So Margaret Thatcher has died. I hope that we will not see street partys as suggested above. Whether you agreed with her politics or not, she did what she thought was right. There were different problems with the country at the time she was in power and many people did agree with her methods of dealing with them.
100% agree OFH - there was a lot of good in what she did and a lot of bad - she certainly polarized opinion but to celebrate the death of someone is just sick
Am in awe of your post #97 Leo - oh that I had the mental faculties to think of such a response, let alone put it so eloquently in writing. I understand your point about 'the rich' - but don't totally agree with what you say. I'd say that those people who 'dislike' those many times better off than themselves do so for different reasons as opposed to just not liking having them. I suspect that it's more related to the fact that the divide between the haves and the have-nots is simply far too great. Yes there need to be incentives/rewards in place to which everyone can aspire - but if anything needs to regulated, it surely must be the accumulation of too much wealth - how much can one family need and reasonably dispose of in their successive lifetimes? I disagree too that in general 'the money they have was not forcibly taken from others.' - true no physical force may have been used, but the effect of the 'haves' on consumer prices is truly detrimental for the 'have-nots'. Football is a case in point. Here we are, like every other fan, aspiring to the Premiership, yet how would achieving that impact upon the finances of the majority of us? With football having become a cash cow for investors and a plaything the the mega rich, the last thing many could afford, or want, is our club to become another Arsenal, who fleece their fans to the tune of £60 approx just for entry to a match. Little more than blackmail in my book, and certainly a case of the rich flexing their financial muscles to the detriment of the poor. You say that 'what is theirs is theirs', whether it be from inheritance, the lottery or good fortune in work - fair enough. But what about those who have prospered thanks to crime? Or those, like our former owner Lord Ashcroft, who have made the avoidance of paying a proper share into an art form? Are they acceptable? Society simply needs to be fairer IMO. Whilst it doesn't really affect me, telling people that they have to move out of their homes because they have a room too many - when there is nowhere smaller for them to access - is not fair. Mocking people by telling them that anyone can exist on £53 a week is not fair - especially when those doing the mocking spend more than that on breakfast, not to mention claim it on expenses. Banks - as in Cyprus recently - 'charging' customers a percentage of their account balances is not fair - especially after closing their doors to the public before announcing this, yet after having allowed their major account holders to quietly move their money overseas first. How to achieve that fairness when everything revolves around money though is anyone's guess - it's certainly beyond me.
I think BB, that is the challenge - how can you deliver fairness? Rampant capitalism where there are no controls on the rich or socialism with huge state controls that forces equality except for the leaders who become the rich?
loving all the self made people on here who because they're ok, all is fine in the world-- its a basic economic fact that capitalism relies on exploiting many for the sake of a few-- that has been the advanced worlds benefit at the expense of the vast majority who live in areas of great resource but not the means to exploit them. Capitalism can only continue in this fashion, it utiilises technology -not for the greater good, but for selfish purposes-- i wonder what is left to self off--Queen perhaps-- get her off benefits-- and open up her gaff for bnb ...
Blimey rudebwoy I thought that arguments like these had ended when it was shown that the likes of Russia and other so called communist countries always fail. Carry on believing what you do if you like and snipe at people who started like yourself but actually did drag themselves out of the gutter. It is always easy to blame others for personal failure, it is harder to look in the mirror. Capitalism creates wealth - a good society then makes sure that it is spread around to ensure that those who are less fortunate have welfare, health, education and the chance to prosper.
Lots to answer - apologies for brevity. People have to get over the fact that we have super rich amongst us. Let them drink champagne and drive their fast cars - a good society can never be built on envy. The wealthiest 1% probably own 20% of wealth ( I just guessed those figures) but it has come down the generations of landowning families. These people are not real in my world. I never aspire to be one of them and so long as we take tax off their incomes and try to prevent tax schemes to avoid tax I am content. I doubt that prices are significantly affected by the haves v the have -nots except in commodities that I do not buy like caviarre People who have prospered due to crime or illegal tax measures should lose their gains - not acceptable. Some of the new benefit rules are just plain stupid. However the principle is right - to try to get people to live in a house the right size for them - unless they are paying for it themselves - what is stupid is not having the houses of the right size for these eople to move to. The £53 per week is a bit silly isn't it - I thought that was the sum someone (probably on the left wing who defines poverty) worked out was left to spend on food in a week after paying for other things - it did not include cost of accommodation etc. My dad is a pensioner living only on his state pension and nothing else - he does not claim anything in benefits although he is almost 90 - he reckons he gets by OK Cyprus is the result of EU Euro stupidity and is quite another issue
you have plenty of time on your hands leonardo-- try doing a bit of research before making things up-- which you cheerfully admit, then procede to use that as some argument-- jeez man-- and when i say research , stuff with references not Daily mail opinions....
Clearly rudebwoy you would rather have had the country run by Arthur Scargill, the man who took his union to court because they said they could not continue to pay his expenses for the rest of his life.
You have no idea how much time I have on my hands rudebwoy - so don't make it up - biter bit I hate the Sun and Daily Mail and do not read them - so wrong again The point I made did not need accurate figures - whether the top 1% owns 20% or 90% or 5% is not material as the point was clearly being made that they own far more than their percentage in society - put your thinking cap on and try to understand the argument and also consider whether your Daily Mail (- you must read it to be able to decide what it says - ) would make such a point. Suggest you do not leave school till you can adduce a reasonable argument which does not simply involve parroting others' views and denigrating your fellow debaters - you may have perceived that the standard of argument on here is a teensy weensy bit above your standard to date.
1. Unfortunately, I don't believe that we can allow ourselves to lock the mega-rich away in their own little bubble. It's not a case of envy (well, not for me anyway) - it's more a case of if we do that, we don't really know what they are up to, and can never know how it will impact upon us. And impact upon us it has - adversely. Without regulation, the likes of Goodwin, Crosby, Stevenson and Hornby brought this country to its knees, yet walked away unscathed having done little else except feather their own nests. And who is paying the price for that? You, me and every other decent taxpayer in the country...... 2. I give you the Royal Family. 3. I'm not so sure that the Cyprus thing is quite another issue. Yes, it was the result of Euro stupidity - but who was it that magically spirited their money out of the country and over here before the announcement? There is a list of the named and shamed, and it does include British names - maybe I'm wrong in suspecting them to be some of our mega-rich, but the amounts involved suggest otherwise. There was another group who weren't named and shamed - all rumoured to be Russian super-mega-rich. If this can happen in a European country - ostensibly one of our 'partners' - there is nothing to say that it won't happen here & I for one don't trust that the Tories wouldn't try it.
Some interesting commentary on 5 Live tonight regarding Maggie...some sound bites:- 1. Public spending under her time as PM increased by 13% in real terms i.e. after inflation. Of course it was helped by the significant increases in tax revenues as the economy grew. 2. Maggie thought that the Euro was a bad idea because of the risk to the small countries - seems she was right on that!
I really just don't get this argument about people earning different amounts and accumulating wealth because of it. Are some saying that Elton John who started with nothing, but because of his talent has now huge wealth, should have only been paid the same as the pub pianist who performs on a Saturday night? Should the goalkeeper at Bangor City be paid the same as someone under pressure in the PL? I doubt that anyone with a brain cell would say that, and provided that they pay the taxes that the government of the day deem suitable I don't see a problem. If you don't like the government tax policy don't vote for it, you might not win, but that is democracy. People here with large amounts of capital are getting out of the country because the current socialist regime don't seem to understand that tax has to be fair, and to simply try to soak the rich doesn't work. If some of the tax was actually getting to the poor it would be one thing, but it isn't. It is going to support government owned companies like EDF who are not being run as they could be, and giving increases to other state owned companies to keep the trades unions happy. As I heard a commentator say this evening, "It is unbelievable today to think that a government can run run a telephone system better than a company can".
But surely OFH politicians and civil servants know how to run power companies and phone companies and oil companies and and and...? I will be able to make some interesting comparisons in the coming months. My company has just moved our technical support contract to the same supplier that the government is using for the assessments of it's new Disabled Benefits strategy...they do not have a good reputation from what I hear.
leonardo are you always a condescending type or do you work at it-- your powers of reason bypass my antennae , before jumping on and assuming you know best, do consider there are others with different experiences and therefore different attitudes to life.... i know you mean well , but turn the patronising down a bit eh...
I set my condescention button appropriate to the recipient I do not know best and have never said I do - like others I just try to give an opinion and reasons for it. Look at yourself though - you have not given any reasons or facts for one single thing you have said - you have sniped at me all along because you see yourself as a victim and have identified me as a soft Tory or liberal - I do not spout other people's ideology but think for myself and try to support what I believe with reasons. When you do the same I will afford you some respect but until then I will continue to treat you as rude-little-boy who has inadvertantly got into a room where adult conversation is going on. This forum unlike others you may frequent has genuine people giving their honest opinions - we all differ but respect each other - you know you are a WUM but we like a little banter so we tolerate you - condescending enough for you?
