True, people really are a bit dim aren't they? I mean all this talk about privilege, royalty is the ultimate privilege, and bang out of date. About time they were shown the exit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Printable View
True, people really are a bit dim aren't they? I mean all this talk about privilege, royalty is the ultimate privilege, and bang out of date. About time they were shown the exit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
:clapclapclap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeandvan
Too bloody right, and also quite a few of the c*nts jailed!
Marco.
That's a reductio ad absurdum argument Martin. No-one is suggesting the able-bodied should be hamstrung to allow the disabled to have equal opportunity. Life is not fair - it's a lottery, we have to make the best of what we are dealt with. But there is something wrong when a candidate for employment is overlooked for another having poorer qualifications, simply because of the 'old boy network'.
Are the only stable countries in Europe those that have a constitutional monarchy? In what way are they part of social cohesion, apart from being an un-elected head of state, any more than an elected president?
It isn't meritocratic, often the gifted or qualified are hated by the hierarchy, and "Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability."
I think it's time Andrew signed on.
Still plenty though to eradicate homelessness, which in the 21st century is an obscene affront and embarrassment to a supposedly civilised society, in one of the richest countries in the world, and also put a decent dent into dealing with the terrible poverty situation that exists overall, here in the UK, and the vulgar unjustness of the huge divide existing between the 'have' and 'have nots'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Quite simply, *no* decent, law-abiding, working UK citizen should be forced to survive on food banks! And *no* UK citizen, of any description, should be forced to sleep on the streets.
And what London has been allowed to become [now a financial entity completely divorced from the rest of the UK] has played a big part in that! Therefore with some proper thought, the playing field, in that respect, could almost certainly be brought more level.
Especially (as I would do) couple it with taxing, far more heavily than currently, all the multi-millionaires and billionaires, here in the UK, along with removing their rather convenient tax perks (especially offshore), together with forcing them to donate a significant percentage of their annual disposable income to various selected charities.
Plus many other measures I'd take to ensure that the extremely wealthy were made to properly pay their dues (rather than most doing everything that they can to avoid it), and help the less fortunate.
That would have nothing to do with creating a form of communism, but rather it would be socialism correctly applied for the greater good of the majority of the population - exactly what a fairer and more equal society would be all about!:cool:
Marco.
It is reductio ad absurdum but that is a good logical exercise if you want to see whether a particular principle or course of action actually makes any sense. In this case it doesn't. You can't make the world fair and level for everyone, it simply isn't possible. Better to accept that life is a lottery, that some people get dealt better hands than others and that it's always going to be that way. Otherwise where does it end?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry
There's nothing in this post that I agree with and it also contains some assumptions that are not backed up with any facts but get trotted out all the time in any case:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
1) the idea that there is a serious 'poverty' problem in this country
2) The idea that super rich people don't pay tax
3) The idea that if they did pay more tax it would generate enough money to do anything worthwhile (income tax is only 25% of all tax revenue and there are not that many super rich) - and super rich people can always go and live somewhere else and pay us no tax, like they did in the 1970s
4) The idea that super rich people don't already make huge contributions to charity.
5) That London is a financial entity divorced from the rest of the UK
6) That Socialism doesn't create far more problems than it solves
That's not to say that things couldn't be done differently and I'd agree with your basic thrust on that one. But it requires a far more considered and complex approach as opposed to a simplistic, knee-jerk, 'tax the rich' reaction.
Fundamentally it isn't about dividing the existing cake differently but about having a larger cake to divide. And that happens with economic growth - a rising tide lifts all boats. Wealth inequality is not a problem in itself provided those on the bottom of the pile have sufficient. Since the effect of Socialism is to lower all boats no-one benefits and those on the bottom get the worst of it.
I was anti-monarchy when I was younger but I'm not now. You dismantle tradition and heritage and you dismantle society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeandvan
Would you want to be a Royal? So you have wealth and privilege, but you also have the relentless scrutiny and accountability. You can't live a normal life. I wouldn't swap with them for all the tea in China.
Scenario: Marco takes on a young girl to run his newly-opened sex boutique in Wrexham, and first thing she does is set up an elaborate window display using thousands of lights. Marco is not impressed by the increased electricity bills, but can't deny that the display attracts and brings in more customers than a simple "We have dildos" sign. The Royal Family is a bit like that.
Also it is true that people are dim. If the wealth redistribution did indeed provide everyone with about £1300, for a lot of our population this would mean a couple of ounces of weed and a new flat screen telly.
:scratch: What's the problem with that then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pigmy Pony