Tories

[aintforever]

Well that is a question of political "science" or political movement, Realpolitik, if you will. But the substantive point I made is quite true.

 

Getting spongers off the sponge is as valid in a downturn as it is in an upturn.

 

Now, you may call a focus on that issue to be maneouvering or whetever but as far as the two major parties are concerned there is no debate to be had about capitalism at large. No one, apart from some raving loonies, accepts that there is a debate to be had on this point in the Western World. As far as the Western World is concerned, there is no battle of ideas any more. It's over. Capitalism won.

 

Well done for summing up a complex problem with the extremely illuminating and pithy, "greed and arrogance" as well, by the way. Clearly greed and arrogance could never flourish in Cuba or Russia and is only the preserve of uber-capitalist bankers. No?

 

You say "Capitalism won" as if the Worlds economy is like a football match that has just blown full time. The world is still turning, we have dug ourselves out of one hole by borrowing and printing money - things will inevitably come to a head and a more socialist attitude may end up the best way forward.

 

the rich can get richer and poor poorer for only so long, when the banker makes himself and his company millions he hasn't created any wealth, he's just taking wealth from someone else.

Edited 14 October, 2009 by aintforever

[badgerx16]

when the banker makes himself and his company millions he hasn't created any wealth, he's just taking wealth from someone else.

Or sometimes just inventing myths that appear on balance sheets as fact :smt017

[Wilko]

You say "Capitalism won" as if the Worlds economy is like a football match that has just blown full time. The world is still turning, we have dug ourselves out of one hole by borrowing and printing money - things will inevitably come to a head and a more socialist attitude may end up the best way forward.

 

the rich can get richer and poor poorer for only so long, when the banker makes himself and his company millions he hasn't created any wealth, he's just taking wealth from someone else.

 

Or sometimes just inventing myths that appear on balance sheets as fact :smt017

 

Abso-****ing-exactly.

 

Nobody praises professional bookies and gamblers for creating lots of wealth.

[JackanorySFC]

Ahhh, the old "bankers are corrupt" line. My mate at JPM made his company tens of millions last year by evaluating stoks and darivatives accross the globe and finding companies that are undervalued then investing in them (actually there's more to it than that but it's seriously boring).

 

He works bloody hard, 16 hour days and enjoys the fruits of his labout by sending his son to one of London's top Private schools, owning an amazing 5 bedroom house backing on to a golf course in Surrey, a beautiful wife that is a Corporate Lawyer, drinks vintage wine, drives amazing cars (or travels first class on trains and planes), holidays in Tuscany or the Seychelles and has a great apartment in Cannes which is rented out for exorbanant amounts. All by the time he's 33! He's well on course to retire at 45 (he's already well into golf lessons in preperation).

 

I personnally am proud of him, he left Wildern with hardly any GCSE's, got 1 A-Level (in History) and worked his way up through a number of different Trading companies (inc Cantor and BGC) 'til he was Head Hunted by JPM. Since arriving there he's made his company, his clients and himself huge amounts of money - all of which is taxed at 50%. He could have stayed in Southampton and settled for an average job on average money but he took a punt on giving it a go in London, worked hard, done his Finance exams and is where he is.

 

Met him and a few mutual mates for lunch at Le Coq de Argant on Monday (he was buying), JPM (and Sachs) are paying huge bonuses this year due to so many people being head hunted from European (mainly Swiss) Banks looking for our best talent, they can afford to pay smaller basic salarys and bonuses knowing their tax rates are far lower.

 

Those on here obviously jealous of another's success (in America we'd be applauding them before getting back to the immediate task of bettering ones self to give themself and their family a comfortible future) should bear in mind that if we keep squeezing this country's wealth creators - they'll go somewhere where their skills are appreciated.

[norwaysaint]

I have 20-30 Tories in my bedroom!

 

There's something of a swarm of them outside and they have climbed in through the window.

 

Does anyone know of any good ways of coaxing them back out?

[badgerx16]

It's not that bankers are 'corrupt', or that the arguments against are founded on jealousy; I have a close relative who is married, and both he and his wife 'retired' at 40, in exactly the circumstances you depict.

 

It's the system that permits the selling on, and re-selling, of ever more obscure packages of debt, founded on extremely dubious valuations and mortgage books, such that the merchant banks themselves ultimately have no ******* clue as to whether thay actually have an asset or not. The collapse of Lehman's was entrirely due to the fact they had an asset book with a face value of tens of billions of dollars, which in fact was worth the square root of bug ger all.

 

It's the unregulated system that employs some extremely clever, and morally suspect, mathematics whizzkids to generate ever more complex trading algorithms, which nobody aside from Einstein has a chance of figuring out. The accountants and auditors just hadn't a clue what they were looking at, it was all taken on trust.

 

It's a system that builds business out of lending mortgages for inflated valuations to people whose incomes dictate they never have a chance of meeting the monthly payments.

 

They were writing fairy tales and printing Monopoly money.

[RonManager]

I have 20-30 Tories in my bedroom!

 

There's something of a swarm of them outside and they have climbed in through the window.

 

Does anyone know of any good ways of coaxing them back out?

 

Stand in the garden and wave some money at them.

[benjii]

Are they docile?

[RonManager]

Are they docile?

 

When it's nap time, yes.

[aintforever]

Ahhh, the old "bankers are corrupt" line. My mate at JPM made his company tens of millions last year by evaluating stoks and darivatives accross the globe and finding companies that are undervalued then investing in them (actually there's more to it than that but it's seriously boring).

 

He works bloody hard, 16 hour days and enjoys the fruits of his labout by sending his son to one of London's top Private schools, owning an amazing 5 bedroom house backing on to a golf course in Surrey, a beautiful wife that is a Corporate Lawyer, drinks vintage wine, drives amazing cars (or travels first class on trains and planes), holidays in Tuscany or the Seychelles and has a great apartment in Cannes which is rented out for exorbanant amounts. All by the time he's 33! He's well on course to retire at 45 (he's already well into golf lessons in preperation).

 

I personnally am proud of him, he left Wildern with hardly any GCSE's, got 1 A-Level (in History) and worked his way up through a number of different Trading companies (inc Cantor and BGC) 'til he was Head Hunted by JPM. Since arriving there he's made his company, his clients and himself huge amounts of money - all of which is taxed at 50%. He could have stayed in Southampton and settled for an average job on average money but he took a punt on giving it a go in London, worked hard, done his Finance exams and is where he is.

 

Met him and a few mutual mates for lunch at Le Coq de Argant on Monday (he was buying), JPM (and Sachs) are paying huge bonuses this year due to so many people being head hunted from European (mainly Swiss) Banks looking for our best talent, they can afford to pay smaller basic salarys and bonuses knowing their tax rates are far lower.

 

Those on here obviously jealous of another's success (in America we'd be applauding them before getting back to the immediate task of bettering ones self to give themself and their family a comfortible future) should bear in mind that if we keep squeezing this country's wealth creators - they'll go somewhere where their skills are appreciated.

 

Oh not this "worked hard, fruits of labour" rubbish, there are millions who work their asses of doing more worthwhile jobs, it's just this ****ed up society skewed by rampant capitalism doesn't deem their jobs valuable enough, even if it is saving lives or protecting society.

 

I'm sure your mate is a top bloke, but all the wealth he has created for his company and himself and Mr Brown has just been taken from someone else, he hasn't created anything.

[benjii]

Oh not this "worked hard, fruits of labour" rubbish, there are millions who work their asses of doing more worthwhile jobs, it's just this ****ed up society skewed by rampant capitalism doesn't deem their jobs valuable enough, even if it is saving lives or protecting society.

 

I'm sure your mate is a top bloke, but all the wealth he has created for his company and himself and Mr Brown has just been taken from someone else, he hasn't created anything.

 

Boo hoo.

 

Get over it and stop being such a pleb.

[aintforever]

Boo hoo.

 

Get over it and stop being such a pleb.

 

Try commenting on a thread you understand, *****.

[Saint George]

It's not that bankers are 'corrupt', or that the arguments against are founded on jealousy; I have a close relative who is married, and both he and his wife 'retired' at 40, in exactly the circumstances you depict.

 

It's the system that permits the selling on, and re-selling, of ever more obscure packages of debt, founded on extremely dubious valuations and mortgage books, such that the merchant banks themselves ultimately have no ******* clue as to whether thay actually have an asset or not. The collapse of Lehman's was entrirely due to the fact they had an asset book with a face value of tens of billions of dollars, which in fact was worth the square root of bug ger all.

 

It's the unregulated system that employs some extremely clever, and morally suspect, mathematics whizzkids to generate ever more complex trading algorithms, which nobody aside from Einstein has a chance of figuring out. The accountants and auditors just hadn't a clue what they were looking at, it was all taken on trust.

 

It's a system that builds business out of lending mortgages for inflated valuations to people whose incomes dictate they never have a chance of meeting the monthly payments.

 

They were writing fairy tales and printing Monopoly money.

 

US Toxic debt tipped the scales, not poor accounting.......The toxic debt that US banks were forced to take on in ever increasing amounts by 'Government Regulation' from the Clinton era....Who were then monitored and pursued though the courts by groups like Obama's ACORN etc for failing to provide enough 'poor' and 'minority' people with mortgages.

 

The very peeps that most Banks sensibly wouldn't have touched with a barge pole prior to Left wing Government intervention.

[Saint George]

It's not that bankers are 'corrupt', or that the arguments against are founded on jealousy; I have a close relative who is married, and both he and his wife 'retired' at 40, in exactly the circumstances you depict.

 

It's the system that permits the selling on, and re-selling, of ever more obscure packages of debt, founded on extremely dubious valuations and mortgage books, such that the merchant banks themselves ultimately have no ******* clue as to whether thay actually have an asset or not. The collapse of Lehman's was entrirely due to the fact they had an asset book with a face value of tens of billions of dollars, which in fact was worth the square root of bug ger all.

 

It's the unregulated system that employs some extremely clever, and morally suspect, mathematics whizzkids to generate ever more complex trading algorithms, which nobody aside from Einstein has a chance of figuring out. The accountants and auditors just hadn't a clue what they were looking at, it was all taken on trust.

 

It's a system that builds business out of lending mortgages for inflated valuations to people whose incomes dictate they never have a chance of meeting the monthly payments.

 

They were writing fairy tales and printing Monopoly money.

 

Sorry missed that bit.....The Banks were 'forced' into making those loans via Clinton regulation......Little to do with greed, see my post above

 

Left wing and minority groups like ACORN and the NAACP then pushed peeps through the regulated system to ensure they obtained the loans and mortgages that they were 'entitled to' (prolly most used word in Britain these days)

 

Removing regulation would allow the Banks to go back to doing what they used to do best....conservatively protecting their's and their customer's money

[badgerx16]

US Toxic debt tipped the scales, not poor accounting.......The toxic debt that US banks were forced to take on in ever increasing amounts by 'Government Regulation' from the Clinton era....Who were then monitored and pursued though the courts by groups like Obama's ACORN etc for failing to provide enough 'poor' and 'minority' people with mortgages.

 

The very peeps that most Banks sensibly wouldn't have touched with a barge pole prior to Left wing Government intervention.

LOL at the idea of a 'left wing' Government in the States.

 

I accept the basic point about the mortgage books, but the problem with 'toxicity' was not simply down to the lending practice, it was the various financial institutions with their clever trading practices and repetitive incestuous repackaging and reselling of debt as an asset, knowing it was potentially valueless, and finding more and more convoluted methods of hiding the true content of the 'futures' they were trading with each other, until eventually they were exchanging what was effectively just an A4 sheet of paper, yet placing a 'value' of billions upon it. Once they actually stopped the merry-go-round, and tried to add up what they as companies were genuinely worth, they found a bl00dy great black hole, they then ran crying to the US Treasury pleading for public money to bail them out.

 

It was all reminiscent, though on a far larger scale, of the Lloyds names, who were quite happy to take the profits during the good times, ( and hoped to minimise the tax liability on their gains ), but asked for Government help when their investments started showing a loss.

[JackanorySFC]

Oh not this "worked hard, fruits of labour" rubbish, there are millions who work their asses of doing more worthwhile jobs, it's just this ****ed up society skewed by rampant capitalism doesn't deem their jobs valuable enough, even if it is saving lives or protecting society.

 

I'm sure your mate is a top bloke, but all the wealth he has created for his company and himself and Mr Brown has just been taken from someone else, he hasn't created anything.

 

You (and Society in General actually) think they are more worthwhile. But I'd say my Mate's job is as worthwhile if not more so, his taxes (both personal and corporate) pay for dozens of teachers and nurses saleries every year.

 

The thing that gets me is people that moan about others pay, if it's pay that motivates a teacher or nurse then they can head to the City and (with lots and lots of hard work, application and a bit of luck) end up earning multiples of their salary - my mate had f*** all in terms of qualifications. If it's not money that motivates people then they should be grateful for the taxes my mate sends their way to pay for new equipment and salaries.

[benjii]

Try commenting on a thread you understand, *****.

 

I don't understand your simplistic whinging but I do understand economic and social reality and pragmatism.

[benjii]

You (and Society in General actually) think they are more worthwhile. But I'd say my Mate's job is as worthwhile if not more so, his taxes (both personal and corporate) pay for dozens of teachers and nurses saleries every year.

 

The thing that gets me is people that moan about others pay, if it's pay that motivates a teacher or nurse then they can head to the City and (with lots and lots of hard work, application and a bit of luck) end up earning multiples of their salary - my mate had f*** all in terms of qualifications. If it's not money that motivates people then they should be grateful for the taxes my mate sends their way to pay for new equipment and salaries.

 

Exactly - it's complete hypocrisy.

[GenevaSaint]

and has a great apartment in Cannes which is rented out for exorbanant amounts. All by the time he's 33! He's well on course to retire at 45 (he's already well into golf lessons in preperation).

 

Met him and a few mutual mates for lunch at Le Coq de Argant on Monday (he was buying), JPM (and Sachs) are paying huge bonuses this year due to so many people being head hunted from European (mainly Swiss) Banks looking for our best talent, they can afford to pay smaller basic salarys and bonuses knowing their tax rates are far lower.

 

In regards to the first paragraph, would be interesting to see if he retires. Alot of people in this line of business miss the thrill. Look at Jamie Dimon and the recently moved on Bill Winters. Neither need to work, Bill Winters who recently left JPMC has $50m dollars in JPMC shares. I wonder what motivates these people some days!

 

I work for JPMC, and will not be receiving a massive bonus! I'd just like to say to everyone on here who reads the Mail, not everyone will get £1m + bonuses. Just like the **** in the paper today, all Goldmans staff get $500k or whatever the figure is, that's for traders only, not the receptionist or back office staff that process the trades etc, so much bs is spoken about bank bonuses. All that said, I will be wishing I was a trader in January!

 

Fair play to your mate. We all make choices about jobs and career paths, you don't go into the Fire, Police or Ambulance service to make millions.

 

I do earn a good wage though, I know a paramedic and I don't feel worthy at times.

[aintforever]

You (and Society in General actually) think they are more worthwhile. But I'd say my Mate's job is as worthwhile if not more so, his taxes (both personal and corporate) pay for dozens of teachers and nurses saleries every year.

 

The thing that gets me is people that moan about others pay, if it's pay that motivates a teacher or nurse then they can head to the City and (with lots and lots of hard work, application and a bit of luck) end up earning multiples of their salary - my mate had f*** all in terms of qualifications. If it's not money that motivates people then they should be grateful for the taxes my mate sends their way to pay for new equipment and salaries.

 

Dont give me that tax rubbish, it is easy to have a fairer tax system that generates the same income.

 

IMO a more progressive tax system would help the country in this current climate so your mate should pay more. I have a friend who has made a absolute fortune, a few extra percent in tax would make no difference to his lifestyle whatsoever - he certainly wont leave the country.

[aintforever]

I don't understand your simplistic whinging but I do understand economic and social reality and pragmatism.

 

Spoken like a true nobhead.

[benjii]

Spoken like a true nobhead.

 

You seem quite angered by this whole thing. Are you a union person? They always seem angry.

 

Look, we will be having a True Blue government, and about time too, so you may as well try to calm down a bit.

[aintforever]

You seem quite angered by this whole thing. Are you a union person? They always seem angry.

 

Look, we will be having a True Blue government, and about time too, so you may as well try to calm down a bit.

 

You were the one who felt the need to start throwing insults around, I'm just joining in the fun.

 

I've never been in a union in my life, I earn decent money so will probably be better off if the torys get in anyway so am not bothered either way - just feel strongly about certain social injustices.

 

Now you get back to jerking off over your mum's underwear catalogue, and leave the politics to the grown ups.

[benjii]

You were the one who felt the need to start throwing insults around, I'm just joining in the fun.

 

I've never been in a union in my life, I earn decent money so will probably be better off if the torys get in anyway so am not bothered either way - just feel strongly about certain social injustices.

 

Now you get back to jerking off over your mum's underwear catalogue, and leave the politics to the grown ups.

 

That's a good one for the nostalgia thread actually!

[Clapham Saint]

Dont give me that tax rubbish, it is easy to have a fairer tax system that generates the same income.

 

IMO a more progressive tax system would help the country in this current climate so your mate should pay more. I have a friend who has made a absolute fortune, a few extra percent in tax would make no difference to his lifestyle whatsoever - he certainly wont leave the country.

 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the impact of National Insurance.

 

If we take the case of Benjii's friend, for every £1000 he is paid as a bonus he is taxed 50%.

 

He also pays 1% national insuarance.

 

So for every £1000 he earns he gets £490.

 

His employer also pays employers national insurance of 12.8% above the secondary threshold.

 

So for a notional £1000.

 

The employer pays 1128.

 

Benjii's friend receives £490.

 

Mr Darling gets £638.

 

So the spit in % of what is paid out is:

 

Benjii's mate 38%

 

Tax man 62%.

 

 

I don't earn anywhere near the amounts Benjii's friend does but to me that seems excessive.

 

Could you or I do what he does? No

 

Does he deserve the money he earns? IMO, yes.

[Saint George]

You were the one who felt the need to start throwing insults around, I'm just joining in the fun.

 

I've never been in a union in my life, I earn decent money so will probably be better off if the torys get in anyway so am not bothered either way - just feel strongly about certain social injustices.

 

Now you get back to jerking off over your mum's underwear catalogue, and leave the politics to the grown ups.

 

1st Law of Socialism is to reduce everyone to the lowest denominator eh?

[Johnny Bognor]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the impact of National Insurance.

 

If we take the case of Benjii's friend, for every £1000 he is paid as a bonus he is taxed 50%.

 

He also pays 1% national insuarance.

 

So for every £1000 he earns he gets £490.

 

His employer also pays employers national insurance of 12.8% above the secondary threshold.

 

So for a notional £1000.

 

The employer pays 1128.

 

Benjii's friend receives £490.

 

Mr Darling gets £638.

 

So the spit in % of what is paid out is:

 

Benjii's mate 38%

 

Tax man 62%.

 

 

I don't earn anywhere near the amounts Benjii's friend does but to me that seems excessive.

 

Could you or I do what he does? No

 

Does he deserve the money he earns? IMO, yes.

 

...and thats the tax on his earnings and employment. If we consider the money he made at the Bank, then this would have contributed to profits and/or dividends at some point which would have also been taxed, so his total contribution would have been far higher.

 

So as for society, he contributes more than his fair share. What irks me is how the socialists only seem to consider non-financial contributions to society when financial contributions are just as valid as someone does have to pay for it all at the end of the day.

 

I liken it to a family household. The father goes out to work to earn money to pay the bills and the mother looks after the children and keeps the home. In this scenario, neither contribution is less valid and in fact it is both contributions that leads to a steady and balanced household. A balanced society is no different IMO

[Wade Garrett]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the impact of National Insurance.

 

If we take the case of Benjii's friend, for every £1000 he is paid as a bonus he is taxed 50%.

 

He also pays 1% national insuarance.

 

So for every £1000 he earns he gets £490.

 

His employer also pays employers national insurance of 12.8% above the secondary threshold.

 

So for a notional £1000.

 

The employer pays 1128.

 

Benjii's friend receives £490.

 

Mr Darling gets £638.

 

So the spit in % of what is paid out is:

 

Benjii's mate 38%

 

Tax man 62%.

 

 

I don't earn anywhere near the amounts Benjii's friend does but to me that seems excessive.

 

Could you or I do what he does? No

 

Does he deserve the money he earns? IMO, yes.

 

You are right with what you say, but how many of the rich people in the 50% bracket pay their tax through PAYE? I remember comparing my tax contributions with someone who was on 60k+ and I was paying more tax than him because he was self-employed (although he was working for a large financial services firm, selling). I wouldn't mind, but at the time I was earning less than a third of what he was on.

 

It's not all black and white my friend.

[Rattlehead]

These threads nearly always highlight the obvious jealousy of people who are not doing as well as others, people who want it all on a plate.

[benjii]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the impact of National Insurance.

 

If we take the case of Benjii's friend, for every £1000 he is paid as a bonus he is taxed 50%.

 

He also pays 1% national insuarance.

 

So for every £1000 he earns he gets £490.

 

His employer also pays employers national insurance of 12.8% above the secondary threshold.

 

So for a notional £1000.

 

The employer pays 1128.

 

Benjii's friend receives £490.

 

Mr Darling gets £638.

 

So the spit in % of what is paid out is:

 

Benjii's mate 38%

 

Tax man 62%.

 

 

I don't earn anywhere near the amounts Benjii's friend does but to me that seems excessive.

 

Could you or I do what he does? No

 

Does he deserve the money he earns? IMO, yes.

 

It's not my friend!

[Colinjb]

1st Law of Socialism is to reduce everyone to the lowest denominator eh?

 

That isn't the aim, but it often tends to.

[Clapham Saint]

It's not my friend!

 

D'oh.

 

JackanorySFC's

 

The point is the same though

[View From The Top]

These threads nearly always highlight the obvious jealousy of people who are not doing as well as others, people who want it all on a plate.

 

As a smug bastard who has the best of both worlds (public sector job and private sector business) I'm still left leaning as I have a sense of society and fairness.

 

My best mate, also on this site, works in finance in The City, earns way, way more than me, has the trappings that go with it, but he's still the same person I 1st met 20 years ago, but I wouldn't swap careers for the world.

 

To earn the cash he has to do stupid hours and is often away from his kids and he's not "happy" in his work.

 

I'd sooner be content, comfortable, knowing that I'm making a positive contribution to other peoples lives and be there for my kids.

[benjii]

D'oh.

 

JackanorySFC's

 

The point is the same though

 

I'm always weary of people trying to befriend me on t'internet whether by proxy or otherwise.

[South Londoner]

Next election is going to be difficult for me; for many reasons, I'm no longer prepared to vote Labour; however, I have an excellent constituency MP in Kate Hoey, who as you'll probably know is..........Labour (Doh ! A dilemma.)

 

By the way, did you know that my local authority, Lambeth, has renamed the "Brixton Riots" the "Brixton Uprising." ??????

[saintfully]

No-ones mentioned that for most people opportunity is down to luck. ie. Where you're born, when you're born and who your parents are. Often, what you are born with in terms of talent has very little to do with it.

 

My problem with both Labour and the Tories is that they have/will fail to address the huge issue of unequal opportunity for people. Tories abolishing inheritance tax is just mental. I reckon that a fair society is where everyone has as equal a chance as possible. Im a scientist and its shocking that, even now, the proportion of young UK researchers with PhDs coming from privileged backgrounds is huge. You just don't get that with the kids from mainland Europe for example. Its such a waste of talent to skew opportunity toward the upper (middle) classes.

 

FWIW I'll be voting LibDem

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

These threads nearly always highlight the obvious jealousy of people who are not doing as well as others, people who want it all on a plate.

 

Not at all. But it always highlights just how messed up capitalism is as a system. The "I'm alright Jack" society at it's best.

 

Anyway, back to point of this thread originally. I have said it before and will say it again. The Tories only look out for themselves: The people who have wealth. 'Dave' should just cut to the chase and say "Sod the rest of you, us earning more than 20k-30k a year will be fine."

[Johnny Bognor]

Not at all. But it always highlights just how messed up capitalism is as a system. The "I'm alright Jack" society at it's best.

 

Anyway, back to point of this thread originally. I have said it before and will say it again. The Tories only look out for themselves: The people who have wealth. 'Dave' should just cut to the chase and say "Sod the rest of you, us earning more than 20k-30k a year will be fine."

 

£20k-£30k a year is not having 'wealth'.

 

£20k is the median salary in the UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8151355.stm)

 

Considering 50% of the working population earn more than this (by definition), it is hardly a case of looking after the priveledged few.

[benjii]

Not at all. But it always highlights just how messed up capitalism is as a system. The "I'm alright Jack" society at it's best.

 

Anyway, back to point of this thread originally. I have said it before and will say it again. The Tories only look out for themselves: The people who have wealth. 'Dave' should just cut to the chase and say "Sod the rest of you, us earning more than 20k-30k a year will be fine."

 

:smt041 Yippee!

 

Seriously though, if you want to live in some sort or Rousseau-esque agrarian egalitarian lentil fest then move to a third world country or a commune in the outer hebridies. I happen to think that would be pretty sweet actually but I recognise I would need to actually make an effort and extricate myself from capitalist society if I want it to happen.

 

There are 60million people in this country. Some will be better off than others. Some will have "earnt" this, whatever that means, some will have had it earnt for them by their parents, some will just be lucky. Some of the poor will be poor because they are stupid, ignorant and lazy, some because their parents were stupid, ignorant and lazy and some because they are unlucky.

 

(and the notion of "luck" is actually a bad reference to use on my part. There isn't really luck involved; it's inevitable in a population of that size)

 

Any attempt to even the playing-field in a drastic way by trying to implement some sort of paradigm shift in mass-herd human behaviour is just silly. People will always try to better themselves and look after their friends and family first. That is baltantly true and the hypocrisy of socialists is screamingly apparent. If you care that much about inequality then you should go to Africa and do charity work. You should sell everything. Renounce all materialism. Oh. You care about inequality.... you care as long as it's you looking up at others. Care a bit less when you're looking down.

Edited 15 October, 2009 by benjii

[saintfully]

"Any attempt to even the playing-field in a drastic way by trying to implement some sort of paradigm shift in mass-herd human behaviour is just silly."

 

Erm, I think thats wrong. Why do you think some democratic Western European countries (eg.Denmark) have flatter societies than others (eg. UK) ? Part of the reason are the political choices made by the population.

 

I think these political choices change over time and are dependent on the political choices made in the past. I think we are led by a bunch of narrow-minded flip-flopping tossers (floating voters) because of our voting system. Other countries which have a more representative system seem to make more informed rational choices which benefit wider sections of society.

[View From The Top]

£20k-£30k a year is not having 'wealth'.

 

You are quite correct.

[benjii]

"Any attempt to even the playing-field in a drastic way by trying to implement some sort of paradigm shift in mass-herd human behaviour is just silly."

 

Erm, I think thats wrong. Why do you think some democratic Western European countries (eg.Denmark) have flatter societies than others (eg. UK) ? Part of the reason are the political choices made by the population.

 

I think these political choices change over time and are dependent on the political choices made in the past. I think we are led by a bunch of narrow-minded flip-flopping tossers (floating voters) because of our voting system. Other countries which have a more representative system seem to make more informed rational choices which benefit wider sections of society.

 

I'm not saying you can't create a better society through democratic means and that our system is the best or that our society is perfect. There seems to be a swell of opinion on here though that we need to fundamentally re-adress the ethical implications of capitalism and that there is a viable alternative. My contention is that in a large scale society, there simply isn't.

 

"Man was born free, yet everywhere is in chains" - Rousseau may have been correct but we're beyond the point of no return, save for some sort of cataclysmic paradigm shift that would only come about through large scale destruction / violent revolution.

[View From The Top]

Any attempt to even the playing-field in a drastic way by trying to implement some sort of paradigm shift in mass-herd human behaviour is just silly. People will always try to better themselves and look after their friends and family first. That is baltantly true and the hypocrisy of socialists is screamingly apparent. If you care that much about inequality then you should go to Africa and do charity work. You should sell everything. Renounce all materialism. Oh. You care about inequality.... you care as long as it's you looking up at others. Care a bit less when you're looking down.

 

 

So, all those with a socialist bent are commies?

 

QED, all those right of centre are fascists.

[benjii]

So, all those with a socialist bent are commies?

 

QED, all those right of centre are fascists.

 

No, simply that castigating others for an "I'm alright Jack mentality" is hypocritical when the motivation for that ire is purely selfish.

 

All of us in the Western world who sit on our arse all day tapping away at the internet, enjoying our heating, food, water, entertainment, security etc.. are the embodiment of the "I'm alright Jack" mentality.

[Wade Garrett]

These threads nearly always highlight the obvious jealousy of people who are not doing as well as others, people who want it all on a plate.

 

Not at all. Good luck to the high earners, especially the business owners who are creating wealth and jobs. They are the backbone of the country. My point is, that not all high earners pay tax via PAYE. They get away with paying a fortune. Again, fair enough, as long as you keep within the law. Just don't moan about the 50% tax rate.

 

My wife and I don't earn a kings ransom, but as it is above £50k combined we stand to lose something like £170ish a month in child tax credits. Forgive me if I don't sympathise with those earning 6 figure salaries.

[Wade Garrett]

So, all those with a socialist bent are commies?

 

QED, all those right of centre are fascists.

 

Can I be a commie with fascist tendencies?

[benjii]

I don't really see why child tax credits exist anyway?

 

I appreciate that when you have one it is annoying to have to lose it... but, why should you pay less tax just because you've had a kid? If anything your family is now likely to be a greater strain on the public purse than before and you should pay more.

[Johnny Bognor]

So, all those with a socialist bent are commies?

 

QED, all those right of centre are fascists.

 

I don't think it is that simple. This map for me sums up the political spectrum.

 

So you can be on the right and be a fan of "convervative liberalism"

 

[View From The Top]

I don't think it is that simple. This map for me sums up the political spectrum.

 

So you can be on the right and be a fan of "convervative liberalism"

 

 

QED you can be socialist with being a commie as others had intimated.

Many "lefties" would, I suggest, come under the social democracy heading.

[Johnny Bognor]

QED you can be socialist with being a commie as others had intimated.

 

Many "lefties" would, I suggest, come under the social democracy heading.

 

I am not sure about that.... as many of them believe in nationalism and state intervention, therefore many of them would be in the bottom left segment.