 Lyons550  Shirley 02 Oct 15 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...
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 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)
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 02 Oct 15 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?
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 12.36pm |
|
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?
A society of grossly unequal wealth.
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 02 Oct 15 12.36pm |
|
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)
But how many respondents? It's the denominator that provides the context to the figures.
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 02 Oct 15 12.38pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm
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?
A society of grossly unequal wealth.
Still a step up from gruel and water though isn't it...nowadays you can get Spag Bol in a tin and olive Oil.
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 12.41pm |
|
Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.38pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm
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?
A society of grossly unequal wealth.
Still a step up from gruel and water though isn't it...nowadays you can get Spag Bol in a tin and olive Oil.
Don't tell popeye
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 02 Oct 15 12.42pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.41pm
Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.38pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm
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?
A society of grossly unequal wealth.
Still a step up from gruel and water though isn't it...nowadays you can get Spag Bol in a tin and olive Oil.
Don't tell popeye
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 12.42pm |
|
Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm
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)
But how many respondents? It's the denominator that provides the context to the figures.
Alas the telegraph is rather shoddy in this aspect.
|
| Stuk Top half 02 Oct 15 12.53pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.42pm
Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm
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)
But how many respondents? It's the denominator that provides the context to the figures.
Alas the telegraph is rather shoddy in this aspect.
Funny that you don't provide a link to that, as I suspect you're either telling porkies or not revealing the full details.
Optimistic as ever
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 12.56pm |
|
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.42pm
Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm
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)
But how many respondents? It's the denominator that provides the context to the figures.
Alas the telegraph is rather shoddy in this aspect.
Funny that you don't provide a link to that, as I suspect you're either telling porkies or not revealing the full details.
[Link]
scroll down.
But don't read it Stuk, the telegraph is biased.
|
| Stuk Top half 02 Oct 15 12.59pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.56pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.42pm
Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm
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)
But how many respondents? It's the denominator that provides the context to the figures.
Alas the telegraph is rather shoddy in this aspect.
Funny that you don't provide a link to that, as I suspect you're either telling porkies or not revealing the full details.
[Link]
scroll down.
But don't read it Stuk, the telegraph is biased.
Where? I'd already looked on that page as I assumed that's where it would be, but it's stupidly large. Even searching "button" doesn't find the poll you refer to.
Optimistic as ever
|
| chris123 hove actually 02 Oct 15 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.
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 1.03pm |
|
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.59pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.56pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.42pm
Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm
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)
But how many respondents? It's the denominator that provides the context to the figures.
Alas the telegraph is rather shoddy in this aspect.
Funny that you don't provide a link to that, as I suspect you're either telling porkies or not revealing the full details.
[Link]
scroll down.
But don't read it Stuk, the telegraph is biased.
Where? I'd already looked on that page as I assumed that's where it would be, but it's stupidly large. Even searching "button" doesn't find the poll you refer to.
  Attachment: for the blind.jpg (509.04Kb)
|
| Stuk Top half 02 Oct 15 1.16pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.03pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.59pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.56pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.42pm
Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm
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)
But how many respondents? It's the denominator that provides the context to the figures.
Alas the telegraph is rather shoddy in this aspect.
Funny that you don't provide a link to that, as I suspect you're either telling porkies or not revealing the full details.
[Link]
scroll down.
But don't read it Stuk, the telegraph is biased.
Where? I'd already looked on that page as I assumed that's where it would be, but it's stupidly large. Even searching "button" doesn't find the poll you refer to.
 Attachment: not on my browsers you cheeky cund.png (203.51Kb)
Optimistic as ever
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 1.21pm |
|
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 1.16pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.03pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.59pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.56pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 12.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.42pm
Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.36pm
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)
But how many respondents? It's the denominator that provides the context to the figures.
Alas the telegraph is rather shoddy in this aspect.
Funny that you don't provide a link to that, as I suspect you're either telling porkies or not revealing the full details.
[Link]
scroll down.
But don't read it Stuk, the telegraph is biased.
Where? I'd already looked on that page as I assumed that's where it would be, but it's stupidly large. Even searching "button" doesn't find the poll you refer to.
|
| npn Crowborough 02 Oct 15 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".
|
Kermit8  Hevon 02 Oct 15 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.
Big chest and massive boobs
[Link]
|
| npn Crowborough 02 Oct 15 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!
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 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?
|