You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The Election Thread
March 28 2024 9.26am

The Election Thread

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 47 of 215 < 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 >

 

Deleted11 07 Nov 19 3.46pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Yep....Essentially I view this as a 'European' mentality issue. For the right increased immigration was for economics and keeping wages down, for the left it was about empathy and votes.

Egalitarianism has merit at the individual and charity level....it doesn't work running a country.

The result is the same, we can say Blair accelerated it all but it was happening anyway.

Long term we are fecked.

By the way.....I'm still available for parties and birthday celebrations.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 3.44pm)

A donation to the Institute of Inter-Sectionality Studies has just been made on your behalf.

Merry Xmas

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 07 Nov 19 3.48pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Jway89

A donation to the Institute of Inter-Sectionality Studies has just been made on your behalf.

Merry Xmas

I'm already looking at the mulled wine!

 


'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 CrazyBadger's Profile CrazyBadger Flag Ware 07 Nov 19 3.52pm Send a Private Message to CrazyBadger Add CrazyBadger as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

?

You are making lots of assumptions about the future.....none of which you can know and then assuming that politicians can.

Parliament isn't some unconnected actor in this....Many MPs end up working in the EU or accepting pay from their groups......In fact this can be said about most of our establishment. They have been coining it from the EU for decades and the average tax payers have been footing the bill.

I don't think I'm predicting any future, Only that the elected Politicians are best placed and most informed to make these decisions. Is that not part of Their job - To run the country so that we can prosper, be it in or out of europe?

Politicians lining their pockets is nothing new unfortunately. But it's funny that this argument wasn't rolled out in the Leave campaign?!

 


"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 07 Nov 19 4.01pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

I don't think I'm predicting any future, Only that the elected Politicians are best placed and most informed to make these decisions. Is that not part of Their job - To run the country so that we can prosper, be it in or out of europe?

Politicians lining their pockets is nothing new unfortunately. But it's funny that this argument wasn't rolled out in the Leave campaign?!

You place too much faith in politicians obviously.

You surely realise that every social and economic problem we have has been contributed to by either the action or inaction of politicians.

Inventors and technology have contributed far more to happiness and well being in society....perhaps we should be led by Dyson by that metric.

There were two leave campaigns but they both decided to make their big selling point 'taking back control' and then immigration nearer the end.

I think leave did indeed make points about corruption.....however pointing to specific corruption is never popular due to legal action......Why bother when 'control' and 'immigration' are safer grounds to dig.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 4.05pm)

 


'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
W12 07 Nov 19 4.29pm

Originally posted by Jway89

I'll hold my breath for that then.

There's another crisis coming and guess what it's gonna be those pesky bankers again, and again, they'll be bailed out.

The banks should never have been (and should never be) bailed out for sure. The removal of the gold standard and the rise of centralized banking were all huge mistakes. As far as I am aware this simply happened out of greed.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 07 Nov 19 4.58pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by W12

The banks should never have been (and should never be) bailed out for sure. The removal of the gold standard and the rise of centralized banking were all huge mistakes. As far as I am aware this simply happened out of greed.

I know Tux and Funty are very critical about how banking and the money system works.....though we don't see a lot of them anymore.

Probably taking baths in mini oceans of twenty pound notes....or perhaps with Tux, bitcoins.....which might prove rather difficult.


Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 5.01pm)

 


'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 cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 07 Nov 19 5.12pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by W12

The banks should never have been (and should never be) bailed out for sure. The removal of the gold standard and the rise of centralized banking were all huge mistakes. As far as I am aware this simply happened out of greed.

If they weren't bailed out would "bad luck" have been enough for the people who would have lost virtually everything.
The money for the bail out was never in any social budget. Ok some may have been borrowed but shares in receipt I think have now covered what was spent with the interest.
In the long run it could be seen as an astute investment.
Austerity was needed as the cupboard was bare when the tories got back in 2010.
I think I read that in the last 6 months of labour they were spending for the sake of, giving out undeliverable contracts which had to be cancelled or renegotiated.
If they get back in it appears they are intending to carry on where they left off.
Then when they get slung out in 5 years we will be back to the future Marty.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Deleted11 07 Nov 19 5.21pm

Originally posted by cryrst

If they weren't bailed out would "bad luck" have been enough for the people who would have lost virtually everything.
The money for the bail out was never in any social budget. Ok some may have been borrowed but shares in receipt I think have now covered what was spent with the interest.
In the long run it could be seen as an astute investment.
Austerity was needed as the cupboard was bare when the tories got back in 2010.
I think I read that in the last 6 months of labour they were spending for the sake of, giving out undeliverable contracts which had to be cancelled or renegotiated.
If they get back in it appears they are intending to carry on where they left off.
Then when they get slung out in 5 years we will be back to the future Marty.

If the cupboard was bare, where did the money come from? Did the Tories get it from their fabled 'magic tree'?

Spending from 2004 to 2008 was flatlined at about 40% of GDP, which the Tories have not gone below, so the question is; Where has the money gone to?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Deleted11 07 Nov 19 5.27pm

Originally posted by W12

The banks should never have been (and should never be) bailed out for sure. The removal of the gold standard and the rise of centralized banking were all huge mistakes. As far as I am aware this simply happened out of greed.

Austerity is basically how the Gold standard works. The Gold standard has been and it won't come back, imo. It's a bit of a nonsense. Store of value?, yes. Anti-inflationary, yes, but not really fit for purpose.

This is capitalism's dirty little secret. In order to grow and create the millionaires you need to expand and how can you do that if you've basically done it to death in your country? Imperialism. Partly by war and partly by getting everyone to use your currency for transactions ($)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 07 Nov 19 6.49pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Jway89

Austerity is basically how the Gold standard works. The Gold standard has been and it won't come back, imo. It's a bit of a nonsense. Store of value?, yes. Anti-inflationary, yes, but not really fit for purpose.

This is capitalism's dirty little secret. In order to grow and create the millionaires you need to expand and how can you do that if you've basically done it to death in your country? Imperialism. Partly by war and partly by getting everyone to use your currency for transactions ($)

Millionaires and the top 1% earners actually pay 25% of the tax take.
Short sightedness and envy are actually the enemy.
Imagine stinging them and they then either leave or find a legal loophole.
Who will fill the void then?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Deleted11 07 Nov 19 7.39pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Millionaires and the top 1% earners actually pay 25% of the tax take.
Short sightedness and envy are actually the enemy.
Imagine stinging them and they then either leave or find a legal loophole.
Who will fill the void then?

Originally posted by cryrst

Millionaires and the top 1% earners actually pay 25% of the tax take.
Short sightedness and envy are actually the enemy.
Imagine stinging them and they then either leave or find a legal loophole.
Who will fill the void then?

They should be footing a higher %, based on how much that group is worth.
Are you honestly telling me that losing Philip Green will be a major loss?
Let's just take Warren Buffett as an example to really nail this point. I personally do not care if he's a billionaire, well I do, but not because of his wealth, but the influence that wealth has.
This guy is proud of the fact that he pays 15% in taxes while his secretary pays 30%ish.

This is what happens here too. I separate corporation tax from personal tax. I would like to see corporation tax lower, but, if I earn £30k and pay 20%, so left with £24kish, how is it a good idea to allow someone to pay 10% on £5m?

If the total amount the top 1% pay is 25% of the tax pot, it's because they have all the money.

Who would I get to fill in the gap? Create new entrepreneurs, through tax incentives or funding incentives towards an agreed goal, being climate change, regional employment or whatever.

A large proportion of money concentrated in a small group and I'm even not talking about people on £250k a year, leads to corruption, i.e. George Osborne is the Editor of the Evening Standard. A paper, who in the last election had the owner literally urging his readers to vote Conservative.

Just look at the last 10 years. The FTSE has hit record highs and Corbyn is a candidate to be Prime Minister. How on Earth do you explain that? We should all be drinking champagne.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 07 Nov 19 7.55pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Jway89

They should be footing a higher %, based on how much that group is worth.
Are you honestly telling me that losing Philip Green will be a major loss?
Let's just take Warren Buffett as an example to really nail this point. I personally do not care if he's a billionaire, well I do, but not because of his wealth, but the influence that wealth has.
This guy is proud of the fact that he pays 15% in taxes while his secretary pays 30%ish.

This is what happens here too. I separate corporation tax from personal tax. I would like to see corporation tax lower, but, if I earn £30k and pay 20%, so left with £24kish, how is it a good idea to allow someone to pay 10% on £5m?

If the total amount the top 1% pay is 25% of the tax pot, it's because they have all the money.

Who would I get to fill in the gap? Create new entrepreneurs, through tax incentives or funding incentives towards an agreed goal, being climate change, regional employment or whatever.

A large proportion of money concentrated in a small group and I'm even not talking about people on £250k a year, leads to corruption, i.e. George Osborne is the Editor of the Evening Standard. A paper, who in the last election had the owner literally urging his readers to vote Conservative.

Just look at the last 10 years. The FTSE has hit record highs and Corbyn is a candidate to be Prime Minister. How on Earth do you explain that? We should all be drinking champagne.

10% of 5m in one year is more than your example will pay in a lifetime.
How much will they get back for there 500000 per year.
Exactly the same as the 6 k a year.
Tax the rich and push them out.
Very sensible.
Politics of envy.
The only winners will be the feckless and work shy purely for votes.

 

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

 

Page 47 of 215 < 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The Election Thread