Dosser

http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx However if that's her in your avatar...

Now you're being predictable. Which makes it even more boring. Seems to me your comments with regard to the OP were fairly ambiguous; therefore you weren't in 'the sample', you felt discounted and got upset. So to make ammends: you are a very clever person, you use latin and everything. I hope you now feel validated as a person and can get on with the rest of your day. Oh, and I'll even let you have the last word Dosser XX Mods please feel free to move

How good is it for the economy to encourage moral hazard?

ping pong, will get silly soon

Rationality exists on a dimension of motivation and opportunity, e.g. google Fazio MODE

Yes labeling is so much easier than defending an indefensible position.

Of course the 'trickle down' effect works remarkably well, that's why there are no poor people in America

Jail time is hardly a difficult concept.

OK so what size sample would you accept as statistically robust? - I prefer about a hundred for a sample but it depends on the size of the total population. Perhaps we should also consider the use of t tests and anovas to differentiate between means before we offer up our opinions here on HPC?

OK bogbrush you've got one supporter. If I can within the law pay someone £10,000 to save me £50,000, I will. The transaction has a net benefit (£40k) discounting externalities and other crap we can dream up trying to sound clever. If you half my tax liability (say from 50% to 25%) it is still worthwhile paying £10,000 to save me £25,000, there is a net benefit (15k) Unless you are relying on the altruism of higher earners to say 'society needs my 15K more than I do', it won't work. The only way you will (not changing the law and closing loopholes) get people to pay their tax, using your approach, is to lower tax for the rich to the same amount as they would be paying as if they were still exploiting the loopholes. Rationally that is the only way that it would work, so I doubt very much 25% would work, it would need to be lower. So the 25-30% argument falls apart. So at 25% - 30% you have a plan a) that is irrational would be publicly unpopular The whole idea seems to be rather naive and self-serving. Anyway it's moot, taxes are going up across the board.

Plainly, you thought you were being clever, no one here agreed with you, so you've resorted to 'I'm so smart; you're so dumb'. I hope you don't apply the same problem solving approach at home and work.

People are not rational. Change the rules, send people to jail and make very public examples of offenders. People might or mght rationlise 25% versus 50% against fees etc... But enough people start thinking there's enough of a probability and sharing a cell with junkie chavs or Big Bobo, then you'll see a change. Until then we're just playing games. Oh we can throw the rent and rate non-payers in with the non-tax-payers, rich and poor alike. You don't have to send them all to jail, you just have to market it properly.

NIck: OK I'll let labour back in, but only if you go on telly and quit Gordon: You upstart pr1ck! I'll... Nick: Anymore of that and it'll be the tories Gordon: OK, OK, but you're still a pr1ck Nick: Go on call the media Gordon: (Picks up phone) Murdoch, send the camera's ------------------------------------------------------------------- (Later that evening back at the office) Nick: Hey check out Gordon on the TV, what a knob, bought it hook line and sinker, as if I'd ever get into bed with those feckers, get Cameron back on the phone Vince: You really hate Brown's guts don't you? Nick: How'd you guess?

Child poverty cannot be ended by throwing money at it - the money will not filter through. Any muppet can get a job, work 16 hrs or more a week and get tax credits for their family. Add in socially subsidised housing and I don't believe that child poverty is a problem as much as negliegent parents: that's a different problem altogether. I'm a big supporter of the welfare state, but only so far as it is affordable - in it's present guise it's not.

Given my assumption that to vote labour you need to be (a) ignorant, doing quite nicely out of the welfare system, or c) doing quite nicely out of the public sector. I can go with the shooting proposal, except for value adding public sector workers. Edited because use of a) and c) with double parenthesis resulted in a whole load of externalities - smilies