Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 108 of 464 < 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 >

OldFella London 02 Oct 15 2.31pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.46pm Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population. [Link] Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries. From the article... Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it. So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success? I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed? Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides. Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy. [Link] You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion. [Link] Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright. I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth. As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument. How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy? Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am) Couldn't agree with this more. Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it �50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me". All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than �50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be �40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that. His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong! What could be classified as rich though? When Mrs gusset started full time work again , we lost a lot on tax credits. A pain, but only fair as we earn enough to get by. A lot of working poor in this country are really struggling to get by. Is it envy on my part for me to want them to earn enough to live on? As an aside, how long will it be before those that have lost their jobs at the steel works in Redcar are described as welfare scroungers by many (who subscribe to the blame the victim narrative that's ever more prevailant) on here? Good to see you are feeling a bit better, teacher Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..
Alert a moderator to this post

OldFella

London 02 Oct 15 2.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.46pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am

In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]

Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?

I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]

You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.

[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)

Couldn't agree with this more.

Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it �50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".

All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than �50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be �40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that.

His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong!

What could be classified as rich though?
When Mrs gusset started full time work again , we lost a lot on tax credits. A pain, but only fair as we earn enough to get by.
A lot of working poor in this country are really struggling to get by. Is it envy on my part for me to want them to earn enough to live on?

As an aside, how long will it be before those that have lost their jobs at the steel works in Redcar are described as welfare scroungers by many (who subscribe to the blame the victim narrative that's ever more prevailant) on here?

Good to see you are feeling a bit better, teacher

Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Oct 15 2.31pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 2.02pm Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 9.46am Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 7.04am Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 6.55am Why does everyone keep talking about nationalising things assuming that it will provide a better service than the public sector when all evidence suggests the contrary? Should we privatise everything then? The army, navy and airforce? The police? The fire service? The NHS? Parliament and local government - why elect people, couldn't we give the jobs to the highest bidder? Did I say that? Defence of the country, its people and its law should of course be the responsibility of government because that cannot realistically be expected to be provided by citizens. The NHS I think should stay free at the point of service but I have no problem with privatising parts of the background to make it more efficient. I have family that work in the NHS and they endorse that, as long as it is free to use who the bloody hell cares? My point was that because the railways are providing a poor service now, does not mean that you can wave a magic wand, nationalise it and assume that it will provide a better and cheaper service. The same goes for utilities, I don't want my power being at the hands of the unions, I don't particularly like rolling blackouts since my business that I run from home relies on it. Corbyn is promoting fantasist economics and policies and it won't wash with the British electorate. Are you arguing that defence etc needs to be run by the state because of its size and complexity? But the state is not capable of running lesser endeavours? I too have no problem with parts of the NHS being run privately. The service and pricing of the railways does not seem significantly better than it used to be - certainly not the astronomical prices. Why would power supplies be in the hands of the unions? Workers in private companies are quite capable of being in unions and striking. Corbyn is promoting alternative policies to current ones, not fantasist at all. Many of these policies were in force during the 1960s, arguably our decade of greatest prosperity. The degree to which the state actually runs defense in the UK is debatable. It certainly is entirely dependent on third party companies, which have outside UK interests. In theory its cheaper for the state to outsource defense research, procurement and development and infrastructure, but in reality it has only been the case where projects have failed. In reality the UK defense and MOD become very dependent on these contractors and suppliers, to the point that they end up having to bankroll their incompetence and failures; its a gravy train for companies, and a lot of ex-MOD / Military and Government Ministers friends who are signed on to companies as 'special consultants', on projects that latterly spend billions providing million pound solutions. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 02 Oct 15 2.31pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 2.02pm

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 9.46am

Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 7.04am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 6.55am

Why does everyone keep talking about nationalising things assuming that it will provide a better service than the public sector when all evidence suggests the contrary?

Should we privatise everything then? The army, navy and airforce? The police? The fire service? The NHS? Parliament and local government - why elect people, couldn't we give the jobs to the highest bidder?

Did I say that? Defence of the country, its people and its law should of course be the responsibility of government because that cannot realistically be expected to be provided by citizens. The NHS I think should stay free at the point of service but I have no problem with privatising parts of the background to make it more efficient. I have family that work in the NHS and they endorse that, as long as it is free to use who the bloody hell cares?

My point was that because the railways are providing a poor service now, does not mean that you can wave a magic wand, nationalise it and assume that it will provide a better and cheaper service. The same goes for utilities, I don't want my power being at the hands of the unions, I don't particularly like rolling blackouts since my business that I run from home relies on it.

Corbyn is promoting fantasist economics and policies and it won't wash with the British electorate.

Are you arguing that defence etc needs to be run by the state because of its size and complexity? But the state is not capable of running lesser endeavours? I too have no problem with parts of the NHS being run privately. The service and pricing of the railways does not seem significantly better than it used to be - certainly not the astronomical prices. Why would power supplies be in the hands of the unions? Workers in private companies are quite capable of being in unions and striking. Corbyn is promoting alternative policies to current ones, not fantasist at all. Many of these policies were in force during the 1960s, arguably our decade of greatest prosperity.

The degree to which the state actually runs defense in the UK is debatable. It certainly is entirely dependent on third party companies, which have outside UK interests. In theory its cheaper for the state to outsource defense research, procurement and development and infrastructure, but in reality it has only been the case where projects have failed.

In reality the UK defense and MOD become very dependent on these contractors and suppliers, to the point that they end up having to bankroll their incompetence and failures; its a gravy train for companies, and a lot of ex-MOD / Military and Government Ministers friends who are signed on to companies as 'special consultants', on projects that latterly spend billions providing million pound solutions.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Oct 15 2.34pm
Which is why we'll go ahead with Trident, not because its the best solution, not because its the only solution, or because its the cheapest solution - Its the solution that will buy a lot of jobs in the private defense industry, and get put a lot of money into UK defense contractor companies pockets. Those people who end up signing the agreements, usually end up with friends or family working for the preferred bidder, along with several ex-military officers who'll receive 'lucrative jobs' that they're utterly unqualified and lacking experience to perform. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 02 Oct 15 2.34pm

Which is why we'll go ahead with Trident, not because its the best solution, not because its the only solution, or because its the cheapest solution - Its the solution that will buy a lot of jobs in the private defense industry, and get put a lot of money into UK defense contractor companies pockets.

Those people who end up signing the agreements, usually end up with friends or family working for the preferred bidder, along with several ex-military officers who'll receive 'lucrative jobs' that they're utterly unqualified and lacking experience to perform.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 02 Oct 15 2.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Oct 2015 2.24pm Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.23pm Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question. Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick? How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context... It seems that the results have changhed! Thje question was 'if you were prime minister, could you push the nuclear button' Yesterday evening it was 85% no. Today its 75% yes. Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 12.27pm) Oddly though there never has been a 'nuclear button'. Although only the UK Prime Minister, and in his absence his appointed Nuclear Deputies have the capacity to order a launch. One of the first things a new prime minister does is to sign letters for each trident submarine, that if the UK is destroyed and the prime minister and all deputies are not able to communicate, detailing whether they wish to launch or not. These are seal in safes on each submarine and never opened (and destroyed when the prime minister leaves office). Yes, I read the "is there a red button" article on the BBC web page, too! That's plagiarism, that is
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 02 Oct 15 2.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Oct 2015 2.24pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.23pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm

A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question.

Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick?

How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context...

It seems that the results have changhed! Thje question was 'if you were prime minister, could you push the nuclear button'
Yesterday evening it was 85% no. Today its 75% yes.

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 12.27pm)

Oddly though there never has been a 'nuclear button'. Although only the UK Prime Minister, and in his absence his appointed Nuclear Deputies have the capacity to order a launch.

One of the first things a new prime minister does is to sign letters for each trident submarine, that if the UK is destroyed and the prime minister and all deputies are not able to communicate, detailing whether they wish to launch or not. These are seal in safes on each submarine and never opened (and destroyed when the prime minister leaves office).

Yes, I read the "is there a red button" article on the BBC web page, too! That's plagiarism, that is

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 3.35pm
Quote OldFella at 02 Oct 2015 2.31pm Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.46pm Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population. [Link] Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries. From the article... Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it. So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success? I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed? Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides. Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy. [Link] You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion. [Link] Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright. I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth. As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument. How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy? Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am) Couldn't agree with this more. Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it �50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me". All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than �50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be �40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that. His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong! What could be classified as rich though? When Mrs gusset started full time work again , we lost a lot on tax credits. A pain, but only fair as we earn enough to get by. A lot of working poor in this country are really struggling to get by. Is it envy on my part for me to want them to earn enough to live on? As an aside, how long will it be before those that have lost their jobs at the steel works in Redcar are described as welfare scroungers by many (who subscribe to the blame the victim narrative that's ever more prevailant) on here? Good to see you are feeling a bit better, teacher Stop being a pillock .
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 3.35pm

Quote OldFella at 02 Oct 2015 2.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.46pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am

In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]

Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)

Couldn't agree with this more.

His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong!

Good to see you are feeling a bit better, teacher

Stop being a pillock .

Alert a moderator to this post

OldFella London 02 Oct 15 3.46pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 3.35pm Quote OldFella at 02 Oct 2015 2.31pm Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.46pm Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population. [Link] Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries. From the article... Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it. So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success? I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed? Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides. Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy. [Link] You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion. [Link] Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright. I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth. As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument. How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy? Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am) Couldn't agree with this more. Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it �50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me". All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than �50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be �40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that. His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong! What could be classified as rich though? When Mrs gusset started full time work again , we lost a lot on tax credits. A pain, but only fair as we earn enough to get by. A lot of working poor in this country are really struggling to get by. Is it envy on my part for me to want them to earn enough to live on? As an aside, how long will it be before those that have lost their jobs at the steel works in Redcar are described as welfare scroungers by many (who subscribe to the blame the victim narrative that's ever more prevailant) on here? Good to see you are feeling a bit better, teacher Stop being a pillock . Always good to see a chap who has his priorities right Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..
Alert a moderator to this post

OldFella

London 02 Oct 15 3.46pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 3.35pm

Quote OldFella at 02 Oct 2015 2.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.46pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am

In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]

Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)

Couldn't agree with this more.

His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong!

Good to see you are feeling a bit better, teacher

Stop being a pillock .

Always good to see a chap who has his priorities right

Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 02 Oct 15 3.53pm
Quote chris123 at 02 Oct 2015 1.00pm Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.31pm Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.25am Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 10.20am Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.09am Did you read about them in the mainstream media we are going up? Why do you think the 5 owners of 80% of the british media (who incidently don't even live here) want to keep the non-dom status quo? Hilarious, classic left-winger blaming the media. Could it possibly be that people have seen that capitalism has increased wealth at all levels and have therefore voted for it consistently in this country? You'll probably call the Tories "anti-democratic" in a minute. Increased wealth at all levels? Tell that to the people relying on food banks. The fact they have 'food banks' to go to is evidence of a wealthy society anyway...surely? If you earn 20k you take home 83 %, 30k you take home 78%, 40k it's 75% - so from a tax point of view that's as low as I can remember. The Tories may have reduced income tax a little, but they put VAT up to a massive 20%, and of course VAT hits the less well off harder. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 02 Oct 15 3.53pm

Quote chris123 at 02 Oct 2015 1.00pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.25am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.09am

Did you read about them in the mainstream media we are going up?
Why do you think the 5 owners of 80% of the british media (who incidently don't even live here) want to keep the non-dom status quo?

Hilarious, classic left-winger blaming the media. Could it possibly be that people have seen that capitalism has increased wealth at all levels and have therefore voted for it consistently in this country?

You'll probably call the Tories "anti-democratic" in a minute.

Increased wealth at all levels? Tell that to the people relying on food banks.

The fact they have 'food banks' to go to is evidence of a wealthy society anyway...surely?

If you earn 20k you take home 83 %, 30k you take home 78%, 40k it's 75% - so from a tax point of view that's as low as I can remember.

The Tories may have reduced income tax a little, but they put VAT up to a massive 20%, and of course VAT hits the less well off harder.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 02 Oct 15 3.59pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 3.53pm Quote chris123 at 02 Oct 2015 1.00pm Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.31pm Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.25am Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 10.20am Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.09am Did you read about them in the mainstream media we are going up? Why do you think the 5 owners of 80% of the british media (who incidently don't even live here) want to keep the non-dom status quo? Hilarious, classic left-winger blaming the media. Could it possibly be that people have seen that capitalism has increased wealth at all levels and have therefore voted for it consistently in this country? You'll probably call the Tories "anti-democratic" in a minute. Increased wealth at all levels? Tell that to the people relying on food banks. The fact they have 'food banks' to go to is evidence of a wealthy society anyway...surely? If you earn 20k you take home 83 %, 30k you take home 78%, 40k it's 75% - so from a tax point of view that's as low as I can remember. The Tories may have reduced income tax a little, but they put VAT up to a massive 20%, and of course VAT hits the less well off harder. and increased the free pay threshold. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 02 Oct 15 3.59pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 3.53pm

Quote chris123 at 02 Oct 2015 1.00pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.25am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.09am

Did you read about them in the mainstream media we are going up?
Why do you think the 5 owners of 80% of the british media (who incidently don't even live here) want to keep the non-dom status quo?

You'll probably call the Tories "anti-democratic" in a minute.

Increased wealth at all levels? Tell that to the people relying on food banks.

The fact they have 'food banks' to go to is evidence of a wealthy society anyway...surely?

If you earn 20k you take home 83 %, 30k you take home 78%, 40k it's 75% - so from a tax point of view that's as low as I can remember.

The Tories may have reduced income tax a little, but they put VAT up to a massive 20%, and of course VAT hits the less well off harder.

and increased the free pay threshold.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 02 Oct 15 11.58pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 3.53pm Quote chris123 at 02 Oct 2015 1.00pm Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.31pm Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.25am Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 10.20am Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.09am Did you read about them in the mainstream media we are going up? Why do you think the 5 owners of 80% of the british media (who incidently don't even live here) want to keep the non-dom status quo? Hilarious, classic left-winger blaming the media. Could it possibly be that people have seen that capitalism has increased wealth at all levels and have therefore voted for it consistently in this country? You'll probably call the Tories "anti-democratic" in a minute. Increased wealth at all levels? Tell that to the people relying on food banks. The fact they have 'food banks' to go to is evidence of a wealthy society anyway...surely? If you earn 20k you take home 83 %, 30k you take home 78%, 40k it's 75% - so from a tax point of view that's as low as I can remember. The Tories may have reduced income tax a little, but they put VAT up to a massive 20%, and of course VAT hits the less well off harder. Which is less than Belgium, Czech Rep, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 02 Oct 15 11.58pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 3.53pm

Quote chris123 at 02 Oct 2015 1.00pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.25am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.09am

Did you read about them in the mainstream media we are going up?
Why do you think the 5 owners of 80% of the british media (who incidently don't even live here) want to keep the non-dom status quo?

You'll probably call the Tories "anti-democratic" in a minute.

Increased wealth at all levels? Tell that to the people relying on food banks.

The fact they have 'food banks' to go to is evidence of a wealthy society anyway...surely?

If you earn 20k you take home 83 %, 30k you take home 78%, 40k it's 75% - so from a tax point of view that's as low as I can remember.

The Tories may have reduced income tax a little, but they put VAT up to a massive 20%, and of course VAT hits the less well off harder.

Which is less than Belgium, Czech Rep, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

Alert a moderator to this post

The White Horse 03 Oct 15 12.30am
Most appalling personal ratings in decades: [Link] Worse than Ed Miliband and he's just given a feeble Tory party a majority. British politics needs some prospect of kicking out the Tories, otherwise it's all a waste of pissing time. Utterly depressing. "The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.� Stewart Lee
Alert a moderator to this post

The White Horse

03 Oct 15 12.30am

Send a Private Message to The White Horse

Most appalling personal ratings in decades:

[Link]

Worse than Ed Miliband and he's just given a feeble Tory party a majority. British politics needs some prospect of kicking out the Tories, otherwise it's all a waste of pissing time.

Utterly depressing.

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.� Stewart Lee

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 03 Oct 15 7.29am
Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question. Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick? How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context... I would press the button. I would do it whilst laughing manically and cradling a brandy. I also believe that as Corbyn has demonstrated he is a pussy by saying he wouldn't press the button, he is sort of bloke who apologises when he has an orgasm. You can imagine it - 'urgh, argh, urgh, argh, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh, sorry Diane'. Edited by (03 Oct 2015 7.34am) "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.� - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 03 Oct 15 7.29am

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm

A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question.

Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick?

How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context...

I would press the button. I would do it whilst laughing manically and cradling a brandy.

I also believe that as Corbyn has demonstrated he is a pussy by saying he wouldn't press the button, he is sort of bloke who apologises when he has an orgasm. You can imagine it - 'urgh, argh, urgh, argh, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh, sorry Diane'.

Edited by (03 Oct 2015 7.34am)

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.� - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

daven Hailsham 03 Oct 15 8.17am
Having nuclear weapons is all about defence not attack.We have cut our forces to below recommended levels because of them.We will always leave the element of doubt as to whether we would use them or not,otherwise its the equivalent of us having Messi on the subs bench and announcing before the game that we will never use him.
Alert a moderator to this post

daven

Hailsham 03 Oct 15 8.17am

Having nuclear weapons is all about defence not attack.We have cut our forces to below recommended levels because of them.We will always leave the element of doubt as to whether we would use them or not,otherwise its the equivalent of us having Messi on the subs bench and announcing before the game that we will never use him.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 108 of 464 < 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Jeremy Corbyn

Site Map

Sponsors