Skip to content

How did we end up being ruled by out and out liars?

Will the tax be borne by ordinary citizens? We have taken every measure to ensure that it isn\’t. This is a tax on the financial sector, and 85% of liable transactions are purely between financial institutions. Day-to-day financial activities of citizens and businesses are outside its scope. Even if the financial sector passed on some costs to clients, the outcome would not be disproportionate. For example, anyone buying, €10,000 in shares should be able to afford a €10 tax on the transaction.

You\’re either lying or ignorant you fuckwit Semeta.

The route to the pockets of the citizenry is via the higher cost of capital for corporates leading to less capital investment. As your own fucking EU briefing paper pointed out.

Will the tax hamper growth in the EU? No. Our economic studies show that it will have no impact on jobs, and could even have a positive impact on growth if revenues are reinvested wisely. The tax rates proposed are very low, to prevent an increased cost of capital affecting the real economy, and the activities of central banks and public debt managers are exempt.

You\’re lying. Your own fucking briefing paper says the opposite. The tax will reduce GDP. Through that higher cost of capital. You ghastly little shit.

A small discourse on the libel laws is called for here. The accusation that someone is lying can indeed be libellous. This does not apply to politicians of course as truth is an absolute defence to libel claims. Which neatly covers \”shit\” and \”fuckwit\” too.

10 thoughts on “How did we end up being ruled by out and out liars?”

  1. ‘if revenues are reinvested wisely’

    Surely there’s no ‘if’? Is he admitting that sometimes they ‘invest’ unwisely? I’ve never heard an admission to that effect.

  2. Not sure what the current law is, but wasn’t truth an aggravating circumstance for seditious libel, because the truth was more damaging than a lie?

  3. Also, isn’t there some ridiculous thing where the truth is only an absolute defence if you KNEW it to be the truth at the time of the libel.

    i.e. if you said something someone didn’t like but you didn’t actually acquire the proof of its veracity until afterwards, you could still be done.

    Or some other kind of lawyerly rubbish.

  4. If the 35bn Euro of income has no cost to the citizenry, why doesn’t Algirdas double the rates to get twice the money and twice the benefits? Why not triple the rates? surely if 35bn is good, 105bn is better?

  5. We are assured that this tax won’t fall on ordinary citizens.
    So it will fall on non-ordinary citizens.
    Who are these non-ordinary citizens? Oh dear, I hope we’re not going back to…

  6. TPG – no, justification (‘It’s true’) is always a defence. Plus, how would they know the point at which you knew?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *