The Good News Keeps On Coming

[IC1967]

Still not read what I've written. You're only making yourself look ignorant.

I've read everything you've posted and replied to everything in detail and debunked most of what you've said. If there are still any of your comments that you require me to answer then please feel free to post them. I guarantee a response.

Could you do me a favour. You said that I thought you earned the same as you collected in tax. I can't for the life of me work out why you said that. Please clarify.

[IC1967]

When you've stopped laughing, you can point to the posts.

Stop trying to make me laugh. There is no need to point to the posts. I'd be here all day. All anyone has to do is read anything you say about politics and it's obvious you are from the hard left. I'm surprised you don't seem to agree with that comment. I thought you'd be proud that you are viewed this way.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Still not read what I've written. You're only making yourself look ignorant.

I've read everything you've posted

Then why do you think I still work for HMRC Brainiac? And you've debunked **** all.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No we wouldn't IC1967. You've only been posting for a few months. You've only posted 180-odd posts and I suspect that fewer than 15% of those have been aimed at me. So you might have 20 or so posts to deal with. And only a small proportion of those would be conclusive argument clinchers.

So there are really not so many posts to trawl through are there IC1967?

What's keeping you?

[IC1967]

No we wouldn't IC1967. You've only been posting for a few months. You've only posted 180-odd posts and I suspect that fewer than 15% of those have been aimed at me. So you might have 20 or so posts to deal with. And only a small proportion of those would be conclusive argument clinchers.

So there are really not so many posts to trawl through are there IC1967?

What's keeping you?

Stop it. Stop it. My sides are hurting!

[IC1967]

Then why do you think I still work for HMRC Brainiac? And you've debunked **** all.

Sorry you've got me bang to rights on that one. I apologise for skim reading your posts and not realising you no longer work there. Why you feel it is a big issue is surprising though. It doesn't really change any of the arguments I've put forward whether you're still there or not. If anything it devalues what you say because my source still works there and has done for the last 30 years.

I disagree with you on the debunking claim though. I've got you bang to rights on that one.

[IC1967]

Could you do me a favour. You said that I thought you earned the same as you collected in tax. I can't for the life of me work out why you said that. Please clarify.

I'm still waiting.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Then why do you think I still work for HMRC Brainiac? And you've debunked **** all.

Sorry you've got me bang to rights on that one. I apologise for skim reading your posts and not realising you no longer work there. Why you feel it is a big issue is surprising though. It doesn't really change any of the arguments I've put forward whether you're still there or not. If anything it devalues what you say because my source still works there and has done for the last 30 years.

I disagree with you on the debunking claim though. I've got you bang to rights on that one.

You havden't deunked anything, you either ignore or change the subject. You certainly haven't adressed the most important point I've made - that every officer brings in at least ten times the cost of their salary so to slash the workforce of the Officers makes no sense whatsoever when you're wanting to reduce the deficit by increasing revenues. That policy is definitely the Plan A you say is so wonderful, as they announced the cuts immediately after being elected.

I'd be very interested in knowing in what part of HMRC your 'source' works and what grade he is.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So IC. When your sides have stopped hurting, you can dig out the two or three posts where you have proved me to be a wild lefty. I've looked and I can see no more than that at the most generous interpretation of the word "proved".

Or do you reckon there are more examples IC?

[IC1967]

You havden't deunked anything, you either ignore or change the subject. You certainly haven't adressed the most important point I've made - that every officer brings in at least ten times the cost of their salary so to slash the workforce of the Officers makes no sense whatsoever when you're wanting to reduce the deficit by increasing revenues. That policy is definitely the Plan A you say is so wonderful, as they announced the cuts immediately after being elected.

I'd be very interested in knowing in what part of HMRC your 'source' works and what grade he is.

You must read my posts more closely. Here's what I said previously, 'At last, something we can agree on. More tax officers would in my opinion be a good investment.' How you can claim that I haven't addressed your main point is baffling. If there are any more minor points you feel I haven't addressed then please feel free to list them. I guarantee a response. I only wish you'd do me the same courtesy.

He's a senior officer now but has worked in a variety of roles.  he's just been promoted so I'm not sure what department he currently works in. He does have experience of chasing 'high flyers' and reclaiming large amounts of tax. Trust me he knows what he is on about just like me.

[IC1967]

So IC. When your sides have stopped hurting, you can dig out the two or three posts where you have proved me to be a wild lefty. I've looked and I can see no more than that at the most generous interpretation of the word "proved".

Or do you reckon there are more examples IC?

I'm sorry I can't read all your post as my eyes are streaming as well as my sides hurting. Once I've stopped laughing I'll give it another go.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Plus le nom change...

[IC1967]

More good news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24770896

[Glyn_Wigley]

You havden't deunked anything, you either ignore or change the subject. You certainly haven't adressed the most important point I've made - that every officer brings in at least ten times the cost of their salary so to slash the workforce of the Officers makes no sense whatsoever when you're wanting to reduce the deficit by increasing revenues. That policy is definitely the Plan A you say is so wonderful, as they announced the cuts immediately after being elected.

I'd be very interested in knowing in what part of HMRC your 'source' works and what grade he is.

You must read my posts more closely. Here's what I said previously, 'At last, something we can agree on. More tax officers would in my opinion be a good investment.' How you can claim that I haven't addressed your main point is baffling. If there are any more minor points you feel I haven't addressed then please feel free to list them. I guarantee a response. I only wish you'd do me the same courtesy.

He's a senior officer now but has worked in a variety of roles.  he's just been promoted so I'm not sure what department he currently works in. He does have experience of chasing 'high flyers' and reclaiming large amounts of tax. Trust me he knows what he is on about just like me.

In other words, you don't know what he does or where he's based. How convenient. Is he in the Doncaster Office?

[IC1967]

In other words, you don't know what he does or where he's based. How convenient. Is he in the Doncaster Office?

Does it matter what his current role is? I do know which office he works in. Does it matter if I tell you? I get the feeling you think I'm making it up.

What have I said about HMRC that you can take issue with? I'll tell you, nothing. I even agreed with your main point (even though you said I hadn't). I then listed some of the perks of the job which you haven't disputed. I think you are just being pedantic for the sake of it and you still haven't answered my question.

I'll not bother asking you again as I don't want to come across as pedantic like you. Any further points you need clarification on just ask. I guarantee a response (unlike some I could mention).

[Glyn_Wigley]

Does it matter what his current role is? I do know which office he works in. Does it matter if I tell you?

..I guarantee a response (unlike some I could mention).

Yes it does matter, I want to know how credible your 'source' is.

[IC1967]

Back on topic. 'UK to be fastest-growing Western economy, says ICAEW report.' Red Ed and 'Balls Up' Balls must be really pissed off that things are getting better. I'd employ Mystic Meg if I were them before they make any more predictions about the economy. More proof that spend, spend, spend is not the way forward. I look forward to the day when we don't borrow money any-more. For this to happen we must never vote Labour into power ever again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24799507

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm surprised at that. You got a link to the request and response?

There actually already has been a FOI request.  The resonse given was that the information is not considered relevant to be published under a FOI request.

BFYP

Not sure if you missed this. I'm genuinely interested in the FoI working, and it seems very strange to me that a request like this would be turned down. Do you have any more information on it?

[IC1967]

Even more good news. Well done Dave and George. Everything is now moving in the right direction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24910587

[IC1967]

Day after day we get vindication of Plan A.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24926512

[Filo]

I wonder why they are trying to hide speeches that they made while they were in opposition

http://www.lbc.co.uk/tories-try-to-remove-speeches-from-internet-81268


Not hiding the promises they couldn't keep per chance?

[Sprotyrover]

Let's face facts the way the last lot performed when they were in office, would even make a Retarded Chimpanzee look good as chancellor!

[IC1967]

Let's face facts the way the last lot performed when they were in office, would even make a Retarded Chimpanzee look good as chancellor!

You're right. Labour were that bad. I just hope people won't ever be stupid enough to give them yet another chance to ruin the country,
something they always mange to do when given power.

[BillyStubbsTears]

We're doing great aren't we?

Figure 1

http://niesr.ac.uk/about-monthly-gdp-estimates

Our GDP is something like £100bn lower than it would have been if we'd continued growing at the rate we were doing in late 09/early 10.

Celebrating a little bit of very normal growth after 3 years of historically unprecedented flatlining is like puerile. It's like a bloke sunbathing in a beer garden for the first half of a 10k race, then getting applause because, once he starts running, he's running faster than anyone else in the race.

[IC1967]

Our GDP is something like £100bn lower than it would have been if we'd continued growing at the rate we were doing in late 09/early 10.

Celebrating a little bit of very normal growth after 3 years of historically unprecedented flatlining is like puerile. It's like a bloke sunbathing in a beer garden for the first half of a 10k race, then getting applause because, once he starts running, he's running faster than anyone else in the race.

That's a massive if. We'll never know. Labour left such a humungous mess that I very much doubt things would have transpired as you say. Seems like you've been using that crystal ball of Ed Balls where he predicted another million unemployed if we didn't switch to Plan B. Unfortunately for him unemployment is now falling at it's fastest rate since the 1990's.

[ravenrover]

Might this fall be anything to do with the attempts to reduce the numbers of people eligible to claim unemployment benefit rather than an actual increase in the number previously classed as unemployed that may now be in some kind of work, casual/temporary included and thus claiming some other form of benefit? It's amazing the way that figures can be massaged to support any statement!

[IC1967]

Is there no end to the good news? Thank goodness we got Plan A and not Plan B.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25030293

[BillyStubbsTears]

"The government's target is to keep public sector net borrowing for 2013-14 at £120bn or below, representing about 7.5% of GDP."

In June 2010, the OBR predicted that Govt borrowing for 2013/14 would be £65bn.

If that is Plan A working Mick, I'd love to see your definition of winning on the Popoes. A faller at the first fence is nearly a winner eh?

[drfc1951]

Might this fall be anything to do with the attempts to reduce the numbers of people eligible to claim unemployment benefit rather than an actual increase in the number previously classed as unemployed that may now be in some kind of work, casual/temporary included and thus claiming some other form of benefit? It's amazing the way that figures can be massaged to support any statement!

This is actually true,Iwas made redundant last year aged 61.Iwent to jobcentre and was told not to claim unemployment benefit,but to claim pension credit as i was eligible for that.

[IC1967]

"The government's target is to keep public sector net borrowing for 2013-14 at £120bn or below, representing about 7.5% of GDP."

In June 2010, the OBR predicted that Govt borrowing for 2013/14 would be £65bn.

If that is Plan A working Mick, I'd love to see your definition of winning on the Popoes. A faller at the first fence is nearly a winner eh?

Look the OBR got it badly wrong. No surprise there. Ed Balls also keeps getting it badly wrong. Earlier this year he said we urgently needed Plan B or there would be another million on the dole. He doesn't mention Plan B any more does he? What a clown.

The reason borrowing is much higher than anticipated is because the mess left by Labour is much worse than anyone anticipated (except me). You can't go around blaming the Tories for our borrowing problems. It is Labour that deserve the blame. They screwed the economy up big time. The Tories are just trying to clear up the mess (like they always have to do when coming into power after a Labour government).

It beggars belief that voters haven't yet worked out that Labour only believe in spend, spend, spend and always without fail knacker up the economy. It's time the penny dropped that they should never be allowed to wreak havoc on our economy ever again.