Kiffy

So we've gone from tax and spend, to just lots of tax.

Wonderful!

I read it was going up from 12.8% to 13.8%? If there's a cap attached to this I'd be happy to accept I was incorrect.

No. See, you're actually doing it right now. I told you why people are fed up with your posting....IT IS ENTIRELY THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU POST AND NOT THE CONTENT.

What is wrong with the "manner" in which I post. Point this out to me and I will attempt to change this. I will not change the content however.

It's the way you don't engage with counter ideas, there's like four pages before of people explaining exactly where you did that.

In fact he's asked you to read back and understand it, and you've ignored it and told him to tell you, while ignoring the examples and explanations he's pointed you towards. In fact you're doing it right this very second, right now, this is the example.

Today marks the beginning of the new tax year. I imagine many on the forum will notice the effect of having a non-Labour government on their payslip, as tax is reduced for everyone earning under

Ah but it's such a good get out, it's not cos he's deeply annoying and awful at discussions, it's because you're part of the liberal conspiracy.

If he fails to get laid, like, ever, it's not cos he's awful with women, it's a liberal conspiracy! And if he fails, utterly, at life, it'll be a liberal conspiracy!

Doubt anyone'll get through to him, but that too may just be a guardian reading conspiracy!

By the way, did anybody hear the suggestion that instead of just selling all our RBS shares back into the market, the government is now considering giving every adult in the country about 1000 quids' worth of shares to do with as they please? I actually rather like the idea.

 

It's certainly a vote winner, but that much spare money, with the deficit and cuts and everything else. The money's needed more elsewhere.

 

A vote winner at this stage of the game is needless and probably pointless. If they save it until just before the next election, it might do them some good. As a general point of Tory principle though, I think it's amongst their best. A business was effectively nationalised. When it comes to re-privatising it, isn't it better that EVERYONE gets the benefit rather than the minority who have the funds and the access to already be able to play the stock market? The bailed-out banks will almost certainly all recover and become successful again. If we all get a share, we can then all get the nice dividends and/or sell the shares on for the cash reward and/or hang on to them and all get a vote at their AGMs to try and make them more accountable and responsible.

Does have some positives, my first response was thinking the cash would be better used keeping libraries open, or dealing with some of the more unpleasantly cycnical cuts, harlow - for instance - just announced it's cutting it's sure start and playgroups for disabled children. Things like that, where people most in need are getting shat on, I'd like to see that sorted before we all get a grand of shares to play with.

Having said that though, I'm falling into the propoganda trap of thinking the above has to happen because we can't afford it, when of course we'd do much better to just make vodafone pay their tax, or close some of the loopholes barclays are using (they're not just not paying over 1% tax this year, that'll be the same year on year until they've offset their

It's abundantly clear he cannot.

By the way, did anybody hear the suggestion that instead of just selling all our RBS shares back into the market, the government is now considering giving every adult in the country about 1000 quids' worth of shares to do with as they please? I actually rather like the idea.

It's certainly a vote winner, but that much spare money, with the deficit and cuts and everything else. The money's needed more elsewhere.

Who do you think pays the majority of tax in this country?

 

Financial sector contributes about 40% of all tax revenue as best I can tell.

 

See, this is why Loki has what he has in his sig, you have literally no contemplation of the matters you're discussing. But you think your opinion's as valid as everyone elses, despite the fact that people like LoKi actually base their opinion on facts they have gathered, rather than stuff they've plucked out of the air.

When this is pointed out to you, you claim you're being unfairly picked up because you're not a liberal.

And it's just not true, it's because you're an idiot who is incapable of engaging in an adult conversation. So the sigs pretty much ok.

How the hell can you say I'm an idiot who is incapable of an adult conversation on the basis of a few posts out of thousands on a wrestling message board?

 

I read two stories on reputable news sights and calculated incorrectly that the financial sector contributes more than they do. I've admitted I've made a mistake. That's not something you will see liberals do very often, if ever.

Liberals never admit they're wrong? Lol what a bizarre statement.

And you've just posted to say you'd like to see the Government allow banks to go bust, which would destroy the country.

I can only judge your intelligence and ability to have an adult conversation based on what I see here and the overwhelming evidence suggests that

You have none.

And you are indeed therefore incapable.

Who do you think pays the majority of tax in this country?

 

Financial sector contributes about 40% of all tax revenue as best I can tell.

See, this is why Loki has what he has in his sig, you have literally no contemplation of the matters you're discussing. But you think your opinion's as valid as everyone elses, despite the fact that people like LoKi actually base their opinion on facts they have gathered, rather than stuff they've plucked out of the air.

When this is pointed out to you, you claim you're being unfairly picked up because you're not a liberal.

And it's just not true, it's because you're an idiot who is incapable of engaging in an adult conversation. So the sigs pretty much ok.

Yeah Imagine if we lost the 128 million in tax barclays just paid, whole place'd collapse!

It's not like hsbc would stop operating here, it's talking about relocating it's head quarters for tax purposes, which would lose some jobs in the city but it certainly would not remove the welfare state or change normal tax to 50% or anything like it.

And if you think it would, you're probably a moron with no understanding of what's happening.

They can't afford fines, it's impossible for them to pay them. And a night in the cells, with food, would be an improvement.

How exactly would you suggest the police enforce this zero tolerance? Could it be time for death squads to respond to the dropping of cigeratte ends.

You were the one blaming Labour for what happened to the economy, and bailing out the banks. When you had it explained, in very simple words, what actually happened. Then were asked to profer some degree of knowledge on the subject.

At which point you decided to have a completely different conversation.

This is why lister was angry with you, you're a fucking moron.

Gordon Brown did, he bailed the banks out by buying stocks, at a knock down price, that the banks were forced to create. The British Taxpayer thusly owns 40% of Lloyds, some similar amount of RBS, etc etc. And we can sell these stocks , when they're worth more (which they're already are, but they're waitiing).

It's a fucking smart move, the banks needed to be stopped from collapsing, and we needed to make a profit.

But if you don't know any of that, you're not really in a position to be having a go, cos you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

But if we move on to the bonus point, lloyds and rbs are taxpayer owned, meaning it's in our interest to ensure they do well.

What happens if he bans all bonus's from lloyds and rbs, where do the good bankers go? And just out of interest, do you think we bailed out all the banks? Or just a few?

Right.

Well Mr Lister had a very good point, to blame Labour for the financial collapse is possible with hindsight, as long as one knows the sub prime stocks that entered the system were a time bomb and knows how to ensure they don't get traded. However, to be fair to Labour- world wide it caught people completely off guard. You're talking most western governments and all trading banks - no-one saw it coming and to suggest it was a labour mistake, rather than a world wide over-sight. Is wrong.

To suggest brown, obama, and all the others shouldn't have bailed out the banks is fucking moronic, you're not talking about simply making the banks learn their lesson. You're talking about total, world wide collapse of the capitalist system. You simply can't allow that, and if you think you can you don't understand enough about economics to have an opinion.

And you probably don't actually know how Gordon Brown bailed out the banks, do you think he just gave them large quantities of money?

You support Labour which is fair enough

 

I'm done arguing with you. However, purely to correct a personal point, you have no idea who I do or don't support, or indeed what basis I use for deciding who to vote for in any specific election.

Fair enough. I stand by everything I have said in this thread. The government is not obliged to provide cradle to grave support for people, no matter how self-destructive their behaviour. If people keep fucking up, at some point we have to hold our hands up and say "you reap what you sew". Because some people will sink as far as they are allowed to, particularly if they constantly have people making excuses for them.

 

Should there be a safety net? Of course. Should there be unlimited safety nets? No, of course not.

 

I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's explanation as to how Labour are absolved of responsibility for having to bail out the banks 12 years into their government, and how they are absolved of responsibility for allowing house prices to soar so high that many people with jobs struggle to pay rent and where home ownership is a feasible option for far fewer people than it EVER was under the previous Tory government.

The gap between rich and poor extended under a labour government, that much is true. And scandalous, given their policies.

I have to ask though, are you coming at this from the point of view of a tory supporter? Or simply someone who dislikes Labour, I'll hold any further comment until you explain that.

Just as we all are forced to subsidise the Guardian through the public sector and BBC recruitment ads placed in it.

 

Paying for an advertisement in a newspaper is a commercial transaction. It's the complete opposite of subsidization.

Point being we pay the license fee, which bbc then uses in part to advertise in the guardian. It's not quite the opposite of subsidization, but it's a pretty fucking tenuous description of it. To be fair.

Being on millions of pounds means all sorts of "Tax effecient invesment," companies will want to speak to you. You'd be surprised how many people who earn six figures pay around 20% in tax.

It's funny cos it refernces domestic violence

While there's no doubt her opinions are probably a bit excessive and inflamed by emotion one can't help but feel calling her a cunt is a bit much, one could even go so far as to suggest it's understandable?

Child Porn? Sexual Assault?

 

If either of these turn out to be true then I will be vindicated by what I said earlier about Venables and Thompson being executed.

Only if you believe sexual assault or downloading child porn is serious enough that the perpetrators should be executed.

And even then it'd be bollocks, one can make a decent argument that murder should mean life inside, or that people who commit such crimes as venables should be yonked back to prison at the first sign of imbalance on the basis they just won't be safe for other people to be around. You can ask questions as to why he was allowed out.

There are quite a few options other than "He done something bad? Well we should have handed a death sentence to a child then, that'd be a fine idea."

I still fail to see what part of the planned murder you dont see?

 

No-one misunderstands the circumstances. No-one has tried to justify the crime one bit. It's fucking horrendous, it was then and it is now. I had to look away from the news on TV last night because that CCTV footage still haunts me.

 

The fact still remains that they were children. As Moj points out, 10 year olds believe in Santa Clause so it's not difficult to see how such a shallow mind could be corrupted enough to perform such a hideous crime. My question is still "How the hell were they allowed to develop into such animals?". I haven't read one single good response to that yet.

 

Heard on the radio this morning that there was a similar crime in Norway not long after. A 5 year old girl was battered to death by three boys even younger than these two and they tried to bury the body in the Snow. They were back at school within the month. I wonder where they are now?

 

 

Much better response than Kiffys. Kif, read what i wrote? At what age do they stop being children?

 

Rick your quite right that they must have been corrupted and you can only point at the people that looked after them. However once they have set down that path IMO there is no way back for them. Do i feel sorry for them? In part for the people that failed to spot the problems that where growing in the boys. As adults they have been given a life they took and for that i dont agree. Should they have been hanged? probably the murder was about as brutal as it could get and was clearly planned. However that rases the issue of killing a child. Which in turn makes another point. Keep them locked up until 20? then kill them?

 

Shady area. One thing is clear justice was not carried out in the 8 years they spent playing games all day. As adults they should atleast be forced to explain the actions they carried out and live with the names they where born with not least so people can know whos living next to them, dating their daughter, or worse still baby sitting the kids.

 

As for Norway i have not read or seen any of report so i cant judge.

 

Im sure lots of people have had worse upbringing than these two and have not turned into baby killers.

Ok let me attempt a more reasoned response.

As many have pointed out, the full background to these kids has not been released, to my knowledge. Suffice to say via upbringing or nature these 10 year old children either didn't know the difference between right and wrong or simply didn't care.

I'd say at that point there's something seriously wrong with them.

The concept of justice as a punishment to accurately reflect the crime (an eye for an eye being the best description) doesn't really represent justice, it represents revenge. The crimes these children commited were abhorrant, so abhorrant the urge to see them tortured and killed is a manifestation of the disgust you feel when hearing of the crimes - they are so distressing you need someone to blame, an outlet for the anger and revulsion you feel.

But that doesn't make it right, whatever fucked up thing these people are, murdering them helps nothing. It doesn't act as a deterrent to other insane 10 year olds, by their nature they're insane and fucked up.

It just means society itself is also in the business of killing children, or even adults.

Now I could go along with the idea that when something does something this wrong they can never be released, but the need to kill is revenge, and revenge is natural. But it's not justice.

Hanging children eh? How very civilised we are.

I'm with Kiffy on this. I'm also mid 30s and I don't ever remember there being a local bobby that knew everyone's names and all that. I think that happened in Dixon of Dock Green in the 50s, but I reckon it's pretty much a race memory now.

 

Each generation thinks things have got worse because life as a kid is always sheltered from the realities of that era. The media bang on about asbos and hoodies now, but they were banging on about yobs in the 80s, punks in the 70s, mods and rockers in the 60s and Teddy Boys in the 50s.

 

Britain hasn't got worse in the last 50 years, it's got infinitely better. People generally don't die of rickets and polio, the mentally ill don't languish untreated in loony bins, there aren't food shortages and mass flu epidemics. Hotels don't have signs outside saying No Niggers, No Irish. Women aren't laughed out of the workplace. Everybody has a phone, a car, a tv, internet, a microwave. Of course there are things that we've lost, and that are worth lamenting, but this whole idea of Broken Britain, or "England's gone to the dogs"... it's just bollocks!

*stands and applauds*

Yeah, but the point is he got his face out there somehow. So obviously it did happen in some areas, and didn't in others.

 

Kiffy is just being an aggro dickhead again.

No I'm not, well yes I am a bit but the points still bollocks.

Cops going into schoolds and giving talks on drugs is not a local bobby everyone knows the name of. It's a drug outreach programme performed by one copper.

The original point refered to a bygone time whereby people knew their local bobby by name and it was all very last of the summer wine and it's a fucking phallacy, at least within the memory of people around my age group. Having a cop give a talk on drugs at school is in no way the same thing.