TrickyTrev Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Isn't Luton between Clapham and Oxford? Haha. Nice try but your geography is a little off and I said divide my time between not divide my time somehwere/place between..subtle but important difference.
Head Honcho Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 I'm getting so sick and tired of reading selfish, ill considered quotes like this. Gamesmaster - you live in a society where you benefit from being part of a community. I am sorry to say that the world does not revolve around you - you have social responsibilities. A trade off for being in a community is that you contribute toward the welfare of those less fortunate than yourself. If society benefits, we all benefit. You may not use your local swimming pool, environmental health officer or library...that doesn't mean they should be closed unless sufficient people wish to pay for a privatised service. By educating everyone, keeping them healthy and getting them into work ~ the economy benefits. Growth in the economy gives you more money and a higher disposable income. It is in your personal interest to be socially responsible. Spot on I purposely don't hurry taking my books back to the library and don't mind paying the fines as I believe in the system, this might sound bizarre but it's the truth as long as the money goes toward paying for more books I don't mind.
Head Honcho Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Haha. Nice try but your geography is a little off and I said divide my time between not divide my time somehwere/place between..subtle but important difference. We'll let you then
Gamesmaster Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Research into the flat tax suggest it would have to be set at 26% for the country to be functional. only if we carry on spending tax in the same way. if we spend it more wisely, then it can be brought down. So if a working person needs an expensive operation or a drugs programme they should only recieve that if they can afford it. Weekly payments, that justify sustainable levels of income needed to live on. I personally beleive that life is the first fundamental human right and to deny it on an ability to pay basis is uttelry dispicable. Thankfully the majority of the Western World agrees with me and the vast majority of developed countried have a national health system. they dont know how to vote in a better system. The statement that the rich work the hardest is at best disputable. Show me someone who works harder for less more? I am far from a socialist. Sensible centre left economics with extreme liberal stance on social issues. you are intolerantly fascist of those who earn more, having to subsidise poorer people. Imagine you have the forsight to start a business from next to nothing. you work your wotsits of for say 3 years, going without in many of lifes pleasures. because you do so, and because you work hard, you get rewarded when your hard work bares fruition. does that mean, that because you worked damn hard, and still do, you should subsidise someone who doesnt? what messge are you sending out to future ontrapaners, if all it means is to live the same as everyone else, daft.
Ultra Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 only if we carry on spending tax in the same way. if we spend it more wisely, then it can be brought down. Weekly payments, that justify sustainable levels of income needed to live on. they dont know how to vote in a better system. Show me someone who works harder for less more? you are intolerantly fascist of those who earn more, having to subsidise poorer people. Imagine you have the forsight to start a business from next to nothing. you work your wotsits of for say 3 years, going without in many of lifes pleasures. because you do so, and because you work hard, you get rewarded when your hard work bares fruition. does that mean, that because you worked damn hard, and still do, you should subsidise someone who doesnt? what messge are you sending out to future ontrapaners, if all it means is to live the same as everyone else, daft. I don't know which school you went to, but it clearly didn't do a very good job.... The current system is open to exploitation by the selfish and greedy, many of whom use various loopholes to avoid paying income tax. This increases the burden on the rest of us. I live in hope that one day concepts such as fairness and justice will once again come back into fashion among the powers that be.
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 4 August 2006 Author Posted 4 August 2006 The point I was making was that MP's tell you what they think we want to hear in order to vote for them, then do nothing of the sort and follow their own beliefs on policies. I was saying that rather than doing that, tell us what you actually believe in and what you are truly going to do, instead of vote winning. Hence why I would never vote for but actually admire people like Tony Benn, George Galloway, Robin Cook, Maggie Thatcher because they tell it how it is and then let people vote either way, and if you look at election results, they generally do well as a result. Tories do well at belligerence, which appeals to some voters. For some reason they get away with pissing in people's pockets while left of centre parties generally have to be liked, otherwise soon get shown the door.
Thracian Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 I'm getting so sick and tired of reading selfish, ill considered quotes like this. Gamesmaster - you live in a society where you benefit from being part of a community. I am sorry to say that the world does not revolve around you - you have social responsibilities. A trade off for being in a community is that you contribute toward the welfare of those less fortunate than yourself. If society benefits, we all benefit. You may not use your local swimming pool, environmental health officer or library...that doesn't mean they should be closed unless sufficient people wish to pay for a privatised service. By educating everyone, keeping them healthy and getting them into work ~ the economy benefits. Growth in the economy gives you more money and a higher disposable income. It is in your personal interest to be socially responsible. So how come we work longer into each year before actually putting money into our own pockets according to the latest statistics I read?
Dunc Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 Tories do well at belligerence, which appeals to some voters. For some reason they get away with pissing in people's pockets while left of centre parties generally have to be liked, otherwise soon get shown the door. hmmmm, not sure I really agree with that at all but there you go.
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 4 August 2006 Author Posted 4 August 2006 I find it strange that someone living in Australia would care/worry about Irish politics, when matters closer to home need supporting just as much, East Timor for example, Do you favour a particular party there? People tend to keep an active interest in their native lands, and Aussies are no exception. I like to think Australia gets on with the Indonesian government pretty well, although they know we also support the right of the Timorees to have their independent state. Occasionally they spark up, more recently when we granted some Papuans protection Visas, obviously acknowledging against Indonesia's wishes that they were suffering hardship. Then of course the Tories got cold feet and have since been more ruthless in processing Papuans. Just yesterday they announced a new 'prison ship' where they can detain illegal fishermen and refugees without having to return to port. This is a government that until recently kept refugee children behind barbed wire claiming they were 'queue jumpers.' The sooner these conservative filth get the flick from office the better - little dickhead Johnny Howard. Must be something about the name Howard that rates you a high level of conservativeness
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 4 August 2006 Author Posted 4 August 2006 No offence, but i think you will find that most sane people don't want to pay higher taxes for things they never use. And your principle caused a large amount of Britains rich to leave the country because they were paying 80% tax to subsidise the poor. Your theory is sound but unfortunately in practice it fails miserably - Socialism died many years ago! It died in Britain and America - it's alive and well throughout the rest of the world! I don't agree with ridiculously high taxes though, since as you pointed out it's easy to point out that most people won't be seeing that money again in one way or another. Government spending however should be prioritised to favour economic conditions for the market to grow, or in some places in implementing government regulated and sanctioned monopolies for essential services like telecommunications, transport and infrastructure and health, thereby the poor are effectively subsidised through essential services and government policies. And governments shouldn't be afraid of debt either. Running a small amount in the red is a way to go - this new fad that a democratic government's budget should be in 'surplus' is ridiculous - they're delivering services, not running a bloody business!
Daggers Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 So how come we work longer into each year before actually putting money into our own pockets according to the latest statistics I read? It all rather depends on where you are taking your source and what period it is taken over doesn't it. Are you seriously questioning the economic success of this government and the place this country holds in a league table of wealthy nations? Show me your source.
TrickyTrev Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 Show me someone who works harder for less more? Somebody on two minium wage jobs working 60 hours a week to support their kids works as hard a lot harder than Wayne Rooney who earns around a 100k a week before endorsements.
Head Honcho Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 Somebody on two minium wage jobs working 60 hours a week to support their kids works as hard a lot harder than Wayne Rooney who earns around a 100k a week before endorsements. To be fair most people working in this country legally won't be doing those sort of hours for the simple reason that they would be worse off once the social adjusts their working tax credit. I have two people working for me who don't want and won't do more hours because of this reason. This is of course not true of people here illegally who as you say work all hours to make ends meet.
TrickyTrev Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 To be fair most people working in this country legally won't be doing those sort of hours for the simple reason that they would be worse off once the social adjusts their working tax credit. I have two people working for me who don't want and won't do more hours because of this reason. This is of course not true of people here illegally who as you say work all hours to make ends meet. Or more commonly working illegally cash in hand. (I know this eliminates the minimum wage out of the equation).
Gamesmaster Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 I don't know which school you went to, but it clearly didn't do a very good job.... The current system is open to exploitation by the selfish and greedy, many of whom use various loopholes to avoid paying income tax. This increases the burden on the rest of us. why were you intolerantly fascist towards me? "increases the burden on the rest of us", what are you, scared of work, get out there and dirty your fingers you panzie. And dont complain that because your not good enough to earn more than some, that someone who is, should compensate your lack of earning ability. Disco Bob. I think the humongus natural growth of the telecommunications network, has helped new labour look good economically. No previous government had that wealth of job opportunity in their favour. Trickey Trev. "Somebody on two minium wage jobs working 60 hours a week to support their kids works as hard a lot harder than Wayne Rooney who earns around a 100k a week before endorsements." Just because you spend 60 hours at work, doesn't mean you work harder. The businessman/woman gained valuable work experience which means they use more of their brain to do a job. Someone on minimum wage is on that because theirs little brain power needed.
Nationwider Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 "increases the burden on the rest of us", what are you, scared of work, get out there and dirty your fingers you panzie. And dont complain that because your not good enough to earn more than some, that someone who is, should compensate your lack of earning ability. I think you've completely missed the point of Ultra's last post, which (if I understand it correctly) was about tax avoidance by wealthy people/companies who will happily pay a Big 4 firm a lot of money to make their tax liability vanish.
Gamesmaster Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 August 2006 I think you've completely missed the point of Ultra's last post, which (if I understand it correctly) was about tax avoidance by wealthy people/companies who will happily pay a Big 4 firm a lot of money to make their tax liability vanish. A loophole, nothing illegal, just Ultra's need to spin the truth to suit his preference of working less, but be subsidised by those who work harder. We just dont like working for a living these days If you want more money, work harder, its as simple as that.
Daggers Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 August 2006 Oh to be 16 and full of ideals again... Man work. Man get money. Man not share money. Money belong to man. Man work more. Please don't tell me the Era of Dave is going to be like the Era of Thatch ~ I don't want to be surrounded by lots of little upstarts clutching filofaxes again
Gamesmaster Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 August 2006 How can this website allow a moderator to be intolerantly fascist of other users? (disco bob) Would you like to share your million pound wealth, IF you were good enough to earn it?
macbeth Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 August 2006 How can this website allow a moderator to be intolerantly fascist of other users? (disco bob) Would you like to share your million pound wealth, IF you were good enough to earn it? like your style :thumbup:you tell the layabout scroungers
Knighton Matt Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 August 2006 I think you've completely missed the point of Ultra's last post, which (if I understand it correctly) was about tax avoidance by wealthy people/companies who will happily pay a Big 4 firm a lot of money to make their tax liability vanish. There's life outside the big 4 NW!
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 5 August 2006 Author Posted 5 August 2006 A loophole, nothing illegal, just Ultra's need to spin the truth to suit his preference of working less, but be subsidised by those who work harder. We just dont like working for a living these days If you want more money, work harder, its as simple as that. Doesn't quite work that way. There's a hell of a lot of people out there working their arses off for chips, while fat 'big 4' bastards who inherited their business from their dadday sit back on their fat fingers and earn a fortune.
crazy horse Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 August 2006 Doesn't quite work that way. There's a hell of a lot of people out there working their arses off for chips, while fat 'big 4' bastards who inherited their business from their dadday sit back on their fat fingers and earn a fortune. royalty being a prime example of this ; plus they inherit alot of influence and power to go with it; however i expect the same whingers who moan about business related inherited wealth will try to justify inherited wealth/power /influence by the royals
Gamesmaster Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 August 2006 Doesn't quite work that way. There's a hell of a lot of people out there working their arses off for chips, while fat 'big 4' bastards who inherited their business from their dadday sit back on their fat fingers and earn a fortune. Didnt they earn it though? As you call then bastards, they must've earnt it. And when they get it, they have to work very hard to keep it going. Take susie in BB, she's spent 4 years queing up in the cold for BB orditions, her husband bought 800 chocalate bars, and then spent £4,000 to give her the chance of getting in. She says she's gone in there just to be a tv presenter. If she gets it, and earns alot of money, why should she share it with others that dont work hard? Do you want everyone to earn "ten quid" an hour?
lcfc_jme Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 August 2006 Take susie in BB, she's spent 4 years queing up in the cold for BB orditions, her husband bought 800 chocalate bars, and then spent £4,000 to give her the chance of getting in. suzie in BB?? BB is a load of sh*t!! it's all a big fix and she was gona be in whether she spent money on the chocolates or not
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.