News0 min ago
Now Who's Running Scared?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by diddlydo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I get fed up of the ‘haves’ being expected to prop up the ‘have nots.’
We all get the chance to have an education and make our way in the world.
The fact is that some people are smarter than others. If person A has done well for themselves by embracing their education or starting at the bottom of their profession and working their way up, why should they have to prop up person B who isn’t quite as smart, or person C who never gave a toss?
The higher rate taxpayer is already handing over copies quantity of their hard earned wages, yet these are the people that put most into the economy and are unlikely to be a burden on the state, but they are still expected to contribute more.
We all get the chance to have an education and make our way in the world.
The fact is that some people are smarter than others. If person A has done well for themselves by embracing their education or starting at the bottom of their profession and working their way up, why should they have to prop up person B who isn’t quite as smart, or person C who never gave a toss?
The higher rate taxpayer is already handing over copies quantity of their hard earned wages, yet these are the people that put most into the economy and are unlikely to be a burden on the state, but they are still expected to contribute more.
I didn't defend their actions then, and I wouldn't now. I was a staunch trade unionist and proud of it but I would never advocate stike action. Never. The very second that you go on strike, you've lost the argument. It's tanatmount to industrial suicide. That viewpoint always caused me problems with my colleagues. Another issue I had with colleagues was payment of bonuses. I would never advocate ANY bonus payments because there were just a "one-off". Instead I would try to replace any offer of a bonus with an increase in the basic rate. I still would.
"I'm absolutely delighted that selfish people are "absobloodylutely petrified". If you're not selfish, you've no need to be. But I do like the thought of it!"
Selfish?
If you think that those who look after themselves and their families, those who are already paying more than their fair share, those who get sick of the idea that those who are already paying a significant chunk of their earnings away should pay even more for having the barefaced temerity of doing as best as they can for themselves and their families, and those who are sick of seeing the have-nots (or more accurately the can't be bothered) receive more free money from me are selfish, then yep, I'm as selfish as they come.
Selfish?
If you think that those who look after themselves and their families, those who are already paying more than their fair share, those who get sick of the idea that those who are already paying a significant chunk of their earnings away should pay even more for having the barefaced temerity of doing as best as they can for themselves and their families, and those who are sick of seeing the have-nots (or more accurately the can't be bothered) receive more free money from me are selfish, then yep, I'm as selfish as they come.
bang on DD, too many lefties think it's a sin to prosper. We pay tax proportionately that's how percentages work, yet they still want different rates above certain amounts to punish people for doing a bit better for themselves and their families, typical politics of envy from the hateful left.
10CS: " I was a staunch trade unionist and proud of it" - well you are the only non leftwing trade unionist in history then!
10CS: " I was a staunch trade unionist and proud of it" - well you are the only non leftwing trade unionist in history then!
"they still want different rates above certain amounts to punish people for doing a bit better"
It's not about punishment but about being equitable. The "bit better" is about being better at extracting the nation's wealth and arranging it to be in their own pocket. Over a certain level (what that level is, is a subject for another discussion, but a level clearly exists) income obviously exceeds just reward for that which an individual has contributed. It's merely the inevitably flawed system that has allowed it. Consequently it is right that a greater proportional contribution is paid back into the nation's coffers for the benefit of all; including those who actually added value to whatever product or service that attracted the excessive wealth.
It's not about punishment but about being equitable. The "bit better" is about being better at extracting the nation's wealth and arranging it to be in their own pocket. Over a certain level (what that level is, is a subject for another discussion, but a level clearly exists) income obviously exceeds just reward for that which an individual has contributed. It's merely the inevitably flawed system that has allowed it. Consequently it is right that a greater proportional contribution is paid back into the nation's coffers for the benefit of all; including those who actually added value to whatever product or service that attracted the excessive wealth.
^^^No idea - can't see what it is.
But if it's the Harry Enfield character you speak of, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
I fully accept in a civilised society we all have a role to play in helping those who cannot help themselves, but where my largesse starts to wane is when certain groups in society are singled-out for what can only be described as a punishment for doing well or reasonably well out of life. My largesse wanes even further when, in reality, these groups are singled out for political purposes, as in 'vote for us and we'll screw those 'rich' ***' - it's a cheap political point to appeal to those who perhaps haven't done as well as others and for some reason feel envy and/or anger in their own failings.
But if it's the Harry Enfield character you speak of, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
I fully accept in a civilised society we all have a role to play in helping those who cannot help themselves, but where my largesse starts to wane is when certain groups in society are singled-out for what can only be described as a punishment for doing well or reasonably well out of life. My largesse wanes even further when, in reality, these groups are singled out for political purposes, as in 'vote for us and we'll screw those 'rich' ***' - it's a cheap political point to appeal to those who perhaps haven't done as well as others and for some reason feel envy and/or anger in their own failings.
Everyone needs motivation to succeed, if you get the same by not bothering- many won't, because that is just how they are. As I have said before... there are people I am willing to pay towards... but as a single parent of four... my priority will always, and has always been paying for my own responsibilities.
Then let me help you OG.
1. She curbed the power of the trade unions from the ridiculous amount they wielded in the 70s.
2. She outlawed sympathy strikes.
3. She comprehensively demonstrated, in the miners strike, that the country wouldn't be held to ransom.
4. She was instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War.
5. The Big Bang which helped London to become one of the World's eminent financial centers - something that we're still benefiting from.
6. The Falklands.
7. The Right to Buy.
8. Privatisation of inefficient and poorly run national industries, which in turn brought competition and greater consumer choice.
9. The Community Charge - fairer the system is replaced and fairer than the system that replaced it, but because some people had to pay who previously hadn't, they pathetically kicked-off.
10. The encouragement of entrepreneurship.
There's 10 just to start off with...I could go on.
With 3 election wins and 11 years in power, the history books will show gulliver and diddlydo are, simply, wrong.
1. She curbed the power of the trade unions from the ridiculous amount they wielded in the 70s.
2. She outlawed sympathy strikes.
3. She comprehensively demonstrated, in the miners strike, that the country wouldn't be held to ransom.
4. She was instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War.
5. The Big Bang which helped London to become one of the World's eminent financial centers - something that we're still benefiting from.
6. The Falklands.
7. The Right to Buy.
8. Privatisation of inefficient and poorly run national industries, which in turn brought competition and greater consumer choice.
9. The Community Charge - fairer the system is replaced and fairer than the system that replaced it, but because some people had to pay who previously hadn't, they pathetically kicked-off.
10. The encouragement of entrepreneurship.
There's 10 just to start off with...I could go on.
With 3 election wins and 11 years in power, the history books will show gulliver and diddlydo are, simply, wrong.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Food & Drink7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Hezbollah Vows To Continue Resistance...
News15 mins ago
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|