Posts by codejunky

Activist millionaires protest outside Jeff Bezos' homes to support tax rises for the rich

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@AC

"Socialism is not communism"

That is why I included Venezuela and N.Korea. They are socialist governments run the socialist way. Of all variants of socialism the single success story has been N.Korea for lasting as long as it has. The bar isnt very high.

"and I specifically mentioned successful "socialist-leaning" countries"

Which is an oxymoron. Then you seemed to be pointing to the nordics which backed away from socialist economics and went rampant with free market but high wealth redistribution. And that has its existential issues.

"It seems from your long post history that you're something of a free-market libertarian, while I'm more of a social democrat."

Ok, thats fine (and yes I am), but thats why I was trying to get to what you ment. Since you mean the democratic socialist (aka free market, high wealth redistribution) that makes more sense than 'socialist' which has just never worked.

But to make the social democratic ideal we would need to ramp up tax on the middle class as the rich cant pay for the vast spending. Also it means privatising all the various state services which socialists (in the UK) want government controlled in communist ways. I dont know how you see that but it would require a drastic change to the country I dont think it could cope with (closing down borders, mass privatisation, huge increase in tax on middle class).

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@AC

"In terms of social justice"

That is never a good start.

"what matters is levels of inequality"

And this is why. That is called envy. Isnt it more important that lives are improved at all possible levels? Why is inequality the important factor when absolute poverty has been all but wiped out in the developed world, globally it is falling faster than ever and could be eliminated in our lifetimes and at all levels our standard of living is consistently improving?

"It seems the socialist-leaning countries are doing best on this"

Socialist countries are awesome at this. USSR, N.Korea, Venezuela, Communist China were all very successful at reducing inequality and N.Korea being their greatest success story. When China reduced the socialism and welcomed the capitalism they actually caught up quite well to the developed world instead of a starving peasant utopia.

"as illustrated by OECD statistics"

I dont see any socialist countries represented there. But if you are talking about the nordics then thats something a bit different (they tried socialism and turned away just in time). So your advocating for less regulation, more academies in education, privatise the NHS? Of course we would also need to stop paying for a useful military and have the US pick up the tab, become highly restrictive in immigration (homogeneous population seems required), accept a lack of social mobility, accept a loss of entrepreneurship and increase in welfare dependance

"In any case, where there are large disparities in wealth, there is injustice"

If this is true then when do we soak the rich countries with all the wealthy people (including poor and middle class) to correct the global inequality?

"It's not enough to simply tell the poorer and potentially socially disenfranchised people that they should be happy because they're not starving."

Have roofs over their heads, 3 square meals, medical care, education, welfare. For someone not contributing to the economy, the economy is supporting them with all that and more. So how much more extra do you feel is necessary? Now compare what they have available to them to actual poverty.

In the UK we dont have absolute poverty outside of severe drug/alcohol/mental issues. In a lot of cases people who dont want to be helped (actively turn it down).

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@AC

Just to kick the idiot while he is down (and as AC anyway wont make a difference to them) there are some interesting graphs to show you worthwhile measurement-

https://www.continentaltelegraph.com/2021/05/you-will-be-poor-peasants/

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@Swarthy

"I have said it before, if you are getting a paycheck you are getting screwed."

Thumbs up to that. The proportion that its an issue is questionable though-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldurkheimer/2018/03/01/0-001-percent-one-percent/?sh=565f2ba62cf2

They still pay such a disproportionate amount of tax. The problem with the higher tax crowd is that some of them are 'screw the rich' which is just evil, 'they got more than me' which is just envy, 'I want sweets and they should pay for them' which is just greed and then there are some who look at it from the cost of providing the basics.

The problem with providing the basics is developed government spray so much for so little that any increase just encourages the thieving buggers.

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@AC

"No Amazon worker is going up in one of their bosses rockets, not when it costs 1.4 million."

The Amazon workers boss is unlikely to be going up in rockets, nor their bosses boss. Most people dont have the money for such extreme luxury. If you measure poverty by not having enough for extreme luxuries then almost everyone in the developed world is dire poor, which is why such a measurement would be total utter moronically idiotically stupid.

"Most people aren't saving to go into space because they aren't rich and they would never save enough to go into space in their entire lifetime."

Relative measurement of rich being relative and not about absolute poverty. Aka- he has more than I do.

"Trickle-down economics is a fallacy. Is it beginning to dawn on you yet?"

Except you didnt demonstrate that at all. Only that you use a measurement which cannot be taken seriously unless put to nursery school children.

Re: the rich being richer than them.

@AC

"You answer included a the phrase "reducing relative poverty" with nothing to back it up."

And your single word question was useless. However as I said go look up the many other posts discussing relative/absolute poverty.

"Your argument that driving western countries' middle class and poor into poverty is a viable way of reducing global inequality is one that I don't think I've ever read before by anyone who takes themselves seriously."

Thats the point. It is the extension of the argument to 'rob more from the rich but only those richer than me'. There is always someone with less than others unless you want to look at the really equal societies where almost everyone is starving to death equally (bar the leadership).

Absolute poverty is almost non-existent in the developed countries. So we are discussing relative poverty where someone has more than someone else.

"It will increase inequality. I don't think any further elaboration is necessary."

And that is where you really do need to elaborate. If the idea of rob from the rich in the rich countries (in the name of equality) works then apply it globally. So it should work then too. If you think it will make things more unequal then you need to elaborate.

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@AC

"Yes. All those Amazon warehouse workers going off into space in Bezos' rockets."

I think you might have replied to the wrong thread. Even so what a stupid statement. Most people aint saving to visit space.

Re: the rich being richer than them.

@AC

"Your source says nothing about relative poverty."

Your question didnt say anything about relative poverty. You just said 'Source' (assuming your the same AC). Feel free to go look it up or go through my comments and find one of the links discussing poverty.

"Basic mathematics would say that obviously reduces equality and widens the gap between the rich (most able to bear taxes) and the poor/middle class (not so able to bear taxes) in western countries."

Eh? Reducing global inequality reduces equality? Not sure how your basic mathematics works.

"A better kind of equality would be "levelling up" the poorer countries, wouldn't it?"

Depending how you mean it that is what is happening.

Re: $1M a year — is that a lot?

@Ciaran McHale

"suggest that the majority of millionaires and billionaires are first-generation wealthy."

Its easier to argue attacking someone if you can paint them a monster. I havnt read 'The New Elite' I will look it up.

Re: Trickle down is a failure

@DS999

"The rich certainly weren't investing in building new production capacity during this time - in fact they were taking it offline which is why we are seeing price spikes here and there due to shutdowns of oil wells, lumber mills, and so on during that time."

The government shut down the economy. Not much anyone can do about that. Numerous businesses tried to innovate out of it or try something new.

"(and bidding up the price of bitcoin, NFTs, gold, or stock of existing companies doesn't add a single iota of production capacity so it shouldn't be considered "investment" in that sense)"

If you buy bitcoin, gold, stock etc what happens to the money? Its a trade and the money is spent in the economy. The money didnt vanish. So the poor guy trades his money for something or the rich guy trades his money its still trading money. Pause the economy and much less money is being traded.

Basically the solution to your entire comment seems to be open the economy back up. Thats not a rich/poor thing but a gov thing.

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@ST

I guess it depends on your definition. Amazing how all that wealth didnt just accumulate in the rich places but flowed to those open to the advances and wealth trickling down from the rich.

Re: Poverty rate

@Snake

"Exactly. We are talking about raising taxes in order to fund [currently] necessary social programs due to the pandemic. That's the point of this entire discussion."

Then you are using the wrong measurement. You were complaining the number of poor has grown but that is during the pandemic so of course it has, the gov shut down parts of the economy. Pre pandemic should be the measurement you use as that is when there is an economy (hence the number of poor should shrink).

Re: Absolute DREAMING

@Martin

"They have worked their bloody socks off - and for what?"

Job security while the rest of us lose jobs and income. Pay rise during times of economic distress where the rest of us lose money (which is taxed to pay for the bureaucracy). Should I demand a pay rise when the technology breaks or do I do what I am employed to do?

"If I think the roads should be better looked after, should I go out and fill the potholes myself?"

I dont see a problem with that. You do need to make sure it meets the regulations but if your roads are so bad after paying your tax it shows the money is not going where you obviously see a need. So why not do something about it?

"If I think the NHS is underfunded, should I send them some money?"

If you believe them to be and you feel its a worthy cause why not? If people who thought it was underfunded sent it more then maybe it would be less underfunded in their eyes.

"If I think that a decent government of a civilised country should be ashamed if their citizens need to use food banks, should I cook meals for them?"

Sure go for it. But food banks are the peoples solution already because the gov who takes so much isnt as good at giving the money out where it is needed. Gov is too slow and has its fingers in too many pies. So yeah go ahead, why do you think its wrong to do what you feel is right?

"My individual cheque will do nothing."

Then I guess we should all feel that way and and not give money to charity either (you say you do). What a waste of money that you think your piddly little contribution changes anything (\s). Yet obviously you do as do others who contribute willingly.

"The taxation system needs to be made more fair"

Fair is a word with little meaning. It isnt a value or a boundary. So what is fair? Is stealing fair? Taking money through threat of force (tax). Is it fair to take more money from the rich to give to the poor? If so then the poor and middle classes of rich countries need to be taxed in the name of equality because there are absolute poor out there still.

"See, the basic difference between you and me is that you seem to think it's acceptable for a government to screw over the poor to improve the lot of the rich."

If that is the difference you see then poor you. I dont believe it is acceptable for the gov to screw people over. Using your logic then you seem to think it is ok.

Re: the rich being richer than them.

@John Brown (no body)

"That's not a solution because only a few, such those in the group, would do it."

Because they dont want to do it. Just as Biden wants to increase tax on those earning more than he does. The green eyes are always watching.

"If you read the article, you'd know they are campaigning for a change io the law so it applies to everyone, which would have a much bigger effect."

I did read it. So these millionaires dont want to contribute more, they want someone else robbed instead. Shocked.

"The problem, as we in the UK saw some years ago, is that some of the rich will move their assets and/or themselves to some other country which won't tax them so much."

Thats what a change in law does, it changes peoples behaviour. When robin hood steals from the rich the rich use different routes, security and the thief gets less.

"Just look at the money Apple is retaining outside of the US because they don't want it taxed at current rates."

Trump changed that law didnt he so now the US does tax profits globally. And yes when some thief is waiting to steal your money you try to keep it safe.

"They will leave it outside the US until another "tax holiday" is announced. In effect, blackmailing the US government."

Blackmailing the gov how? The gov are the ones saying 'bring it here so we can take what you earned'. Are you blackmailing thieves by having locks on your door?

Re: the rich being richer than them.

@MrDamage

"Or maybe he would be perfectly happy paying more tax, if he knew it would go to worthy causes"

Your comment is a really good argument for low tax. I agree.

Re: the rich being richer than them.

@AC

"Source?"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj-oPTeo9XwAhUMjhQKHeohDyYQFjALegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fopub%2Fmlr%2F2020%2Farticle%2Fjob-market-remains-tight-in-2019-as-the-unemployment-rate-falls-to-its-lowest-level-since-1969.htm&usg=AOvVaw1EtxF7Ij8FpC6gqsdrIRcP

"You've obviously got the wrong end of the stick. You soak the top x% in each country."

Why? I thought this was about equality? Therefore for all to be equal you soak the rich (including poor/middle class in the rich countries) to make all equal.

Re: Absolute DREAMING

@jmch

"Firstly, the Laffer curve is simply a way to maximise government tax income"

Is this not the aim? Maximise government income to reach the limit of their spending ability (because of the cries always for more tax).

"It has nothing to say about social equality or inequality"

That is true. It is not about dragging people down to the same level and punishing success due to greed. There are of course people who argue for this because they are greedy buggers but thats why I ask when they should be 'taxed' in the name of global equality.

"But the job of governments isn't to increase a country's economy above any and every other priority, hence tax at a non-maximal point of the Laffer curve might be a more desirable outcome."

Maybe. But since the economy is basically the provider of our living standards it is certainly part of our needs and wants we shouldnt be aiming to go above that point, so staying under the curve makes sense.

"So there is no known way to calculate where the peak is, and indeed that would depend on dozens of other societal factors"

Very much agreed.

"Indeed, Trump's tax cuts given to the richest Americans didn't increase government tax take overall, they just increased the deficit."

Interestingly Trump also benefited from the lowest unemployment and a very good economy up to covid. The deficit increase being planned by the Dems too but Obama was also trying to convince people to put up with the 'new normal' of poor economic performance, until it went well then claimed it as his victory.

"Rich people on the other hand, already save or invest a good portion of their income, so a marginal increase in their income will not change their spending habits much."

Big problem there, where does the money go? Invest is to put the money into the economy to be borrowed and spent. To save by say depositing in a bank leads to the bank lending it out.

"In other words, given the same total economic base, there is a higher increase in the economy if the poor have more money"

There is a trick to this. If you give people a lump they pay off their debts or save it. If you slightly increase their take home pay they spend it.

"This in turn means they have more to spend on whatever rich people sell (Henry Ford's wisdom that if his workers earned enough they could buy his cars)."

That isnt wisdom that is stupidity. Paying his workers more to buy his cars is a massive loss making exercise. You cannot make money that way. That is why the public workers paying tax does not actually make a country money, they have to spend on other things. Henry Fords wisdom was to reduce the churn of workers.

"The 'rising tide lifts all boats' metaphor"

If all are getting richer even if some are getting richer faster is all boats rising. And it is the case.

Re: Absolute DREAMING

@Martin

"So, you'll be wanting taxes increased. then?"

Why? Also my understanding of the 70% is that there are no deductions and its the grand total.

"Then, as the guy said, you are the PROBLEM with the UK also."

The UK is pushing against the laffer curve.

"There is something appalling about a government who have asked our health service professionals to slave their guts out during a global pandemic"

Eh? The NHS is the bureaucracy that just so happens to contain hard working health professionals. A number who are retiring due to being taxed for working. We were so short of professionals that those wanting to come back gave up because they needed stupid diversity training to give vaccinations. The army had to step in to get supplies where they were needed because the NHS screwed up. PHE dropped the ball terribly.

But more to the point we have a huge economic hit again with great reductions in private earnings (the thing taxed to pay for the health service) and yet the health workers want a pay rise? I assume they will lobby for a cut at some point?

"We could EASILY afford it."

By increasing our deficit already balooning to support closing the economy?

"We'd have to increase tax on the wealthy (and I include myself in that)"

No need. Just send your cheque to HMRC.

"God knows the average nurse can't."

Nor unemployed, on furlough and other governmentally screwed people.

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@jmch

"Amazon spenmt many years trading at a loss because it was busy driving competitors out of business using investors' cash to absorb the losses"

Not bad for an online bookshop with huge losses. The outcome being that prices have reduced not just from amazon but from its competition. Many people have greatly benefited from this massive improvement to our lives.

"Yes, you're right, the top 1% pay about 25% of taxes. However they also rake in about 50% of the income*

Erm, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes-

The latest government data show that in 2018, the top 1% of income earners—those who earned more than $540,000—earned 21% of all U.S. income while paying 40% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% earned 48% of the income and paid 71% of federal income taxes.

Re: the rich being richer than them.

@MarkTriumphant

"I would be happy to pay more in tax (to a degree). What I would not be happy with is paying more than people in a similar position to myself."

So your not happy to pay more tax. Otherwise you would be willing regardless of others. This noble societal cause. If your happy to go on then. If not thats also your choice, and its your choice.

"I already donate to charities, but taxation should be rigorously formal."

Bezo's also gives to charity as he pleases doesnt he? Various people of various income choose to give money away, but tax is taking your money at the point of a gun. It is taking your money through threat of force. Hence because are not happy to just give that much in tax as you have said at the start of your comment. And the thug taking decides the degree.

Re: the rich being richer than them.

@AC

"Typical selfish attitude from you there. It doesn't work if only a few people do it."

Eh? Its selfish to not want to steal from other people? The protesting group has 200 members all millionaires and I will assume Tim Worstall knows the voluntary amount (in his comment below): "Raises about $4 million a year" so how much are they contributing voluntarily? $20,000 each?

"I suppose the homeless and unemployed should put themselves up by their bootstraps? The American dream is available to all, right?"

Kinda hard where the gov put them out of work but before covid the US had full employment and reducing relative poverty.

"I presume you also support Bezos billions whilst our tax dollars subsidies his staffs wages?"

I didnt say that. But if we are pushing for equality when do we also soak the middle class and poor in the rich countries to reduce global inequality?

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@Tom 7

"And no-one has yet seen the opposite demonstrated."

Except for the examples I have given.

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@AC

Its a shame you didnt post with your handle, thumbs up from me. Thanks for the link I will have a read of the paper.

It does seem odd that they study dropping tax as no real effect but then say-

"Researchers say governments seeking to restore public finances following the COVID-19 crisis should therefore not be concerned about the economic consequences of higher taxes on the rich."

That flies in the face of observed fact with the 2008 crisis and France ramping up tax on the rich. The rich left to the benefit of its neighbours (including the UK). They have a similar problem in India-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56659615

Destinations for millionaires seem to lean toward tax friendly-

https://www.businessinsider.nl/countries-where-millionaires-are-moving-2019-5?international=true&r=US

As is often the case, if these people think they need to pay more they can do. Yet very little is raised from such 'socially minded'

Re: Absolute DREAMING

@Snake

"The American middle class has SHRUNK, by every measure *and* government acknowledgement, since 1970"

By relative measures (hence class) where the rich getting richer changes the measurement of the middle class without actually reducing the income of the middle class. Basically that measurement seems to be showing a roaring success as more people become more affluent. Doesnt seem to be the poverty rate-

https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/

Also the US measures poverty before welfare while other countries measure after welfare. In absolute terms about 1.7%-

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/poverty-rate

"And the "worse" part is poverty has GROWN"

Absolute terms by 0.5%.

"And the "worse" part is poverty has GROWN"

By your link it directly attributes it to the coronavirus pandemic. Otherwise-

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/business/economy/poverty-record-low-prior-to-pandemic.html

The share of Americans living in poverty fell to 10.5 percent in 2019, the Census Bureau reported, down 1.3 percentage points from 2018. That rate is the lowest since estimates were first published in 1959.

"You believe that supply-side economics works???"

I believe in the laffer curve. I believe in what I can see. I am not an economist but I do see the hypocrisy of people demanding equality, as long as it doesnt involve giving up what they have.

"Then you are the PROBLEM with America"

I am in the UK

Re: the rich being richer than them.

@sabroni

"No, they want themselves to be taxed more too."

They can do that voluntarily. They dont need the gov to take it

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@vtcodger

"Here in the US In the forty years since we put that pompous windbag Ronald Reagan and his sociopathic henchmen in charge, the lot of the poor and middle class has changed hardly at all."

Really? Because the poor and middle class are better off than in the 80's. Also the great depression of the 1930's was compared to the great crash of 2008 and there was a significant difference.

"For the most part, they're barely keeping their heads above water"

Is this in relative or absolute poverty terms because there is little poverty after welfare is taken into account.

"And far too many of them are a couple of missed paychecks away from bankruptcy"

Oddly this can (and often is) a personal habit thing. Easy credit being used by people in well paying jobs in great displays of affluence with little to fall back on. In the UK I know people too who are like that. More tax doesnt change that.

"Meanwhile the wealthy have walked away with everything not securely fastened down and as much as feasible of that which was"

Like what?

"As Warren Buffet famously said"

Read page 218 about the congress hearing. Hell read the book its a good one-

https://books.google.nl/books?id=EU5gY-JY-mwC&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=%22the+end+of+prosperity%22+warren+buffett&source=bl&ots=aXjVFL6R39&sig=ACfU3U00oxY-BAJ3XhInU0gqOulbn-mirg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwii2_aGn9PwAhUkMewKHeVJB7QQ6AEwEHoECAoQAw#v=onepage&q=%22the%20end%20of%20prosperity%22%20warren%20buffett&f=false

"I'm not against Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates or Warren Buffett being wealthy"

How generous. They work, damned hard, they create and provide and they get some money for succeeding. But your not against them being rewarded for their hard work and grinding away to make a living.

"But can we perhaps try a bit of restraint and share some economic growth with the bottom 90+ percent of our population?"

Sure. So the developed world is insanely rich. So rich that those middle class and even poor earn vast sums above those in absolute poverty and above. So lets see your wealth redistributed first. Hands off mine, if you feel so strongly about the inequality of rich and poor lets see your hard earnings taken for them. And they will of course want more after you do because you will still have more than they do.

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@Adelio

"as i recall AMAZON spent many years trading at a loss (apparently)"

Investment into the business to serve more people and even employing more people is an expense before there can be profit to tax.

"Most of us would love to pay (as a percentage of their wage) as little as the top 1% of rich people."

I doubt most people could afford to pay as little as the top 1%. Especially as the top 1% pay a large chunk of the tax collected.

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@Howard Sway

"I'm surprised you haven't taken a job in an Amazon warehouse then"

I have a job I enjoy thanks. But is there something wrong with Amazon warehouse workers?

"seeing as you're telling us that doing so enables you to earn and spend so much that the economy simply roars ahead"

It is more helpful to the economy that they are employed and being paid for work instead of being unemployed. Surely you agree?

"Just think of the army of chefs, gardeners, chauffeurs and personal assistants you'd be able to employ!"

You do know an economy isnt just about employing people? People earn money to spend into the economy (which is transactions). But the nearest to your measurement for me is the window cleaner I guess.

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@Sgt_Oddball

"Trickle down economic theory is a fallacy"

I have yet to see that demonstrated. So far with the greatest reduction of global absolute poverty ever in recorded history and increasing living standards it seems to work.

"when those getting the tax breaks don't reside where their wealth is generated"

Lets take Amazon for example. So Bezo's has how much? Now look at the global reach of amazon. What is the benefit of people being able to search, order and have delivered at a good price the products they want? The reduction in price from competition benefiting the locals. What is the value of people getting the equipment and technology they need to improve their lives? At lower costs.

"How often do American billionaires spend serious cash investing in local economies outside of the States?"

Africa benefits from the development of smartphones as a way to securely transfer money without carrying cash hence reducing violent muggings. China has gone from making my cheap tshirts to making my robust mobile phone. Thanks to facebook/skype/etc I can call my friends globally for nothing, not something just for the rich.

"Whilst yes, there will be some very wealthy accountants telling them how to horde their wealth, you can't guarantee that the money everyone makes not giving back in taxes will go to where its needed."

You can guarantee taken in tax it wont go where its needed. Amazingly the USSR tried it. These people provide value and pay tax and employ people and yet the greedy want more.

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@Khaptain

"I wonder how much each off these billionaires pay each year in order to avoid paying taxes?"

Enough to employ people who employ people who employ people while each level also spends money into the economy.

Re: Tax avoidance costs

@David 132

"there's nothing to stop them writing a large check to the IRS"

You got there before me. But of course they want the rich to be taxed more, the rich being richer than them.

Seeking an escape from the UK? Regulations aimed at rocket and satellite launches from 2022 have arrived

Cool

Lets see if it develops into something useful

God bless this mess: Study says UK's Christian beliefs had 'important' role in Brexit

Re: Correlation or causation?

The defence of the EU does seem to be slowing to an emergency stop nowadays. But on the plus side the good news continues!

While the EU seems to be stalling creativity with its bureaucracy and over-regulation the UK remains the regions technology hub-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/05/25/half-start-ups-complain-eu-bureaucracy/

Re: Correlation or causation?

@Mooseman

"The vaccination program has precisely sod all to do with brexit"

You may need to explain that one. Brexit and rejecting remainers insisting we join the EU procurement is why the UK is vaccinated and the EU in total is behind. The whole EU short on vaccine. All of em.

"Covid bailout funds likewise (the Eu has a huge fund allocated anyway)"

Eh? The Covid bailout is being stalled because Finland was about to vote on a one off emergency power only to hear the EU wants to reuse such powers (I repost this link).

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/eu-officials-risk-approval-of-recovery-fund-by-finland/

"Your posts, as always, provide no concrete reasons for brexit being a good thing, relying instead on debatable "facts" (gleaned from the Express and Mail by the look of them)"

Really? I post a link from euractiv and you claim Express and Mail? How often do I source Express or Mail? Seriously go look through my post history and I do like to post source links.

Also you claim no concrete reasons while in this very post denying 2 very public and explicit benefits of leaving. If the facts are debatable then cmon and debate them. Denial is a river in Egypt.

"I'm still waiting for one tangible benefit of brexit. Should I hold my breath?"

If you refuse to accept the very public and demonstrated benefits then you will probably pass out long before comprehending a fact.

Re: Correlation or causation?

@AC

Yeah sure. Or its the EU being as bad as leave explained-

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/eu-officials-risk-approval-of-recovery-fund-by-finland/

Oh damn, the covid bailout emergency measure could become a staple EU scum mechanism. So much for sovereignty if the EU puts debt in your name for its own desires.

Re: Correlation or causation?

Yet again I see the bots are downvoting but the staunch defence of the EU from those of glorious purpose has of course vanished. Remainers continuing to shrink away it seems

Re: Correlation or causation?

@Mooseman

"And look, not one single benefit listed by you, just vague whining about stuff that isnt happening. If it's all so rosy, tell us about it. Show us one tangible benefit. IF you can."

I do notice the burden of proof (and then crying about sources or denial of reality) demanded from remainers, but looking the other way can you honestly say the EU is acting in a way that we should consider desirable? Look at the crying over a chair by the piddly president of the EU or incompetence on display in foreign relations or inability to cope with the world. The EU isnt a trade block but a project aiming for federalisation, yet the bedwetters pull away at the first sign of trouble.

A reasonable case for remain has yet to be made. It seems to consist of fear of the unknown.

Cloudflare stops offering to block LGBTQ webpages

Re: Hmm

@Androgynous Cupboard

"This isn't your home filter, it's a filter used on a school, office or organization, and there are different expectations"

And thats why a customisable filter allows organisations and schools to set preferences in accordance with the values of that organisation.

"And please fuck off with the "inflict" terminology."

You fuck off if you dont like my terminology. But that one organisation cant inflict its filtering on others is a good thing in my opinion (which you may have misread the meaning?).

Hmm

Sounds like a category that makes sense to be on a filter. Its the person paying for the service who gets to choose what they want available, they dont get to inflict that on other adults.

To each their own.

'Biggest data grab' in NHS history stuffs GP records in a central store for 'research' – and the time to opt out is now

Re: @anonymous boring coward

@Dan 55

"You said you didn't like GDPR but didn't say why."

Did I? In this conversation we are having or previously? I ask because I have previously disagreed with it but not in this conversation. What I mentioned in this conversation is GDPR potentially damaging EU trade with the rest of the world.

"This is the basis for your argument that the EU is trying to impose GDPR worldwide. Your claim is not true, and I corrected you."

And you corrected me by agreeing with me and posting a source agreeing with me but then claiming I am wrong. Which is why I am having a difficult time following what the hell you are on about.

"If online companies wish to deal with EU/EEA residents' data or sell into the EU/EEA online, they have to follow the law there"

You mean follow GDPR. Even if they are not in the EU. Hence applying it outside the EU. Feels like we are going in circles here.

"This is a pretty normal thing"

Wrong. As a result of GDPR Facebook moved data so the physical locations were different to come under differing law. Because the EU wishes to apply GDPR law to digital companies not based in the EU but dealing with EU citizens. Hence trying to apply the EU law beyond the EU borders. Hence cutting themselves off from the rest of the world.

"This is a pretty normal thing, just like other companies exporting to the EU/EEA having to follow food/drink/safety/standards laws, and it's pretty difficult to coherently argue otherwise (as you have failed to do)."

And now I see why you are struggling. We are not talking about a food/drink/appliance but instead information. Something which has no physical property and is instead a communication which travels around the world instantly. Which is why digital companies can deliver a service world wide.

The issue of course being that a person in the UK, a person in the US and a person in the EU is hard to distinguish over the internet. Information being handled differently in different countries with different regs, yet the EU is trying to be special. And so is the problem.

"I don't think there are any more loose ends to tie up here, so I'll leave it here."

I suggest you try to understand the issue before commenting. This has been a long conversation for you to still not understand the subject

Re: @anonymous boring coward

@Dan 55

"Yes. Online business outside the EU/EEA that deal with data belonging to people inside the EU/EEA or sell into the EU/EEA have to follow GDPR."

Ok so your first comment was talking about the wrong thing and your following 'argument' was also wrong. So what is the point to your responses?

"Otherwise it would be pretty useless, wouldn't it?"

So we should scrap GDPR and take the law of the US? Or China? This is why laws have jurisdictions and its often difficult to apply laws beyond that without cooperation. Which goes back to the difficulty due to the EU's falling influence and lack of ability.

"It doesn't apply to EU/EEA citizens outside the EU/EEA, which is what you wrongly claimed."

This contradicts your own first paragraph.

I can only suggest you either read and understand what you are posting (and what you are responding to) before posting, or that you wont be able to discuss this with me as you cant consistently follow your own comment nor the facts as you even state them

Re: @anonymous boring coward

@Dan 55

"It applies to EU + EEA countries and their residents. No more, no less."

I suggest you read the link you sent. Hell even the title disagrees with you-

Under certain conditions, the GDPR applies to companies that are not in Europe. In this article, we’ll explain when and how the GDPR applies outside the EU.

"Happy to correct you."

Which of course makes this line both hilarious while also making me feel very sorry for you.

Re: @anonymous boring coward

@Dan 55

"What are you on about? It's the EU's data protection directive transposed into national law for 27 countries + the EEA."

Yes. Which they are trying to apply to the world when they impose it on EU citizen data regardless of the country. Which is why the US keeps renaming whatever agreement doesnt meet GDPR and the EU has to accept it. But the EU is becoming less influential in the world and are not really reliable and so their ability to impose it worldwide is diminishing.

"Also, what is your opinion about California's newest privacy law?"

No idea, I dont live there nor deal with any Californians.

www.euractiv.com/section/data-protection/news/global-data-transfer-uncertainty-undermines-eu-digital-ambitions/

Re: @anonymous boring coward

@Dan 55

"If your privacy is not relevant,"

Aww nice try but you aint my type. Of course if you actually read the comment you will note I said GDPR. Which is the legal buff the EU is trying to push on the world but with its declining influence and incapability bringing the likelihood of the EU being cut off from the world

Re: Hmm

@JohnMurray

"The USA system, which charges you 100 times the cost of meds?"

I think you missed the point of my post and probably should reply to the AC I was responding to. I never said move to the American system but the AC instantly assumed its NHS or the only developed world healthcare system we look down on.

@anonymous boring coward

"Thank god the "unelected officials" of EU can't meddle with this!"

Amen. That scum are already looking to ramping up debt in the member countries names, still struggling with a vaccine failure of their own making and demonstrating how correct leave voters were. The (ir)relevance of GDPR already looking to cause problems with the EU trading with the rest of the world.

Re: Hmm

@AC

"So what do you want? A US style system? It's the Americans that are pushing for this, and its this Brexit government that are complying, not the NHS."

I am in shock. The only 2 healthcare systems in the world are NHS and the American system? The woefully under-performing NHS (which isnt just docs and nurses but a bureaucratic insanity) in the developed world being far from the envy of the world. Yet your only alternative is the American system?

The fragmented NHS which still uses fax machines is not to blame, but the gov is? Bloody good job health isnt nationalised and so controlled by the gov. Oops.

Hmm

"The NHS is preparing for the "biggest data grab" in the history of the service"

The sainted NHS would never do that. All hail the NHS

Preliminary report on Texas Tesla crash finds Autosteer was 'not available' along road where both passengers died

Hmm

"The NTSB showed in tests with an exemplar car that the latter also could not be engaged on that part of the road."

Doesnt stop people blaming Tesla or autopilot already. The facts will just get in the way unless they agree with the conclusion.

NHS Digital booking website had unexpected side effect: It leaked people's jab status

Re: you lost, get over it !

@Dave 15

"And if the awd biddy does get her way your independence will not last for long and you will become an insignificant part of the EU to be told what to do by the Germans"

Thats if the EU would allow a demic like Scotland into their membership. They would be taking on a hell of a deficit for people who will only complain for more free stuff.

The only reason I can see the EU accepting Scotland would be to get another border close to the English. Then it will be like watching ROI trapped in EU stupidity (see vaccine) while just over the border they are can see what they need.