The results to last week's Fun Online Poll were as follows:
If one govt department pays interest to another govt department, what is this, from the point of view of the govt or the taxpayer?
An expense - 25%
Income - 4%
The two net off to nothing - 71%
The first two answers are of course wildly incorrect, and those who propose either view are doing it for knee-jerk political reasons, the right-wingers because they think that everything is government spending and the left-wingers because they want to add the cash value of that nominal transfer to public spending. Or else they are just stupid.
The same point holds for all transfers between government departments. What matters is the amount of tax going in at one end and the amount of spending going out at the other, so internal transfers from council to Whitehall or HMRC to Treasury etc do not matter too much.
-----------------------------------
And lo to this week's Fun Online Poll, based on this exchange in The Guardian, Is there a gay gene?
To my mind, Paul Burston talks from personal experience and applies logic, his conclusion makes good sense to me. I have no idea what Julie Bindel is waffling on about, she seems to be arguing about which explanation she'd prefer to be true, and then gives rather convoluted reasons for preferring that, rather than presenting any evidence or logic to support her assumptions as to which explanation is actually true. But hey ho, maybe that's just me being a male chauvinist pig. Or maybe being lesbian is more of a personal choice but being a gay man is something you are just destined to be?
Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.
Fun Online Polls: Quantitative Easing & The Gay Gene
Info Post
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Click to see the code!
To insert emoticon you must added at least one space before the code.