Why the Senior Lecturer’s plans won’t work

Crikey Tim,

You arrogant twat.

Fancy comparing yourself to media news organisations with paywalls.

Can’t you see how fucking arrogant that statement is when you have had piss poor contins website for a month that has been ignored by your followers except for the bloke who keeps refreshing the click counter.

Really Tim…..bullying Ritchie, arrogant statements, ignoring your followers questions over and over again.

You aint got a clue have you.

Oh!? Wasn’t that meant to be a rather witty guardian send-up?

Given that Spud thinks that 4% is the optimal level of inflation, surely we should be seeing tax cuts now. That got me banned again

I’d just like to say that ‘Rob’ above isn’t the regular Rob, which is me.

Given that Spud thinks that 4% is the optimal level of inflation

Did he divulge the deep economic analysis he had undertaken to arrive at this figure?

Proper Rob, a person capable of writing this

I know from experience that students are still taught the absurd idea that profit is maximised where marginal cost equals marginal revenue. I knew when I was nineteen that this was not true.

does not need to explain the reason for anything

Noel

He doesn’t do irony of course but that is exquisite…..

Looks like Twatty is frustrated by your login caper over at Contins Tim so the little cunt is trying his false persona routine on over here.

It is good to upset leftist shite. Still buddies with your fat accountant fuckwit of a mate False Rob?

Still pleased about the 150 million human beings that leftist shite like you have murdered so far Twatty? Keen to get on with murdering the next 150 million? Pretending to be someone else on the Internet isn’t much of a contribution to your scummy gang’s cause. It isn’t going to win you your “Hero of the Soviet Union” medal. “Womiccumalobus Wanker of the Weak” maybe.

If anyone does go to Murphy’s gig, could they use the exact same tactics he does. One place took a dim view of his behaviour so he got banned from future events (the Oxford Centre for Business Taxation I think).

ie, roll up to the event, don’t pay any attention to the speeches and spend your time at the event posting vitriolic blogs and tweets in criticism of the event and its speakers.

Well spotted. Maybe someone could ask Ritchie to thank Lord Ashcroft for the provision of the building for his event!

“Professor, is it a benefit to the State when a private individual subsidises a public institution?”

@Raffles, April 25, 2018 at 10:36 am

+1

Today:
Headline artticle again, diff url
continentaltelegraph.com/featured/donate-to-continental-telegraph/
https://c2n.me/3TJn9lX.png

PF and that’s a UBI of E560 per month, which is only about £5800 per annum! This is so far below the UK tax threshold that it should not make much difference to government finances but unfortunately the article does not say much about why it has been abandoned. Is the tax threshold in Finland significantly lower than in the UK for example?

The Finns decided not to extend the payment to those in work, which meant that it really isnt a UBI, just a flat unemployment benefit that will keep going after you are employed.

The problem with the UBI is that it is unaffordable if we make exceptions – so no extras for disabled, ill etc. No benefit for children either on some forms of UBI. The AEI had a version that abolished all forms of social security in the US (including medicare and medicaid) and paid about $10,000 a year.

There’s a simple reason that mature Western economies can’t have UBIs – they already have means tested welfare systems that prove far higher levels of income for those who qualify than an UBI would (obviously, given you are targeting the available cash at a smaller section of society), so any UBI will either be a) unaffordable (if it matches the best the means tested system can provide), or b) has so many caveats and exemptions that its not a real UBI, and has none of its benefits, or c) is set at a level that can be afforded but would require income cuts for many from their existing means tested payments so would be politically impossible.

Ken

Actually the UBI has better incentives than the present system

That’s not true. I’m talking about the negative incentive effect on the far more substantial number of people that are already working. I take the point about those trying to get off benefits, but one could deal with that much smaller part separately.

Otherwise, “unaffordable” and what Jim said, agreed.