We previously discussed the exodus from France of top earners after the imposition of a confiscatory 75% tax rate. Now England is facing the same shift, according to a new report. More than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million during 2009-10. That number fell to just 6,000 this year. This appears to be a combination of people leaving Britain and concerted efforts to avoid income.
We continue to disagree on this blog on tax policy. I opposed the moves in France and England as economically unwise. I also oppose aspects of the Obama plan, though I agree with the need to increase revenue. I believe both Obama and Congress have been incredibly reckless with their budgets and continue to spend wildly without any sense of priority in spending.
Cities like New York also report declines in top earner following heavy tax bills.
George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.
Source: Telegraph
Bron,
Yes, as you point out the intellectual climate of today is rather self-serving.
Kant refuted that twaddle when he refuted the silly ontological argument!
gbk:
no, not really. But given the intellectual climate of today? One never knows. There are people who actually believe the ideas presented in those and other videos of that nature.
There are people who think consciousness is collective.
I have had discussions with people on this blog who think planets can have consciousness.
The ideas presented in that video are not that far from the mainstream of how many people think.
Bron,
“Arent you an atheist?”
Why, yes, Bron; I am.
Apparently, like your brethren, you have difficulty recognizing satire.
gbk:
Arent you an atheist?
Stephen Grossman,
“gbk
Conceptual Researchers Claim Concepts Do Not Require Conception
The comments following this are so bizarre that they could be a primitive attempt at understanding conceptualization or they could be satire.”
Upon reading the material again I would have to agree that it’s a primitive attempt at understanding conceptualization. Thanks for the heads up.
————————————————–
“You assert yourself. Therefore you are.”
That’s the most profound thing I’ve ever read, Stephen!
It sounds vaguely familiar somehow, but I just can’t put my finger on it. Kudos on conceiving complex concepts and putting them forward in so few words.
BTW, I found another article that gives credence to your arguments and I’d like your opinion on it. It’s from the University Of Consciousness And Purpose and it’s entitled, “Does Consciousness Have Purpose?” Following is an excerpt:
——-
. . . this debate has been raging for our entire existence as a species: Did consciousness arise for a purpose, or did our purposeful actions over time bring about consciousness?
“Lower life forms, such as amoebas, bacteria, some plants, and, umm, I don’t even want to talk about viruses, along with many lesser endowed mammals don’t possess the concept of consciousness,” stated Dr. Rube, “the cognitive impact of human consciousness cannot be understated from a superior conceptualized consciousness perspective.”
When asked whether amoebas have conceptualized consciousness and therefore possibly possess purpose, Dr. Rube explained that:
“. . . amoebas definitely have some form of consciousness — as they die when removed from a moist environment and all life forms ‘know’ when they’re dying — but they [amoebas] seem to have no purpose because if they possessed purpose they would adapt to non-moist environments so as to live out their purpose. In other words, they don’t assert themselves, therefore they aren’t.”
——-
The University Of Consciousness And Purpose has posted an excellent video that I think you’d enjoy, Stephen, see below.
@Bron: In addition to trigger words, many of us have understanding. Parrots are typically trained to repeat phrases mechanically, like a biological tape recorder. There is no intelligence or understanding behind that canned rhetoric, the goal for the parrot is to just replicate the sound precisely.
tony c:
considering trigger words, doesnt everyone have them? you hear a word, it sparks a memory and there you go.
Zombie
>How does one “focus” on “similarities”?
With volitional mind, the mind that nihilists hate because it means that man is absolutely responsible for himself. Nihilists put a lot of will into evading focus and feel rage at those who focus. They dont want to be reminded that they choose to evade using man’s basic method of survival. They seek rationalizations of evasion, eg, materialism, altruism, nihilism, etc.
Bron
>Stephen
Tony C is a PhD and business owner….Why do you say he has chosen to evade his mind?
Im identifying his philosophical ideas, not his personal life. Whatever rationality he may have in parts of his life, he rejects it in man’s life as a whole and in his presumed work as psychologist.
@Polly: No cracker.
Zombie,
1, December 18, 2012 at 1:37 pm
@Polly: No cracker.
Youre cracking up.
@Polly: Just more lying. You aren’t getting a cracker.
Zombie,
1, December 18, 2012 at 10:59 am
@Polly: Just more lying. You aren’t getting a cracker.
You assert yourself. Therefore you are. Don’t corrupt your assertions w/evidence. BTW, how’s your self-consciousness these days? A bit…wobbly?
More difficult to evade?
@Stephen: No, you are a liar. You do not actually want to know anything, you just want some trigger words. Polly wants a cracker.
Zombie,
@Stephen:
>you have no original thoughts
Youre a creative fraud. No, wait, your ideas are, by your own statements, mere applications of convention. And refuted 2400 yrs ago by Aristotle. I still want to know what important practical values have been achieved by materialists.
@Stephen: You are not worth talking to, Stephen. You just follow your script, you have no original thoughts, you are just a parrot listening for keywords to trigger your recordings. No logic of your own, no ability to think on your own, just a pointless ability to quote works of fiction written by con woman. Since I have already demonstrated by my earlier responses that all you have is foolish empty-headed rhetoric, it is no longer worth my responding to your questions or insults.
Zombie
@Stephen: No, you are a liar. You do not actually want to know anything, you just want some trigger words. Polly wants a cracker.
I’m glad that we finally agree that materialism has no important scientific discoveries. Have you considered selling shoes?
gbk
>Conceptual Researchers Claim Concepts Do Not Require Conception
The comments following this are so bizarre that they could be a primitive attempt at understanding conceptualization or they could be satire.
Zombie,
*>the more progress we make in the accuracy of our science, as measured by predictive success in our anticipation of real-world outcomes,
What important outcomes have been successfully predicted by materialists?
Zombie
@Fool: No, scientific and logical refutation
Within the context of perceived social approval, ie, a herd animal’s knowledge of the herd.
Tony C.
@Stephen: Is there an objective and rational standard for what we should value more than our own life?
>No, nor is one necessary, nor can one be developed.
Ie, theres no objective and rational standard for sacrifice. After leaving the rationality of holding one’s own life as the moral standard, any sacrifice is irrational. Youre “free” to be irrational in any way that feels good.
@Fool: No, scientific and logical refutation; but I understand how a fool that cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality could confuse the two.
Zombie,
> I have refuted everything you say
Socially approved refutation.
ustagurlinseattle
>you can let people die or suffer in slavery because even the tiniest sliver of your time is more valuable than their entire life.
More valuable to whom? You drop the context of the valuing individual. Value is not something beyond individual men. Value is something one seeks to gain or keep for one’s life. The first concern of rationally selfish people is their own life. The first concern of irrational altruists is sacrificing their life. As for “letting” people suffer, you beg the question of whether or not man has an absolute moral right to his own life. As altruist, you deny this absolute moral right. You view man as a moral slave to man and then denounce the effects while evading the cause, your altruist moral cannibalism. See: Soviet Union, Nazi Germany. Altruism contradicts benevolence. Compare the benevolent art of the much more selfish 19th century with the worlds of horror created by artists in todays altruist culture. Your concern is not benefing people. Capitalism, which has benefited vastly more people than other societies, is denounced by altruists because its not sacrificial.
@Stephen: You will be laughed out of the universities.
No danger of that.
Stephen says: scientists are increasingly returning to [Aristotle’s] philosophy and science.
No they aren’t. As with all approximations, the more progress we make in the accuracy of our science, as measured by predictive success in our anticipation of real-world outcomes, the less credence we give to the wild-ass guessers of bygone ages.
Unlike you, I actually am a professional scientist. Have fun in your echo chamber lying to yourself.