Comments for Unspeak

Comment on Unwatch by Henry Wilton

Henry Wilton — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:46:34 +0000

Your piece about Pinker is apposite as ever, but you've got the negation of his definition of scientism wrong: it's that we can never understand anything about the world, or that acquiring knowledge is easy. Look up De Morgan's laws.

Comment on Charities tax by Sohail

Sohail — Tue, 22 May 2012 05:28:00 +0000

Steven,

I wholly agree: Philanthropists who avoid tax for that saintly glow are effectively tax cheats. But If I can just press you a little more on this, what precisely does it mean to say ‘it undermines the justice of the tax system as a whole’? What does “justice” entail here? Because as you know the standard counter-argument to that position is to to say that what they’re doing is perfectly legal, and thereby just.

Comment on Is by Jim Birch

Jim Birch — Tue, 15 May 2012 06:18:43 +0000

While third person seeming – “It seemed to John that…” – is possible and correct, the normal first person use of seems implies “it seemed to me” even without the explicit “to me.” This is because “seems” refers to an impression of how the world is rather than the statement of actuality of “is”. If a fearful quandary actually seemed to me a good and wise place for a flowerbed I’m not necessarily in dispute with you; things seem different to different people and even to the same people at different times.

So we might say that “seems” addresses the gentle reader with a little deference while “is” lays down the law on flower bed placement. And in the case of a flower bed being hypothetically placed in as unlikely a container as a quandary, a potential for multiplicity of opinion on what is literally impossible adds a little touch to the humour of the imagery.

Comment on Charities tax by Steven

Steven — Mon, 14 May 2012 12:51:47 +0000

If I decide to give 75% of my income to charity, would you still charge me 40% tax on my whole income?

Yes.

If I decide not to accept income and instead give it away then it is not income!

Er, yes it is. You can’t give it away unless you first have it.

It seems to offend the people on this blog that philanthopists get more control over where their money goes, rather than leaving it to the gubbment.

I don’t see anyone complaining that it is “offensive”, but it does, as I wrote above, undermine the justice of the tax system as a whole. And they’re not “philanthropists” if they’re doing it to avoid tax.

Comment on Charities tax by Chris Lloyd

Chris Lloyd — Sun, 13 May 2012 01:25:32 +0000

“Actually paying tax so that all members of your society might benefit is not philanthropic” because it is compulsory. Philanthropic donations are additional and voluntary, which is why you get to decide where it goes.

If I decide to give 75% of my income to charity, would you still charge me 40% tax on my whole income? If I decide not to accept income and instead give it away then it is not income!

It seems to offend the people on this blog that philanthopists get more control over where their money goes, rather than leaving it to the gubbment. This only becomes a serious problem if most of the tax-paying public decided to give most of their money away – not very likely. And even then, the problem is circumscribing charitable status more carefully, not the tax break.

Comment on Charities tax by sw

sw — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:04:04 +0000

Not particularly easy on the eye or subtle, or entirely relevant to your post, but the message is clear enough and worth making: http://www.slowpokecomics.com/.....dgive.html

Comment on Charities tax by Kit

Kit — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:24:18 +0000

Lovely to meet you at Verso on Monday. Great to find this – I had the exact same debate with my boyfriend last week. I give to a couple of charities (besides spending money on various arts organisations with charitable status) but I’ve never agreed to Gift Aid for any of them. As much as I believe they’re doing good – hence the donations after all – I don’t feel the power to take legitimate tax revenue away from the state is one I ought to have. And I too have taken umbrage at the ridiculous idea that swathes of people might be disastrously discouraged from giving money because 20% will be taken by the state.

A couple of days after this discussion, I opened my mail to find Glyndebourne of all places asking me to GiftAid my membership fees…

Kit

PS – Just bought Unspeak for myself and the Trigger Happy book to give to my videogame-loving housemate. (He plays videogames with a projector. Scarily lifesize.)

Comment on Is by Sean Anderson

Sean Anderson — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:33:34 +0000

“is”

Because this joke, like many jokes, is based on an absurd “wait, what?!” reaction going on in the reader’s head. “Is” gives you a more protracted period of waaaaaaaitaminute so the amusement bonus is greater. Theoretically.

Also, you’re making a metaphysical joke about flowerbed locations, I don’t think the grammar is the flashpoint for making you look pompous.