A Bit Of Enrichment For The Mp's To Enjoy

[J Darcy 5,871]

Playing devils advocate here.......

 

Why should someone who has worked hard and done well through graft and earned , figure of speech, a million a year, pay 40% tax when a person who has never pushed themself and is content doing a warehouse job and only earns 10K doesn't have to hardly pay any?

Both get a pension, both get healthcare?

 

Capitalism is surely good for those who strive to work hard, better themselves and try to make their own life better?

[BGD 6,437]

 

We're all in this together, remember ? This will chuck the cat in with the pigeons.....

 

Let's talk capitalist economics and deficit reduction - the current government's favourite topic.

 

Every previous government has run a deficit, for at least part of it's time in office - every single one. Thatcher ran the largest deficit this country has ever known, and no-one considered it an issue, not even the Iron Lady herself ! This profligacy continued into the debacle that was the Major government, and then along came Saint Tony of Blair.

 

Now everyone, pay attention, here's the interesting bit - for 7 years of the last Labour government, the British economy was run at a surplus ! The economic crisis, for which we are all being made to pay, was caused by a global banking collapse. The British economy was plunged suddenly into deficit, because of the vast amounts of money we had to borrow to bail out the banks. Cue economic depression and a change of government.....

 

Cameron spins a lie that the collapse was caused by government overspending and profligacy, Labour fails to counter the lie and lots of voters swallow it.

 

As a result, 300,000 of the poorest families (most of them working) are about to lose around £60 a week, the richest have had the taxes cut and the very fabric of society is under attack in too many ways to go into here.

 

 

 

All through history,

The story's been the same.

It's the rich that get the pleasure -

And the poor that get the blame !

 

If we view the national deficit, we see relative consistency through years of tory power..... then labour get in and a shockwave hits the graph! Unfortunate timing or piss poor planning?

 

 

Or repairing the damage done to infrastructure and society as a whole and making up for tax cuts made by the previous Tory administration?

[Accip74 7,112]

 

We're all in this together, remember ? This will chuck the cat in with the pigeons.....

Let's talk capitalist economics and deficit reduction - the current government's favourite topic.

Every previous government has run a deficit, for at least part of it's time in office - every single one. Thatcher ran the largest deficit this country has ever known, and no-one considered it an issue, not even the Iron Lady herself ! This profligacy continued into the debacle that was the Major government, and then along came Saint Tony of Blair.

Now everyone, pay attention, here's the interesting bit - for 7 years of the last Labour government, the British economy was run at a surplus ! The economic crisis, for which we are all being made to pay, was caused by a global banking collapse. The British economy was plunged suddenly into deficit, because of the vast amounts of money we had to borrow to bail out the banks. Cue economic depression and a change of government.....

Cameron spins a lie that the collapse was caused by government overspending and profligacy, Labour fails to counter the lie and lots of voters swallow it.

As a result, 300,000 of the poorest families (most of them working) are about to lose around £60 a week, the richest have had the taxes cut and the very fabric of society is under attack in too many ways to go into here.

All through history,

The story's been the same.

It's the rich that get the pleasure -

And the poor that get the blame !

 

Can we just clarify this fact. Was it not the first 7 years of the New Labour rule, following nearly 20 years of tory rule, that the country was running at a surplus? Does that not speak for itself? Governments care for their economy through legislation etc as a means of increasing the pot from which to feed off. These effects aren't instantaneous and so when a new government come to power the economy will take a finite time to change and so the new government will ride on their predecessors legacy, for a short while at least.

 

If we view the national deficit, we see relative consistency through years of tory power..... then labour get in and a shockwave hits the graph! Unfortunate timing or piss poor planning?

I would say 50/50..........they've got a fcuking lot to answer for, which coincided with the banking crisis.........be interesting to know see where we would of been without that..........but that's pie in the sky now :-)

[J Darcy 5,871]

 

 

We're all in this together, remember ? This will chuck the cat in with the pigeons.....

 

Let's talk capitalist economics and deficit reduction - the current government's favourite topic.

 

Every previous government has run a deficit, for at least part of it's time in office - every single one. Thatcher ran the largest deficit this country has ever known, and no-one considered it an issue, not even the Iron Lady herself ! This profligacy continued into the debacle that was the Major government, and then along came Saint Tony of Blair.

 

Now everyone, pay attention, here's the interesting bit - for 7 years of the last Labour government, the British economy was run at a surplus ! The economic crisis, for which we are all being made to pay, was caused by a global banking collapse. The British economy was plunged suddenly into deficit, because of the vast amounts of money we had to borrow to bail out the banks. Cue economic depression and a change of government.....

 

Cameron spins a lie that the collapse was caused by government overspending and profligacy, Labour fails to counter the lie and lots of voters swallow it.

 

As a result, 300,000 of the poorest families (most of them working) are about to lose around £60 a week, the richest have had the taxes cut and the very fabric of society is under attack in too many ways to go into here.

 

 

 

All through history,

The story's been the same.

It's the rich that get the pleasure -

And the poor that get the blame !

 

If we view the national deficit, we see relative consistency through years of tory power..... then labour get in and a shockwave hits the graph! Unfortunate timing or piss poor planning?

 

 

Or repairing the damage done to infrastructure and society as a whole and making up for tax cuts made by the previous Tory administration?

 

BGD, the money for 'society' has to come from somewhere. there's tens of thousands of lazy sods who don't want a job. You know why? because they don't need to work. For example, a friend of mine has a few kids, and he's trying to get on the sick. If he makes the criteria he will be getting £320 A WEEK!! Why work if you can let everyone else work for you?

Where do you suggest the cuts should be made in order for money to be available for a 'fairer' society?

Edited July 22, 2015 by J Darcy

[BGD 6,437]

Playing devils advocate here.......

 

Why should someone who has worked hard and done well through graft and earned , figure of speech, a million a year, pay 40% tax when a person who has never pushed themself and is content doing a warehouse job and only earns 10K doesn't have to hardly pay any?

Both get a pension, both get healthcare?

 

Capitalism is surely good for those who strive to work hard, better themselves and try to make their own life better?

 

What about those who work just as hard or harder than the millionaire but due to just bad luck and circumstance are still struggling to feed their family every week? Is Capitalism good for them too? Because there's a hell of a lot more of them than the people that actually manage to improve their lot in life, Capitalism works on the idea that only a lucky few and not all those that deserve it will make it.

[J Darcy 5,871]

 

Playing devils advocate here.......

 

Why should someone who has worked hard and done well through graft and earned , figure of speech, a million a year, pay 40% tax when a person who has never pushed themself and is content doing a warehouse job and only earns 10K doesn't have to hardly pay any?

Both get a pension, both get healthcare?

 

Capitalism is surely good for those who strive to work hard, better themselves and try to make their own life better?

 

What about those who work just as hard or harder than the millionaire but due to just bad luck and circumstance are still struggling to feed their family every week? Is Capitalism good for them too? Because there's a hell of a lot more of them than the people that actually manage to improve their lot in life, Capitalism works on the idea that only a lucky few and not all those that deserve it will make it.

 

It's not just about working hard, it's about being smart.......

 

I do not know anyone who can't feed their family each week, and , in actual fact, most of the people I know who are on benefits, (and there's a few!) have more spare money than me.

 

So should the millionaire be penalised because he has done well for himself?

 

They contribute alot more money to society than you and I.....

[Born Hunter 17,832]

 

 

We're all in this together, remember ? This will chuck the cat in with the pigeons.....

 

Let's talk capitalist economics and deficit reduction - the current government's favourite topic.

 

Every previous government has run a deficit, for at least part of it's time in office - every single one. Thatcher ran the largest deficit this country has ever known, and no-one considered it an issue, not even the Iron Lady herself ! This profligacy continued into the debacle that was the Major government, and then along came Saint Tony of Blair.

 

Now everyone, pay attention, here's the interesting bit - for 7 years of the last Labour government, the British economy was run at a surplus ! The economic crisis, for which we are all being made to pay, was caused by a global banking collapse. The British economy was plunged suddenly into deficit, because of the vast amounts of money we had to borrow to bail out the banks. Cue economic depression and a change of government.....

 

Cameron spins a lie that the collapse was caused by government overspending and profligacy, Labour fails to counter the lie and lots of voters swallow it.

 

As a result, 300,000 of the poorest families (most of them working) are about to lose around £60 a week, the richest have had the taxes cut and the very fabric of society is under attack in too many ways to go into here.

 

 

 

All through history,

The story's been the same.

It's the rich that get the pleasure -

And the poor that get the blame !

 

If we view the national deficit, we see relative consistency through years of tory power..... then labour get in and a shockwave hits the graph! Unfortunate timing or piss poor planning?

 

 

Or repairing the damage done to infrastructure and society as a whole and making up for tax cuts made by the previous Tory administration?

 

 

That's all very well but not if it's at the expense of the economy.

 

Neither of us can pretend to be able to analyse one chart and figure it all out, it's obviously far more complex than that. But keeping things simple I don't like Labour's 'fair' politics one bit. I'd much prefer the supposed 'unfair' politics of the Tory's. But then, I guess that's because I don't see it as unfair, lol.

[desertbred 5,490]

A millionaire or a pauper a loaf of bread or a pint of milk costs the same. This anomaly in earning capacity causes multi levels of society nowadays the haves and have nots. 5 star eatery for some and food banks for others. If a man cannot feed his family even working 6 days a week and has to resort to benefits to top up his income. then why should those born on the right side of the track not pay higher rates of taxation , if they were fortunate to have been educated or had the right connections to exploit the system and in most cases the rest of the society why should less forunate in society not benefit also. The argument against benefit exploiters is justified but so is criticism of the exploiters of society also.

Edited July 22, 2015 by desertbred

[Guest ragumup]

BFG your confusing capitalism with corpotisium the banks would not of been baled out under real capitalism they would of gone bust .

[Born Hunter 17,832]

A millionaire or a pauper a loaf of bred or a pint of milk costs the same. This anomaly in earning capacity causes multi levels of society nowadays the haves and have nots. 5 star resturaunts for some and food banks for others. If a man cannot feed his family even working 6 days a week and has to resort to benefits to top up his income. then why should those born on the right side of the track not pay higher rates of taxation , if they were fortunate to have been educated or had the right connections to exploit the system and in most cases the rest of the society why should less forunate in society not benefit also. The argument against benefit exploiters is justified but so is criticism of the exploiters of society also.

 

Can we define these less fortunate, mate? Poor folks? People raised in family's that needed welfare? Plain dumb people that couldn't make a sensible decision if they had their hand held through the process by a entire NASA Scunkworks group?

 

I think it's important that we have state education. It gives everyone a basic level of education that should enable them to achieve a comfortable level in life irrespective of intelligence or background. The biggest problem I see is people making terrible life choices, then later in life when they are on their arse they blame the capitalist Tory's.

 

There are plenty of social situations that mean children are almost destined for shit. Yet, the framework is there for them to rise out of that if they find the sense to use it. Flogging the rich doesn't ease these problems imo. It only comforts those at the bottom with the thought that the rich are being dragged down to the same level.

[WILF 48,226]

Taxation is the tool of manipulation and control...... It's the ultimate tool.

They have many others but that's the daddy.

 

To speak simply of "haves" and "have nots" is a massively over simplification of the situation we currently find ourselves in.

 

It's way beyond simple capitalist v socialist/communist.

[Truther 1,579]

 

ERR no you aren't discussing anything with me, especially anything i ask lol...........like i said, you're a pro squirmer.....fair play though........it looks like you're being reasonable, hard to do that while being evasive............

Ask me a straight question and I'll do my best to answer it. All I could parse from that word salad above is that you think you've caught me out in some great contradiction but I'm not sure even you know for sure?

 

 

Its simple BGD, i'm failing to see why you deny being a multiculturalist (globalist if you prefer) when you spend so much time defending it? You're making a thin point about the differences between globalist/ internationalist while agreeing with globalist ideas? Strange?

[BGD 6,437]

 

 

ERR no you aren't discussing anything with me, especially anything i ask lol...........like i said, you're a pro squirmer.....fair play though........it looks like you're being reasonable, hard to do that while being evasive............

Ask me a straight question and I'll do my best to answer it. All I could parse from that word salad above is that you think you've caught me out in some great contradiction but I'm not sure even you know for sure?

 

 

Its simple BGD, i'm failing to see why you deny being a multiculturalist (globalist if you prefer) when you spend so much time defending it? You're making a thin point about the differences between globalist/ internationalist while agreeing with globalist ideas? Strange?

 

 

I've said many times on this forum I'm a multiculturalist and my ideal would be a global community (so a globalist too I guess but Communist covers it better). You're a very confused man, aren't you?

[desertbred 5,490]

Talk of state education, do you honestly believe that a state educated person has the same opportunities as a Eaton or Harrow educated person,? Attainment of ones capabilities is ok given a level playing field but unfortunately a system where families have to make a choice if their child can go on to University or higher education or be forced to leave home at 16 because of things like not being able to earn a living wage or paying council tax not based on the size of a home but which banding it happens to have been placed in. Welfare benefits are supposedly a safety net for those who fall on hard times or become ill or old but when exploitation happens some times out of greed or sometimes out of dire need then a Government cuts welfare because of a minority who they claim are involved in fraud, what about all the fraud committed by those who can employ a chartered accountancy firm to exploit loophole and avoid paying taxes on money they have probably exploited from Housing benefit rents or ill gotten gains from banking scams or over inflated expense accounts.I firmly believe those capable should earn a living but that living should be sufficient not to need top ups or pay day loans in order to put food on the table. I have been fortunate firstly by birth right and in getting a education and career but it does not make me oblivious to hardship and the suffering of others.

Edited July 22, 2015 by desertbred

[Truther 1,579]

We're all in this together, remember ? This will chuck the cat in with the pigeons.....

 

Let's talk capitalist economics and deficit reduction - the current government's favourite topic.

 

Every previous government has run a deficit, for at least part of it's time in office - every single one. Thatcher ran the largest deficit this country has ever known, and no-one considered it an issue, not even the Iron Lady herself ! This profligacy continued into the debacle that was the Major government, and then along came Saint Tony of Blair.

 

Now everyone, pay attention, here's the interesting bit - for 7 years of the last Labour government, the British economy was run at a surplus ! The economic crisis, for which we are all being made to pay, was caused by a global banking collapse. The British economy was plunged suddenly into deficit, because of the vast amounts of money we had to borrow to bail out the banks. Cue economic depression and a change of government.....

 

Cameron spins a lie that the collapse was caused by government overspending and profligacy, Labour fails to counter the lie and lots of voters swallow it.

 

As a result, 300,000 of the poorest families (most of them working) are about to lose around £60 a week, the richest have had the taxes cut and the very fabric of society is under attack in too many ways to go into here.

 

 

 

All through history,

The story's been the same.

It's the rich that get the pleasure -

And the poor that get the blame !

 

A consortium of middle eastern business men did step in and offer to bail out the American banks/ insurance companies, but obviously not for the full amount, so the government controlled by the very people that were going to lose money decided to lay it back on the people for a 100% return.....We don't live in a free capitalist society, we live in a world controlled by big business, so powerful they can just change the rules when things don't go their way.........It's like letting garry glitter run a day nursery