Comments on: Really? http://timworstall.com/2008/08/29/really-13/ It is all obvious or trivial except... Thu, 24 May 2012 23:39:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: James http://timworstall.com/2008/08/29/really-13/comment-page-1/#comment-21173 James Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:27:13 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=3825#comment-21173 <i>“modest” is of course in the eye of the beholder</i> So since you support CBI as a redistributive measure and presumably believe that this is fairly modest and reduces poverty more than would otherwise be the case I'm not sure what you disagree with other than the definition of "modest". “modest” is of course in the eye of the beholder
So since you support CBI as a redistributive measure and presumably believe that this is fairly modest and reduces poverty more than would otherwise be the case I’m not sure what you disagree with other than the definition of “modest”.

]]> By: James http://timworstall.com/2008/08/29/really-13/comment-page-1/#comment-21170 James Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:17:29 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=3825#comment-21170 Are you deliberately ignoring the word "modest" in the quoted text? Tim adds: "modest" is of course in the eye of the beholder. Tony Benn/Dennis Healy thought that 98% tax rates were "modest". Are you deliberately ignoring the word “modest” in the quoted text?

Tim adds: “modest” is of course in the eye of the beholder. Tony Benn/Dennis Healy thought that 98% tax rates were “modest”.

]]> By: em butler http://timworstall.com/2008/08/29/really-13/comment-page-1/#comment-21161 em butler Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:16:55 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=3825#comment-21161 what is the gini index of NK?? what is the gini index of NK??

]]> By: Kay Tie http://timworstall.com/2008/08/29/really-13/comment-page-1/#comment-21139 Kay Tie Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:17:44 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=3825#comment-21139 Yes, they do reduce poverty. Because socialists define poverty relatively. You're not very good at socialist doublethink, are you Tim? Yes, they do reduce poverty. Because socialists define poverty relatively.

You’re not very good at socialist doublethink, are you Tim?

]]>