You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Relative Wealth
March 19 2024 7.52am

Relative Wealth

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

 

View topcat's Profile topcat Flag Holmesdale / Surbiton 22 Feb 18 3.13pm Send a Private Message to topcat Add topcat as a friend

Originally posted by Stuk

Nor does walking around while waving a placard and shouting.

It can do. Palace fans protested loudly when we were in administration and it is thought to have helped 2010 get a deal with the bank over Selhurst Park. (i seem to remember Parish saying it helped).

 


It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 22 Feb 18 3.29pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by topcat

It can do. Palace fans protested loudly when we were in administration and it is thought to have helped 2010 get a deal with the bank over Selhurst Park. (i seem to remember Parish saying it helped).

That wasn't walking around, that was surrounding the building with the people inside who had ultimate power, while a deal was already being thrashed out. I would hardly describe a negotiation of land purchase as "changing a system" either.

Walking around the streets of any random town or city, or even the middle of London, doesn't make anyone with any power bat an eyelid. They camped outside St. Paul's for how long? No one gave a crap. So walking about waving a placard and shouting certainly isn't going to "change a system".

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 22 Feb 18 3.33pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by topcat

It can do. Palace fans protested loudly when we were in administration and it is thought to have helped 2010 get a deal with the bank over Selhurst Park. (i seem to remember Parish saying it helped).

I'm not sure what happened at Palace is a good comparison for this.

Sure, it can work for individual companies....the SJWs have showed that by complaining in large numbers to companies and getting people sacked and policies changed.....leading me to the conclusion that nine out of ten activists are arseholes.

But it isn't going to change income inequality.....there isn't one company deciding on income.....and while I agree with the argument that income inequality is too high......I don't agree with the argument that it can be changed easily.

Here's a video on it.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Feb 2018 3.35pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ginger Pubic Wig's Profile Ginger Pubic Wig Flag Wickham de L'Ouest 22 Feb 18 6.21pm Send a Private Message to Ginger Pubic Wig Add Ginger Pubic Wig as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I want doughnuts for lunch. We all want things.

What we want for others doesn't stop us doing it for ourselves.

Hence, high earners should give away the money they think they should be paying in higher taxes and vote for parties they think will implement it for others.

However, I suspect most of them don't give away that money.

People can believe in a different system without wearing a hair shirt until it's implemented. There are many reasons this is reasonable. Think it through and you will admit this. It's very much in line with your free speech fervour too.

 


If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 23 Feb 18 8.28am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

I am a fan of a "virtue signalling tax". The great and the good can sign up for this which then entitles them to lecture the rest of us on whatever bandwagon they are jumping on that week. If they choose not to pay more they can still lecture us but I think the public will reserve the right to ignore them.

I note that last week Emma Watson gave £1mm to a charity supporting victims of sexual harassment fair play to her I will listen when she speaks.

I wont be holding my breath for Lilly Allen's donation.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 23 Feb 18 10.00am Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

So you should only object to something if you directly suffer from it?

The world would be a damn sight worst off if everyone followed this mantra.

I'm not suffering by any means, but I think the levels of wealth inequality across the globe are sickening - why is that not a valid viewpoint?

Not quite ,
If you are a primary affected person then yes IE you are pot less and want or feel you should have more.
If you are secondarily affected IE close friends,family etc then yes make the point.
After that I'd the point I made about a pat on the back.
All it does is muddies the water.
Sure if suddenly drastic tax or home ownership or driver's rights were changed then I would not necessarily be affected now but going forward I could be so I would voice an opinion and protest.
Wealth inequality are a part of a society
Socialism does want to close the gap but check VENEZUALA for examples of when it goes tits up.
Rather have very little and scraping than nothing and starving.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 23 Feb 18 10.44am Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

Not quite ,
If you are a primary affected person then yes IE you are pot less and want or feel you should have more.
If you are secondarily affected IE close friends,family etc then yes make the point.
After that I'd the point I made about a pat on the back.
All it does is muddies the water.
Sure if suddenly drastic tax or home ownership or driver's rights were changed then I would not necessarily be affected now but going forward I could be so I would voice an opinion and protest.
Wealth inequality are a part of a society
Socialism does want to close the gap but check VENEZUALA for examples of when it goes tits up.
Rather have very little and scraping than nothing and starving.

I don't agree at all - if people only championed causes which affected them, directly or indirectly, society would be a lot worst off.

How does it muddy the water? Do you have any examples of this?

Wealth inequality is an inevitable part of society, but the extent of it is very much in 'our' control - I don't think anyone could argue that the current levels of inequality are reasonable.

The point on Venezuela is just throwaway hyperbole.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 23 Feb 18 10.54am Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

My guess is inequality will be narrowed a bit with the £10 living wage, but narrowed between them and average wage earners. The average wage that is a struggling wage in this part of the country. Some will lose jobs, lose annual pay increases, promotions. Will be an interesting period, and I agree with a higher more liveable wage at the bottom.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 23 Feb 18 2.48pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I am a fan of a "virtue signalling tax". The great and the good can sign up for this which then entitles them to lecture the rest of us on whatever bandwagon they are jumping on that week. If they choose not to pay more they can still lecture us but I think the public will reserve the right to ignore them.

I note that last week Emma Watson gave £1mm to a charity supporting victims of sexual harassment fair play to her I will listen when she speaks.

I wont be holding my breath for Lilly Allen's donation.

It isn't a charity, it's a fund managed by a charity. Which sounds like a backdoor way to avoid having to set up a registered charity, and they'll presumably be abusing the tax relief status of the charity.

It's apparently for Justice and Equality (they seem to have trouble spelling Women, which is who it is actually for)

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 23 Feb 18 3.35pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig

People can believe in a different system without wearing a hair shirt until it's implemented. There are many reasons this is reasonable. Think it through and you will admit this. It's very much in line with your free speech fervour too.


People have the freedom to be hypocrites. I totally agree and defend that right. However, I disagree with you that it is intellectually consistent.

Being hypocritical is not a positive but we have all been hypocrites at various points in our lives.....there are far worse ingredients in the pot...but it's a good thing when people complain about bad cooking.

Sorry for the food based metaphor....I'm going for a late lunch.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Feb 2018 3.48pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 23 Feb 18 3.43pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I am a fan of a "virtue signalling tax". The great and the good can sign up for this which then entitles them to lecture the rest of us on whatever bandwagon they are jumping on that week. If they choose not to pay more they can still lecture us but I think the public will reserve the right to ignore them.

I note that last week Emma Watson gave £1mm to a charity supporting victims of sexual harassment fair play to her I will listen when she speaks.

I wont be holding my breath for Lilly Allen's donation.

Totally with you.

I have no criticisms of people who back their principles. I may disagree with them but I respect them more.

While I disagree with a lot within the meetoo movement I applaud Watson's donation.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
pefwin Flag Where you have to have an English ... 23 Feb 18 6.17pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

While I disagree with a lot within the meetoo movement I applaud Watson's donation.

We have something in common.

 


"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Relative Wealth