LiviCelt

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@bobmarleystoe82 @aboutceltic So do I to be fair

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

Loving Boyd's meltdown 😂

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@jamesrbuk Ticketmaster's explanation is akin to Jack The Ripper saying he only murders so that there are less potential victims for other murderers

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@aubrey_writes @johnhunter38655 @pete_carvill No one is ever going to keep the prices "fair".

They'll always be sold at the maximum price that people will pay for them, so the only question is who gets the money - the touts or the artists?

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@aubrey_writes @johnhunter38655 @pete_carvill The artists are in cahoots with Ticketmaster.

Previously, artists would sell tickets for say £100, then touts would still them for £300.

Both the artists and Ticketmaster then realised if they sell for £300 initially they could price the touts out and keep the extra themselves

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@corm1987 @gavreilly The legislation was designed to stop punters buying tickets then flipping for profit, not to stop Ticketmaster ripping punters off.

Dynamic Pricing will soon be the norm on everything.

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@vincentadam1969 @Red_Blue_Label @ContractorCalc One issue I see now is that the goal of the CX has changed from raising the *maximum* amount of tax possible to raising a *fair* amount

Everyone disagrees on what *fair* means, but now that politics has overtaken economics in No11, the total take is lower than it might have been

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@vincentadam1969 @Red_Blue_Label @ContractorCalc There's no single, national point.

Taxpayers should be grouped and the 'laffer point' set in consideration to that group.

Take my 73% example above. I'd rather take 10 days holiday than pay 73% tax. HMRC lose more from those 10 days than the average taxpayer pays in a year.

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@vincentadam1969 @Red_Blue_Label @ContractorCalc That's the point.

Why bother trying to earn that extra pound if you don't even see half of it?

Some folk, myself included, would rather take the time back instead.

That then means the total tax raised is lower than it otherwise would have been.

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@stephenlondoner @paullewismoney Let the only two possible rates be 1% and 100%.

Which one raises the most tax?

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@rouleur66 @ContractorCalc Income tax will rise.

Not the *rate* but the bandings / thresholds will be adjusted instead.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the lower NIC band extended as well, so that the 8% rate applies to a greater share.

They need to do something and the next GE is years away so no risk

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@Red_Blue_Label @ContractorCalc It's the 73% band* that gets me.

I refuse to pay that much just on principle so, once Labour reduce the AA, I'll have to reduce my days (and hence my tax bill) again.

* I'm inside IR35 and in Scotland, so at the £100k to £125k band, it's 1-(1/1.143)*(1-.695) = 73% total taxes.

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@Scorch_It_After @Ryguy_88 @TomHoefWrites @Tebix2 @reemk_ai @anumness @andrewhoyer What you're describing is *doing* nothing, which isn't equivalent to *dividing* by nothing.

If 1 / 0 = 1, then the reverse operation (1 x 0) must also equal 1.

You cannot take something and divide it into zero equal parts.

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@joemandy81 @loyaljag @ScotlandSky I don't care enough to be raging tbh.

It's just a talking point in an otherwise forgettable fixture, nothing more than that.

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@joemandy81 @loyaljag @ScotlandSky The goal did look ok to me so it seems like the right outcome was achieved

It just seems they're making up the VAR rules as they go along as half the time it's "VAR can't overrule free kicks" and the other half is "VAR can overrule a free kick if they think the ref is wrong" 🤷‍♂️

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@joemandy81 @loyaljag @ScotlandSky It's almost like we're saying the ref is using VAR as insurance i.e. the ref thought it was a foul, but played on anyway to allow VAR to decide if the incident which the referee clearly saw and had assessed as a foul was "a clear and obvious error".

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@joemandy81 @loyaljag @ScotlandSky I thought the ref did blow/signal before the goal but I could be wrong there tbf.

I also thought the "play on" rule was only for potential offsides, not free kicks (unless advantage given, ofc).

Regardless, what was the "clear and obvious error" that is necessary for VAR?

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@joemandy81 @loyaljag @ScotlandSky I don't know it already (I can't keep up tbh) but thanks for the explanation.

Are you saying, though, that the ref thought the attacker committed a foul, but gave him advantage so that VAR could double check?

And are you also saying there was no refereeing error?

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@joemandy81 @loyaljag @ScotlandSky So are we now saying that for all potential free kicks, the ref shouldn't blow until after play stops naturally, and then VAR can check if it is indeed a free kick?

If so, how long do we allow play to go on for?

If not, why was it correct to do so yesterday?

[LiviCelt @LiviCelt]

@seantburt7 @DMcGCfc1888 I'm not even sure what's happened 😂

Has VAR just overruled a free kick?