NortonH Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, CharonY said: I hope that makes it clearer to you. No. It does not. We have had over twenty responses and so far nobody dares to give a straight answer to a very simple question. Is there any subsidy/skidka in any of the above three scenarios? A simple Yes or No against each answer is all that is required. I suspect that in a moment one of the main obstructors is going to declare that "this thread is going nowhere" and close it. 5 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: I have a problem with you using subsidy when you are not using it’s correct definition. My definition is quite correct but in deference to your sensitivity I borrowed a word and gave it a definition which is clear. You refuse to use it. So in short you are refusing to debate me because you will not allow any word to be used which can represent a conserved quantity which nets off tax against payments known loosely as 'subsidies'. Twenty five responses and all you have done is escape and evade! Utterly gutless, if you don't mind me saying so. And if you do mind me saying so you have the power to reprimand me. Please make it public this time so others can take note. Edited February 28, 2018 by NortonH
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 23 minutes ago, NortonH said: That depends on what you mean by the word 'subsidy'. Please answer the following question so we can fix on a definition. Here is a test:You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized? In which of those 3 cases would it not be pork barrelling if the fossil fuel industry got breaks that other industries don't?
CharonY Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, NortonH said: No. It does not. We have had over twenty responses and so far nobody dares to give a straight answer to a very simple question. Is there any subsidy/skidka in any of the above three scenarios? A simple Yes or No against each answer is all that is required. I suspect that in a moment one of the main obstructors is going to declare that "this thread is going nowhere" and close it. The straight answer is that the example is faulty as it does not tell us what the baseline tax is. However, if we assume 2) is the baseline, then 1 and 3 are both subsidies as per my above examples. Edit: messed up what the baseline is. Edited February 28, 2018 by CharonY
NortonH Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: I thought we had moved on from discussion of definitions? No. You have prevented me from being allowed to define the concept I need to use. Just now, CharonY said: The straight answer is that the example is faulty It is my example to illustrate a simple point. Feel free to start a new thread to discuss what you would prefer to discuss. Nobody is forcing you to stay here. A straight answer would be along the lines of "yes" or "no".
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 Choose a less precise word- I suggest "bung". Define that as you will (as long as you are not getting too far from the colloquial meaning of "some sort of dodgy payment). Than frame the argument round that.
NortonH Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 10 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: I have some questions in my last post that you could answer. I am happy to do so as soon as you have the common courtesy to answer the question I asked first.
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, NortonH said: No. You have prevented me from being allowed to define the concept I need to use. We have not prevented you defining a concept you wish to use. We have asked you not to use a word that has a different, but related meaning- since that would cause confusion
NortonH Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, John Cuthber said: We have asked you not to use a word that has a different, but related meaning- since that would cause confusion There is no confusion because I gave a definition. In any case I created a new word, skidka, Feel free to use it.
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 14 hours ago, NortonH said: a subsidy is a net flow of energy into a system from outside. OK we now have "a subsidy skidka is a net flow of energy into a system from outside. ". The problem is that (feel free to make up your own punchline) Governments don't have energy.
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 If it were clear what you meant, we wouldn’t have spent over a page trying to establish exactly that. And as I said, I am satisfied with the answers already given by others in this thread. I quite like CharonY’s. Feel free to respond to that, in addition to my question.
NortonH Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, hypervalent_iodine said: If it were clear what you meant, we wouldn’t have spent over a page trying to establish exactly that. And as I said, I am satisfied with the answers already given by others in this thread. I quite like CharonY’s. Feel free to respond to that, in addition to my question. I have not received a single straight answer. Remember in this question we are using YOUR definiton of subsidy. Here is a test:You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized? Are you capable of giving three simple Yes/No answers to these questions? If so then please do so. If not then please indicate that you will not and that will be the end of the matter. 3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: OK we now have "a subsidy skidka is a net flow of energy into a system from outside. ". The problem is that (feel free to make up your own punchline) Governments don't have energy. Thanks for that great response John. You are excused further attention.
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, NortonH said: Are you capable of giving three simple Yes/No answers to these questions? I'm not. Not because of any failing on my part, but because the questions are not well defined. The problem is that a question framed in terms of "you earn..." makes it look like wages of a person. But the issue under discussion is related to the finances of a company. So, while you wrote it off as nonsense because you didn't understand it, my request that you define "earn" is pertinent. Earnings = income or = net income or = profit or = whatever the creative accountants have defined it as or whatever. Then there's the important issue others have raised. What's the "normal" rate of tax that everyone else pays? if it is 30% then I'm not being subsidised in any ov those circumstances. If it's 60% then I'm always getting a bung. Most people here are quite happy to answer questions. But the meaning of the question has to be clear. Edited February 28, 2018 by John Cuthber
NortonH Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, John Cuthber said: But the meaning of the question has to be clear. Uh huh? I guess that depends upon what you mean by the word "be".
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, NortonH said: Uh huh? I guess that depends upon what you mean by the word "be". When a bunch of intelligent people are saying you are not asking a clear question, you should look at your question, rather than their wording.
NortonH Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, John Cuthber said: When a bunch of intelligent people are saying you are not asking a clear question, you should look at your question, rather than their wording. Really John? The question is not clear enough? Sure. It is not as if people are just desperate to avoid answering it because they can already see exactly what the point is. In any other context you would have answered it in an instant but now, all of a sudden, everyone is utterly stumped! LOL. Any minute now one of the elite will close the thread because it is "not going anywhere". If you cannot answer then you are under no obligation to stay and clog things up (and basically ruin it for anyone who may want to enter the discussion in good faith)
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, NortonH said: Really John? The question is not clear enough? "Really John? The question is not clear enough?" I explained why it's not clear. I explained why, at a base tax rate of 30% the answer is different from the answer at a base tax rate of 60% Others have also commented that your question isn't clear. If you are not going to tell us what the question is then, whether anyone closes the thread or not, you won't get an answer. Come back when something changes. Edited February 28, 2018 by John Cuthber
NortonH Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, John Cuthber said: If you are not going to tell us what the question is Hahahahaaa! Good one! Thanks for playing, John. You have a great day, Y'hear!!
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 Norton, the replies you have received here have been in good faith. I asked my question because I was trying to get to the heart of what you were talking about in your OP, so that I and others may better respond. The bounds of this discussion have not been clearly laid out. It is not clear what you are asking. Going on to pose little scenarios that don’t give full context or full appreciation of reality don’t help.
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, NortonH said: Hahahahaaa! Good one! Thanks for playing, John. You have a great day, Y'hear!! Hahahahaaa! Good one! Thanks for playing, John. You have a great day, Y'hear!! You posted that while I was editing my post. Would you like another go?
NortonH Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: Norton, the replies you have received here have been in good faith. I asked my question because I was trying to get to the heart of what you were talking about in your OP, so that I and others may better respond. The bounds of this discussion have not been clearly laid out. It is not clear what you are asking. Going on to pose little scenarios that don’t give full context or full appreciation of reality don’t help. My little scenario is very simple. I want to test whether YOUR definition of 'subsidy' gives a conserved quantity. It is ridiculous that you have gone to such lengths to avoid answering such simple questions. The replies I have received have all been evasive and not a single one has dared give a straight answer. What are you all so scared of??? If you answer the question then we finally nail down a solid definition of one of the terms I want to use to make my point. So far we have not even left the starting blocks because people such as your self are, basically, obstructing (to put it mildly). You have the three little questions above so I will not repeat them here. If you want to engage in serious debate then give simple straight answers and we can proceed. If you do not want to answer them for whatever reason then just say so and I will excuse you any further attention. (I do not believe that if I had acted as you are it would have been tolerated this long.) 12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: You posted that while I was editing my post. Would you like another go? Your post is unchanged. You have a great day!!
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, NortonH said: Your post is unchanged. You have a great day!! "Your post is unchanged. You have a great day!!" It's "unchanged" in the very real sense that I added this 18 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: I explained why, at a base tax rate of 30% the answer is different from the answer at a base tax rate of 60% Now, given that you can't answer the questions Yes or No , without knowing the base rate... perhaps you would like to try again. Perhaps you can tell us what you think the answers are.
NortonH Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, John Cuthber said: Now, given that you can't answer the questions Yes or No , without knowing the base rate.. Yes you can. The question is very simple and makes no reference to anything outside of what it contains. Let me make it even simpler: If you earn as income X and I tax you Y% (Y>0) are you being subsidized? If you earn as income X and I tax you Y%+$1 (Y>0) are you being subsidized? If you earn as income X and I tax you Y%+$1 (Y>0) and then give you back $1 are you being subsidized? 4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Perhaps you can tell us what you think the answers are. Perhaps you could stop playing games and grow up a bit.
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Perhaps you can tell us what you think the answers are.
NortonH Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: is that another empty quote or are you still editing?
John Cuthber Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 No, it's another forum screw up It should say Perhaps you can tell us what you think the answers are. . At least you have an excuse for ignoring it the second time, because it was invisible.
Recommended Posts