<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gideonics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/08/16/gideonics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/08/16/gideonics/</link>
	<description>"crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger" - Alex Wilcock</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:21:45 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: James Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/08/16/gideonics/#comment-82061</link>
		<dc:creator>James Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/08/16/gideonics/#comment-82061</guid>
		<description>Point one:"50-odd million people" live off welfare in the UK?  In this universe?  Come back to Earth and read what he actually said.

Point two: that depends entirely on at what point he sold on.  No-one is proposing to tax non-profits, but there are a lot of profits to be made selling on debt - just don't be the one who ends up owning it if it defaults.

Point three: see my above post.  The proposals announced in Redwood's paper today are ALL about lowering taxes for the rich and relatively well off.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Point one:&#8221;50-odd million people&#8221; live off welfare in the UK?  In this universe?  Come back to Earth and read what he actually said.</p>
<p>Point two: that depends entirely on at what point he sold on.  No-one is proposing to tax non-profits, but there are a lot of profits to be made selling on debt - just don&#8217;t be the one who ends up owning it if it defaults.</p>
<p>Point three: see my above post.  The proposals announced in Redwood&#8217;s paper today are ALL about lowering taxes for the rich and relatively well off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tristan Mills</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/08/16/gideonics/#comment-82033</link>
		<dc:creator>Tristan Mills</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:51:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/08/16/gideonics/#comment-82033</guid>
		<description>Come off it James.
Firstly - it sounds to me more like a criticism of the current welfare state and the dependency culture it has developed not some attack on people who work hard being parasites.
Secondly - &lt;i&gt;speculator who has been profiteering on the selling on of financial products based on unsecured loans to the poorest in society is creating wealth&lt;/i&gt; - where did this come from?  The people who make the loan lose money if you can't pay it back so I doubt they're making much money from it. 
Thirdly - &lt;i&gt;The conclusion is that the rich City stoke broker must pay less tax while the “recipient” (i.e. everyone else) should be prepared to make up the shortfall.&lt;/i&gt; - Where does that come from? Nothing suggests that. They want to reduce the regulatory burden on business - that's great. Especially for small business. Have I missed them announce big tax cuts for the rich and rises for the poor?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Come off it James.<br />
Firstly - it sounds to me more like a criticism of the current welfare state and the dependency culture it has developed not some attack on people who work hard being parasites.<br />
Secondly - <i>speculator who has been profiteering on the selling on of financial products based on unsecured loans to the poorest in society is creating wealth</i> - where did this come from?  The people who make the loan lose money if you can&#8217;t pay it back so I doubt they&#8217;re making much money from it.<br />
Thirdly - <i>The conclusion is that the rich City stoke broker must pay less tax while the “recipient” (i.e. everyone else) should be prepared to make up the shortfall.</i> - Where does that come from? Nothing suggests that. They want to reduce the regulatory burden on business - that&#8217;s great. Especially for small business. Have I missed them announce big tax cuts for the rich and rises for the poor?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
