He met me at the cathedral and we spent a pleasant couple of hours touring pleasant, safe, unexciting Montevideo
Then there was a thunderstorm and we were forced inside a very atmospheric old cafe (Caffe Braziliano). 19th century. Great coffee. At this point he opened up about his prior life in the Uruguayan army - mainly in their UN peacekeeping force (I had no idea Uruguay did so much peacekeeping)
By the time we got to the famous old market in the port for a famous Uruguayan barbecue lunch we’d bonded so much he admitted that not only had he spent years in the Congo and Georgia (where he was held hostage at gunpoint for a week) in his UN mission, he was also in Rwanda (again for the UN) where he witnessed, personally, the entire genocide from before it began to the aftermath - seeing the killings, driving through corpses, everything. He showed me the evidence and discussed how it changed him
Maybe the most compelling single hour of conversation I’ve ever had. To arrive BEFORE that genocide and leave AFTER. What does that do to you? He tried to explain and he was very articulate
To accompany this extraordinary conversation we had excellent steaks, chorizo, provolone, a good bottle of Tannat red wine and this secret Uruguayan wine they call “half and half”
This is one reason I love my job
https://library.croneri.co.uk/cch_uk/btr/187-855
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
@annmarie
Powell is asked about the revision to inflation forecasts & how much of it is due to tariffs. He says it’s hard to parse how much of inflation is driven by tariffs but that they’re going to try to figure it out: “Clearly some of it, a good part of it is coming from tariffs.”
That's why everything takes 5 times longer than it feels like it should.