Its a stats thing not a b365 thing. Opta won't count it so nor do the bookies.
It's indicative of the lack of nuance in the modern world. Something is obviously wrong, but if there is a way to wriggle out of it people call it right. Reminds me of Sir Keir
How can Santos have been booked for a foul but "To commit a foul" be settled as a loser? Lunacy
I got stung with Jokovic and the Aussie open - the year he wasn't allowed to compete. Bookies cancelled the bet, which to me seemed unsporting as I had laid him for the win and he didn't win...
"The ECU said Croxall's facial expression after she said "pregnant people" had been "variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt or exasperation."
It added that "congratulatory messages Ms Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue"."
She committed a thought crime.
Those complaining didn't like what they thought Martine Croxall was thinking (and they thought they could tell what she was thinking from the expression on her face), and the BBC's ECU agreed with them.
Its a stats thing not a b365 thing. Opta won't count it so nor do the bookies.
It's indicative of the lack of nuance in the modern world. Something is obviously wrong, but if there is a way to wriggle out of it people call it right. Reminds me of Sir Keir
How can Santos have been booked for a foul but "To commit a foul" be settled as a loser? Lunacy
The bet is really a foul to be awarded not to commit a foul. Similarly lots of shots on target don't count for betting on shots on target. It is not the bookies being mean, they don't care and would just adjust the odds if it was counted differently. It is that opta find it easier to count fouls awarded, an objective measure, than fouls committed which is subjective. The foul not awarded but recognised by the ref with a yellow is in a grey area, probably opta should bother to count it but they don't.
I agree it is badly worded. I disagree they are being cynical or mean.
"The ECU said Croxall's facial expression after she said "pregnant people" had been "variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt or exasperation."
It added that "congratulatory messages Ms Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue"."
She committed a thought crime.
Those complaining didn't like what they thought Martine Croxall was thinking (and they thought they could tell what she was thinking from the expression on her face), and the BBC's ECU agreed with them.
To step back from the Reformgraph story into reality for a minute, the government has a big problem. It taxes this Bad Thing to stop people using it. Tax revenues drop. Shit, better tax people doing the thing we just encouraged you to do.
Road pricing is inevitable - always has been - as fuel duty rolls back. The furore will be how they replace it. Pence per mile on busy roads is the obvious solution - though the people whose suburban roads become rat runs to avoid motorways will be outraged. Or they go all vehicles all trips, and rural voters go mad pointing out there is little to no public transport and school is 9 miles away.
Like replacing Council Tax, its easier not to.
The tail end Tory Government proved taxes like NI can be lowered without affecting service provision (they burned services to the ground a decade ago anyway). Of course PB Tories contend NI cuts were fully funded by fiscal drag and cutting all infrastructure projects.
Fair to say he doesn’t think too much positive about Rachel.
It's interesting more nuanced take on the whole curve thing. It's not just reduce taxes and get more income. It's remove the complications, the breaks, the allowances. You pay a lower rate, but it is simplified and the disincentives are removed.
IIRC he said some controversial things, which werent really picked up on about less taxes for lower earners doesnt result in any extra revenue, its lowering taxes for people who are high earners that generates the overall improvements. That's a hard sell on the doorstep!
Lol it's the traditional view from the boss class: pay the rich more so they work harder, pay the poor less so they work harder. Laffer is a hack.
The problem with the “Laffer Curve” is that while it’s obviously true at the very low & very high end he has absolutely nothing helpful to say about the middle. Which can easily be complete chaos! A small increase in one tax might bring in more net revenue whilst the same increase in another tax might reduce overall revenue & vice versa.
We all know that 95% income taxes are a bad idea & that going from 0% to 5% raises money. Unfortunately that tells us nothing about what will happen if a UK government raises or lowers taxes today from current levels of taxation.
The word 'curve' gives it a spurious, unmerited air of science and precision.
No, it is Economics.
Economics involves curves of different types.
Economics is a social science, not a true science, and only an idiot thinks it entails precision.
You're having a larger, and his curve is essentially discredited.
The idea that its a simple curve is certainly discredited. The idea, however, that you may increase tax take by lowering tax rates or vice versa is still valid as humans very much do change behaviour when the rules of the game change. You hear it on PB all the time from the high earners complaining about cut-offs and higher rates making it not worth getting a pay rise or promotion or working more hours. You see it at the bottom with reductions in benefits if people work more than 16 hours making the extra income tiny for a lot of effort.
The 'curve' is more like the shape of Mr. Jelly, with near-random wobbliness in the middle.
Drastically simplify the tax system and we'll see a clearer, better-defined and more informative curve, around which future tax policy can be devised.
But no fucker is gonna do this, because too many benefit from the system being unwieldy, over-complex and full of cliff edges, perverse incentives and unintended consequences...
IIRC, a study 10-12 years ago modelled most Western European countries and showed they were well to the left of their Laffer Curve peak, most clustered about a 1:1 slope.Turkey was the only example where a reduction in tax could raise more tax, but that was from total taxation at over 50% of GDP. That was when UK taxation took about 34-35%.
Comments
NEW THREAD
It added that "congratulatory messages Ms Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue"."
She committed a thought crime.
Those complaining didn't like what they thought Martine Croxall was thinking (and they thought they could tell what she was thinking from the expression on her face), and the BBC's ECU agreed with them.
I agree it is badly worded. I disagree they are being cynical or mean.
Ah - found it https://home.uchicago.edu/~huhlig/papers/uhlig.trabandt.jme.2011.pdf