Angepain posted:

see, this is why twitter is terrible for discourse. by the time you've removed enough details to fit the exact scenario you're annoyed about in a tweet, it's vague enough that people who aren't following your exact point in the current discourse can assume you're talking about something else slightly different, and then make wildly vague subtweets of their own, and then everybody's mad and everyone's blocking each other and people are posting 2 minute kpop videos for some reason

gh0stpinballa posted:

bit of a tangent but i like it when i find a take that is completely correct and perfectly reasonable but you know a lot of tiresome people will try to find a problem with it anyway

https://twitter.com/see_em_play_/status/1200816352023523331?s=19

we have a few people at work who are like this and think they're being really enlightened and it's like:

https://twitter.com/see_em_play_/status/1200816570450300928?s=19

em is correct as always, love to see it

Guavanaut posted:

Who's actually doing that though? Is this a twitter thing?

quote:

And is it a violation of consent to any other degree than any other chat that might make people uncomfortable, like gunchat or carchat or pregnancy chat?

quote:

If the answer is yes, maybe we should be asking what that says about us as a society and our values rather than whether any individual is "repressed"

quote:

but I'd suspect it's a huge part situational too. I'm not about to chat about guns in the same way at a playgroup as I would at a rural pub with stuffed ducks on the wall.

quote:

Also I have a suspicion that a lot (by no means all, but they ride on the coattails) of the objections aren't to a horde of hypothetical sexhavers going around pressing the intimate particulars of their sex lives on strangers and demanding reciprocity, but are on a social level shoring up heteronormativity,

quote:

otherwise we'd have been having the same conversations about a lot of our society's performative heterosexuality being "shoved down our throats" for a long time. The vast majority of public sexchat I've heard has been straight lads boasting and probably making poo poo up, and that predates sex-positivity (and feminism) by a few centuries, but I have a feeling that the tweets weren't pointed at them.

RockyB posted:

Oh god this turned into an effort post.

This all changed pretty recently actually, May tinkering around the edges. What Labour are proposing is equalising the tax paid on dividends and capital gains with the tax paid on income. A necessary change IMO. The important thing is it will affect people reliant on dividend income or selling shares to fund their private pension, but not those with an annuity. Assuming they actually own shares which provide dividends, a lot of the largest companies don't pay them. See: Facebook, Alphabet (google).

https://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/labours-proposals-pensions-and-personal-tax
https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-dividends

For what it's worth, the additional £400 Andrew Neil was proposing on a £14,000 income is about right. £3,500 taxable at an additional rate of 12.5% = £437.5. FTSE 250 average total return dividend yield is sitting about 3% however, meaning that to get that £14k in dividend income you'd need to own dividend providing stocks of roughly £466,666.66 (hail satan). Suffice to say if you have this, outside of an annuity, you're doing a drat sight better than the vast majority of pensioners. It's also more than an average worker would need to live on until they hit 100: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-7154777/Britons-need-pension-pot-447K-hit-65-pension-age-100.html

E: Fudging the truth a little here. Remember that you'd need to add your state pension to your income, which would be £8,760. So this will start affecting people with more than £3,732 in dividend income, i.e a draw-down pension pot of £125k.

You can see dividends as an addendum to your 'earned' income, taxed at a different rate. Currently you pay 0% on the first £2,000, 7.5% up to your higher tax band, then 32.5% beyond that. So let's say you're pulling down an income of:

0k from work and 10k from dividends - potentially 8k taxable in dividends. Paid at 7.5% = £600 tax. HOWEVER this is less than your tax free allowance of £12,500, so you actually pay nothing

12.5k from part time work, 10k from dividends - Tax free allowance is currently £12,500, so you pay no income tax. 2k tax free dividends is subsumed by your £12,500 tax free allowance, meaning you have 10k taxable in dividends. Total of both is below higher tax tax bracket so 7.5%, = £750 tax

50k in dividends - Holy poo poo what kind of private pension do you have. £12.5k tax free, means you're paying 7.5% tax on £37,500 dividend income = £2,812.50 in tax. This is actually impossible you can have a maximum pension pot of only £1.25 million, so at least some of these dividends are coming from outside your pension wrapper.

40k from work, 10k from dividends. You're scraping the 40% income tax bracket, but not breaching it. Paying 20% tax on £27,500 of income plus 7.5% on dividends = £8,312.50. Any additional dividend income you earn beyond this point will be taxed at 32.5%.

The 'losers' here are people who received between £12,500 and £50,000 in dividends per year. Labour is proposing bumping the rates from 7.5/32.5% -> 20/40%. But frankly these people are already pretty well off compared to most of the country.

And the inevitable quoting myself for those rich bastards who work as contractors (i.e. me)

Jaeluni Asjil posted:

Wow thanks! Shall bookmark for detailed examination later. I figured it was something that was to do with bringing dividend income in line with income income. erm. If you know what I mean.

RockyB posted:

Yeah I've tweaked it a little since then, as I realise £14,000 - £12,500 is actually £1,500 not £3,500. Someone please check my maths before you go posting this to facebook.

Barry Foster posted:

I didn't consent to sex chat chat

Apraxin posted:

‘Not only are we utterly blameless for yesterday’s terrorism, it’s actually Labour’s fault’ is a bold argument, but if anyone’s shameless enough to run with it, it’s her:
https://mobile.twitter.com/patel4witham/status/1200815822853328898

quote:

Usman Khan, 20, and Nazam Hussain, 26, also from Stoke-on-Trent, were ordered to serve at least eight years.

quote:

In its judgement, the Court of Appeal said that it was replacing the IPPs with fixed terms and extended licences. The halfway point of the fixed terms - at which point the men are eligible for release on licence - matches the minimum the men would have originally served before they could seek to leave prison.
...
Usman Khan, 22, and Nazam Hussain, 27, were ordered to serve at least eight years of their new 16-year sentences. All three were told they would be subject to extended licences of five years beyond their sentences, a measure which allows the authorities to recall someone to prison.

quote:

Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPPs) were introduced in 2005 and given to violent or sexual offenders who posed a risk to society.

They would not include a fixed term of imprisonment but instead would give an offender a minimum period to serve before they could be released.

A prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence would stay in prison until it was found they were safe to be released, meaning they could remain locked up for decades if they were still thought to be dangerous.

They were abolished in December 2012, but not for existing prisoners.

Khan and two others were originally given indeterminate sentences with a minimum term of eight years behind bars instead of a fixed term.

Khan, along with Nazam Hussain and Mohammed Shahjahan, appealed against their sentences and had the indeterminate sentences dropped by the Court of Appeal in 2013.

Mr Justice Leveson found the original decision had “wrongly characterised” the three men as more dangerous than the other defendants.

gh0stpinballa posted:

Pesky Splinter posted:

quote:

Vince Cable calls Lib Dems' pledge to revoke article 50 'a distraction'

wocobob posted:

Poll question for you guys: why was the yougov poll saying that a 7-point tory lead was hung parliament territory? In 2017 there was only a 2 pt tory lead, and it looked like it just barely ended up as a hung parliament (with some seats being decided on the order of dozens of votes). Has the balance of public opinion shifted across seats? Or is something else up?

wocobob posted:

Poll question for you guys: why was the yougov poll saying that a 7-point tory lead was hung parliament territory? In 2017 there was only a 2 pt tory lead, and it looked like it just barely ended up as a hung parliament (with some seats being decided on the order of dozens of votes). Has the balance of public opinion shifted across seats? Or is something else up?

mfcrocker posted:

And there goes the Lib Dem Brexit policy formally

Would love a post-mortem sometime about how they've quite hosed it this badly

Pilchenstein posted:

Is all this pissing and moaning just you laying the groundwork for a meltdown next time the thread gets horny?

Guavanaut posted:

otherwise we'd have been having the same conversations about a lot of our society's performative heterosexuality being "shoved down our throats" for a long time. The vast majority of public sexchat I've heard has been straight lads boasting and probably making poo poo up, and that predates sex-positivity (and feminism) by a few centuries, but I have a feeling that the tweets weren't pointed at them.

Braggart posted:

What about sex dwarf sex chat chat chat?

These are the first 5 Google image search results for "Sunday Sport sex dwarf". There are many more

Firos posted:

I have...had sex.

jabby posted:

Yes, it's creepy if someone initiates a conversation about sex with you, but you don't get to police other people's conversations because your delicate ears might overhear them say something scandalous.

mfcrocker posted:

And there goes the Lib Dem Brexit policy formally

Would love a post-mortem sometime about how they've quite hosed it this badly

Angepain posted:

what are they even doing with that toothpaste. do i want to know. what do they have planned for us

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Obviously this depends a lot on social groups, but "straight lads boasting" brings teenagers to mind for me, not grown adults. Which as a teen you might think you just have to accept, while as an adult you decide that no, you really don't need that poo poo in your work life.

peanut- posted:

I'm enjoying the Lib Dem collapse but they still need to hold the line in some places, like Raab's constituency.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1200855757362782209

Maugrim posted:

That explains why I saw a petition on Facebook asking Labour to step aside in that constituency. If those numbers are real I wouldn't totally be against it - lib dems are tories but they may be slightly less awful tories than Raab.

crispix posted:

Have I actually mentioned police, at all?

Jeezaloo.

Maugrim posted:

That explains why I saw a petition on Facebook asking Labour to step aside in that constituency. If those numbers are real I wouldn't totally be against it - lib dems are tories but they may be slightly less awful tories than Raab.

Coohoolin posted:

ah, the jordan peterson approach to discussion

Maugrim posted:

That explains why I saw a petition on Facebook asking Labour to step aside in that constituency. If those numbers are real I wouldn't totally be against it - lib dems are tories but they may be slightly less awful tories than Raab.

Paul.Power posted:

Now of course that wouldn't stop the Lib Dems stabbing the country in the back and coalitioning with the Tories, but it would at least make it more embarrassing for them

XMNN posted:

just seen someone rip down some conservative signs, which I assume is some sort of theft or criminal damage but also p lol

Pilchenstein posted:

Is all this pissing and moaning just you laying the groundwork for a meltdown next time the thread gets horny?