BarryW, I like you, I like your posts, and I respect your views very much. But I don't like it when intelligent and well meaning posters are patronised or trivialised. I am afraid #39 achieved both.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Clarkson is contagious.?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
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?
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Sorry I missed this one lastnight but that has been put right now
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
You did not miss it you posted at 2.27am
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - first of all no-one is talking about reducing past pension accrual so it is certainly not confiscating a part of their future assets. What is suggested and quite rightly is reducing the future accrual. This is no different to what has been happening in the private sector. It is essential as the present system is unaffordable. Personally I would go a lot further with future accrual than the government as I do not see the very modest changes as sufficient to stop this arising again.
I should point out that taxpayers are effectively funding over 85% of public sector pension provision with the employees covering the cost of 15% or less.
You advocate theft, Alexander, plain and simple - either you have no idea about the dire consequences of what would happen if you got your way or you do not care. I suspect the former.
Bern - I do not question the intelligence of that poster or that he is well meaning, I just point out bluntly without mincing my words that he is wrong. Personally I think that is more respectful than dilly dallying around trying to say it in some 'soft' way.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Mrs Higgins thank you for that,I missed that one, so take no notice of my last one.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Bern further to that, I express myself exactly as I would face to face and as you know the words are only a minor part of communication. It can look harsh when written down, I accept.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Re #46, he is wrong in your opinion, other people are entitled to express a opinion and as ludicrous as it seems you just may not be right on everything!
Audere est facere.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
barry
you have a very simplistic view of what is wrong.
we all think we are right, none of us are right all the time though - humility is sometimes good thing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Ah but Howard - sometimes I think I am right, and of course might be wrong, other times I know I am right. I take a far from simplistic view Howard - that is one reason that I am not usually jumping on the populist bandwagons that often get rolling on here and question them.
BarryW.....I love your lack of obfuscation, and I value bluntness - and I appreciate what you have said.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Barry and I come from a similar place. The difference is that when I think I am right I might post. When I know I am right, and others know I am wrong, I usually shut up.
But that's all irrelevant to this thread. I asked for your reactions to the propositions in post 1, a bit of honesty would be appreciated from those whose bums are getting sore from sitting on the fence....otherwise I shall draw my own conclusions.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i am still trying to find out what obfu, obview, obph - what bern said about barry.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Means (more or less) the same as confusion, so lack of obfuscation, is lack of confusion.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
thanks roger i was too lazy to reach across for the dictionary.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, you have never once suggested reducing the accrual - future accrual included - of the super-rich and of those who are on multi-million salaries. Never once!
But have stated in the past that their salaries and bonuses should not be touched.
The distance between this view, which is also the Parliament's view, and the constant reducing of other people's accruals, makes it plainly impossible for me to respond to Peter's poll.
When the accruals of hard-working people and their families are eaten up to finance the massive fatcats and their multi hundreds of millions accruals (which must not be touched), everything is possible.
Reasoning here on this thread is dead!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i can see the point you are making alex, we see around us the untouchables that will continue to get ever more wealthy, then we see the vast majority that will see their standard of living suffer for the next decade or two.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Yes Alex you are right, reasoning is dead as soon as you start going on about issues which are totally irrelevant to this thread.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
