Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all very nice and well but she actually misunderstands why people use that phrase. It’s nothing to do without the amount of money someone has. It’s to do with being totally disconnected and out of touch with what the working class actually want. They (champagne socialists) are so vocal that drown out the working class and they’re often so aggressive that they cause damage to the people they’re trying to represent. Because they misrepresent them. They often like to just argue and enjoy attention. The working class are pawns to them." I disagree. How in touch do you need to be to argue that more should be done to help people less fortunate? And how do they drown anyone out? Take Bono for example, everyone’s favourite ”champagne socialist”. How often do you ever actually here him wanging on about something anyway? Compared to hearing people complaining about his much he wangs on about stuff? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact that in her argument she mentions train travel to Manchester is a perfect illustration of how out of touch she is. That’s not an issue that people care about at this moment in time." I think you are taking that too literally and (purposely?) missing the point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There seem to be two groups who don't like champagne socialists. Those who really do believe money is bad and anyone who has more than them is wrong by definition and those who also have lots of money and are embarrassed by others like them showing that you can in fact be rich and still be a decent person. They don't like them because they show the gaping flaw in their argument that the only reason poorer people despise them is jealousy as opposed to the fact that actually they're selfish, self centered, greedy people with little or no empathy. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all very nice and well but she actually misunderstands why people use that phrase. It’s nothing to do without the amount of money someone has. It’s to do with being totally disconnected and out of touch with what the working class actually want. They (champagne socialists) are so vocal that drown out the working class and they’re often so aggressive that they cause damage to the people they’re trying to represent. Because they misrepresent them. They often like to just argue and enjoy attention. The working class are pawns to them. I disagree. How in touch do you need to be to argue that more should be done to help people less fortunate? And how do they drown anyone out? Take Bono for example, everyone’s favourite ”champagne socialist”. How often do you ever actually here him wanging on about something anyway? Compared to hearing people complaining about his much he wangs on about stuff?" You need to be very in touch or you’ll find yourself misunderstanding, misrepresenting and misinterpreting everything. An example I can personally speak on is race. I regularly role my eyes at people that don’t experience racism trying (and failing) to stand up for it. They make things worse all the time. They almost weaponise it actually. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all very nice and well but she actually misunderstands why people use that phrase. It’s nothing to do without the amount of money someone has. It’s to do with being totally disconnected and out of touch with what the working class actually want. They (champagne socialists) are so vocal that drown out the working class and they’re often so aggressive that they cause damage to the people they’re trying to represent. Because they misrepresent them. They often like to just argue and enjoy attention. The working class are pawns to them. I disagree. How in touch do you need to be to argue that more should be done to help people less fortunate? And how do they drown anyone out? Take Bono for example, everyone’s favourite ”champagne socialist”. How often do you ever actually here him wanging on about something anyway? Compared to hearing people complaining about his much he wangs on about stuff? You need to be very in touch or you’ll find yourself misunderstanding, misrepresenting and misinterpreting everything. An example I can personally speak on is race. I regularly role my eyes at people that don’t experience racism trying (and failing) to stand up for it. They make things worse all the time. They almost weaponise it actually." I think you are moving the goalposts there. Caitlin’s article wasn't anything about race. It was simply about the false notion that, unless you yourself are poor, you can’t give a shit about those who are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all very nice and well but she actually misunderstands why people use that phrase. It’s nothing to do without the amount of money someone has. It’s to do with being totally disconnected and out of touch with what the working class actually want. They (champagne socialists) are so vocal that drown out the working class and they’re often so aggressive that they cause damage to the people they’re trying to represent. Because they misrepresent them. They often like to just argue and enjoy attention. The working class are pawns to them. I disagree. How in touch do you need to be to argue that more should be done to help people less fortunate? And how do they drown anyone out? Take Bono for example, everyone’s favourite ”champagne socialist”. How often do you ever actually here him wanging on about something anyway? Compared to hearing people complaining about his much he wangs on about stuff? You need to be very in touch or you’ll find yourself misunderstanding, misrepresenting and misinterpreting everything. An example I can personally speak on is race. I regularly role my eyes at people that don’t experience racism trying (and failing) to stand up for it. They make things worse all the time. They almost weaponise it actually. I think you are moving the goalposts there. Caitlin’s article wasn't anything about race. It was simply about the false notion that, unless you yourself are poor, you can’t give a shit about those who are." No I am not moving the goal posts. It’s the same issue (and since you mentioned Lily Allen it was perfectly relevant in light of her recent comments). My point stands - you can’t accurately represent something that you don’t experience. Sure you can say “help people that are worse off” but that’s hardly a meaningful input. Any attempt to go deeper often results in total misfiring. For example Lily Allen (again) ssaid she cares about those less well off, and implied that those people were bigoted at the same time. She doesn’t get it. That’s the case very often and I think it’s the reason why the recent elections went the way they did. People feel alienated by those that claim to represent them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Socialism is just a single, simple sentence: the belief that the necessities for the functioning of a society should be provided without profit. So that’s health, education, welfare, transport, the emergency services, the prison service and the justice system, paid for by taxation, and available to everyone, regardless of wealth" Many of those things run without profit and we have access to, health, education, justice, legal aid, welfare, So we are half way there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all very nice and well but she actually misunderstands why people use that phrase. It’s nothing to do without the amount of money someone has. It’s to do with being totally disconnected and out of touch with what the working class actually want. They (champagne socialists) are so vocal that drown out the working class and they’re often so aggressive that they cause damage to the people they’re trying to represent. Because they misrepresent them. They often like to just argue and enjoy attention. The working class are pawns to them. I disagree. How in touch do you need to be to argue that more should be done to help people less fortunate? And how do they drown anyone out? Take Bono for example, everyone’s favourite ”champagne socialist”. How often do you ever actually here him wanging on about something anyway? Compared to hearing people complaining about his much he wangs on about stuff? You need to be very in touch or you’ll find yourself misunderstanding, misrepresenting and misinterpreting everything. An example I can personally speak on is race. I regularly role my eyes at people that don’t experience racism trying (and failing) to stand up for it. They make things worse all the time. They almost weaponise it actually. I think you are moving the goalposts there. Caitlin’s article wasn't anything about race. It was simply about the false notion that, unless you yourself are poor, you can’t give a shit about those who are. No I am not moving the goal posts. It’s the same issue (and since you mentioned Lily Allen it was perfectly relevant in light of her recent comments). My point stands - you can’t accurately represent something that you don’t experience. Sure you can say “help people that are worse off” but that’s hardly a meaningful input. Any attempt to go deeper often results in total misfiring. For example Lily Allen (again) ssaid she cares about those less well off, and implied that those people were bigoted at the same time. She doesn’t get it. That’s the case very often and I think it’s the reason why the recent elections went the way they did. People feel alienated by those that claim to represent them." How are you defining “represent”? Would you, for example, argue that unless you were homeless yourself, you couldn’t be vocal that more could and should be done to help the homeless? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example Lily Allen (again) ssaid she cares about those less well off, and implied that those people were bigoted at the same time. She doesn’t get it. " Two things can be true at the same time. I care very deeply about my dad. Also, years of exposure to the Daily Mail has led to him making the occasional bigoted comment about Eastern Europeans. Do I stop caring about him because of this? Or do I overcome my frustration and attempt to educate him by talking to him? I usually choose the latter. Usually. Sometimes I just sugh and tell him he's being a racist knob. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example Lily Allen (again) ssaid she cares about those less well off, and implied that those people were bigoted at the same time. She doesn’t get it. Two things can be true at the same time. I care very deeply about my dad. Also, years of exposure to the Daily Mail has led to him making the occasional bigoted comment about Eastern Europeans. Do I stop caring about him because of this? Or do I overcome my frustration and attempt to educate him by talking to him? I usually choose the latter. Usually. Sometimes I just sugh and tell him he's being a racist knob." This did make me giggle  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact that in her argument she mentions train travel to Manchester is a perfect illustration of how out of touch she is. That’s not an issue that people care about at this moment in time." the second part of your name seems to be very true. maybe you should sit this one out mate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Socialism is just a single, simple sentence: the belief that the necessities for the functioning of a society should be provided without profit. So that’s health, education, welfare, transport, the emergency services, the prison service and the justice system, paid for by taxation, and available to everyone, regardless of wealth. " Quite bold to define socialism in a "single, simple sentence" There are various iterations of socialism and whilst social ownership is the basis for them all for many people it goes much further and includes opposing capitalism. The champagne socialists mentioned here have no doubt indulged in capitalism in one form or another to accrue their vast wealth which is at odds with some peoples interpretation of socialism. That aside even the basic definition shows them to be hypocritical. Do their staff share in their success or are they just an employee? Do they allow thier fans, who made them rich, to have access to affordable tickets or do they bleed them for all they are worth? Do they avoid tax avoidance schemes or do they ensure they keep as much of their money as possible? Even though that tax money could be paying for the things they are calling out for. Another foundation of socialism is opposing social inequality, which again is at odds with someone living in a mansion with 20 empty bedrooms whilst people are living and dying in the streets due to homelessness, old folk freezing to death because they cant afford gas but the rich fly their private jet to sunnier climes. Im not saying the rich should give up their wealth but they should quit their faux concern, hypocrisy and virtue signaling. Even worse than that are those that use it as a platform for self promotion or attention seeking. There are a few that dont deserve the champagne socialist title but lilly allen is not one of them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Socialism is just a single, simple sentence: the belief that the necessities for the functioning of a society should be provided without profit. So that’s health, education, welfare, transport, the emergency services, the prison service and the justice system, paid for by taxation, and available to everyone, regardless of wealth. Quite bold to define socialism in a "single, simple sentence" There are various iterations of socialism and whilst social ownership is the basis for them all for many people it goes much further and includes opposing capitalism. The champagne socialists mentioned here have no doubt indulged in capitalism in one form or another to accrue their vast wealth which is at odds with some peoples interpretation of socialism. That aside even the basic definition shows them to be hypocritical. Do their staff share in their success or are they just an employee? Do they allow thier fans, who made them rich, to have access to affordable tickets or do they bleed them for all they are worth? Do they avoid tax avoidance schemes or do they ensure they keep as much of their money as possible? Even though that tax money could be paying for the things they are calling out for. Another foundation of socialism is opposing social inequality, which again is at odds with someone living in a mansion with 20 empty bedrooms whilst people are living and dying in the streets due to homelessness, old folk freezing to death because they cant afford gas but the rich fly their private jet to sunnier climes. Im not saying the rich should give up their wealth but they should quit their faux concern, hypocrisy and virtue signaling. Even worse than that are those that use it as a platform for self promotion or attention seeking. There are a few that dont deserve the champagne socialist title but lilly allen is not one of them. " Well obviously socialism has finer details, but that’s essentially the crux of it. Notions of fairness and equality. I have always hated, or at least misunderstood, criticism of the left, as though they were bad things. I’m not sure I would agree that they have “indulged in capitalism”, unless you are reducing that to “having a job”. Some of your questions may be valid, but not others. Employees of “champagne socialists” share in their success by virtue of having a job that pays them a wage. The tax avoidance thing wouldn’t be great I agree, but that’s a separate issue I think. The point is that people tend to criticise not because of tax avoidance, but simply because of wealth. With the housing thing, you are doing the exact thing Caitlin talks about. I disagree that the size of your house prevents you from recognising that more could be done to help the homeless. The fact that you don’t literally invite the homeless to live in your house does not make you a hypocrite. And I absolutely disagree with the bizarre assumption that it’s faux concern. This is especially true with people who visit places abroad and witness extreme poverty. Often they are moved to tears by what they see. And people at home often on Internet forums, will hammer away on their keyboards about how they were faking it. As if that’s the most reasonable explanation, as though “celebrity status” somehow magically makes people immune from empathy, or the ability to give a shit, or to have feeling about something. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism is dead." Socialism is great as a concept, but the reality is that it hasn't really worked. Yes, everyone agrees that free healthcare, education et al is a marvellous concept. How do we pay for it in a capitalist society? Socialism only works if everything is socialist. But we live in a worldwide economy. Unfortunately socialists dont seem to have the answer for this. Where does the money come from to pay for free wifi? 50k nurses? Hospitals? Police? There is no eternal pot of never ending money. It ends as a vicious cycle of high tax to pay for free stuff. This will create resentment in those gettin taxed higher for less gains. Socialism isn't compatible with the modern high earning society. Regarding these champagne socialists, as said, they are good as mouthpieces. But little else. Mostly hypocritical, they pay as little tax as they can get away with, not helping their fellow man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all very nice and well but she actually misunderstands why people use that phrase. It’s nothing to do without the amount of money someone has. It’s to do with being totally disconnected and out of touch with what the working class actually want. They (champagne socialists) are so vocal that drown out the working class and they’re often so aggressive that they cause damage to the people they’re trying to represent. Because they misrepresent them. They often like to just argue and enjoy attention. The working class are pawns to them." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is this boring shit in the Lounge? " Who made you read it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is this boring shit in the Lounge? " Stand in front of a mirror and repeat the question  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism is dead. Socialism is great as a concept, but the reality is that it hasn't really worked. Yes, everyone agrees that free healthcare, education et al is a marvellous concept. How do we pay for it in a capitalist society? Socialism only works if everything is socialist. But we live in a worldwide economy. Unfortunately socialists dont seem to have the answer for this. Where does the money come from to pay for free wifi? 50k nurses? Hospitals? Police? There is no eternal pot of never ending money. It ends as a vicious cycle of high tax to pay for free stuff. This will create resentment in those gettin taxed higher for less gains. Socialism isn't compatible with the modern high earning society. Regarding these champagne socialists, as said, they are good as mouthpieces. But little else. Mostly hypocritical, they pay as little tax as they can get away with, not helping their fellow man." Where does the money come from? Well, apparently the Labour manifesto was fully costed. I’m not going to pretend to know how valid that costing was or wasn’t, but over 160 people from the world of economics (and business?) seemed to agree that it was sound. It also seems a bit strange that people seem to have gotten the impression that Labour were promoting some sort of extreme form of socialism, or communism. The reality was far from it. They simply sought to restore things to how they largely were before all the Tory austerity kicked in. They were only talking about getting spending and investment up to levels comparable with other European countries. And would it be churlish to point out that the three (most expensive?) of your four “socialist policies” are actually Conservative policies too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just wanted to lost this in the Lily Allen thread, but it was already closed. As always happens, people start complaining about ”champagne socialists” or similar, who some bizarre argument about how they can’t possibly give a shit about whatever it is they are truly to claim they give a shit about. Anyway, Caitlin Moran and it much better that I can: ”You know how this goes. Bono, or Russell Brand, or Emma Thompson, or Charlotte Church, speak out in defence of welfare, or the working poor, and are immediately derided as “champagne socialists” by the professionally snide. The denouncing of champagne socialists always follows a strict format – mentioning the price of the house the champagne socialist lives in, their income/net worth, whether or not they went to public school, if their children do, and accompanying it with a picture of the champagne socialist either dressed up to the nines on a red carpet (how can they attend a movie premiere when the poor cannot attend a movie premiere!) or looking angry and shouting at a demonstration. (This person is crazed with socialism! Look at them snarl! Socialism is the ultimate Bitchy Resting Face! You will need Botox now, for sure!) The demented logic seems to be as follows: that you cannot stand up for the poor unless you are poor yourself. That if you have managed to accrue any wealth and security, unless you have subsequently given away every penny of it to charities for the poor, you are a hypocrite to speak about the poor. Only the poor can speak about, and for, the poor. So, if you are a real socialist, you must yourself stay poor for ever. Of course, there are several, very obvious, logical flaws in this argument. The first is a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism. There are many misunderstandings about what a socialist is: primarily that it’s someone who wears a donkey jacket and lives by a brazier, possibly in 1979, and listens only to Billy Bragg. Well, I know loads of socialists like this, and they’re ace. They get shit done. But that’s not socialism. That’s people. People who like old coats and Billy Bragg. Socialism is just a single, simple sentence: the belief that the necessities for the functioning of a society should be provided without profit. So that’s health, education, welfare, transport, the emergency services, the prison service and the justice system, paid for by taxation, and available to everyone, regardless of wealth. No paying Serco millions for running overcrowded jails. No G4S – the guys who fucked up the Olympics – still being paid by the government, despite being investigated by the serious fraud office for massively overcharging. There’s nothing in socialism that prevents Charlotte Church from living in a nice house, walking a red carpet and, after paying her taxes, earning millions a year. If she were a champagne anarchic communist, who believed that all property is theft, and that money should be abolished, then she would be a hypocrite. Champagne socialists, on the other hand, are people who could personally pay for an open return standard ticket to Manchester that costs £329 since privatisation, but recognise that other people can’t, and are suggesting that, maybe, society would function better if rail travel were cheaper, so everyone could use it. What people who denounce champagne socialists are doing is, essentially, trying to shame people who have empathy. Now, that’s a bad day down the opinion mines in anyone’s book.”" Well said OP, good on you  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism is dead. Socialism is great as a concept, but the reality is that it hasn't really worked. Yes, everyone agrees that free healthcare, education et al is a marvellous concept. How do we pay for it in a capitalist society? Socialism only works if everything is socialist. But we live in a worldwide economy. Unfortunately socialists dont seem to have the answer for this. Where does the money come from to pay for free wifi? 50k nurses? Hospitals? Police? There is no eternal pot of never ending money. It ends as a vicious cycle of high tax to pay for free stuff. This will create resentment in those gettin taxed higher for less gains. Socialism isn't compatible with the modern high earning society. Regarding these champagne socialists, as said, they are good as mouthpieces. But little else. Mostly hypocritical, they pay as little tax as they can get away with, not helping their fellow man. Where does the money come from? Well, apparently the Labour manifesto was fully costed. I’m not going to pretend to know how valid that costing was or wasn’t, but over 160 people from the world of economics (and business?) seemed to agree that it was sound. It also seems a bit strange that people seem to have gotten the impression that Labour were promoting some sort of extreme form of socialism, or communism. The reality was far from it. They simply sought to restore things to how they largely were before all the Tory austerity kicked in. They were only talking about getting spending and investment up to levels comparable with other European countries. And would it be churlish to point out that the three (most expensive?) of your four “socialist policies” are actually Conservative policies too? " Would you call yourself a socialist? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism is dead. Socialism is great as a concept, but the reality is that it hasn't really worked. Yes, everyone agrees that free healthcare, education et al is a marvellous concept. How do we pay for it in a capitalist society? Socialism only works if everything is socialist. But we live in a worldwide economy. Unfortunately socialists dont seem to have the answer for this. Where does the money come from to pay for free wifi? 50k nurses? Hospitals? Police? There is no eternal pot of never ending money. It ends as a vicious cycle of high tax to pay for free stuff. This will create resentment in those gettin taxed higher for less gains. Socialism isn't compatible with the modern high earning society. Regarding these champagne socialists, as said, they are good as mouthpieces. But little else. Mostly hypocritical, they pay as little tax as they can get away with, not helping their fellow man. Where does the money come from? Well, apparently the Labour manifesto was fully costed. I’m not going to pretend to know how valid that costing was or wasn’t, but over 160 people from the world of economics (and business?) seemed to agree that it was sound. It also seems a bit strange that people seem to have gotten the impression that Labour were promoting some sort of extreme form of socialism, or communism. The reality was far from it. They simply sought to restore things to how they largely were before all the Tory austerity kicked in. They were only talking about getting spending and investment up to levels comparable with other European countries. And would it be churlish to point out that the three (most expensive?) of your four “socialist policies” are actually Conservative policies too? Would you call yourself a socialist?" I guess so. I think most people would broadly agree with the general notions of equality, fairness, compassion and empathy, don’t you think? I think most people broadly agreed with many of Labour’s policies, but it all got lost in the Brexit issue. And the Tories banging on about how people would “on average” pay more (income tax) when the reality was that only the top 5% of earners would. And even then, someone on £82k a year would only be paying about an extra £8 a month in income tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it." ^ what he said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its hilarious really they try to shame others yet have short arms and deep pockets and dont practice what they preach. Its more a matter of look at me and my social media posts which I don't follow myself. "What don’t they do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said." People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism is dead. Socialism is great as a concept, but the reality is that it hasn't really worked. Yes, everyone agrees that free healthcare, education et al is a marvellous concept. How do we pay for it in a capitalist society? Socialism only works if everything is socialist. But we live in a worldwide economy. Unfortunately socialists dont seem to have the answer for this. Where does the money come from to pay for free wifi? 50k nurses? Hospitals? Police? There is no eternal pot of never ending money. It ends as a vicious cycle of high tax to pay for free stuff. This will create resentment in those gettin taxed higher for less gains. Socialism isn't compatible with the modern high earning society. Regarding these champagne socialists, as said, they are good as mouthpieces. But little else. Mostly hypocritical, they pay as little tax as they can get away with, not helping their fellow man. Where does the money come from? Well, apparently the Labour manifesto was fully costed. I’m not going to pretend to know how valid that costing was or wasn’t, but over 160 people from the world of economics (and business?) seemed to agree that it was sound. It also seems a bit strange that people seem to have gotten the impression that Labour were promoting some sort of extreme form of socialism, or communism. The reality was far from it. They simply sought to restore things to how they largely were before all the Tory austerity kicked in. They were only talking about getting spending and investment up to levels comparable with other European countries. And would it be churlish to point out that the three (most expensive?) of your four “socialist policies” are actually Conservative policies too? Would you call yourself a socialist? I guess so. I think most people would broadly agree with the general notions of equality, fairness, compassion and empathy, don’t you think? I think most people broadly agreed with many of Labour’s policies, but it all got lost in the Brexit issue. And the Tories banging on about how people would “on average” pay more (income tax) when the reality was that only the top 5% of earners would. And even then, someone on £82k a year would only be paying about an extra £8 a month in income tax." That’s a very misleading stat. Saying “only” £8 extra - but those people are already paying £2200 a month in tax and NI. So why should they have to pay more? Do they get more from it? It also makes no sense because those people are in the minority, those £8’s wouldn’t even amount to anything significant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism is dead. Socialism is great as a concept, but the reality is that it hasn't really worked. Yes, everyone agrees that free healthcare, education et al is a marvellous concept. How do we pay for it in a capitalist society? Socialism only works if everything is socialist. But we live in a worldwide economy. Unfortunately socialists dont seem to have the answer for this. Where does the money come from to pay for free wifi? 50k nurses? Hospitals? Police? There is no eternal pot of never ending money. It ends as a vicious cycle of high tax to pay for free stuff. This will create resentment in those gettin taxed higher for less gains. Socialism isn't compatible with the modern high earning society. Regarding these champagne socialists, as said, they are good as mouthpieces. But little else. Mostly hypocritical, they pay as little tax as they can get away with, not helping their fellow man. Where does the money come from? Well, apparently the Labour manifesto was fully costed. I’m not going to pretend to know how valid that costing was or wasn’t, but over 160 people from the world of economics (and business?) seemed to agree that it was sound. It also seems a bit strange that people seem to have gotten the impression that Labour were promoting some sort of extreme form of socialism, or communism. The reality was far from it. They simply sought to restore things to how they largely were before all the Tory austerity kicked in. They were only talking about getting spending and investment up to levels comparable with other European countries. And would it be churlish to point out that the three (most expensive?) of your four “socialist policies” are actually Conservative policies too? Would you call yourself a socialist? I guess so. I think most people would broadly agree with the general notions of equality, fairness, compassion and empathy, don’t you think? I think most people broadly agreed with many of Labour’s policies, but it all got lost in the Brexit issue. And the Tories banging on about how people would “on average” pay more (income tax) when the reality was that only the top 5% of earners would. And even then, someone on £82k a year would only be paying about an extra £8 a month in income tax. That’s a very misleading stat. Saying “only” £8 extra - but those people are already paying £2200 a month in tax and NI. So why should they have to pay more? Do they get more from it? It also makes no sense because those people are in the minority, those £8’s wouldn’t even amount to anything significant. " Why do you think "they should get more from it"? The object of paying high rates of tax is not to achieve anything for the person paying them. It's assumed they are doing ok. It's to put into the pot for those that aren't doing ok. Personally I am happy to do so, but with the condition my tax isn't going into the pockets of private companies. Which is why I am also in favour of a certain amount of public ownership. Utilities, trains, buses. On the whole, these should not be run for profit, as they all benefit from vast input from government. I don't want my taxes being used to subsidise a train company that is actually mostly owned by the Dutch government (like my local franchise operator is). I'd much prefer that tax to be used to improve the service and reduce the costs for users. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said. People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue. " How do you propose my son "provide for himself", he has a genetic disorder that means he is on the Autistic spectrum, has severe learning disabilities and some physical issues. I don't work hard for the state, I work hard for the people of this country. That's certainly how I look at it, the state is simply the middle man in this, as it is difficult for charities or individuals to reach everyone that needs assistance. For example, I'm a bit busy to also drive an ambulance, or go and investigate a robbery, so I sort of expect the state to deal with those things. Surprisingly this requires money. As does providing free child care so that families can go to work to "provide for themselves". Because I recognise I have had good luck, and have ended up in a good job. I can afford that extra tax, and am happy that it goes towards looking after, and raising the standards of, other people that I live alongside in the country. If that is Socialism then I embrace it wholeheartedly. One day I am expecting I am going to need some help (I've previously been made redundant for example), at that point it was/will be others helping me. What aspect of the above is so distasteful for you that you would wilfully try to avoid paying your part of what's required? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism is dead. Socialism is great as a concept, but the reality is that it hasn't really worked. Yes, everyone agrees that free healthcare, education et al is a marvellous concept. How do we pay for it in a capitalist society? Socialism only works if everything is socialist. But we live in a worldwide economy. Unfortunately socialists dont seem to have the answer for this. Where does the money come from to pay for free wifi? 50k nurses? Hospitals? Police? There is no eternal pot of never ending money. It ends as a vicious cycle of high tax to pay for free stuff. This will create resentment in those gettin taxed higher for less gains. Socialism isn't compatible with the modern high earning society. Regarding these champagne socialists, as said, they are good as mouthpieces. But little else. Mostly hypocritical, they pay as little tax as they can get away with, not helping their fellow man. Where does the money come from? Well, apparently the Labour manifesto was fully costed. I’m not going to pretend to know how valid that costing was or wasn’t, but over 160 people from the world of economics (and business?) seemed to agree that it was sound. It also seems a bit strange that people seem to have gotten the impression that Labour were promoting some sort of extreme form of socialism, or communism. The reality was far from it. They simply sought to restore things to how they largely were before all the Tory austerity kicked in. They were only talking about getting spending and investment up to levels comparable with other European countries. And would it be churlish to point out that the three (most expensive?) of your four “socialist policies” are actually Conservative policies too? Would you call yourself a socialist? I guess so. I think most people would broadly agree with the general notions of equality, fairness, compassion and empathy, don’t you think? I think most people broadly agreed with many of Labour’s policies, but it all got lost in the Brexit issue. And the Tories banging on about how people would “on average” pay more (income tax) when the reality was that only the top 5% of earners would. And even then, someone on £82k a year would only be paying about an extra £8 a month in income tax. That’s a very misleading stat. Saying “only” £8 extra - but those people are already paying £2200 a month in tax and NI. So why should they have to pay more? Do they get more from it? It also makes no sense because those people are in the minority, those £8’s wouldn’t even amount to anything significant. Why do you think "they should get more from it"? The object of paying high rates of tax is not to achieve anything for the person paying them. It's assumed they are doing ok. It's to put into the pot for those that aren't doing ok. Personally I am happy to do so, but with the condition my tax isn't going into the pockets of private companies. Which is why I am also in favour of a certain amount of public ownership. Utilities, trains, buses. On the whole, these should not be run for profit, as they all benefit from vast input from government. I don't want my taxes being used to subsidise a train company that is actually mostly owned by the Dutch government (like my local franchise operator is). I'd much prefer that tax to be used to improve the service and reduce the costs for users. " Have you ever considered that that assumption is wrong? And also that the tax system is deeply flawed? Also if you want control of how your money is spent then it doesn’t make sense to make things government controlled and reliant on tax, as implied in your answer. Literally everything the government spends goes into the money of other people, and you have no say on that. The only way to express choice is through competition and varied options. I don’t trust any government to become the sole proprietor and provider or all of these incredibly important things. I don’t want to be like China or Russia, with a crumbling system and investment in all the wrong places. Personally I don’t care which company runs a service as long as it works, and works well. It’s very petty to force the country to suffer and to put big projects in the hands of incompetent people simply because 1. you don’t like private companies 2. You believe other people should pay. I will never understand that logic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism is dead. Socialism is great as a concept, but the reality is that it hasn't really worked. Yes, everyone agrees that free healthcare, education et al is a marvellous concept. How do we pay for it in a capitalist society? Socialism only works if everything is socialist. But we live in a worldwide economy. Unfortunately socialists dont seem to have the answer for this. Where does the money come from to pay for free wifi? 50k nurses? Hospitals? Police? There is no eternal pot of never ending money. It ends as a vicious cycle of high tax to pay for free stuff. This will create resentment in those gettin taxed higher for less gains. Socialism isn't compatible with the modern high earning society. Regarding these champagne socialists, as said, they are good as mouthpieces. But little else. Mostly hypocritical, they pay as little tax as they can get away with, not helping their fellow man. Where does the money come from? Well, apparently the Labour manifesto was fully costed. I’m not going to pretend to know how valid that costing was or wasn’t, but over 160 people from the world of economics (and business?) seemed to agree that it was sound. It also seems a bit strange that people seem to have gotten the impression that Labour were promoting some sort of extreme form of socialism, or communism. The reality was far from it. They simply sought to restore things to how they largely were before all the Tory austerity kicked in. They were only talking about getting spending and investment up to levels comparable with other European countries. And would it be churlish to point out that the three (most expensive?) of your four “socialist policies” are actually Conservative policies too? " Figures and costings can be made to dance to any tune if you spin it enough. A lot of the socialist/labour figures depended on abolishing billionaires (most of whom would leave the country, creating a massive tax void), cutting essential forces, both military and police, and renationalisation of services. Which will never, ever happen. Ever. There are no working socialist states in the western hemisphere. There are several countries which are only loosely socialist due to mentioning socialism in their constitution. All the "working" socialist states run on the marxism/Leninist/communist model. And that shit dont fly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism is dead. Socialism is great as a concept, but the reality is that it hasn't really worked. Yes, everyone agrees that free healthcare, education et al is a marvellous concept. How do we pay for it in a capitalist society? Socialism only works if everything is socialist. But we live in a worldwide economy. Unfortunately socialists dont seem to have the answer for this. Where does the money come from to pay for free wifi? 50k nurses? Hospitals? Police? There is no eternal pot of never ending money. It ends as a vicious cycle of high tax to pay for free stuff. This will create resentment in those gettin taxed higher for less gains. Socialism isn't compatible with the modern high earning society. Regarding these champagne socialists, as said, they are good as mouthpieces. But little else. Mostly hypocritical, they pay as little tax as they can get away with, not helping their fellow man. Where does the money come from? Well, apparently the Labour manifesto was fully costed. I’m not going to pretend to know how valid that costing was or wasn’t, but over 160 people from the world of economics (and business?) seemed to agree that it was sound. It also seems a bit strange that people seem to have gotten the impression that Labour were promoting some sort of extreme form of socialism, or communism. The reality was far from it. They simply sought to restore things to how they largely were before all the Tory austerity kicked in. They were only talking about getting spending and investment up to levels comparable with other European countries. And would it be churlish to point out that the three (most expensive?) of your four “socialist policies” are actually Conservative policies too? Would you call yourself a socialist? I guess so. I think most people would broadly agree with the general notions of equality, fairness, compassion and empathy, don’t you think? I think most people broadly agreed with many of Labour’s policies, but it all got lost in the Brexit issue. And the Tories banging on about how people would “on average” pay more (income tax) when the reality was that only the top 5% of earners would. And even then, someone on £82k a year would only be paying about an extra £8 a month in income tax. That’s a very misleading stat. Saying “only” £8 extra - but those people are already paying £2200 a month in tax and NI. So why should they have to pay more? Do they get more from it? It also makes no sense because those people are in the minority, those £8’s wouldn’t even amount to anything significant. Why do you think "they should get more from it"? The object of paying high rates of tax is not to achieve anything for the person paying them. It's assumed they are doing ok. It's to put into the pot for those that aren't doing ok. Personally I am happy to do so, but with the condition my tax isn't going into the pockets of private companies. Which is why I am also in favour of a certain amount of public ownership. Utilities, trains, buses. On the whole, these should not be run for profit, as they all benefit from vast input from government. I don't want my taxes being used to subsidise a train company that is actually mostly owned by the Dutch government (like my local franchise operator is). I'd much prefer that tax to be used to improve the service and reduce the costs for users. Have you ever considered that that assumption is wrong? And also that the tax system is deeply flawed? Also if you want control of how your money is spent then it doesn’t make sense to make things government controlled and reliant on tax, as implied in your answer. Literally everything the government spends goes into the money of other people, and you have no say on that. The only way to express choice is through competition and varied options. I don’t trust any government to become the sole proprietor and provider or all of these incredibly important things. I don’t want to be like China or Russia, with a crumbling system and investment in all the wrong places. Personally I don’t care which company runs a service as long as it works, and works well. It’s very petty to force the country to suffer and to put big projects in the hands of incompetent people simply because 1. you don’t like private companies 2. You believe other people should pay. I will never understand that logic." I would also like to add that the purpose of tax is not to support those that are not doing ok. The main purpose is to maintain and develop the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said. People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue." Things change over time. I’m sure you don’t offer to keep paying the same amount of income tax when your bill goes down a little bit each year. I don’t know or care how much you earn, but if someone earning £82k a year would rather evade tax or move offshore rather than pay an extra £8.33 per month income tax, then something has gone far wrong somewhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism is dead. Socialism is great as a concept, but the reality is that it hasn't really worked. Yes, everyone agrees that free healthcare, education et al is a marvellous concept. How do we pay for it in a capitalist society? Socialism only works if everything is socialist. But we live in a worldwide economy. Unfortunately socialists dont seem to have the answer for this. Where does the money come from to pay for free wifi? 50k nurses? Hospitals? Police? There is no eternal pot of never ending money. It ends as a vicious cycle of high tax to pay for free stuff. This will create resentment in those gettin taxed higher for less gains. Socialism isn't compatible with the modern high earning society. Regarding these champagne socialists, as said, they are good as mouthpieces. But little else. Mostly hypocritical, they pay as little tax as they can get away with, not helping their fellow man. Where does the money come from? Well, apparently the Labour manifesto was fully costed. I’m not going to pretend to know how valid that costing was or wasn’t, but over 160 people from the world of economics (and business?) seemed to agree that it was sound. It also seems a bit strange that people seem to have gotten the impression that Labour were promoting some sort of extreme form of socialism, or communism. The reality was far from it. They simply sought to restore things to how they largely were before all the Tory austerity kicked in. They were only talking about getting spending and investment up to levels comparable with other European countries. And would it be churlish to point out that the three (most expensive?) of your four “socialist policies” are actually Conservative policies too? Would you call yourself a socialist? I guess so. I think most people would broadly agree with the general notions of equality, fairness, compassion and empathy, don’t you think? I think most people broadly agreed with many of Labour’s policies, but it all got lost in the Brexit issue. And the Tories banging on about how people would “on average” pay more (income tax) when the reality was that only the top 5% of earners would. And even then, someone on £82k a year would only be paying about an extra £8 a month in income tax. That’s a very misleading stat. Saying “only” £8 extra - but those people are already paying £2200 a month in tax and NI. So why should they have to pay more? Do they get more from it? It also makes no sense because those people are in the minority, those £8’s wouldn’t even amount to anything significant." It’s not a misleading fact at all. What part of it is wrong, or don’t you understand about the statement: “Someone on a salary of £82,000 per year would pay an extra £8.33 per month in income tax.”? Their monthly income tax bill would jump from £1,691.67 to £1,700. Their monthly take home pay would drop from £4,674.45 to £4,666.12. Or a drop of 0.17%. Is that still misleading? Or in any way, shape or form really worth the stuff about how people already pay enough, and would sooner seek to evade tax or move offshore? Seriously? I would say yes, they would get more from it, if services were improved. Although I guess they might use private healthcare etc, so maybe not as much as others. But worrying about how much any individual gets out of a public services is to pretty much completely miss the point of public services. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism is dead. Socialism is great as a concept, but the reality is that it hasn't really worked. Yes, everyone agrees that free healthcare, education et al is a marvellous concept. How do we pay for it in a capitalist society? Socialism only works if everything is socialist. But we live in a worldwide economy. Unfortunately socialists dont seem to have the answer for this. Where does the money come from to pay for free wifi? 50k nurses? Hospitals? Police? There is no eternal pot of never ending money. It ends as a vicious cycle of high tax to pay for free stuff. This will create resentment in those gettin taxed higher for less gains. Socialism isn't compatible with the modern high earning society. Regarding these champagne socialists, as said, they are good as mouthpieces. But little else. Mostly hypocritical, they pay as little tax as they can get away with, not helping their fellow man. Where does the money come from? Well, apparently the Labour manifesto was fully costed. I’m not going to pretend to know how valid that costing was or wasn’t, but over 160 people from the world of economics (and business?) seemed to agree that it was sound. It also seems a bit strange that people seem to have gotten the impression that Labour were promoting some sort of extreme form of socialism, or communism. The reality was far from it. They simply sought to restore things to how they largely were before all the Tory austerity kicked in. They were only talking about getting spending and investment up to levels comparable with other European countries. And would it be churlish to point out that the three (most expensive?) of your four “socialist policies” are actually Conservative policies too? Would you call yourself a socialist? I guess so. I think most people would broadly agree with the general notions of equality, fairness, compassion and empathy, don’t you think? I think most people broadly agreed with many of Labour’s policies, but it all got lost in the Brexit issue. And the Tories banging on about how people would “on average” pay more (income tax) when the reality was that only the top 5% of earners would. And even then, someone on £82k a year would only be paying about an extra £8 a month in income tax. That’s a very misleading stat. Saying “only” £8 extra - but those people are already paying £2200 a month in tax and NI. So why should they have to pay more? Do they get more from it? It also makes no sense because those people are in the minority, those £8’s wouldn’t even amount to anything significant. It’s not a misleading fact at all. What part of it is wrong, or don’t you understand about the statement: “Someone on a salary of £82,000 per year would pay an extra £8.33 per month in income tax.”? Their monthly income tax bill would jump from £1,691.67 to £1,700. Their monthly take home pay would drop from £4,674.45 to £4,666.12. Or a drop of 0.17%. Is that still misleading? Or in any way, shape or form really worth the stuff about how people already pay enough, and would sooner seek to evade tax or move offshore? Seriously? I would say yes, they would get more from it, if services were improved. Although I guess they might use private healthcare etc, so maybe not as much as others. But worrying about how much any individual gets out of a public services is to pretty much completely miss the point of public services." It’s misleading because you didn’t mention how much they paid already. Which is already far higher than most. I’ve seen people share the same stat on Facebook and everyone always replies as if they’re only paying £8. Nope they’re paying much more already | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said. People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue. Things change over time. I’m sure you don’t offer to keep paying the same amount of income tax when your bill goes down a little bit each year. I don’t know or care how much you earn, but if someone earning £82k a year would rather evade tax or move offshore rather than pay an extra £8.33 per month income tax, then something has gone far wrong somewhere." Yes and that thing that has gone wrong is the system here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said. People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue. Things change over time. I’m sure you don’t offer to keep paying the same amount of income tax when your bill goes down a little bit each year. I don’t know or care how much you earn, but if someone earning £82k a year would rather evade tax or move offshore rather than pay an extra £8.33 per month income tax, then something has gone far wrong somewhere. Yes and that thing that has gone wrong is the system here. " Because the amount of money a government needs to maintain public services changes over time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said. People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue. Things change over time. I’m sure you don’t offer to keep paying the same amount of income tax when your bill goes down a little bit each year. I don’t know or care how much you earn, but if someone earning £82k a year would rather evade tax or move offshore rather than pay an extra £8.33 per month income tax, then something has gone far wrong somewhere. Yes and that thing that has gone wrong is the system here. Because the amount of money a government needs to maintain public services changes over time?" No because people keep believing that the government are responsible for things that we as a society should be doing ourselves. Taking care of our families. Taking care of the elderly. Maintaining our communities. Taking care of our health. Creating ambition and opportunity. Enforcing discipline, pride and education. The list goes on - and as that list increases so does spend. The answer to these problems isn’t to spend more. The answer is to push back and remind ourselves that we are not helpless (obviously I’m not referring to those with disabilities) and the government is not the answer to your problems. You (or “we”) are the answer and you have the power to build a brighter future. I absolutely hate this idea is helplessness and taking money from others. Whilst not addressing real issues at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is this boring shit in the Lounge? Who made you read it?" The Politics board was created to keep shit like this all in one place. It's not a case of being made to read it, it's the fact that it clutters up the lounge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said. People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue. Things change over time. I’m sure you don’t offer to keep paying the same amount of income tax when your bill goes down a little bit each year. I don’t know or care how much you earn, but if someone earning £82k a year would rather evade tax or move offshore rather than pay an extra £8.33 per month income tax, then something has gone far wrong somewhere. Yes and that thing that has gone wrong is the system here. Because the amount of money a government needs to maintain public services changes over time? No because people keep believing that the government are responsible for things that we as a society should be doing ourselves. Taking care of our families. Taking care of the elderly. Maintaining our communities. Taking care of our health. Creating ambition and opportunity. Enforcing discipline, pride and education. The list goes on - and as that list increases so does spend. The answer to these problems isn’t to spend more. The answer is to push back and remind ourselves that we are not helpless (obviously I’m not referring to those with disabilities) and the government is not the answer to your problems. You (or “we”) are the answer and you have the power to build a brighter future. I absolutely hate this idea is helplessness and taking money from others. Whilst not addressing real issues at all. " It’s not really about an ever expanding list. It’s about the costs of existing services varying over time. For example, most obviously, the NHS. I’m not sure the idea of people being individually responsible for their own healthcare is that practical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Socialism is just a single, simple sentence: the belief that the necessities for the functioning of a society should be provided without profit. So that’s health, education, welfare, transport, the emergency services, the prison service and the justice system, paid for by taxation, and available to everyone, regardless of wealth. Quite bold to define socialism in a "single, simple sentence" There are various iterations of socialism and whilst social ownership is the basis for them all for many people it goes much further and includes opposing capitalism. The champagne socialists mentioned here have no doubt indulged in capitalism in one form or another to accrue their vast wealth which is at odds with some peoples interpretation of socialism. That aside even the basic definition shows them to be hypocritical. Do their staff share in their success or are they just an employee? Do they allow thier fans, who made them rich, to have access to affordable tickets or do they bleed them for all they are worth? Do they avoid tax avoidance schemes or do they ensure they keep as much of their money as possible? Even though that tax money could be paying for the things they are calling out for. Another foundation of socialism is opposing social inequality, which again is at odds with someone living in a mansion with 20 empty bedrooms whilst people are living and dying in the streets due to homelessness, old folk freezing to death because they cant afford gas but the rich fly their private jet to sunnier climes. Im not saying the rich should give up their wealth but they should quit their faux concern, hypocrisy and virtue signaling. Even worse than that are those that use it as a platform for self promotion or attention seeking. There are a few that dont deserve the champagne socialist title but lilly allen is not one of them. Well obviously socialism has finer details, but that’s essentially the crux of it. Notions of fairness and equality. I have always hated, or at least misunderstood, criticism of the left, as though they were bad things. I’m not sure I would agree that they have “indulged in capitalism”, unless you are reducing that to “having a job”. Some of your questions may be valid, but not others. Employees of “champagne socialists” share in their success by virtue of having a job that pays them a wage. The tax avoidance thing wouldn’t be great I agree, but that’s a separate issue I think. The point is that people tend to criticise not because of tax avoidance, but simply because of wealth. With the housing thing, you are doing the exact thing Caitlin talks about. I disagree that the size of your house prevents you from recognising that more could be done to help the homeless. The fact that you don’t literally invite the homeless to live in your house does not make you a hypocrite. And I absolutely disagree with the bizarre assumption that it’s faux concern. This is especially true with people who visit places abroad and witness extreme poverty. Often they are moved to tears by what they see. And people at home often on Internet forums, will hammer away on their keyboards about how they were faking it. As if that’s the most reasonable explanation, as though “celebrity status” somehow magically makes people immune from empathy, or the ability to give a shit, or to have feeling about something." It is amusing that you bring up people banging on their keyboard on the internet as that is exactly what lilly allen is doing. She cares about others so much she shunned live8 and last minute cancelled a performance in aid of mencap as she chose to party instead. To imply that she is being unfairly judged because of her wealth and fame is wrong. She is being judged on her actions and writing a few tweets that seem to support a good cause are far from redeeming her. If you think a few empty words means someone gives a shit or has compassion you must be very naive and thinking that people are only criticising through jealously is a "bizzare assumption" and you must think people "magically lose the abilty" to think critically and form a sound opinion. The fact that you hate any criticism of the left shows that it is you that cannot think critically. Being "left" is neither good, nor bad in itself. Its meaning is far reaching and includes people ranging from the totally selfless to the downright moronic and worse. For example take the junior doctor wishing death on the opposition on a live news broadcast. She is a lefty, is her behaviour acceptable because she supports the nhs? As for your statement saying that the celebrities simply have a job, what complete nonsense. They are selling themselves and capitalising on their fame. They are a business that makes investments and employs people (btw, their employees are not sharing in their success, they are being paid for their labour) so yes, they indulge in capitalism. Not that i think that automatically makes them a bad person, unless you are like lilly allen that rents out a mansion she owns but wanted to kick out the resident family with nowhere to go just before Christmas, yet claims to care about the plight of the homeless. As i said, there are some that are genuine. For example i dont care that bill gates has a massive fortune, infact i respect his achievements but even more than that i respect that he is using it to make a real difference to peoples lives. Furthermore he doesnt seek recognition for it, or get all pious, evangelical or obnoxious on social media. Can you see the difference yet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said. People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue. Things change over time. I’m sure you don’t offer to keep paying the same amount of income tax when your bill goes down a little bit each year. I don’t know or care how much you earn, but if someone earning £82k a year would rather evade tax or move offshore rather than pay an extra £8.33 per month income tax, then something has gone far wrong somewhere. Yes and that thing that has gone wrong is the system here. Because the amount of money a government needs to maintain public services changes over time? No because people keep believing that the government are responsible for things that we as a society should be doing ourselves. Taking care of our families. Taking care of the elderly. Maintaining our communities. Taking care of our health. Creating ambition and opportunity. Enforcing discipline, pride and education. The list goes on - and as that list increases so does spend. The answer to these problems isn’t to spend more. The answer is to push back and remind ourselves that we are not helpless (obviously I’m not referring to those with disabilities) and the government is not the answer to your problems. You (or “we”) are the answer and you have the power to build a brighter future. I absolutely hate this idea is helplessness and taking money from others. Whilst not addressing real issues at all. It’s not really about an ever expanding list. It’s about the costs of existing services varying over time. For example, most obviously, the NHS. I’m not sure the idea of people being individually responsible for their own healthcare is that practical. " I didn’t say people should be responsible for their healthcare, I said they should take care of their own health - that means drink less, stop smoking, exercise, eat healthily, meditate, get a hobby, read. All of these things would save us hundreds of millions if not billions - not to mention free up doctors, nurses, appointments and beds for those who need them. Most importantly we’d all be happier healthier individuals. Making excuses and twisting words, as above, is not helping anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said. People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue. Things change over time. I’m sure you don’t offer to keep paying the same amount of income tax when your bill goes down a little bit each year. I don’t know or care how much you earn, but if someone earning £82k a year would rather evade tax or move offshore rather than pay an extra £8.33 per month income tax, then something has gone far wrong somewhere. Yes and that thing that has gone wrong is the system here. Because the amount of money a government needs to maintain public services changes over time? No because people keep believing that the government are responsible for things that we as a society should be doing ourselves. Taking care of our families. Taking care of the elderly. Maintaining our communities. Taking care of our health. Creating ambition and opportunity. Enforcing discipline, pride and education. The list goes on - and as that list increases so does spend. The answer to these problems isn’t to spend more. The answer is to push back and remind ourselves that we are not helpless (obviously I’m not referring to those with disabilities) and the government is not the answer to your problems. You (or “we”) are the answer and you have the power to build a brighter future. I absolutely hate this idea is helplessness and taking money from others. Whilst not addressing real issues at all. It’s not really about an ever expanding list. It’s about the costs of existing services varying over time. For example, most obviously, the NHS. I’m not sure the idea of people being individually responsible for their own healthcare is that practical. I didn’t say people should be responsible for their healthcare, I said they should take care of their own health - that means drink less, stop smoking, exercise, eat healthily, meditate, get a hobby, read. All of these things would save us hundreds of millions if not billions - not to mention free up doctors, nurses, appointments and beds for those who need them. Most importantly we’d all be happier healthier individuals. Making excuses and twisting words, as above, is not helping anything." Claptrap.. we mostly all end up a burden on the NHS in the end however long we live | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Socialism is just a single, simple sentence: the belief that the necessities for the functioning of a society should be provided without profit. So that’s health, education, welfare, transport, the emergency services, the prison service and the justice system, paid for by taxation, and available to everyone, regardless of wealth. Quite bold to define socialism in a "single, simple sentence" There are various iterations of socialism and whilst social ownership is the basis for them all for many people it goes much further and includes opposing capitalism. The champagne socialists mentioned here have no doubt indulged in capitalism in one form or another to accrue their vast wealth which is at odds with some peoples interpretation of socialism. That aside even the basic definition shows them to be hypocritical. Do their staff share in their success or are they just an employee? Do they allow thier fans, who made them rich, to have access to affordable tickets or do they bleed them for all they are worth? Do they avoid tax avoidance schemes or do they ensure they keep as much of their money as possible? Even though that tax money could be paying for the things they are calling out for. Another foundation of socialism is opposing social inequality, which again is at odds with someone living in a mansion with 20 empty bedrooms whilst people are living and dying in the streets due to homelessness, old folk freezing to death because they cant afford gas but the rich fly their private jet to sunnier climes. Im not saying the rich should give up their wealth but they should quit their faux concern, hypocrisy and virtue signaling. Even worse than that are those that use it as a platform for self promotion or attention seeking. There are a few that dont deserve the champagne socialist title but lilly allen is not one of them. Well obviously socialism has finer details, but that’s essentially the crux of it. Notions of fairness and equality. I have always hated, or at least misunderstood, criticism of the left, as though they were bad things. I’m not sure I would agree that they have “indulged in capitalism”, unless you are reducing that to “having a job”. Some of your questions may be valid, but not others. Employees of “champagne socialists” share in their success by virtue of having a job that pays them a wage. The tax avoidance thing wouldn’t be great I agree, but that’s a separate issue I think. The point is that people tend to criticise not because of tax avoidance, but simply because of wealth. With the housing thing, you are doing the exact thing Caitlin talks about. I disagree that the size of your house prevents you from recognising that more could be done to help the homeless. The fact that you don’t literally invite the homeless to live in your house does not make you a hypocrite. And I absolutely disagree with the bizarre assumption that it’s faux concern. This is especially true with people who visit places abroad and witness extreme poverty. Often they are moved to tears by what they see. And people at home often on Internet forums, will hammer away on their keyboards about how they were faking it. As if that’s the most reasonable explanation, as though “celebrity status” somehow magically makes people immune from empathy, or the ability to give a shit, or to have feeling about something. It is amusing that you bring up people banging on their keyboard on the internet as that is exactly what lilly allen is doing. She cares about others so much she shunned live8 and last minute cancelled a performance in aid of mencap as she chose to party instead. To imply that she is being unfairly judged because of her wealth and fame is wrong. She is being judged on her actions and writing a few tweets that seem to support a good cause are far from redeeming her. If you think a few empty words means someone gives a shit or has compassion you must be very naive and thinking that people are only criticising through jealously is a "bizzare assumption" and you must think people "magically lose the abilty" to think critically and form a sound opinion. The fact that you hate any criticism of the left shows that it is you that cannot think critically. Being "left" is neither good, nor bad in itself. Its meaning is far reaching and includes people ranging from the totally selfless to the downright moronic and worse. For example take the junior doctor wishing death on the opposition on a live news broadcast. She is a lefty, is her behaviour acceptable because she supports the nhs? As for your statement saying that the celebrities simply have a job, what complete nonsense. They are selling themselves and capitalising on their fame. They are a business that makes investments and employs people (btw, their employees are not sharing in their success, they are being paid for their labour) so yes, they indulge in capitalism. Not that i think that automatically makes them a bad person, unless you are like lilly allen that rents out a mansion she owns but wanted to kick out the resident family with nowhere to go just before Christmas, yet claims to care about the plight of the homeless. As i said, there are some that are genuine. For example i dont care that bill gates has a massive fortune, infact i respect his achievements but even more than that i respect that he is using it to make a real difference to peoples lives. Furthermore he doesnt seek recognition for it, or get all pious, evangelical or obnoxious on social media. Can you see the difference yet?" I wasn't really referring specifically to Lilly Allen. You have what I am saying backwards.... I’m not saying I think a few empty words means someone necessarily gives a shit or has compassion. I’m saying that all too often people assume that the words are empty, based on the bizarre logic that they must be because the person saying them is a celebrity. I’m sure some people do think critically, but I think you are being overly generous if you don't think people jump to conclusions about celebrities without knowing f*ck all about them. Celebrities have largely accrued their wealth through their career choice. Part of that ”job” might be promoting themselves. I still don’t really see “having a job or career” as somehow “engaging in capitalism” in a way that somehow prevents them from promoting more socialist ideas. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. We live in the capitalist west, but still have publicly funded services for example. I’m not quite sure how you’ve concluded I “hate any criticism of the left”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said. People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue. Things change over time. I’m sure you don’t offer to keep paying the same amount of income tax when your bill goes down a little bit each year. I don’t know or care how much you earn, but if someone earning £82k a year would rather evade tax or move offshore rather than pay an extra £8.33 per month income tax, then something has gone far wrong somewhere. Yes and that thing that has gone wrong is the system here. Because the amount of money a government needs to maintain public services changes over time? No because people keep believing that the government are responsible for things that we as a society should be doing ourselves. Taking care of our families. Taking care of the elderly. Maintaining our communities. Taking care of our health. Creating ambition and opportunity. Enforcing discipline, pride and education. The list goes on - and as that list increases so does spend. The answer to these problems isn’t to spend more. The answer is to push back and remind ourselves that we are not helpless (obviously I’m not referring to those with disabilities) and the government is not the answer to your problems. You (or “we”) are the answer and you have the power to build a brighter future. I absolutely hate this idea is helplessness and taking money from others. Whilst not addressing real issues at all. It’s not really about an ever expanding list. It’s about the costs of existing services varying over time. For example, most obviously, the NHS. I’m not sure the idea of people being individually responsible for their own healthcare is that practical. I didn’t say people should be responsible for their healthcare, I said they should take care of their own health - that means drink less, stop smoking, exercise, eat healthily, meditate, get a hobby, read. All of these things would save us hundreds of millions if not billions - not to mention free up doctors, nurses, appointments and beds for those who need them. Most importantly we’d all be happier healthier individuals. Making excuses and twisting words, as above, is not helping anything." The point still stands. Which is that it isn't about an ever expanding list if things.... it's about the fact that the cost of providing services changes over time. Most obviously the NHS. Costs have soared due to the rising costs of modern technology and pharmaceuticals, and more so the increasingly aging population. Yes, of course people have personal responsibility to their health and wellbeing. But regardless of that, most of us will still get sick and need healthcare in our lifetime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of the socialist/labour figures depended on abolishing billionaires (most of whom would leave the country, creating a massive tax void" If they don't pay tax anyway, how will their absence create a void? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said. People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue. Things change over time. I’m sure you don’t offer to keep paying the same amount of income tax when your bill goes down a little bit each year. I don’t know or care how much you earn, but if someone earning £82k a year would rather evade tax or move offshore rather than pay an extra £8.33 per month income tax, then something has gone far wrong somewhere. Yes and that thing that has gone wrong is the system here. Because the amount of money a government needs to maintain public services changes over time? No because people keep believing that the government are responsible for things that we as a society should be doing ourselves. Taking care of our families. Taking care of the elderly. Maintaining our communities. Taking care of our health. Creating ambition and opportunity. Enforcing discipline, pride and education. The list goes on - and as that list increases so does spend. The answer to these problems isn’t to spend more. The answer is to push back and remind ourselves that we are not helpless (obviously I’m not referring to those with disabilities) and the government is not the answer to your problems. You (or “we”) are the answer and you have the power to build a brighter future. I absolutely hate this idea is helplessness and taking money from others. Whilst not addressing real issues at all. It’s not really about an ever expanding list. It’s about the costs of existing services varying over time. For example, most obviously, the NHS. I’m not sure the idea of people being individually responsible for their own healthcare is that practical. I didn’t say people should be responsible for their healthcare, I said they should take care of their own health - that means drink less, stop smoking, exercise, eat healthily, meditate, get a hobby, read. All of these things would save us hundreds of millions if not billions - not to mention free up doctors, nurses, appointments and beds for those who need them. Most importantly we’d all be happier healthier individuals. Making excuses and twisting words, as above, is not helping anything. The point still stands. Which is that it isn't about an ever expanding list if things.... it's about the fact that the cost of providing services changes over time. Most obviously the NHS. Costs have soared due to the rising costs of modern technology and pharmaceuticals, and more so the increasingly aging population. Yes, of course people have personal responsibility to their health and wellbeing. But regardless of that, most of us will still get sick and need healthcare in our lifetime." Oh my god. There’s no point explaining things to you. You have ignored my point multiple times. This is the exact reason why I think most socialists are totally out of touch with reality and real issues. First off, technology makes things cheaper, not more expensive. For example, a company I worked for created a new cancer treatment that was cheaper, more effective and with less side effects. However the NHS didn’t purchase the machines because of some contractual bureaucratic bullshit. Not cost. Similar goes with many medicines - did you know that the NHS doesn’t even try and negotiate prices or deals. They just turn things down. Regularly. It’s run by incompetent people. Throwing money is not going to fix that. (That’s why I support the NHS being run by private companies - but that’s a whole other story). And in regards to my main point and your response - “Most of us will get sick”. That’s not the same as being perpetually sick and needing constant treatment and support due to bad health decisions. Obesity, diabetes, cancers (between 30-50% of cancers are preventable), depression, addiction. That’s where most money goes. Not on being occasionally sick. People are not equipped or encouraged to prevent those things. Instead many claim “ItS ThE GoVeRnMEnts FaUlT” for all of our problems. It’s not. Humans are designed to be self sufficient. We’re all capable. It’s time to work towards a positive, productive and effective future, instead of pushing blame, expecting everyone else to do the work and making excuses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me Socialism is quite simple. It's acknowledging that everyone is more or less able in different ways and aspects. And that it's not unreasonable for those more able to help those less able. If that is as simple as I pay more tax, and it goes in part towards welfare, then great. In that way so many aspects of our country are socialist in nature, and yet people seem to fear it. ^ what he said. People that earn more money already do pay more tax. That argument really annoys me. My tax bill is higher than the average persons yearly gross salary. So to me the idea that we need to amplify this tax system even more is madness to me. I didn’t work hard for the state, I did it for me and those close to me. I literally pay enough tax and NI to support a whole other persons in needs life. Who else does that? Not many people. Thats way more than my fair share. So from this point I only want to support people to provide from themselves. I do invest in others, I’ve given people opportunities, jobs, helped people off the streets. But pay more tax? Nope I’d rather not declare it or move off shore. Baring in mind I’m not one of the “super rich”. So god knows what those people feel like. Ok that was a bit of a personal rant there. However, I’m really not into creating a nation of people that believe that the answer to fundamental problems is to take money from others. It’s ignoring the issue. Things change over time. I’m sure you don’t offer to keep paying the same amount of income tax when your bill goes down a little bit each year. I don’t know or care how much you earn, but if someone earning £82k a year would rather evade tax or move offshore rather than pay an extra £8.33 per month income tax, then something has gone far wrong somewhere. Yes and that thing that has gone wrong is the system here. Because the amount of money a government needs to maintain public services changes over time? No because people keep believing that the government are responsible for things that we as a society should be doing ourselves. Taking care of our families. Taking care of the elderly. Maintaining our communities. Taking care of our health. Creating ambition and opportunity. Enforcing discipline, pride and education. The list goes on - and as that list increases so does spend. The answer to these problems isn’t to spend more. The answer is to push back and remind ourselves that we are not helpless (obviously I’m not referring to those with disabilities) and the government is not the answer to your problems. You (or “we”) are the answer and you have the power to build a brighter future. I absolutely hate this idea is helplessness and taking money from others. Whilst not addressing real issues at all. It’s not really about an ever expanding list. It’s about the costs of existing services varying over time. For example, most obviously, the NHS. I’m not sure the idea of people being individually responsible for their own healthcare is that practical. I didn’t say people should be responsible for their healthcare, I said they should take care of their own health - that means drink less, stop smoking, exercise, eat healthily, meditate, get a hobby, read. All of these things would save us hundreds of millions if not billions - not to mention free up doctors, nurses, appointments and beds for those who need them. Most importantly we’d all be happier healthier individuals. Making excuses and twisting words, as above, is not helping anything. The point still stands. Which is that it isn't about an ever expanding list if things.... it's about the fact that the cost of providing services changes over time. Most obviously the NHS. Costs have soared due to the rising costs of modern technology and pharmaceuticals, and more so the increasingly aging population. Yes, of course people have personal responsibility to their health and wellbeing. But regardless of that, most of us will still get sick and need healthcare in our lifetime. Oh my god. There’s no point explaining things to you. You have ignored my point multiple times. This is the exact reason why I think most socialists are totally out of touch with reality and real issues. First off, technology makes things cheaper, not more expensive. For example, a company I worked for created a new cancer treatment that was cheaper, more effective and with less side effects. However the NHS didn’t purchase the machines because of some contractual bureaucratic bullshit. Not cost. Similar goes with many medicines - did you know that the NHS doesn’t even try and negotiate prices or deals. They just turn things down. Regularly. It’s run by incompetent people. Throwing money is not going to fix that. (That’s why I support the NHS being run by private companies - but that’s a whole other story). And in regards to my main point and your response - “Most of us will get sick”. That’s not the same as being perpetually sick and needing constant treatment and support due to bad health decisions. Obesity, diabetes, cancers (between 30-50% of cancers are preventable), depression, addiction. That’s where most money goes. Not on being occasionally sick. People are not equipped or encouraged to prevent those things. Instead many claim “ItS ThE GoVeRnMEnts FaUlT” for all of our problems. It’s not. Humans are designed to be self sufficient. We’re all capable. It’s time to work towards a positive, productive and effective future, instead of pushing blame, expecting everyone else to do the work and making excuses." It’s not that I’ve ignored your points, I just haven’t necessarily agreed with them. I understand that the cost of particular technologies will often fall over time (but not always, smartphones seem to have been getting more expensive as they cram more and more tech into them), or that there can be cost savings through economies of scale. But that wasn’t really what I was saying. Whatever else, it should be pretty clear that the cost of running the NHS is by orders of magnitude greater now than it was 50 years ago. I would say the two main reasons for that is the increasingly ageing population, and the fact that the health service employs far more, and more expensive, technology than it did 50 years ago. I haven’t suggested throwing money at the NHS is the only solution, but all else being equal, costs have still more than likely soared. I wonder if my cancer was preventable? That aside, I certainly don’t disagree that people could and should do more with things like diet and exercise. My point was limited to disagreeing with another poster that the NHS should be scrapped and people should look after themselves, and if they get sick and can’t afford private healthcare, then too bad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
