Daggers 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...<snip>...If she gets it, and earns alot of money, why should she share it with others that dont work hard? :w00t: :laugh: Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Listen to the sound of nothingness as I hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
Ultra Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 August 2006 why were you intolerantly fascist towards me? I wasn't being "fascist" (which is rather hard from behind a keyboard anyway), merely commenting on your level of spelling and grammar, which even an average primary school child would be ashamed of. However it was an accurate sign of the content of your argument, which wasn't very mature either.
Ultra Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 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. Another demonstration of your supreme debating skills. Why ARE you defending tax dodgers?
Gamesmaster Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 August 2006 I wasn't being "fascist" (which is rather hard from behind a keyboard anyway), merely commenting on your level of spelling and grammar, which even an average primary school child would be ashamed of. However it was an accurate sign of the content of your argument, which wasn't very mature either. You said "I don't know which school you went to, but it clearly didn't do a very good job.... " Tolerant means, the ability to tolerate something, something so small like misspelling a few words. You couldn't manage that. Thats intolerance, you were behaving like a fascist towards me. And then you say my words wernt very mature, more fascism. Another demonstration of your supreme debating skills.Why ARE you defending tax dodgers? Legal loopholes XXXX XXXXXX *Message from Moderator ~ Please refrain from using abusive terms or the entire post will be deleted*
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 6 August 2006 Author Posted 6 August 2006 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? Allow me to ignore the BB reference and address your first statement. Depends what you define as 'earn.' I don't think being in the right place at the right time is 'earning' anything. There needs to be 1) opportunity for everyone to have a crack at something and 2) a fairer company pay structure. Compare the recent CEO salary increase of a whopping 29% to $1.7 million with the average employee increase of around 4%. Seems to me as though CEO's are pocketing the fruits of their thousands of underlings. Free market conservatives don't reward people for their work. Where once upon a time they could easily claim the word 'opportunity' as their own, nowadays they have no shame in bleeding the population dry for the sake of the country. That's why Britain is doing 'so well,' but its people aren't seeing that return in their own pockets for their hard 'earned' work.
Thracian Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 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 My oldest son runs a substantial business and the way he rewards his staff is legendary. He also contributes stacks to various charities and local organisations, quite apart from helping every member of his extended family if they need it. Why shouldn't he also provide properly for his children's futures?. He didn't have a silver spoon, not that I subscibe to that sort of envy anyway. Simply the same comprehensive school education as many and the same chances. He worked hard and took risks. It's funny. When socialist stalwarts do any good they want to enjoy the rewards and help their children every bit as much as the so-called privileged. However you stack the chips and change the rules life will be full of winners and losers - and many others in between. One of the keys has nothing to do with money or education but to do with risk. Some people are afraid to take risks. They work hard but would rather be followers than leaders. Being a follower feels safer to some and those who take risks quite rightly expect to reap the rewards if they come because they can just as easily fall flat on their faces - and there's often no-one but themselves to help them up if they do. The moral of the post is if you really want it, go for it. Cross every bridge whatever. If you can make it without risk, fine, but otherwise lay everything you've got on the line if you have to. Try to think clearly but never let self doubt cloud your intentions. You might still fail but if you do, find another way. Treat the failure as a learning experience. The scientist trying to invent the lightbulb reportedly said he went through thousands of experiments that failed to produce a lightbulb but none were failures. Each one showed him another way not to do it until finally, by deduction and elimination, he came upon the right way.
Gamesmaster Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 Depends what you define as 'earn.' I don't think being in the right place at the right time is 'earning' anything. There needs to be 1) opportunity for everyone to have a crack at something and 2) a fairer company pay structure. Compare the recent CEO salary increase of a whopping 29% to $1.7 million with the average employee increase of around 4%. Seems to me as though CEO's are pocketing the fruits of their thousands of underlings. Free market conservatives don't reward people for their work. Where once upon a time they could easily claim the word 'opportunity' as their own, nowadays they have no shame in bleeding the population dry for the sake of the country. That's why Britain is doing 'so well,' but its people aren't seeing that return in their own pockets for their hard 'earned' work. If someone gives you something, you dont work for it, but its yours fairly and squarely. 1. Dont everyone have the opportunity? 2. What company structure should be implemented? CEO. If you run a business, you deserve the right to earn the most, and pay whoever you want, whatever you want. Or should we not encourage people to venture into business ideas? Who's going to then create jobs for the masses? The opportunity is there for everyone, if you have the brain power to work hard and earn megga dosh, then why should you then subsidise those who havn't, its not fair. Are you suggesting a marxist style work force? That would drive away big business. We'd end up looking for work in Poland it would be easier for the masses to be dictated to, because we wouldn't have the united strength to make important financial decisions. Thats the kind of society new labour is trying to take us. Bliars just said, we have to have I.D cards, NO WE DONT. Free market conservatism favours enterprise, which creates jobs for the masses, thats rewarding people via work. Why is that bad? We cant all milk it rich, who will milk the cows
cisono Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 I tend not to vote. No party seems to deserve my vote of confidence over any period of time. However, I regularly send emails and letters to my local MP/Euro MPs, other MPs or Tony Blair - and even supermarkets - whenever I want something done (e.g. ban some chemical) or opposed (e.g. spread of GM crops). In other words, it would be easier/less time-consuming to vote, but I would feel more "remote" from the various policies.
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 6 August 2006 Author Posted 6 August 2006 1. Dont everyone have the opportunity? If you run a business, you deserve the right to earn the most, and pay whoever you want, whatever you want. Sounds like you like the taste of contradiction pie. Said like a true free market conservative. No, we don't need a Marxist style workforce, but a few drops here and there would certainly help even things up a bit.
Ultra Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 Free market conservatism favours enterprise, which creates jobs for the masses Except it doesn't. Look at what happened during the Thatcher era. Millions were thrown onto the dole with little hope of finding well-paid work. Meanwhile the fat cats became ever fatter. By the way, one thing on which Marxists and capitalists would agree on is that literacy is a core skill. It's a shame you don't!
Head Honcho Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 I wasn't being "fascist" (which is rather hard from behind a keyboard anyway), merely commenting on your level of spelling and grammar, which even an average primary school child would be ashamed of. However it was an accurate sign of the content of your argument, which wasn't very mature either.
Daggers Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 Look at what happened during the Thatcher era...Meanwhile the fat cats became ever fatter. It's true, so true...see: Fat Cats prior to Thatcher Fat Cats After Thatcher QED!
Knighton Matt Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 It's true, so true...see: Fat Cats prior to Thatcher Fat Cats After Thatcher QED! What does QED mean? I seem to remember seeing it on a few of my exam scripts at school? Something to do with proving an argument?
Knighton Matt Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 See here... Mystery solved thanks Ultra Was kind of right. Ish.
Gamesmaster Posted 7 August 2006 Posted 7 August 2006 Sounds like you like the taste of contradiction pie. Said like a true free market conservative. No, we don't need a Marxist style workforce, but a few drops here and there would certainly help even things up a bit. It would be great if we could all earn similar, but unless you give an example how we can get that, theres no point saying, thats what i want, so thats how it should be, and the ones who earn the most should give THEIR money to poorer people, its just farcical Dan.
Dunc Posted 9 August 2006 Posted 9 August 2006 Except it doesn't. Look at what happened during the Thatcher era. Millions were thrown onto the dole with little hope of finding well-paid work. Meanwhile the fat cats became ever fatter. Apart from the fact that many financial experts attribute the current low employment rates to the Thatcher policies of the 80's? Surely even the most staunch socialist must agree that the mid-late 70's were a shambles and something had to be done to bring round a improvement in the economy. From the 3 day working week of the 70's to the 'yuppie' syndromes of the 80's was too big a social change to sustain itself, but certainly looking back from 2006, it would be unbearable to think what would have happened to Great Britain if the unions hadn't have been dissolved and a large amount of privatisation hadn't occurred. Whoever said that socialism had only failed in Britain and US is (as far as I can see -I'm willing to be proved wrong) slighty wrong in so much aside from China, North Korea, Cuba and parts of South America the rest of the world is capitalist and as a global community we are predominantly conservative in the way we live and work. Here's a soundbite - Everyone's a socialist until they are rich. And here's a prediction - In 100 yrs or so Democracy will be another failed idealogy just as socialism is/was.
Ultra Posted 9 August 2006 Posted 9 August 2006 Apart from the fact that many financial experts attribute the current low employment rates to the Thatcher policies of the 80's? Yeah, that 'd be right..
Dunc Posted 9 August 2006 Posted 9 August 2006 Yeah, that 'd be right.. Its about the same now as in the late 1970's so unless you want to go back to comparisons to the 60's when Britain was a vastly different country in terms of demograph then what your want to compare against is interesting.
Daggers Posted 9 August 2006 Posted 9 August 2006 The low unemployment rate can be attributed to Thatcher because when it hit 2 million she scrapped the way it was calculated and came up with a great new way that sent it down to six figures over night. Basically, hardly anyone is unemployed anymore.
l444ry Posted 9 August 2006 Posted 9 August 2006 The low unemployment rate can be attributed to Thatcher because when it hit 2 million she scrapped the way it was calculated and came up with a great new way that sent it down to six figures over night. Basically, hardly anyone is unemployed anymore. Just as the old bat changed the way inflation was calculated. Once she took out mortgage costs that dropped as well. Mind you, Blair still uses these spurious statistics. They should print the figures for all these invalidity scroungers we have for a more realistic figure.
Gamesmaster Posted 9 August 2006 Posted 9 August 2006 The low unemployment rate can be attributed to Thatcher because when it hit 2 million she scrapped the way it was calculated and came up with a great new way that sent it down to six figures over night. Basically, hardly anyone is unemployed anymore. One million on unemployment benefit, and the other 2 million unemployed are on sick benefit. Still three million unemployed. Blair looks like this off camera
TrickyTrev Posted 9 August 2006 Posted 9 August 2006 One million on unemployment benefit, and the other 2 million unemployed are on sick benefit. Still three million unemployed. Blair looks like this off camera You are wrongly assuming that everyone of those 2 million people on incapacity benefit is in someway cheating the system. The majority will indeed be incapable of working, thankfully the present Labour government does not get off on attacking "benefit cheats" by labelling them the underclass and instead invests in mental health scheme and introduces anti-diability discrimination legislation in order to help the long term unemployed in the UK.
l444ry Posted 9 August 2006 Posted 9 August 2006 You are wrongly assuming that everyone of those 2 million people on incapacity benefit is in someway cheating the system. The majority will indeed be incapable of working, thankfully the present Labour government does not get off on attacking "benefit cheats" by labelling them the underclass and instead invests in mental health scheme and introduces anti-diability discrimination legislation in order to help the long term unemployed in the UK. It's common knowledge that a vast amount of that total could do something. I play golf occasionally with one of them. Had a knee operation but can still drive to the course and play 18 holes. To rub it in this shoddy slack country has given him a disabled parking provision which lasts for.......nine years. No wonder everybody is sick to death of the amount of tax and insurance we all have to pay just so politicians can keep their scrawny snouts in the trough.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.