That’s the way to bet, yesApril 27, 2017 Tim WorstallRagging on Ritchie24 CommentsNow, I stress, there may be something glaringly obvious that I have got wrong here, Not that he normally admits it previousHow many layers of editors does the New York Times have?nextIs she dim or lying? 24 thoughts on “That’s the way to bet, yes” Dennis the Peasant April 27, 2017 at 1:38 pm We’ve found what should be etching onto his tombstone. BraveFart April 27, 2017 at 1:49 pm Indeed Dennis, but any epitaph for the Murphmonster would have to include the word without which he cannot ever make a post: Richard Murphy Born XX/XX 1958 Died XX/XX 20XX, candidly Andrew C April 27, 2017 at 1:51 pm “Now, I stress, there may be something glaringly obvious that I have got wrong here” If not his tombstone, then his autobiography. Bloke in North Dorset April 27, 2017 at 2:52 pm Wouldn’t his autobiography be called Candidly, The Joy of Me? Interested April 27, 2017 at 3:13 pm They sound like they might be his famous last words. As in Major General John Sedgewick: ‘They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance. Though I stress, there may be something glaringly obvious that I have got wrong here.’ The Meissen Bison April 27, 2017 at 3:25 pm I see he has earned if not plaudits at least words of encouragement from Konrad Kartoffel. BraveFart April 27, 2017 at 4:02 pm TMB LOL! Not the polymath he has led us to believe! Van_Patten April 27, 2017 at 4:19 pm TMB/BF I’d argue the prior commentator is even more hilarious…… That said, I am reminded of the old phrase ‘There shall be more joy in heaven’ Chris Miller April 27, 2017 at 5:40 pm @BF Spud isn’t even a monomath. Theophrastus April 27, 2017 at 5:50 pm Sometimes, I do wonder whether Spud himself doesn’t write some of the short but fawning “Thank you Richard…” comments on his blog. His ego’s appetite for adulation is surely insatiable. Dennis the Peasant April 27, 2017 at 6:13 pm So etched: Candidly, there may be something glaringly obvious that I have got wrong here. Not quite up to the epitaph Spike Milligan proposed for himself (I told them I was sick.), but good enough for the likes of Spud. Dennis the Peasant April 27, 2017 at 6:15 pm Off-topic: Used the innertoobs to look up a photo of Spud’s residence in Ely. Having done so – and noting that Spud and I are about the same age – I feel much better about myself. Dennis the Peasant April 27, 2017 at 6:16 pm @BF Spud isn’t even a monomath. Hell, he thinks a monomath is something you play old records on. The Meissen Bison April 27, 2017 at 7:09 pm Theo: I do wonder whether Spud himself doesn’t write some of the short but fawning… El Tubérculo: Now, I stress, there may be something glaringly obvious that I have got wrong here Herr Kartoffel: How refreshing – and isn’t it a pity that this laudable principle isn’t more generally applied? Well done and thank you. My understanding on reasonably good authority is that Kartoffel feels that the principle should be applied more widely on the tuberous output. Theophrastus April 27, 2017 at 7:25 pm TMB Herr Kartofell deserves a round or more of applause. However, I was suggesting very tentatively that some of the unironic comments on TRUK – of the ‘Thanks, Richard. Good analysis.’ variety – are written by Spud himself. The Meissen Bison April 27, 2017 at 7:46 pm Theo – this could well be true and it’s difficult to decide whether or not self-authored panegyrics are preferable to a wider coterie of loons. Theophrastus April 27, 2017 at 8:19 pm TMB If I’m right, I’m afraid it’s not a matter of either/or but both/and. Andrew C April 27, 2017 at 9:59 pm “It’s important to note that the personal allowance was £10,600 in 2015/16. The basic rate of tax was 20%. This means that for the basic rate tax payer the tax relief was worth £2,160.” I can’t be bothered to point out to self-professed tax expert and Professor of Stupidology that 20% of £10,600 is £2,120, not £2,160. And it’s not a typo as he uses the £2,160 figure when extrapolating the amount of tax relief later. But then he claims that; “For those earning over £100,000 (near enough for these purposes) the personal allowance was withdrawn” Which is of course nonsense as if you had income of £100,100 you would have had a PA of £10,400 in 2015-16. It may be ‘near enough’ for an innumerate twat but not for someone claiming to be a tax expert. Jervillian Swike April 28, 2017 at 12:08 am “The personal allowance was £10,600 in 2015/16. The basic rate of tax was 20%. This means that for the basic rate tax payer the tax relief was worth £2,160 (sic).” This is only true for taxpayers who earned less than (higher rate – £10,600). For anyone earning more, which includes many basic rate taxpayers, the personal allowance was worth more than that, because otherwise they would have paid some higher rate tax. His calculation omits the extra cost of the people in that ~£32K to ~£42K range, which probably explains the missing billions. Ed Snack April 28, 2017 at 1:05 am Note, Spike Milligan’s epitaph quote is “I told you I was ill”, not “sick”. FWIW, and it sounds better that way. Dennis the Peasant April 28, 2017 at 1:49 am Duly noted. Ironman April 28, 2017 at 9:09 am His epitaph will note three things: Firstly…. djc April 28, 2017 at 4:23 pm His epitaph will note three things: Firstly…. Candidly… You time here is done… Ironman April 28, 2017 at 5:13 pm No no no. His tombstone will read: “He changed the world… He’s sorry for you if you didn’t” Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.