Recent content by Dent

There are various scenarios in which someone can be in a household with a total of £1m household assets yet not be a millionaire. If you are claiming that the number of people in households with over £1m equals the number of millionaires then the onus is on you to show that the number of people...

Living in a household with total household assets more than £1m does not make them millionaires. Consider a household consisting of four individuals with an average of just over £250k each in assets. They are all in a household with household assets of over £1m, yet none of them are millionaires.

Do you have a source for your "more than 25% of whom are millionaires" claim? similar claims have been made before, but it always turns out to be a misunderstanding of some statistic that actually refer to the number of people in household with a combined household wealthy of over £1m.

I haven't made an assertion, so I have nothing to prove. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof would be a good place to start.

First of all, it's not a question of finding it "onerous", it's a question of whose responsibility it is. You were the one who made the claim. Doing a quick search, most of the results relate to households, which as I already pointed does not mean that a quarter of pensioners are millionaires...

That says "live in households with wealth above a million pounds", not that they are millionaires. By that misinterpretation, a household consisting of four people with an average wealth of just over £250k each would be misinterpreted as a household of four millionaires, whereas in reality...

The onus is on you to cite your source for the claim you made, not for anyone else to spend time searching for it.

That sounds doubtful, what is your source?

It is not my responsibility to create a budget for the entire country, and that is going far beyond pointing out to those calling for something that what they are calling for would have harmful consequences.

Again, how does this absolve those calling for an increase in fuel duty of their responsibility to think through the harm their proposal would cause to the whole of society?

How does any of this absolve those calling for an increase to fuel duties of the responsibility to think through the consequences of what they are calling for and care about the harm their proposal would cause?

I have not made any such claim.

How does that change the point that adding another reflationary policy in the form of an increase in fuel duty would cause a knock-on effect of a further increase to the price of goods and services? I don't follow the logic that an inflationary policy of increase fuel duty would be somehow less...

Anyone calling for an increase in fuel duty should remember that virtually all goods and services require road transport for some part of their supply chain. Do you really want the prices of all goods and services to be pushed up all over again when inflation has only just settled down from the...

You previously claimed that the £3 cap was " far higher than a typical single fare would be anyway", and analogous to a £1,000 cap on rail fares. If that were true then £3 would not become a flat fare as any fare which would be less than £3 anyway wouldn't be affected by the cap.