Smel E. Guffs

Truth sets you free.
It doesn't make you popular.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@TwattyMcTwatfa3 @LBC The beatings will continue until moral improves.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@MaryRWilliams4 @BBCWorld Took you only two days to come up with that response? Yes, the specific example is made up. No, the pattern is not.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

This is just another example of the same old demoralisation tactics by the left. Remember The Independent in 2016: “Survey finds Hillary Clinton has ‘more than 99% chance’ of winning election over Donald Trump”.

It's the same sort of people producing these charts. At first glance, it looks bleak indeed, but look at what the graph actually measures: the percentage of votes going to “conservative parties”.

These so-called conservative parties and their career politicians have lost votes en masse because they have failed to uphold conservative values. Instead, for years they have implemented the left's agenda, from mass migration and higher taxes to welfare states so vast that debt-to-GDP ratios are flashing red across the Western world.

That is, they haven't included the likes of Restore Britain, Reform, AfD, etc. in the conservative category here. Unsurprisingly, the figures are then nonsensical. Take the UK, for example. The chart implies that around 10% of 30 year old men in the UK vote for the right. Does anyone believe that? Utter drivel.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@ChurchillPath Piers Morgan has always struck me as a stage four cancer that has metastasised. You demolish him in an argument. He should be done for. But no, he just keeps coming back, spewing more lies. I've never once seen this excuse for a man, this utter wimp, make sense in my lifetime.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@libsoftiktok

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@KingsGambit_ @Telegraph @MummyisT X is very much needed in these troubled times, but the flip side is that few other sources produce such concentrated antisemitism, with the possible exceptions of the UN and Mein Kampf.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@BBCWorld BBC: "Far-right white man and Trump supporter John Smith, of Main Street, Apt 4B, GA 30312, a prominent X user, opens fire in a deadly rampage."

Also BBC: "Seven shot dead by gunman at a church in Jordan."

Wonder what might explain the difference in framing.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@GrumpyBlokeHQ @Kalshi Not if I buy it first. 'tis a rather marvellous photograph.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@CutMyTaxUK It's hard to express the frustration of dealing with these people. You explain why something won't work and they throw a tantrum and implement it anyway. When the chickens come home to roost exactly as predicted, they turn around, blame you, and do it again. They never learn.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@GrumpyBlokeHQ @Kalshi I don't mean to disappoint you, but I'm afraid when they liquidate Getty's assets, your photo will find a happy new home – and it won't be the shredder.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@exec_sum Bad phrasing or worse maths.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@SUNRUN_Aces @doodleparrot @1MrFantasy @Polymarket There's a time to troll and a time not to. It wouldn't be good for America if Trump were to rename an ocean after him. First of all, other countries wouldn't follow the new naming convention so it wouldn't work globally. Secondly, it would undermine America's credibility.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@teaching_scot @BBCNews You can only lose that which you possess.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

Look at what your data actually says. It’s median annual earnings by sex, selected fields of degree, 2022. It includes the likes of economics, computer science and mechanical engineering.

There’s an endless number of different career paths under different fields and degrees, let alone fields of degree, which is the meta category that sits above those. Those fields and degrees have grossly different salary outcomes, including depending on which specific jobs people with the same degree pursue.

A degree in economics can lead you to Jane Street, or a 9 to 5 civil service job with one-hundredth the lifetime earnings potential. A degree in computer science can lead you to Anthropic, or a software engineering role at some mid-sized SaaS startup no one has ever heard of.

Same degrees, two very different careers, responsibilities and salary prospects. You cannot attribute differences in median earnings to sex based on a single coarse variable like field of degree. That’s both unscientific and unacceptable.

Men and women select for different jobs in aggregate. They also have sex based differences in psychological traits, such as agreeableness and neuroticism. We know this from the Big Five / OCEAN research. These are of course aggregates, but they have have real downstream consequences.

Men are also more interested in things, while women are more interested in people, on average. There’s nothing wrong with either, but jobs involving things rather than people tend to have much greater potential to scale and create economic value than those focused on people. That doesn’t make jobs focused on people less valuable. But our economy is structured such that economic value largely determines the salaries different jobs command.

I’d recommend reading about Simpson’s paradox on Wikipedia or elsewhere, particularly the example provided about UC Berkeley admissions. Though this topic is much more compex, it’s a great, simple illustration of why drawing broad conclusions from aggregate data is almost always a bad idea.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@l_ipsum_d @langofmind Now, on the data itself because it’s rather glorious: the census you shared aligns fully with what I said—you’re just too daft to see it.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@l_ipsum_d @langofmind Well, I'll be damned. A real life encounter with the genus trigglypuff, both utterly illiterate and incapable of controlling their own emotions. That, or your grammar’s in such a poor state that you’ve come to associate having one with bots. Sad either way.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@johnp_creates @Polymarket Or they just dropped the 1.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@AlanJLSmith Including in this thread now, because people still don't understand the perverse consequences these policies have.

https://t.co/VYWQI7SfjE

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

Utter drivel. You either don’t understand the cumulative effect of these policies, callously disregard their consequences because your wealth insulates you from them—or rely on benefits and don’t want to see the system changed.

Assuming it’s the first, let me show you the maths. Start with 40% marginal income tax, add 2% NI and an effective 20% from the personal allowance taper (between £100k-125k), then another 9% for an undergraduate tax and a further 6% for a Master’s tax.

You’ve arrived at a 77% marginal income tax rate at a level of gross income, which in places like London, doesn’t even allow you to rent a proper flat—not if you want to have something to put in your mouth, or a distant future where you might own your own place.

Next factor in the loss of free childcare, which you claim affects someone for a maximum of five years of their life, but ia only true if they have only one child. You have to ask yourself: what kind of sane system creates a situation where a £25,000 annual salary increase translates into £5,750 increase in annual take home pay?

Because when you factor in the loss of free childcare, with costs sitting at roughly £3,000 PER MONTH in places like London, that £25,000 increase in gross salary translates into a £30,250 annual reduction in disposable income: (3,000 × 12) − £5,750 = £30,250.

£25,000 bump in gross salary, yet £30,250 WORSE OFF.

This is the opposite of niche, particularly when you consider that in most industries, salaries don’t generally go much beyond the £100,000-125,000 range, meaning for them there is ZERO incentive to receive that increase-but-actually-a-decrease salary “raise”.

For a concrete example of the causal effect: if you’ve ever struggled to get a GP appointment, this is one of the reasons why. In the UK, doctors frequently switch to working four, or even three, days a week rather than move into the £100,000+ gross salary bracket, because? Because people respond to incentives.

[Smel E. Guffs @Smel_E_Guffs]

@AlanJLSmith Yep. I’ve been writing about this for 6 years now. The UK has the most dystopian income tax structure there’s ever been.