Politics

[zerosum 234]

so what? i worked fucking hard for it. Sorry I’ve had a few pints now ha 

[zerosum 234]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Err, prices continuing to increase at a rate above inflation is, apart from being very damaging to many people in society, ultimately unsustainable. It might not be you who gets bitten on the arse by it, it might not be your kids (although I can’t see something not having to give before too long) but, if not, it’ll probably be theirs. I don’t mean to have a go at you as an individual but it simply can’t be allowed to continue if you want future generations (including your own family) to be able to buy their own place. Otherwise at some point nearly everyone will be renting from a very small group of very wealthy individuals. 

 

Theres affordable options for people though. And if that means moving location, or doing something in advance to create a bit of extra capital (if the individual is determined enough to own something or invest) then it can be done. 2nd jobs, a side hustle.. it’s not beyond motivated people.

 

A lot of people are just comfortable where they are, happy with the jobs they have, don’t want to improve their lives or their future.. that’s fine. But that should not be taken from those who were the opposite imo.

 

Iif people are hungry enough to change their personal circumstances.. the same opportunities are available to everyone who is fit and able. It takes effort, risk, uncertainty.. but it’s there.. if you look.

 

As for distribution of wealth. I’m not against paying a bit of extra tax, not against inheritance tax (to an extent), I don’t mind businesses having their wings clipped a bit as long as it goes back into the parts of our society that really need it.

 

I liked the new Labour values, was more centre.. at the moment it’s far too left for me. Especially Mcdonnel.

[zerosum 234]

1 hour ago, Renton said:

 

I guess it depends on whether you believe in an equitable society or if you prefer the Thatcherite ideology where only family matters? 

 

My family matters first.. then after that I’m open to helping .

[Renton 21306]

16 minutes ago, zerosum said:

 

My family matters first.. then after that I’m open to helping .

 

Of course. That's why we need government to deal with societal matters rather than rely on a dog eat dog world. 

[zerosum 234]

14 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Of course. That's why we need government to deal with societal matters rather than rely on a dog eat dog world. 

 

We do yeah. But mate, the whole world is dog eat dog. We have it easy in this country yet still people who are fit and able don’t see it. Try living in a dog eat dog world in India or Indonesia or Africa.. that’s tough. Not the UK.

[zerosum 234]

But I don’t disagree with contributions to our society to the most needy, or to those not as fortunate with the cards life dealt them.

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, zerosum said:

 

We do yeah. But mate, the whole world is dog eat dog. We have it easy in this country yet still people who are fit and able don’t see it. Try living in a dog eat dog world in India or Indonesia or Africa.. that’s tough. Not the UK.

 

Have you ever been homeless? How would you have any idea how 'easy' it is to be on the breadline, or how difficult it is to be impoverished. The only way we can understand it is by listening to people who are. We've reduced mental health spending, we've reduced homelessness funding, and we live in a world where it is getting harder and harder to raise yourself up with social mobility - so much so that even the Labour party recently abandoned the notion.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/15/social-mobility-in-richest-countries-has-stalled-since-1990s

 

What if your experience to get to where you are simply can't be recreated now? What if you had it easy?

[zerosum 234]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Have you ever been homeless? How would you have any idea how 'easy' it is to be on the breadline, or how difficult it is to be impoverished. The only way we can understand it is by listening to people who are. We've reduced mental health spending, we've reduced homelessness funding, and we live in a world where it is getting harder and harder to raise yourself up with social mobility - so much so that even the Labour party recently abandoned the notion.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/15/social-mobility-in-richest-countries-has-stalled-since-1990s

 

What if your experience to get to where you are simply can't be recreated now? What if you had it easy?

 

I’ve said plenty times I don’t mind paying more tax or business having to pay a bit more as long as it goes into parts of society that needs it most,

 

That includes homeless, people who have had bad luck but are willing to change.. children , pensioners, disabled.. those who are “unable” for genuine reasons mate 

[Rayvin 5176]

Gonna add to that as well - what if you're just made of sterner stuff than other people. Call it a genetic lottery. Does that mean they deserve to live in ever worsening conditions, always looking over their shoulders as society and the economy leaves them behind?

 

More and more of the lower middle class are starting to struggle.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/03/demise-middle-classes-british-politics-digital-age

 

We actually do -need- to start doing something about it. And I don't necessarily mean you're the problem since you worked hard and deserve what you have, but the 1% super rich I mean... there are limits to how far people should be allowed to go, and the fact that CEO wages have gone from 2 or 3 times that of workers to something like 150 times now is a sign that society has really lost control of this.

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, zerosum said:

 

I’ve said plenty times I don’t mind paying more tax or business having to pay a bit more as long as it goes into parts of society that needs it most,

 

That includes homeless, people who have had bad luck but are willing to change.. children , pensioners, disabled.. those who are “unable” for genuine reasons mate 

 

Not having a dig at you personally btw, just the view.

 

And by and large I think the money does go where it's needed. Who is it that you think doesn't need it?

[zerosum 234]

People can do anything man. You don’t have to be made of sterner stuff to go to say night classes or something to better your chances etc There’s all sorts people can change even with a tiny bit of effort.

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, zerosum said:

People can do anything man. You don’t have to be made of sterner stuff to go to say night classes or something to better your chances etc There’s all sorts people can change even with a tiny bit of effort.

 

20% of people in this country have or have shown signs of depression and anxiety, thus making their fight to 'do something to better their chances' far harder than someone who didn't go through that. What about them?

 

https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/statistics/mental-health-statistics-depression

[zerosum 234]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Not having a dig at you personally btw, just the view.

 

And by and large I think the money does go where it's needed. Who is it that you think doesn't need it?

 

Its not that it’s not needed. It’s that taking too much away from those who worked hard to get there, will end up with people thinking what’s the point?

[zerosum 234]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

20% of people in this country have or have shown signs of depression and anxiety, thus making their fight to 'do something to better their chances' far harder than someone who didn't go through that. What about them?

 

https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/statistics/mental-health-statistics-depression

 

Then they fall under the people who need help bracket. A genuine reason 

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, zerosum said:

 

Its not that it’s not needed. It’s that taking too much away from those who worked hard to get there, will end up with people thinking what’s the point?

 

Yeah I see what you're saying, but not investing in poor communities and increasing social mobility has led us to exactly the same place. People going 'what's the point?' There is no point without a more level playing field and more equal spreading of wealth, not for those starting at the bottom.

[zerosum 234]

Ok man. I’ll continue with you after the game 

[Rayvin 5176]

1 minute ago, zerosum said:

 

Then they fall under the people who need help bracket. A genuine reason 

 

Well in that case I'd say we're broadly aligned on who actually needs help and just talking ideology which, when we're pragmatically aligned, is a little pointless.

 

I think money should be creamed off the super rich over and above anyone else. I do think inheritance should be looked at, since it flies in the face of "people worked hard to get where they are" (no they didn't, their dad did - in those cases).

 

I don't believe McDonnell should start taking away homes from people who have worked hard and are just well off, but I do think that people with excessive property portfolios making places like London unaffordable for normal people absolutely should be dealt with.

[Rayvin 5176]

1 minute ago, zerosum said:

Ok man. I’ll continue with you after the game 

 

I just can't bring myself to watch it

[ewerk 30266]

2 hours ago, zerosum said:

 

Theres affordable options for people though. And if that means moving location, or doing something in advance to create a bit of extra capital (if the individual is determined enough to own something or invest) then it can be done. 2nd jobs, a side hustle.. it’s not beyond motivated people.

 

A lot of people are just comfortable where they are, happy with the jobs they have, don’t want to improve their lives or their future.. that’s fine. But that should not be taken from those who were the opposite imo.

 

Iif people are hungry enough to change their personal circumstances.. the same opportunities are available to everyone who is fit and able. It takes effort, risk, uncertainty.. but it’s there.. if you look.

They need to get on their bike and look for work?

Edited September 21, 2019 by ewerk

[Alex 34846]

Love how the same people who think everyone can just make themselves better, normally from the generation where social mobility was actually a great deal easier, also seem to think it’s some sort of divine right that the property they own should increase in value in real terms year on year. Whilst, at the same time, failing to realise the latter is a massive obstacle to the former. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Alex

[ewerk 30266]

So this Thomas Cook collapse is going to cost the government £600m to repatriate everyone but could have been avoided had the government provided £200m in contingency funding.

In what world did it not make sense for the government to step in and help the company survive?

[Meenzer 15405]

The world where Thomas Cook isn't a bank.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

50 minutes ago, ewerk said:

So this Thomas Cook collapse is going to cost the government £600m to repatriate everyone but could have been avoided had the government provided £200m in contingency funding.

In what world did it not make sense for the government to step in and help the company survive?

 

Apparently Thomas Cook owed 1.7 billion, the £250 million bailout wouldn't have lasted more than a few weeks according to the Transport secretary. I still can't believe the Execs were taking millions of pounds in bonuses when the company was in financial disarray. It should be illegal that after seeing so many go down the pan in recent times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ewerk 30266]

3 minutes ago, Anorthernsoul said:

 

Apparently Thomas Cook owed 1.7 billion, the £250 million bailout wouldn't have lasted more than a few weeks according to the Transport secretary. I still can't believe the Execs were taking millions of pounds in bonuses when the company was in financial disarray. It should be illegal that after seeing so many go down the pan in recent times.

That's the government line. The money requested was a contingency fund that would have allowed a takeover by the multi-billion pund company Fosan. The idea that this was inevitable is being exaggerated by the government for spin purposes.

The same banks who were demanding the contingency fund ironically happened to be bailed out themselves by the government in the past.

[PaddockLad 17079]

Never mind Thomas Cook. Labour will abolish public schools if the country votes them into power