Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll

That's a very interesting post there Ubes.

I agree that there's nearly always envy when anyone in any position looks up the food chain and a lot of that is a perceived fortune in situation. Likewise, there nearly always seems to be the perception of laziness or lack of aspiration when looking downwards.

I certainly wouldn't suggest that hard work/personal sacrifice is the key factor in determining who should demand the higher earnings - there are people where I work, on minimum pay in the factory, who work extra hours and put in as much effort as anyone. OK, that doesn't get blurred into their home lives, but I have been in the position where I worked holidays, evenings, weekends and others (leaving my Mum's on Boxing Day to go home to check that reports have run and then heading straight back for one example) all for within 10% of Stan's average wage figure.

My personal belief is it's down to a combination of business acumen (which I have to some level) and the broad social skills - networking, salemanship, charisma (that I don't have and readily acknowledge that I never will) plus the wilingness to take responsibility for both a business entity and probably other people's livelihoods.

It is a combination of skills that is ideally suited to the capitalist idea but it also is a relatively arbitrary circumstance too (why should salesmanship be more highly rewarded than the ability to repair washing machines). My earlier assertion about fortune would be that you need to be in a prime position to benefit from the economy (on a more personal scale, it would, for example, be having the resources to purchase a house precisely when the market is low or on a business scale, having the opportunity to attain a business cheaply). The almost arbitrary nature of this leads to the resentment/envy I mentioned. It does ignore the self-made man - those with unique ideas and drive (those that learn and work hard) and to that extent is unfair.

In terms of the tax problem, what would you have - 40% for everyone from £1 earnings upwards? If you have a problem with the tax bands, then a flat rate is the only answer. Give any kind of allowance then you're penalising those above it for being higher earners (for example, someone earning 14K could have the same grievance with the 10.5K tax free bracket now). If you compensate those tax payers below a minimum standard of living then you're most descrimiating against those just on or over the threshold (they work for the same standard of living as someone who gets assistance meeting it).

If you abandon income tax and make it consumption related (a variant of sales tax for example)then you end up encouraging people to be thrifty in order to have a large wealth (in savings)which will shrink the economy and reduce the earning capacity of the self-made men like yourself. Give re-investment incentives (I assume the old dividend tax-rate of 32% still applies in some form, so some equivalent of that perhaps) and you'd be descriminating against those who don't have that spending potential. Such a taxation method would also make anyone who sells items actively involved in taxing others. I'm sure there could be implications there (especially in regions with monopolies).

Ultimately, someone always loses out. If you're asking if I would sympathise more with a minimum wage earner being the one missing out or someone further up the chain then you can guess the answer.

Should those that make the most out of the capitalist economy in which we live be the ones to reinvest the most? Well it brings everyone to more of a level and can be reinvested in schools etc that give more of a level playing field for the next generation too so from a socialist point, yes. From a capitalist point, pay your taxes, aspire to earn more, work even harder and make it happen...

 

Anyway - here in sunny Denmark we're all rich and we have the dying Jantelovn - an unwritten law that forbids your neighbor from having anything better than anyone else - a very interesting law when everyone is well off I can tell ya!!
People buying flash cars - which have a 275% tax I might add, tell people they've bought the car as second hand taxi!!

So, with all these riches, beautiful people and pretty fantastic welfare system whilst maintaining a blossoming and prosperous economy - we the Danes are in the perfect position to pontificate to you Brits as to how to run a decent coalition.

firstly - Everyone has to sign up for either the Blue block or the Red block - we have Venstre (translated as Left which is our Conservative party!!) and are the leaders of the blue block and the social Democrats (Your Labour) led by the very sexy Helle who is Neil Kinnock's daughter in law.
You know exactly who you're voting for when you issue your vote.

secondly - Everyone's vote counts with Proportional representation - this First past the post is from Cromwell days my friends.

Sorry not been on recently but being a voyeur, keep it sexy, the Ferries with the beautiful girls has at long last arrived, so absolutely perfect.

Maybe the best coalition could be Labour with Conservatives - has anyone thought of that??

 

It all boils down to who / what different parties choose to 'weaponise' (taking a popular word).

 

It's all part of growing up and being British. Chin up, mustn't grumble, worse things happen at sea, there's always someone worse off etc etc. My Outlook calendar tells me that it's Administrative Professionals Day in the USA today. If that isn't a reason for general merriment I don't know what is.

I don't want to give the impression that I am happy clappy and totally content with my lot. I spend a lot of my time in a state of badly repressed fury at incompetence (at work and elsewhere), idleness and especially inanimate objects which refuse to do my bidding. But my fury (like the arguments in my house) is brief, explosive and cathartic, and totally forgotten within minutes. This is a handy trait for anyone who goes to Loftus Road to have.

I still haven't decided which way I will vote. Probably for Denmark, by the sound of it, though I don't think Uber would enjoy the tax regime.

 

Jesus Christ, it makes me want to weep. That was a candidate and a councillor!? I had a very posh Conservative lady canvassing last night, to my daughter's amazement I resisted the temptation to have some fun (probably by asking her to explain the deficit vs the debt in laymans terms) because there was chilled wine waiting.

Interestingly both Labour and Conservative have managed to send letters to my son. I suppose as a first time voter they hope to capture him for life. What they don't know is:
1. He doesn't live here anymore
2. He's a Marxist
3. He intends to spoil his ballot paper in a most grotesque and offensive way. In fact, when he learned he had three ballot papers (we have district and parish elections too) he started to think of creating an obscene collage.

I was very much the same at his age.

 

It actually isn't that far-fetched. 10 years ago a Blairite Labour were more to the right than the Major-led Tories they replaced. With the three main parties all hogging the middle ground at the last election the stalemate was inevitable, but now Labour have moved more to the left and with the SNP still further left many traditional socialists will be looking forward to shutting the Tories out. That, in itself, is not the ideal reason to enter a coalition, despite the denials by Labour, if it's the only way to govern they'll do the deal...

 

A disgraceful war. Hard to think of another one that was so unnecessary. Supposedly it was about a few rocks of the coast of Argentina where about 1800 people of British origin live. In realty the Argentinian junta invaded the Falklands to deflect their deep unpopularity into a popular nationalist cause, and Thatcher's Tories responded with the about the same reasons, behind in the polls and an election coming up. The result 907 dead and nearly 2000 not fatal casualties. The rocks off Argentina were recovered, and the Tories popularity increased significantly in the polls, and they won the next election. A good result if you are a Tory perhaps, but perhaps not if you were close to those near 3000 people. .

 

It did help get rid of a genuinely fascist regime in Argentina Ossie, and saved many more people from being 'disappeared' as a result. Not at all what Thatcher was interested in of course and she rather liked Pinochet in Chile.

As I said above a divisive personality, no one's going to change their minds now.

 

You're talking out of your arse.

 

^^
The Bulldog's cage has been rattled. Down boy, down

Woof Woof

 

Fascinating post that.

I think I fall into the middle ground.
I'm not at all ambitious, which, thank God, Mrs Rangercol doesn't mind at all.
I earn just about as much as I need to get by and actually quite enjoy a lot of my work.
I keep weekends free for spending time with my Son (both of them when the eldest was younger), although being divorced kind of means that you have to have free weekends when the kids are young (unless you're not bothered about seeing them).
I've always sung, sometimes professionally and that means not being too devoted to the day job too.

I'd like to have more money, but I feel I may have just about got the work/life balance right.

I have huge respect for people who "work all hours" and get the rewards that their endeavour deserves. The only thing I would say is that, sometimes, these people tend to burn themselves out and then don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labour. On the other hand, I suppose I will be working, at least part-time well into my planned semi-retirement in Cornwall.

 

Sounds like a good place to be Col. Until my mid 30's I took jobs entirely because of location/potential experience, not so much pay. Since then I just made sure I was earning more when I moved (because I had a family by then) and it looked entertaining. Over the years I've got the full house - worked for (not UK) government, small business, self-employed, jointly owned a business, public sector, not for profit, and now big business. I made a decision a few years ago to turn down opportunities because I'm in a good place, decent cash and a lot of personal freedom. Trading up in terms of job would really damage the work life balance. I travel a lot, but I love that. And I've realised that experience counts. I can add a lot more value to my company now without working anything like as hard as when I joined 14 years ago. Plus it's fun to watch the young turks dash around with 'ambition', sniping at each other, to see who can get up the slippery pole quicker. Of course I don't tell my boss this, I just demand more money as often as possible. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Jointly owning a business was by far the most stressful, I had no life outside work at all, as far as I can remember. The responsibility of making sure we had profitable work for the team was huge. But it was very lucrative, I think that becomes addictive with the energy you expend. But not for me long term, sold my share at break even eventually, because I didn't want to bleed the firm by leaving. I like the social side of work, and if you are lucky it can be enjoyable and rewarding (not just financially). But it's not, personally, the be all and end all, even though it's a big chunk of your life.

 

Doesn't take much. What happened to the stiff upper lips?

 

Saw this and thought of you, Chaz.

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...fits-from-the-lies-about-welfare-8558012.html

The article is slightly out of date but states that £29.91 billion of the welfare budget is spent on in-work benefits compared to £4.91 billion on Jobseeker's Allowance.

Seems the best way to cut the welfare bill would be to significantly increase the minimum wage.

 

More garbage, but your entitled to your opinion

 

I keep telling you - get the Hell over here - a whole new World of blagging and your sons will love you forever.

In seriousness now - from what I've seen and understood this election seems quite a bit more vital than the previous 8 or is that just me buying into the hype?

 

Q1: Do you really think "New Labour" is left?
Q2: What role do you think the Labour Party played in the collapse of the world financial markets?

 

Defending sovereign territory is actually a normal response for most governments in most countries, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Ukraine, to name just a few engaged at the moment. Bastards.

Having & working around children you generally find out who's started a fight fairly quickly as kids want to tell their side of the story, well here's how 'many' brits see it then & now:

Here's my childish response: They started it.

Now more measured:They are still a second world country with conscripts, we were and still are a first world country with a nuclear deterrent & a full NATO membership with a full time professional army. We also built their weapons systems & sold them to them and those we did not we pretended to supply and never delivered so as to limit their supply during the conflict. They never had a realistic chance.

The Argentine conscripts and their families I feel sorry for, not a mad dictator Thatcher didn't kill them Galtieri did.

.....back to more current matters, I'm considering moving my vote to Greens as every time I hear their leader I involuntarily effect an Australian accent for several minutes afterwards. Imagine PMQ's if everyone started doing it.

 

1 Yes the entire country is now addicted to benefits.
2 It deregulated the banks & sold off most of our gold reserves.