"every attempt so far", is that your understanding of history, is it? The 98% top marginal rates of harold wilson made people pay fuck all, did it? Because the right used opposite arguments then. Thatcher got in by telling people the rich being taxed too much stifled innovation
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 15 Nov 2019, 14:57,
Reply)
Howard Wilson taxed Apple and Google at 98% did he? Is this some alternate timeline I'm not aware of?
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Fri 15 Nov 2019, 16:45,
Reply)
Maybe you shouldn't use pronouns if you have difficulty following the subject in an argument
If I make a point about about billionaires and the rich, and you respond to my point with "I'm not saying you shouldn't tax them, far from it - I believe they should be paying their fair share." one would naturally assume the pronoun 'them' related to billionaires and the rich, rather than google.
Consider this exchange:
Person 1: "I see a lot of dogs being walked"
Person 2: "Some of those female dog walkers are very fit"
Person 1 : "Yes, I would like to fuck them given the opportunity"
Does Person 1 want to fuck:
a) dogs?
b) women?
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 16 Nov 2019, 2:29,
Reply)
Or, and hear me out here, we could use a real-world example from not too far away
Person 1) An attempt to tax these companies more is doomed to fail as every previous attempt has failed.
Person 2) You sound like you're saying I don't think we should tax them because something irrelevant about billionaires
Person 1) No, I'm saying these companies should be paying tax, but aren't, and they have ways of avoiding it.
Person 2) Something irrelevant about the 1970s.
Person 1) Huh?
Person 2) You used the wrong pronoun you big meanie. For some reason the example I'm going to use involves fucking a dog.
Anyway, it's clear you don't want to engage on any of my points, so I'll leave you with a quote from www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/15/labour_pledges_free_broadband_via_partnationalisation_of_bt/
"This is a spectacularly bad take by the Labour Party. The almost cut throat competition between broadband rivals has meant faster speeds, improved coverage and lower prices for consumers up and down the country.
"The current government, and independent regulator Ofcom, have spent the last three years incentivising alternative operators to BT to deploy faster fibre technologies. Companies such as Virgin, CityFibre and others have committed billions to rival Openreach. Those plans risk being shelved overnight.
"Only one other country in the world has come close to going down this route, and for a good reason – it’s hard, expensive and fraught with difficulty. Australia’s NBN is years late, massively over budget and offering speeds and technology a fraction of the original political intention."
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Sat 16 Nov 2019, 14:52,
Reply)
unfortunately, the argument in your head is contradicted by the text that is there for all to see. Perhaps you have dyslexia, and in that case I apologise for bringing that to peoples' attention
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 16 Nov 2019, 21:33,
Reply)