Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Many people know that, if they lose their job now, they're unlikely to find another one quickly.
Somehow there will be comparisons made, between the super-rich who hold massive amounts of private wealth, and the average working person having to make further sacrifices or sign on if their employment is taken away.
Barry, you often say that the State cannot touch this and that, be it the super bonuses of the city bankers or the private wealth of people with 100s of millions of pounds in private assets.
But how can the average person face up to more cuts and sacrifices?
As usual, you are in the minority with these views
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - not according to the polls.
Mark Robson......
Reprehensible views, come off it. The big difference is that I do not see public spending as always uncritically good and realise that every penny taken by government is obtained from the private sector. Public spending is not done efficiently and much of it is for no good purpose and if anything drains the economic health of the country. I want a more prosperous nation from which everyone will benefit, I want people to keep more of their own hard earned cash and to have more of it with the ability to stand on their own two feet. So is that reprehensible?
Perhaps you think it is reprehensible not to be blinded by the claims of the Trade Union leaders who really are self-serving and politically motivated. The current lot being inheritors of a Union tradition that destroyed whole industries in the 60's and 70's preventing British industry from moderising by their restrictive practises while scaring off any new investment by their militancy. Their stupidity all in the guise of 'protecting jobs' resulted in the destruction of thousands of jobs when the subsidies on which they depended simply could not be sustained.
What I think is reprehensible are the irresponsible Labour/left attitude to tax and spend - time after time driving the country into economic crisis destroying the wealth of this country. Economically unsustainable fiscal policies are a cruel deciet on the less well off.
I also find it reprehensible to force and keep people in servitude to the State by creating deliberately a dependance on state benefits. How else would you justify the handing out of taxpayer benefits to people with an income of over £50,000.... All done purely for political reasons by intellectually corrupt Labour governments who pose as wanting to help the less well off while in reality their policies achieve no more than destroy their asperations, motivation and ability to improve their lot, even when they may have good motives for those policies.
Yes there is a massive gap between us Mark.
Rant over....
Guest 656- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,262
Alexander asks 'How can the average person face up to more cuts and sacrifices' well that is the six million dollar question and one that troubles me the most
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
What cuts?
This year public spending is actually at the highest ever level, all that has happened is that the increase does not fully reflect inflation.
What we need are real cuts, actual reductions in public spending. All of us will benefit long term from more short-term pain now. Public spending is like a drug habit.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Barry's right,what cuts!. Hague has just spent £4k on a weekend away with his missus...Fffffion. No males were found sleeping in the spare bed as a reoccurence of this error of judgement could be costly...to his career.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
hardly the right example to set, one of the top 10 hotels of the world, furnished with antiques.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Barry
in response to your questions:
Para 1: What about the unpaid or 'avoided tax' by so many of the private sector companies? If this was by someone on a sink estate they would be hung out to dry.
Para 2: What about the highest youth unemployment figures?
Para 3: What about the estimated 5% of the population who control 95% of the wealth?
Para 4: What about the dependence of large organisations such as banks for state benefits?
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Howard and Marek
I detect class envy!
Remember that we are all in this together.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
actually mark, mr hague might feel left out when he hears about my planned holiday in a caravan outside cleethorpes in november.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Howard
perhaps he would like to go with you!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Interesting Mark - you are showing the kind of thinking the sets a massive gulf between you and me.
1/ Are you suggesting that these companies are not paying the levels of tax that they are legally required to do? If you are not alleging dishonesty then yours is a pointless question. I sincerely hope that all companies and individuals, including you, are getting the right advice that minimises the level of tax that you pay, something open to all of us to do. In fact I do my very best to ensure that a lot of people do just that whether wealthy retired individuals, plumbers, electricians, teachers or a postman.
2/ Yes indeed the young have been betrayed by 13 years of a Labour government's incompetent economic management. As always Labour governments leave more unemployment that they had when they gained office. If they had been more sensible with their fiscal and monetary policies we would not have been hammered nearly so hard by the recession and would not have such a struggle facing us to recover.
3/ Rather suspect figures here. Once again though the wrong thinking being displayed. It is not really important to you just who else has wealth, far better instead to focus on accumulating more wealth for the benefit of yourself and your family by working hard, saving and investing. Many people do you know and very 'ordinary' people like me (a Tower Hamlets lad) and many, many others do just that and can build quite substantial portfolios in the process. The government makes it easy with tax reliefs on pensions and tax beneficial investments like Cash ISAs and Stocks & Shares ISAs for example. This is not the dark old days when investing was something only in reach of a tiny minority, everyone who works and earns money can do so and have access to top investment management and advice even if they invest £50 a month.
4/ Ahhhh, no-one should be dependent on benefits for the long term. With the banks of course you are again highlighting one of Brown's cock-ups over regulation and his Mansion House speech encouraging the banks to go out and take risks. Some unfortunately did just what Brown said. At least when the bank shares get sold they will repay that bail-out and the dividends/capital gain will represent earnings for the taxpayer. Not something that applies to people who are really on benefits.
So Mark - what exactly was the point of your questions as I am sure you did not intend to highlight some of the many shortcomings of the last government?
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
It is alright for 'ordinary' people like us though Barry. But you are doing what our elected politicians do, which is making rather naive assumptions about 'ordinary' people. It is even worse in the case of politicians because non of them actually grew up in 'ordinary' places like Tower Hamlets and went to school with the people that live there. This would be OK if they had an empathic bone in their bodies but as the likes of Mr Cameron prove, they don't.
Inequality in this country is one of the highest in the developed world. I lived in Tower Hamlets and I would suggest you speak to the working families, living in houses they can't afford to buy to see if they can spare £50 a month? I can tell you they hate the cheats as much as us all, want to stand on their own feet but they also can't work any harder. On top of this CEOs stipulate the price these people pay for heating etc, outsource to other countries and get knighted for it. Then to make it worse they are told they should be doing more for society...what and when exactly?
Work out what a couple with a child earn when on minimum wage (something else capitalists object to) and ask them about portfolios.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
While I agree with a lot of your post DT1, too many that have done well by their own labours tend to think 'if I did it so can everyone else' and have little or no sympathy with those still stuck at the bottom. Not all of those from a privileged background do not understand the poor person and their problems, it all depends on how isolated from the real world they are.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
MAREK;
I realise like myself you try to even up some of the right wing debates on here,
but you can see from barryw in post 11 that he remains in his rose tinted glasses.
If only all trade unions were like the more radical ones that barryw portrays we might then see things differently.
but there are one or two left leaning union leaders that are as happy to bring down any govt.
but the vast majority of trade unions are responsible and all trade unions should not all be classed the same.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
I agree Jan. I think our MP does a good job of understanding the people he represents.
However when Mr Cameron goes on holiday and makes the empty gesture of flying on a budget airline or IDS tells people that they should use a bus to find work it seems that the people making these decisions are isolated...and in some cases always have been. Hardly a house of 'commons' is it!?
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Ian Duncan Smith is one of those who has never stepped out of his ivory tower but I think that Cameron has a fairly good idea what real life is about even if he does not experience it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
No DT1 - I am not doing what the what 'elected politicians do'.
Do you realise how snobbish and arrogant sounding your attitude is? Perhaps not. The assumption that someone on average or below average income cannot or will not invest or save. That someone who happens to live where I was brought up, in Tower Hamlets, will not be able to invest and save. The first home I bought was in Lowther Road...
How patronising you are.
Do you realise that I have several people who live in 'the Hamlets' who pay me to advise them on their savings and investments. These are not rich people, they work hard and are responsible with what little income they have. As a result they will be better off than many who earn much higher salaries than them living in leafy River.
So I speak from direct experience.
Yes there are some who are very hard up and deserving. It does not necessarily mean they will always be hard up. No-one need be locked into poverty - the problem is that the last government's policies did do just that. They made it uneconomical for some people to get off benefits, why work for just a few pounds extra a week? That dreadful bunch of wasters who ran this country in that time are guilty of destroying any asperation for a generation of people.
At the end of the day we make choices with what we do with our money and that is right we should. Those who choose to pay to the 'all singing Sky package, to smoke and drink should not though expect to be bailed out in old age by those who saved and invested sensibly. Most people out there who work can choose a lifestyle that allows them to invest and save for their futures - many do just that.
In fact I would suggest here are no barriers of class or even education - the only barrier is one of attitude for those in work. Yes we can all be capitalists if we want
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
I lived in Tower Hamlets until 6 months ago Barry and to if I did speak for a whole ward of people, yes it would be as arrogant as the millionaire front bench telling us all we have to make personal sacrifices.
In fact it would not only be arrogant, it would not make any sense as I lived there. I would be suggesting that I don't save, which I did and do. I merely used an example based on my next door neighbours - note I said renting and minimum wage. I take it the clients you mention are on minimum wage and rent.
I'm a lot of things, but not a snob.
As for barriers, we are a country riddled with them, tuition fees being a new one. With one of the lowest rates of social mobility many people have been tricked into thinking they're on the up! Also you can't support privilege and suggest there are no barriers in our society. Privilege by pure definition is a barrier.
I totally agree that people need aspirations and drive to improve their own lives, this can be achieved through hard work, talent, education and other means (sometimes privilege). I improved my own prospects through education, but I can tell you that £9000 a year at university would mean that I would be in a different situation now. Not necessarily better or worse but my opportunities would have been reduced.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, if such a large proportion of wealth is privately owned - or controlled - by such a small minority, as Mark mentioned in his point 3 of post 27, this excludes the vast majority from any meaningful participation in the economic wealth.
This in turn cripples consumer-motivated economy, as many people consume less than they would, as they can't afford this, that and the other, essential things, such as having a rusty railing sanded down and painted with three coats of paint.
Of-course one could make many examples, i.e buy cheap clothes from China rather than a home-tailored dress made locally.
And so on...
But all this must surely cripple the productive economy in general, because when peole can't afford what they need, and only buy some things but not others, then the factories employ less people, and shops close down.
So, my view that there should be a more equal distribution of wealth would not put the economy out of business, but revitalise it.
For the record, I believe doctors, nurses and teachers should earn more, and also factory workers, and I have nought against the odd executive earning 100.000 £s a year, or even 2,000 k.
It's these characters that privately own tens and even hundreds of millions in assets that could be relieved of some of their surpluss burden.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Barry
I was going to respond to your comments paragraph by paragraph but your last posting makes that unnecessary as it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the world as experienced by many. You also state that DT1 is 'arrogant', 'snobbish' and 'patronising' without any sense of irony while throwing out statements based on opinion or personal experience but unfounded by research.
Can I draw your attention to the following?
"There has always been an association between health and social class and, despite the welfare state and the improvement in health in all sections of societies over the years, this discrepancy remains".
Dr Laurence Knott, Patient.co.uk, 2011
"Poverty makes people's lives shorter and more brutal than they need to be. Poverty is not simply about being on a low income and going without - it is also about being denied power, respect, good health, education and housing, basic self-esteem and the ability to participate in social activities".
Child Poverty Action Group 2011
"It seems to us that the research evidence we have reviewed indicates unequivocally the need for extensive and complex policy interventions if the established relationship between poverty and poor educational outcomes is to be disturbed".
Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2008
"Social background influences the way children feel about school from an early age. At primary school, children in poverty are more likely to have negative experiences...".
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2007
"Life expectancy at birth varies significantly according to social class, with professional men expecting to live to around 80 years and unskilled manual men to 72.7 years, For women, the figures are 85.1 and 78.1 years". Office of National Statistics, 2007