Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
When you say 'our nation's wealth' what exctly do you mean? I hope your definition doesn't include what I like to think of as 'my wealth'. I've worked hard for my wealth, let others work hard for their own and forget all about redistributing any of mine in their direction.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No, you're wrong. There is no problem with extreme income inequality, provided that the poorest people have a decent standard of living and the opportunity to earn more. Absolute poverty is the problem - and the parties that have been dealing with that over the last few years have had blue and yellow rosettes. legzr1 said:
Good lad.
You dismiss 50,000 and speak for the other c. 60,000,000.
I don't need to speak for them. They voted in an election only months ago. And they didn't vote for Miliband's predator capitalism, banker bashing, energy price fixing, 'mansion' taxing bYou dismiss 50,000 and speak for the other c. 60,000,000.
ks. So you thinking they might vote for Corbyn to go even further is to ignore the majority, never mind what I think.You seem to think Labour having 50k new members means something. All it means is Labour have 50k new members. There will be no revolution.
technodup said:
don't need to speak for them. They voted in an election only months ago. And they didn't vote for Miliband's predator capitalism, banker bashing, energy price fixing, 'mansion' taxing bks. So you thinking they might vote for Corbyn to go even further is to ignore the majority, never mind what I think.
You seem to think Labour having 50k new members means something. All it means is Labour have 50k new members. There will be no revolution.
I'm one of those members! Or as I like to be called, 'a Trojan horse' ks. So you thinking they might vote for Corbyn to go even further is to ignore the majority, never mind what I think.You seem to think Labour having 50k new members means something. All it means is Labour have 50k new members. There will be no revolution.
RYH64E said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
When you say 'our nation's wealth' what exctly do you mean? I hope your definition doesn't include what I like to think of as 'my wealth'. I've worked hard for my wealth, let others work hard for their own and forget all about redistributing any of mine in their direction.
The facts are that the already very wealthy are getting more wealthy in the UK at the expense of the middle / lower sections of society. That is repeated in the US as well despite there being very little growth (other than housing costs) since 2007.
RYH64E said:
I've worked hard for my wealth, let others work hard for their own and forget all about redistributing any of mine in their direction.
Good for you. However, the point is that not everyone has worked hard for their wealth. There must be a point where the wealth gap is just too ridiculous and needs to be addressed. Under the current financial system, a single person is able to become a multi-billionaire for a few months work. That suggests that something is probably a bit broken.
Distributing wealth based on how hard people work is fine but the fact is we are not doing that. Unless the suggestion is that the boss of Apple works 100 billion times harder than one of their junior developers.
technodup said:
don't need to speak for them. They voted in an election only months ago. And they didn't vote for Miliband's predator capitalism, banker bashing, energy price fixing, 'mansion' taxing bks. So you thinking they might vote for Corbyn to go even further is to ignore the majority, never mind what I think.
You seem to think Labour having 50k new members means something. All it means is Labour have 50k new members. There will be no revolution.
It means they have 50,000 new members and, again, you've dismissed it.ks. So you thinking they might vote for Corbyn to go even further is to ignore the majority, never mind what I think.You seem to think Labour having 50k new members means something. All it means is Labour have 50k new members. There will be no revolution.
It means something to the Labour Party and it means something to the 50,000 and I guess you and your ilk would be screaming from the rafters if the headline was "50,000 have left since JC was elected leader".
Revolution?
What are you talking about?
technodup said:
legzr1 said:
Good lad.
You dismiss 50,000 and speak for the other c. 60,000,000.
I don't need to speak for them. They voted in an election only months ago. And they didn't vote for Miliband's predator capitalism, banker bashing, energy price fixing, 'mansion' taxing bYou dismiss 50,000 and speak for the other c. 60,000,000.
ks. So you thinking they might vote for Corbyn to go even further is to ignore the majority, never mind what I think.You seem to think Labour having 50k new members means something. All it means is Labour have 50k new members. There will be no revolution.
durbster said:
There must be a point where the wealth gap is just too ridiculous and needs to be addressed. Under the current financial system, a single person is able to become a multi-billionaire for a few months work. That suggests that something is probably a bit broken.
Ah, so you want to limit free enterprise too? Are we going to nationalise the internet?sugerbear said:
I guess that depends on how much really was wealth you worked hard for vs the wealth created by a government that limited the creation of new housing so creating a massive bubble that a select percentage of the population have access to. Opportunities to create wealth should be open to everyone, not just the top 1% of the population.
The facts are that the already very wealthy are getting more wealthy in the UK at the expense of the middle / lower sections of society. That is repeated in the US as well despite there being very little growth (other than housing costs) since 2007.
When you say that opportunities to create wealth should be open to everyone I agree, but I believe that they are open to everyone. I was born poor, grew up on a London council estate, dad was a shop steward in the AUEW, I've inherited nothing and been given nothing, I started from scratch. So I don't consider myself to be privileged but nor do I feel that I've been held back by lack of opportunity. The facts are that the already very wealthy are getting more wealthy in the UK at the expense of the middle / lower sections of society. That is repeated in the US as well despite there being very little growth (other than housing costs) since 2007.
The bulk of my wealth is in my company, a company that I started from nothing with my own meagre savings, took no wages from in the early days, remortgaged my house to fund growth, and that now makes a healthy profit and pays significant amounts of tax, just over £100k in CT for 2014, plus £20k per year business rates, plus about £30k per year employers NI.
So I think I've none my bit, with no help or privilege, and what I've got I'd like to keep. I've earned it, it's mine, it forms no part of 'the nation's wealth', and if other people want a bit of wealth they can go out and earn their own and not take any of mine. If I'm part of the 1% it's through my own efforts, I guess I started in the bottom 10% or thereabouts.
Edited by RYH64E on Sunday 4th October 11:32
REALIST123 said:
And remember, those 50,000 'new members' would have voted labour in this year's election in any case. Assuming they were old enough to vote. That didn't help much.
I don't think this is true. I know a few people who signed up to vote for Corbyn, as far as I'm aware none voted Labour at the GE, they either didn't vote or voted Green.durbster said:
Good for you. However, the point is that not everyone has worked hard for their wealth.
Under the current financial system, a single person is able to become a multi-billionaire for a few months work.
Re you suggesting he didn't work for that success? and how do you get a few week? He had to learn his craft, then left a job to start a business which he has built up over 8 years. He employs people directly pays tax and provides a service people are prepared to pay for and want. Under the current financial system, a single person is able to become a multi-billionaire for a few months work.
As an added bonus he should be a poster child for social mobility coming from an immigrant family and surviving on the breadline.
It's amazing how many overnight success stories actually took 20 years to happen.
I don't understand what this obsession is with wealth inequality. Some billionaire buying another Ferrari has no impact on me. It's not a zero sum game
legzr1 said:
It means they have 50,000 new members and, again, you've dismissed it.
It means something to the Labour Party and it means something to the 50,000
It doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things though. The same grand scheme which involves elections, getting into power and actually doing things. The same grand scheme which lets one wealthy Tory trump the 50k membership fees with one donation. You need money to win elections.It means something to the Labour Party and it means something to the 50,000
If they had 5m new members that might mean something. That would mean seats. 50k spread across the UK means f
k all except to the deluded.Or put it another way, what will 50k new Labour members mean to the country? What might they achieve?
RYH64E said:
When you say that opportunities to create wealth should be open to everyone I agree, but I believe that they are open to everyone.
They are, if you want them.Trouble is too many only see the success side and not the sacrifice. And if they did see the sacrifice they'd rather just take a few quid off you and not bother.
We're a country where a grocer's daughter can be PM, a barrow boy can be a millionaire. If they pay the price.
As you obviously know.
technodup said:
t doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things though. The same grand scheme which involves elections, getting into power and actually doing things. The same grand scheme which lets one wealthy Tory trump the 50k membership fees with one donation. You need money to win elections.
If they had 5m new members that might mean something. That would mean seats. 50k spread across the UK means fk all except to the deluded.
Or put it another way, what will 50k new Labour members mean to the country? What might they achieve?
No, it means something to every one of those 50,000 who joined.If they had 5m new members that might mean something. That would mean seats. 50k spread across the UK means f
k all except to the deluded.Or put it another way, what will 50k new Labour members mean to the country? What might they achieve?
It means nothing to you, here, right now on this little right-wing corner of the Internet - I make that 50,000 to 1.
Who knows what they might achieve - perhaps absolutely nothing which would cheer you up no doubt - but if even 10% became vocal activists, who knows? You don't
I know as a true Tory boi you might not understand this concept but there's a little more to life than £££ - £50,000 X £3 IS a drop in the ocean but it must irk those fools that paid the £3 with a smug grin only to realise JC would have been elected anyway - money is important, money wasted must be a b
h durbster said:
Good for you. However, the point is that not everyone has worked hard for their wealth.
There must be a point where the wealth gap is just too ridiculous and needs to be addressed. Under the current financial system, a single person is able to become a multi-billionaire for a few months work. That suggests that something is probably a bit broken.
Distributing wealth based on how hard people work is fine but the fact is we are not doing that. Unless the suggestion is that the boss of Apple works 100 billion times harder than one of their junior developers.
He sold the world something he created. Who but him deserves to profit from it?There must be a point where the wealth gap is just too ridiculous and needs to be addressed. Under the current financial system, a single person is able to become a multi-billionaire for a few months work. That suggests that something is probably a bit broken.
Distributing wealth based on how hard people work is fine but the fact is we are not doing that. Unless the suggestion is that the boss of Apple works 100 billion times harder than one of their junior developers.
BJG1 said:
I don't think this is true. I know a few people who signed up to vote for Corbyn, as far as I'm aware none voted Labour at the GE, they either didn't vote or voted Green.
That mirrors my experience too (granted, just a straw poll in a pub over a few pints) - funny how some posters don't seem able to grasp the concept of wish -vs- reality.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff