The post you are reporting:
Barry, to cut the pensions of public sector workers means reducing - confiscating - a part of their future assets (montly pension payment). It is also contrary to the agreements once made between State and Public (part thereof, ie public sector workers).
Many other spending cuts decreed by the Government are along the same lines, reducing people's means of financial income. This includes making puplic sector workers redundant (taking their work and income away).
This seems to be perfectly alright for Parliament, but for some reason, the super-rich are to be allowed to get richer, wealthier, and keep everything they have.
Is this not hypocrisy?
As you know, the super-rich who I refer to are those with each tens of millions, yes hundreds of millions of pounds worth of private assets.
"Leave them to it", you say, and "don't touch their income" (for they get richer each day).
But "go ahead and reduce people's pensions"!
So!
Furthermore, scaremongering is of no use in trying to detract my proposals. In fact, the confiscated private assets of billionaires and the like would go to the Treasury to be managed, could be sold by the Treasury to the banks in eturn for cash, a process that could take even a few years.
These assets would be therefore transferred and remain intact. They would not disappear from the economy.
Such an enactment could not and would not lead to any of all those things you described, such as massive unemployment. That is just scaremongering!
Peter.
Is confiscating a part of people's pensions, and taking people's salaries away by making them redundant, communism? Or Toryism? Is it OK?
This is confiscation of people's future means of living, or not?
Or do you use another word?