Alf Bentley Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 3 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: “Through the unions and peace movements, questions were addressed to Nelson Mandela. It is because he and his team have been involved in the preparation of supporting events. We finally made a concert in Wembley. It was funded by Czechoslovakia.” To which the interviewer asks Mr Sarkocy: Do you mean Live Aid? Sarkocy responded by claiming: “I did that. He maintained good contacts with Mandela’s wife. Women are a good source.” Sounds like the sort of bloke that it would be a laugh to talk to for 15 minutes down the boozer, but you wouldn't want to take what he said as gospel or to lend him a tenner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said: What's this Midge Ure connection, though? Does Corbyn get songwriting royalties for "Forever and Ever" by Slik, "Rich Kids" by the Rich Kids and "Vienna" by Ultravox? When questioned, Corbyn denied all knowledge, commenting "it means nothing to me". 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 2 minutes ago, bovril said: When questioned, Corbyn denied all knowledge, commenting "it means nothing to me". When asked who'd pay more tax under Labour, he replied: "I'm talking about rich kids". Asked to clarify for how long the policy would be applied, he responded: "Forever and ever". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42964656 New Zealand considering banning non-residents from buying residential property. It’s a no-brainier for me. Why aren’t we doing the same thing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 Just now, Rogstanley said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42964656 New Zealand considering banning non-residents from buying residential property. It’s a no-brainier for me. Why aren’t we doing the same thing here? Not sure if that's a rhetorical question, but in case it's not, the answer is simple - the people with the power to ban it have a vested interest in not doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 That's a great example of a bigger economy not being better by default. I'd imagine having an foreign people buy your houses increases the overall amount of wealth in New Zealand, but what's the point if your population is less happy and can't afford to buy somewhere to live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Buce said: Not sure if that's a rhetorical question, but in case it's not, the answer is simple - the people with the power to ban it have a vested interest in not doing so. It’s interesting though isn’t it, that in this era of “taking back control and I don’t care about the cost”, the right wing have no problem with foreigners snapping up British land and housing as long as it increases their wealth. It really shows how far those ideas of taking back control actually go - right up to the point where it might cost them something, and then no more. With such a demonstrable lack of conviction why do they continuously feign surprise and dismay when people question what their real motives are? Edited 18 February 2018 by Rogstanley 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 2 hours ago, Rogstanley said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42964656 New Zealand considering banning non-residents from buying residential property. It’s a no-brainier for me. Why aren’t we doing the same thing here? Blame the foreigners eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Webbo said: Blame the foreigners eh? Not at all. Blaming the government that puts enriching already wealthy foreign residents and property owners ahead of the well being of large sections of its own people. Edited 18 February 2018 by Rogstanley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 On the topic of economics, would it be possible for @Kopfkino or another economics whiz to parse this for me? I think it is one of the best summaries of socioeconomic unfairness put to paper, but I'd like to see what a more learned mind thinks of it. "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 37 minutes ago, leicsmac said: On the topic of economics, would it be possible for @Kopfkino or another economics whiz to parse this for me? I think it is one of the best summaries of socioeconomic unfairness put to paper, but I'd like to see what a more learned mind thinks of it. "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet." Reminds me of a saying that's very prevalent in the Balkans: "I'm not rich enough to buy cheap things". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 Or just “success breeds success”. I think it’s true but I’m not sure it’s unfair as such. Depends how the wealth was attained in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 18 February 2018 Author Share Posted 18 February 2018 9 hours ago, bovril said: When questioned, Corbyn denied all knowledge, commenting "it means nothing to me". Before pausing and recalling... ”Ah... Vienna!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 18 February 2018 Author Share Posted 18 February 2018 4 hours ago, leicsmac said: On the topic of economics, would it be possible for @Kopfkino or another economics whiz to parse this for me? I think it is one of the best summaries of socioeconomic unfairness put to paper, but I'd like to see what a more learned mind thinks of it. "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet." Example of the ‘poor trap’ - in that if you earn below a certain level, you effectively get charged more the same things down to a lack of ability to pay. Classic example is electric - those that have to buy it via the corner shop pay a massive premium for the inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 Also https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/18/orban-claims-hungary-is-last-bastion-against-islamisation-of-europe Yes, I know it's the Graun, but anyway - talking about negating a sometimes bloodthirsty organised religion with, hey, another sometimes bloodthirsty religion sounds awful circular to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 18 February 2018 Share Posted 18 February 2018 5 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Also https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/18/orban-claims-hungary-is-last-bastion-against-islamisation-of-europe Yes, I know it's the Graun, but anyway - talking about negating a sometimes bloodthirsty organised religion with, hey, another sometimes bloodthirsty religion sounds awful circular to me. Such a shame the country of János Kádár came to this. We could do with a man of his statesmanship and ability now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 18 February 2018 Author Share Posted 18 February 2018 **** sake! May’s about to announce aims to change higher education funding tomorrow... which gives me a whole new twist on the long form article I’ve been prepping. Ironically, it sounds like they want to go to an American/Australian style system with variable fees across courses. Yet the reason why most Uni’s charge the full £9,000 (or £9,250 for next year) is that they don’t want to suggest their course is ‘cheap’ when compared to their direct competition. That makes me think the only way yo get truely variable fees would be to lift the cap on fees and allow Uni’s to charge what they want. The problem with this - the government still pays a huge chunk of money to the Uni system. The loans just provide a convenient accounting trick in that it’s not counted the same way as normal expenditure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 19 February 2018 Share Posted 19 February 2018 My daughter is at Uni. The better the job she gets, the better the pay, the more percentage wise she pays back. Sounds fair to me. Encourages hard work and reward. A bit like for the working public the more you earn, the more tax you pay. Nowt wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 19 February 2018 Share Posted 19 February 2018 (edited) I have to say I think Theresa May's actions on tuition fees are absolutely pathetic. She has admitted they are too expensive and that the tory's policies are failing the country, yet she's too piss weak to do anything about it. She says taxes will have to go up if fees are cut. Funny I don't remember taxes being reduced when your government put them up, you utter filthy liar. Then she launched a year long review it took you five minutes to decide to screw people over but a year just to have a think about trying to reverse the damage for future generations. It's all just so pathetic. She is easily the worst prime minister of all time. We've got to get this ****ing joke of a government out. They're laughing at us. Edited 19 February 2018 by Rogstanley 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charl91 Posted 19 February 2018 Share Posted 19 February 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said: My daughter is at Uni. The better the job she gets, the better the pay, the more percentage wise she pays back. Sounds fair to me. Encourages hard work and reward. A bit like for the working public the more you earn, the more tax you pay. Nowt wrong with that. In principal, I agree. I think it's a fair system; I pay for my tutition fees, and it wouldn't bother me.... .....if it wasn't for the fact that it was implemented by people who had their university education for free. Absolutely brilliant; why don't one of the most well-off generations penalise the younger (statistically already much worse off generation) even more? It's no wonder young people are bitter. Do I see people who went to university in previous years (at the benefit of the tax payer, I may add) also offer to contribute to their university education? No, because apparently that would be unfair The more you think about it, the more of an absolute joke it is. Why not take it a step further. I vote that anyone born from 2001 onwards should pay 50% tax on all earnings. Edited 19 February 2018 by Charl91 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 19 February 2018 Share Posted 19 February 2018 The state of this Tory bastard’s life https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/19/full-list-of-westminster-councillor-robert-daviss-514-freebies He might as well just tattoo “for sale” on his forehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 19 February 2018 Share Posted 19 February 2018 29 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: The state of this Tory bastard’s life https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/19/full-list-of-westminster-councillor-robert-daviss-514-freebies He might as well just tattoo “for sale” on his forehead. I hope he gives his secretary a decent wage, that diary must weigh a tonne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 19 February 2018 Share Posted 19 February 2018 3 hours ago, Charl91 said: it wouldn't bother me........if it wasn't for the fact that it was implemented by people who had their university education for free. Do I see people who went to university in previous years (at the benefit of the tax payer, I may add) also offer to contribute to their university education? No, because apparently that would be unfair Seriously.... what that's got to do with anything? Times change, financial situations of countries change. How far do you go back to penalise people? And why should they be penalised anyway? No system will ever be perfect. I think the current one isn't too bad all things considering. (PS I didn't go to Uni.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charl91 Posted 19 February 2018 Share Posted 19 February 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said: Seriously.... what that's got to do with anything? Times change, financial situations of countries change. How far do you go back to penalise people? And why should they be penalised anyway? No system will ever be perfect. I think the current one isn't too bad all things considering. (PS I didn't go to Uni.) Why should they be penalised? Funnily enough, that's what current students think. Why should they be penalised? If you're asking current students to essentially pay a graduate tax, why not ask all people who have graduated to pay a graduate tax on their earnings, as long as they are still earning. Surely that's much more fair than just dumping the burden on the current generation (a generation that is financially much worse off than previous generations as it is). After all, the same argument applies; those people have benefited from going to university and receiving higher wages (in a much more lucrative job market, may I add), why would it be wrong to also apply the same standards to them? Great, you can argue "but previous generations didn't sign up for it". Fine, but two points. Firstly, no one signs up for a tax. That would like me saying "well, when I decided to earn £100,000, I didn't expect the tax bands to be changed". Tough shit, you don't get a choice about taxes. Secondly, the current generation don't really have a choice. Well they do, it's 1) Pay extortionate Tuition fees, or 2) Be locked out of many different professions. It's not really a choice, and it's unfair for previous generations, who didn't have to make that choice, to then lump it on to the younger generations to save themselves a bit of cash. Your right, times change and financial situations of countries change. So maybe say to all those people who have graduated "Sorry, we thought we could afford to pay for your education, but it turns out we can't - you're gonna have to contribute something to it". But screw fairness, the younger generation are an easier political target, especially as many of those affected couldn't actually vote. Again, I don't have a problem with the principle of paying tuition fees. Some people disagree, but personally I think if you benefit from University, then you should pay for it. I don't think those people who haven't been to University should contribute towards the education of those who (though I do understand the arguments about it being beneficial for the economy, etc, etc.) However benefiting from free tuition and then pulling up the ladder behind you as absolutely disgraceful. I absolutely think those people who have been to University for free, and are still earning significant amounts of money from it, should contribute. You try telling me how that would possibly be more unfair than the current system Edited 19 February 2018 by Charl91 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 20 February 2018 Share Posted 20 February 2018 7 hours ago, Strokes said: I hope he gives his secretary a decent wage, that diary must weigh a tonne. He’s a Tory, of course he doesn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts