Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Well yeah, thanks Imogen for that insight into how business operates 'these days'. 

 

What she says is true, but luckily for her, the system has plenty of loose change to spend on airheads with no talent or contribution to society, so they can spend their days in tanning saloons, gyms and being photographed doing pretend exercises in the tabloids. 

 

They can all do this and still 'earn' more money than a fireman, nurse, teacher or someone putting their life on the line for this country.

Carnelian
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
Well that's yer market economy. I warned you about this back in '79. No-one listens to me though but.

yep, that's the global market economy, where kids stitch footballs together all day for pennies so that David Beckham can scribble his name on one for ÂĢÂĢÂĢÂĢÂĢs. But once they've got it, they've 'earned it', it's their money and it would be 'immoral' for any government to tax those 'wealth creators' at 50%

Carnelian
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
Of course in my day it was 97.5%

Should be that now for some.  A government that shores up a system through its laws to protect property, wealth and inequality, where one person can 'earn' 1000s of times more for an hour of their finite life than an hour of someone else's finite life, is morally bound to tax those people at compensatory high rates far beyond 50%

Carnelian
Originally Posted by velvet donkey:

Bollox.

YOu'll have to do better than that!  We're all born to the same Earth and we all can expect to live for three score years and ten - or thereabouts. 

 

Fifty years ago, many predicted that with efficiency savings we could all have leisure time and would only need to work 5 hours a day and still live comfortably. 

 

What they didn't consider was that rich and powerful would cream off almost all those benefits for themselves, so even after all those advancements and gross productivity increasing hundreds of times, we're still given the bullshit line that we can't 'afford' pensions or that the terminally ill have to 'work for their benefits'.

 

The capitalist governments engineer society to protect the property, wealth and power of the few, so having allowed and promoted the means of creating more  inequality, they are morally bound to tax inequality.

Carnelian

Velvet, did we go to war in Iraq to topple Saddam or did we go to war in Iraq so that corps could get their hands on Iraq's oil?  Since we armed Saddam in the first place, I think it's fair to say it was for the oil. 

 

Once again, people have to die, via the state, to protect and advance the capital interests of the few.

 

50% tax "bollox", you're talking bollox!

Carnelian
Originally Posted by velvet donkey:

Taxing folk at 50 % is piss poor.

 

And not for a minute do I believe they're all bankers.

 

Half your income on the Jeremy Kyle show?

 

I think not.

I believe they have incomes over five times the average - and that's why they should be taxed at 50% - at least.  They only pay 50% after the first ÂĢ150,000. 

 

The rich want their property and wealth protected.  The more they grab off their fellow citizens, the more they should put back into the society that lets them do it and protects them while doing it.

 

50% isn't a magic number.  It isn't morally wrong at all when society does not see any harm in paying people vastly different salaries.

 

I couldn't give a **** about the Jeremy Kyle Show and the moral disgust I'm supposed to feel.  The media can stuff their undeserving poor divide and rule bullshit.  It's just used to justify kicking the disadvantaged, in general, so the rich can get richer.

Carnelian
Originally Posted by KaffyBaffy:

'scuse me, gents.. I'm sure this is all very relevant - but what shade of lippy is going to getting me an extra ten grand?

 

Imogen talks bollox.

She doesn't really, she's just trying to justify her lifestyle - which, to be fair, isn't really hurting anyone. 

 

The flipside to Imogen saying "if women can flutter their eyes and get equal pay, why not" is try doing it when you're 55 and see how far it gets you!

 

See how you like it if you're that fifty five year old woman when some airhead flutters their eyes and gets better pay, even though they're shit at their job.

 

Imogen is saying, "you may be better than a man or worse than a man in business, but by buttering up a man, you can get 'equality' or benefit from inequality, if you're pretty enough."

 

Carnelian
Originally Posted by velvet donkey:
Originally Posted by Carnelian:
Originally Posted by velvet donkey:

Okay.

 

Sleep tight.

 I shall be dreaming of the day when Dave's lot are facing the firing squad!

I'm sure Paxman and Humphries are up for that one.

Paxman's a fusty old git who tends towards the right wing, but to his credit, he recognises a shit politician when he sees one. 

 

She's not quite my MP (neighbouring constituency) , but she's in the local press all the time for being touchy feely about community stuff while voting on message as a 'Cameron cutie'.

 

Chloe Smith, clueless idiot, ****wit, waste of space

 

 

Camoron thought she would be ideal for Gideon's team, because she formerly worked at Deloite Touche.  But she worked as a Management Consultant there.  In other words, a smoke and mirrors management-speak bullshiter on a fat salary who knows bugger all about economics.  That's Dave for you!

 

Carnelian
Originally Posted by Carnelian:
Originally Posted by KaffyBaffy:

'scuse me, gents.. I'm sure this is all very relevant - but what shade of lippy is going to getting me an extra ten grand?

 

Imogen talks bollox.

She doesn't really, she's just trying to justify her lifestyle - which, to be fair, isn't really hurting anyone. 

 

The flipside to Imogen saying "if women can flutter their eyes and get equal pay, why not" is try doing it when you're 55 and see how far it gets you!

 

See how you like it if you're that fifty five year old woman when some airhead flutters their eyes and gets better pay, even though they're shit at their job.

 

Imogen is saying, "you may be better than a man or worse than a man in business, but by buttering up a man, you can get 'equality' or benefit from inequality, if you're pretty enough."

 

I must just have been lucky where I've worked - I've honestly never seen it.  I'm sure it does happen, but I sincerely believe it's the exception rather than the norm.     Sure it does in some very small places where the boss is trying to get into someone's pants though.   

Kaffs

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×