Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Qustion Time Last Night Not Just The To Be Expected Left Wing Bias But Actually Quite Depressing.
11 views
Skip to first unread message
allantracy
May 18, 2012, 12:59:19 PM5/18/12
to
What was highly depressing was the way so much pseudo economic
psychobabble, (that even a Socialist Worker seller would have been
embarrassed by) was being plied unchallenged.
Was this really the BBC educating and informing because it was
certainly entertaining if you count surreal.
This was off the planet Neverneverland loony, which even the presence
of Kelvin MacKenzie (at one point he even asked how a Conservative had
been let into the audience) couldn’t compensate for.
Another week, another Labour politician, with a straight face, sits
there pretending Labour would not be making any cuts, absolutely none
whatsoever, if they were in power and, just like every other week, is
allowed to sit their lying through their teeth and get away with it.
It was from Wales so some left bias was to be expected but a bloody
Welsh Nationalist from the Phlegm party and some Labour party
supporting comedy writer (is there any other sort?) bloody hell we
didn’t them as well.
For f**ks sake we are in the shit economically, with the Euro about to
go tits up, and this lot were just sitting there pretending nothing
has gone wrong and it could all be put right by taxing bankers and an
end to austerity.
One member of the audience even claimed if you just collected all the
avoided tax there would be no need for any cuts – in your f**king
dreams.
Apparently, according to most members of the panel, it’s also highly
positive that France and Greece were now rejecting austerity.
Well, of course, it would have been even more positive if they had
voted for it to stop raining whilst they were at it.
Though, no mention at all that France and Greece were, by rejecting
austerity, also voting for Germany to pay for an alternative and the
German electorate ever voting for that, being about as likely as the
Dagenham Girl Pipers winning next season’s Premiership.
But then, let’s not let such minor details get in the way of what
crusty old lefties want to hear.
But the best f**king old fart moment, to top all old fart moments,
just had to be said comedy writer, after first admitting as a student
distilling his own spirits, stating that two pints was enough for
anyone all whilst declaring his support for minimum price alcohol.
What a f**king hypocritical arsehole, with a short memory, that was.
another typical ageing hippy turning into Victorian Dad in their old
age.
psychobabble, (that even a Socialist Worker seller would have been
embarrassed by) was being plied unchallenged.
Was this really the BBC educating and informing because it was
certainly entertaining if you count surreal.
This was off the planet Neverneverland loony, which even the presence
of Kelvin MacKenzie (at one point he even asked how a Conservative had
been let into the audience) couldn’t compensate for.
Another week, another Labour politician, with a straight face, sits
there pretending Labour would not be making any cuts, absolutely none
whatsoever, if they were in power and, just like every other week, is
allowed to sit their lying through their teeth and get away with it.
It was from Wales so some left bias was to be expected but a bloody
Welsh Nationalist from the Phlegm party and some Labour party
supporting comedy writer (is there any other sort?) bloody hell we
didn’t them as well.
For f**ks sake we are in the shit economically, with the Euro about to
go tits up, and this lot were just sitting there pretending nothing
has gone wrong and it could all be put right by taxing bankers and an
end to austerity.
One member of the audience even claimed if you just collected all the
avoided tax there would be no need for any cuts – in your f**king
dreams.
Apparently, according to most members of the panel, it’s also highly
positive that France and Greece were now rejecting austerity.
Well, of course, it would have been even more positive if they had
voted for it to stop raining whilst they were at it.
Though, no mention at all that France and Greece were, by rejecting
austerity, also voting for Germany to pay for an alternative and the
German electorate ever voting for that, being about as likely as the
Dagenham Girl Pipers winning next season’s Premiership.
But then, let’s not let such minor details get in the way of what
crusty old lefties want to hear.
But the best f**king old fart moment, to top all old fart moments,
just had to be said comedy writer, after first admitting as a student
distilling his own spirits, stating that two pints was enough for
anyone all whilst declaring his support for minimum price alcohol.
What a f**king hypocritical arsehole, with a short memory, that was.
another typical ageing hippy turning into Victorian Dad in their old
age.
abelard
May 18, 2012, 1:32:28 PM5/18/12
to
then wheel in milipede or balls to repeat the lies....little wonder
so few people are informed...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
harry
May 18, 2012, 1:24:26 PM5/18/12
to
bunch of pillocks every time.
At one time it was quite good.
allantracy
May 18, 2012, 2:06:00 PM5/18/12
to
>
> it is so vapid now I have given up watching it.They round up such a
> bunch of pillocks every time.
> At one time it was quite good.
Yet, on This Week, an altogether more adult program, which follows,
> it is so vapid now I have given up watching it.They round up such a
> bunch of pillocks every time.
> At one time it was quite good.
they blew away the end to austerity argument within seconds.
Andrew, Michael and even the lovely Dianne all admitting that if the
coalition even dares to take their eye off the ball of the austerity
program, even for a second, those bond markets would punish us
mercilessly.
This whole end to austerity argument is flawed by one simple basic
question - who the f**k do they seriously believe is going to be mad
enough to continue lending to us, without any sign of us facing up to
our existing debt?
Message has been deleted
abelard
May 18, 2012, 3:02:35 PM5/18/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:24:17 +0100, Feral Underclass <ne...@here.ever>
wrote:
>How does the antisocialists giving tax cuts to the rich and rewarding
>multinationals for dodging their taxes help with anything? It's not
>like they are spening any less than the last lot, in fact they're
>spending more. All they are doing is spending it on themselves instead
>of anyone else.
typical socialist...you'd rather be poorer as a nation than
see some people become millionaires
your whole cult is built on envy and stupidity
wrote:
>multinationals for dodging their taxes help with anything? It's not
>like they are spening any less than the last lot, in fact they're
>spending more. All they are doing is spending it on themselves instead
>of anyone else.
typical socialist...you'd rather be poorer as a nation than
see some people become millionaires
your whole cult is built on envy and stupidity
allantracy
May 18, 2012, 3:12:41 PM5/18/12
to
>
> How does the antisocialists giving tax cuts to the rich and rewarding
> multinationals for dodging their taxes help with anything? It's not
> like they are spening any less than the last lot, in fact they're
> spending more. All they are doing is spending it on themselves instead
> of anyone else.
Despite all the claims to the contrary, the coalition’s deficit
> How does the antisocialists giving tax cuts to the rich and rewarding
> multinationals for dodging their taxes help with anything? It's not
> like they are spening any less than the last lot, in fact they're
> spending more. All they are doing is spending it on themselves instead
> of anyone else.
reduction plan is, just about, still on plan A.
Reducing government deficit is like turning around a container ship,
the instruments to make it happen are adjusted but the response is
never immediate.
It always was planned that borrowing would have to increase in the
short term.
Lest you haven’t noticed, our economy is on its knees and all taxation
does in that situation is act like a great big kick in the bollocks.
The coalition had very little room for manoeuvre but has quite rightly
cut those taxes that are worst for stopping business growth.
Corporate taxes have always been bonkers and high rate tax was cut
because it wasn’t working - end of story.
The argument against higher rate taxes is one that’s generally
accepted most of the world over nowadays and cutting them has always
raised more revenue than it costs.
Indeed, that probably goes for most taxes and, deficit willing, with
the Tories now back in office, maybe one day we can return to those
far off golden (pre- Brown) days when we could look forward to, year
on year, yet another round of tax cuts for all and the increased
prosperity for all that always seems to go with it.
Trouble is, Labour has left us way too far gone (again) and, this
time, we don’t have North Sea oil to help out either.
But, if a small island, with no natural resources, like Singapore has
been able to grow so prosperous on Thatcherite economic policies then
a return to them here will surely do likewise eventually.
allantracy
May 18, 2012, 3:18:26 PM5/18/12
to
>
> typical socialist...you'd rather be poorer as a nation than
> see some people become millionaires
>
Lefties so hate and resent self-made millionaires because deep down
> typical socialist...you'd rather be poorer as a nation than
> see some people become millionaires
>
they know their precious big state can’t do without them.
That’s because their precious big state could never achieve what self-
made millionaires achieve, it wouldn't even know where to start.
abelard
May 18, 2012, 3:27:18 PM5/18/12
to
franchise by examination is the only answer i can see
Zapp Brannigan
May 18, 2012, 4:01:35 PM5/18/12
to
"allantracy" <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:d07b75a5-a8dc-4ae8-9e93-
> One member of the audience even claimed if you just collected all the
> dreams.
Let's try it. Maybe it will only reduce the deficit by 10%, but that's
still positive progress in the right direction.
Andy Walker
May 18, 2012, 7:11:37 PM5/18/12
to
On 18/05/12 17:59, allantracy wrote:
> It was from Wales so some left bias was to be expected but a bloody
> Welsh Nationalist from the Phlegm party and some Labour party
> supporting comedy writer (is there any other sort?) bloody hell we
> didn’t them as well.
At least the comedy writer managed to mention that he'd
> It was from Wales so some left bias was to be expected but a bloody
> Welsh Nationalist from the Phlegm party and some Labour party
> supporting comedy writer (is there any other sort?) bloody hell we
> didn’t them as well.
even heard suggestions that Germany should leave the EZ, tho' he
obviously didn't understand the reasoning. He must have been
reading "uk.p.m".
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
AC
May 18, 2012, 9:52:25 PM5/18/12
to
abelard wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 12:18:26 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
> <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> typical socialist...you'd rather be poorer as a nation than
>>> see some people become millionaires
>>>
>>
>> Lefties so hate and resent self-made millionaires because deep down
>> they know their precious big state can�t do without them.
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 12:18:26 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
> <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> typical socialist...you'd rather be poorer as a nation than
>>> see some people become millionaires
>>>
>>
>> Lefties so hate and resent self-made millionaires because deep down
>>
>> That�s because their precious big state could never achieve what self-
>> made millionaires achieve, it wouldn't even know where to start.
>
> their stupidity and resentments are beyond easy toleration....
>
> franchise by examination is the only answer i can see
>
Interesting that you two attention seeking nut jobs cant answer the
>
> their stupidity and resentments are beyond easy toleration....
>
> franchise by examination is the only answer i can see
>
question, and as usual get nasty.
--
AC
Mike Hall
May 19, 2012, 9:00:33 AM5/19/12
to
On 18/05/2012 17:59, allantracy wrote:
> What was highly depressing was the way so much pseudo economic
> psychobabble, (that even a Socialist Worker seller would have been
> embarrassed by) was being plied unchallenged.
> Was this really the BBC educating and informing because it was
> certainly entertaining if you count surreal.
I was in the QT audience the other week. Unfortunately, it is still
> What was highly depressing was the way so much pseudo economic
> psychobabble, (that even a Socialist Worker seller would have been
> embarrassed by) was being plied unchallenged.
> Was this really the BBC educating and informing because it was
> certainly entertaining if you count surreal.
controlled by left-wing activists! I did a straw poll of other members
of the audience (maybe about 30-40 who were hanging around bemused after
the show) and no one had put forward the odd questions chosen,
especially that one about the French election! The guy wearing the
crazy suit who came down just to call the panel a pack of liars was real
though. I saw him changing in and out of the checked suit; he was just
there to have a laugh. The lunatic Jamaican women might have been a
plant or she might have been a terrorist...
Ian Duncan-Smith looked bored, Menzies Campbell looked like death warmed
up, the Union guy looked alert as he ranted off his prepared socialist
speeches (he clearly knew the questions beforehand). Harriet Harman
loved every minute of it but I don't think she knew the questions
beforehand; she just enjoys these shows!
We didn't get to find out what Theo Paphitis was drinking, but it was
clearly strong wine, even David Dimbleby was "wtf?" when he noticed!
I sent a complaint to Mentorn but haven't received a reply yet.
Mike Hall
allantracy
May 19, 2012, 10:05:08 AM5/19/12
to
>
> Let's try it. Maybe it will only reduce the deficit by 10%, but that's
> still positive progress in the right direction.
No real point, the coalition has already decided that cutting
> Let's try it. Maybe it will only reduce the deficit by 10%, but that's
> still positive progress in the right direction.
corporation taxes is a priority to get the economy growing.
I tend to agree, so what’s the point of plugging avoidance of taxes
that everyone seems to agree are a thoroughly bad idea.
Despite left wing delusion to the contrary, corporation taxes are not
taxes on the wealthy, quite the contrary.
Amazon pays zero UK corporation tax but then have you seen their
prices?
Plug that avoidance the prices go up, they will sell less and that has
a knock on effect for jobs in their UK operation (near Bedford).
Whichever way you spell it out, plugging legal tax avoidance is just
tax increases by another name and I think we can all agree our economy
needs tax increases, at the moment, like a hole in the head.
Indeed, it's virtually impossible to find any tax avoidance that could
be plugged with neutral effect on the economy.
Anyway where's the apetite for protecting the public sector when,
under Brown and Labour, we saw how so little of the tax was doing the
stuff we actually want from the state.
No one minds paying for nurses and teachers but when the tax doesn’t
even make it past a bunch of NHS management consultants or diversity
coordinators or any of Labour’s pet social engineering projects it’s
very easy to think f**k it.
Do we not all resent paying our taxes just so that some pointless
interferring c**t can build a whole career out of telling us how much
we’re allowed to drink or what our body mass index should be?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
allantracy
May 19, 2012, 12:59:53 PM5/19/12
to
>
> Having all corporations paying taxes will enable local businesses to
> compete on a level playing field. That will create a lot more jobs
> than Amazon or the other tax dodgers will shed out of spite.
Alternatively, arrive at a level playing field by cutting back
corporation tax completely for all business and, in the process for a
private sector that’s already on its knees, cut them some slack for a
change.
Besides, the cost of cutting corporation tax is minimal (neutral) to
the treasury as it just means more tax when the shareholder dividend
is paid, the IR just has to wait a bit longer for its money that’s
all.
As it is, currently, corporation tax, already paid, attracts a
discount on share dividend tax, when that’s paid, which kind of begs
the question what’s the bloody point?
Oh yes, we remember now, the point is that Gordon Brown, at his
vindictive bastard best, scrapped that discount for pension fund
shareholders.
So, we see that the real beneficiaries of corporate tax avoidance are
our private pension funds, you know the people that do the right thing
and try not to rely on the state, escaping the evils of double
taxation.
But then, we all know the vote dodging great totalitarian despised all
those that were self-reliant because he knew that meant they weren’t
reliant on him, or his evil party, and therefore could safely stick
two fingers up at the general election.
> Having all corporations paying taxes will enable local businesses to
> compete on a level playing field. That will create a lot more jobs
> than Amazon or the other tax dodgers will shed out of spite.
Alternatively, arrive at a level playing field by cutting back
corporation tax completely for all business and, in the process for a
private sector that’s already on its knees, cut them some slack for a
change.
Besides, the cost of cutting corporation tax is minimal (neutral) to
the treasury as it just means more tax when the shareholder dividend
is paid, the IR just has to wait a bit longer for its money that’s
all.
As it is, currently, corporation tax, already paid, attracts a
discount on share dividend tax, when that’s paid, which kind of begs
the question what’s the bloody point?
Oh yes, we remember now, the point is that Gordon Brown, at his
vindictive bastard best, scrapped that discount for pension fund
shareholders.
So, we see that the real beneficiaries of corporate tax avoidance are
our private pension funds, you know the people that do the right thing
and try not to rely on the state, escaping the evils of double
taxation.
But then, we all know the vote dodging great totalitarian despised all
those that were self-reliant because he knew that meant they weren’t
reliant on him, or his evil party, and therefore could safely stick
two fingers up at the general election.
DVH
May 19, 2012, 1:31:32 PM5/19/12
to
"Feral Underclass" <ne...@here.ever> wrote in message
news:05bfr7p7sg8cpdv0s...@4ax.com...
> the form of tax cuts
How many times do you need to be told... A tax cut isn't a government
handout.
> and free staff under the pretense of training?
>
allantracy
May 19, 2012, 1:20:15 PM5/19/12
to
>
> Typical antisocialist, greedy and selfish with no thought of anyone
> but yourself.
>
> The fact that you evade my question speaks for itself.
I answered your question.
The coalition’s plans to pay down the deficit included a period where
overall debt would still rise.
This is because of the time lag involved in making the spending
cutbacks.
The debt is still going up, and will do for a while yet, but
importantly the deficit, the gap between what we earn and what we
spend, has come down significantly.
The coalition inherited a public sector that still had to be paid for,
even if it was of a size that was unsustainable and that they would
have preferred to be far smaller.
This is because Labour, rather than facing up to economic reality,
chose instead to put their own narrow selfish interests first, by post
dating all the bad news until after the election.
Brown had three years to address the deficit but did nothing and we
all know why.
His own party, friends, colleagues, our very democracy even our
economy being reduced to a basket case, all was expendable in the name
of that arsehole achieving his divine right to rule.
That total bastard never broke any rules, or laws, but, I tell you, he
far deserves to end up before the courts and a hanging jury than any
NI International executive, on trumped up charges served up by our
liberal establishment.
But then, let’s trust the Tory led coalition to have long memories of
these events and to settle old scores, when the time is right, served
up coldly.
> Typical antisocialist, greedy and selfish with no thought of anyone
> but yourself.
>
> The fact that you evade my question speaks for itself.
I answered your question.
The coalition’s plans to pay down the deficit included a period where
overall debt would still rise.
This is because of the time lag involved in making the spending
cutbacks.
The debt is still going up, and will do for a while yet, but
importantly the deficit, the gap between what we earn and what we
spend, has come down significantly.
The coalition inherited a public sector that still had to be paid for,
even if it was of a size that was unsustainable and that they would
have preferred to be far smaller.
This is because Labour, rather than facing up to economic reality,
chose instead to put their own narrow selfish interests first, by post
dating all the bad news until after the election.
Brown had three years to address the deficit but did nothing and we
all know why.
His own party, friends, colleagues, our very democracy even our
economy being reduced to a basket case, all was expendable in the name
of that arsehole achieving his divine right to rule.
That total bastard never broke any rules, or laws, but, I tell you, he
far deserves to end up before the courts and a hanging jury than any
NI International executive, on trumped up charges served up by our
liberal establishment.
But then, let’s trust the Tory led coalition to have long memories of
these events and to settle old scores, when the time is right, served
up coldly.
allantracy
May 19, 2012, 1:36:32 PM5/19/12
to
>
> At least the comedy writer managed to mention that he'd
> even heard suggestions that Germany should leave the EZ, tho' he
> obviously didn't understand the reasoning. He must have been
> reading "uk.p.m".
>
Yep, a card carrying Labour party member and a Labour minister
> At least the comedy writer managed to mention that he'd
> even heard suggestions that Germany should leave the EZ, tho' he
> obviously didn't understand the reasoning. He must have been
> reading "uk.p.m".
>
rejecting austerity, despite it being party policy to reduce the
deficit – I mean, who the f**k did they think they were kidding.
As for France and Greece, it seems their proposals for ending
austerity are to be paid for by someone else.
Greece to be bailed out by wealthy hard working Germany and the
absolute f**king priceless latest France being bailed out by a
transaction tax on the UK’s financial service industry.
France at their highly typical best but then, thanks to wonders of
democracy, we now get the naughty pleasure of telling them to put
their proposals where the Sun don’t shine.
Plus, the added deep joy bonus of watching all those, enemy within,
Guardianistas bleating on because the size ten just went in on their
pet EU project.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
DVH
May 20, 2012, 2:42:30 PM5/20/12
to
"Feral Underclass" <ne...@here.ever> wrote in message
>
> It's
> not just a tax cut for self employed entrepreneurs either, every
> single one of the front bench of the toff party got the same tax cut.
>
And millions of less well off were taken out of paying income tax
altogether.
DVH
May 20, 2012, 2:43:46 PM5/20/12
to
"Feral Underclass" <ne...@here.ever> wrote in message
> So why didn't they cut corporation tax instead of cutting the top rate
They did / will be cutting corporation tax.
®i©ardo
May 20, 2012, 3:19:05 PM5/20/12
to
--
Moving things in still pictures
Moles
May 20, 2012, 3:40:00 PM5/20/12
to
In article <j86ir79qgjvsrf6v9...@4ax.com>, ne...@here.ever
says...
that all our money and our belongings are actually property of the state
and they then allow us to keep a portion.
says...
> It's extra money for the rich, which amounts to the same thing.
No, it does not amount to the same thing unless you are of the opinion
that all our money and our belongings are actually property of the state
and they then allow us to keep a portion.
Moles
May 20, 2012, 3:41:00 PM5/20/12
to
In article <bd6ir7hr5dnv89asj...@4ax.com>, ne...@here.ever
says...
> rich helps with the debt? Less income from taxes will just increase
> the debt.
Only if the government chooses to spend more than its income.
says...
>
> allantracy <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Typical antisocialist, greedy and selfish with no thought of anyone
> >> but yourself.
> >>
> >> The fact that you evade my question speaks for itself.
> >
> >I answered your question.
> >
> >The coalition?s plans to pay down the deficit included a period where
> allantracy <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Typical antisocialist, greedy and selfish with no thought of anyone
> >> but yourself.
> >>
> >> The fact that you evade my question speaks for itself.
> >
> >I answered your question.
> >
> >overall debt would still rise.
> >
> >This is because of the time lag involved in making the spending
> >cutbacks.
> >
> >The debt is still going up, and will do for a while yet, but
> >importantly the deficit, the gap between what we earn and what we
> >spend, has come down significantly.
> >
> >The coalition inherited a public sector that still had to be paid for,
> >even if it was of a size that was unsustainable and that they would
> >have preferred to be far smaller.
> >
> >This is because Labour, rather than facing up to economic reality,
> >chose instead to put their own narrow selfish interests first, by post
> >dating all the bad news until after the election.
> >
> >Brown had three years to address the deficit but did nothing and we
> >all know why.
> >
> >His own party, friends, colleagues, our very democracy even our
> >economy being reduced to a basket case, all was expendable in the name
> >of that arsehole achieving his divine right to rule.
> >
> >That total bastard never broke any rules, or laws, but, I tell you, he
> >far deserves to end up before the courts and a hanging jury than any
> >NI International executive, on trumped up charges served up by our
> >liberal establishment.
> >
> >But then, let?s trust the Tory led coalition to have long memories of
> >
> >This is because of the time lag involved in making the spending
> >cutbacks.
> >
> >The debt is still going up, and will do for a while yet, but
> >importantly the deficit, the gap between what we earn and what we
> >spend, has come down significantly.
> >
> >The coalition inherited a public sector that still had to be paid for,
> >even if it was of a size that was unsustainable and that they would
> >have preferred to be far smaller.
> >
> >This is because Labour, rather than facing up to economic reality,
> >chose instead to put their own narrow selfish interests first, by post
> >dating all the bad news until after the election.
> >
> >Brown had three years to address the deficit but did nothing and we
> >all know why.
> >
> >His own party, friends, colleagues, our very democracy even our
> >economy being reduced to a basket case, all was expendable in the name
> >of that arsehole achieving his divine right to rule.
> >
> >That total bastard never broke any rules, or laws, but, I tell you, he
> >far deserves to end up before the courts and a hanging jury than any
> >NI International executive, on trumped up charges served up by our
> >liberal establishment.
> >
> >these events and to settle old scores, when the time is right, served
> >up coldly.
> >
>
> How does any of that answer the question of how giving tax cuts to the
> >up coldly.
> >
>
> rich helps with the debt? Less income from taxes will just increase
> the debt.
Only if the government chooses to spend more than its income.
steve robinson
May 20, 2012, 3:46:35 PM5/20/12
to
to harshly the up and leave taking thier money with them its better to
get 20% of something rather than 100% of nothing.
Hollande announced that he will be taxing the wealthy bankers a great
deal more, within a few days 100of them have looked at properties in
London, work in France, pay tax in the UK as our rates are lower ,
speaks for itself
allantracy
May 20, 2012, 4:15:33 PM5/20/12
to
>
> No, it does not amount to the same thing unless you are of the opinion
> that all our money and our belongings are actually property of the state
> and they then allow us to keep a portion.
..... and the smaller the proportion the smaller our actual wealth.
> No, it does not amount to the same thing unless you are of the opinion
> that all our money and our belongings are actually property of the state
> and they then allow us to keep a portion.
As Maggie said, "Labour governments always run out of other people's
money to spend."
Under Old Labour, we had 99% taxation for the rich and even average
earners, doing a bit of overtime, could find themselves on a higher
rate.
Then guess what - we were skint – how was that supposed to happen?
Same again, under New Labour and Brown, massive tax increases,
borrowing and shed loads of big state spending of a kind they’re now
calling for as an alternative to austerity.
Which begs the f**king bleeding obvious question that how come, after
thirteen years of throwing all our money at the state, we didn’t wake
up to find ourselves living in the richest country in the world.
The bigger and more expensive a state you have the smaller the private
sector that’s supposed to pay for it – it’s madhouse economics.
The Yanks, living in the richest country in the world, were able to
afford to put a man on the moon and they didn’t do that on the back of
higher taxes and big government, that way they could never have
afforded it.
allantracy
May 20, 2012, 4:58:09 PM5/20/12
to
>
> ssimple economics we need the rich they dont need us, if you tax them
> to harshly the up and leave taking thier money with them its better to
> get 20% of something rather than 100% of nothing.
>
> Hollande announced that he will be taxing the wealthy bankers a great
> deal more, within a few days 100of them have looked at properties in
> London, work in France, pay tax in the UK as our rates are lower ,
> speaks for itself
It’s not just the tax avoidance.
> ssimple economics we need the rich they dont need us, if you tax them
> to harshly the up and leave taking thier money with them its better to
> get 20% of something rather than 100% of nothing.
>
> Hollande announced that he will be taxing the wealthy bankers a great
> deal more, within a few days 100of them have looked at properties in
> London, work in France, pay tax in the UK as our rates are lower ,
> speaks for itself
The rich, by virtue of being rich, have choices most of us don’t have,
most especially the choice to do less.
Once a high earner realised that 50% of any additional money they
dared to earn was going to a complete knob like Brown, just so he
could piss it up the wall, was enough to make anyone take their foot
off the gas.
Economic competence does come into this argument Feral Underclass
likes to make it sound as if any tax cuts are coming out of the mouths
of babies.
If we thought our tax cuts or tax rises were being measured in hip
operations, it might be a different story, but the waste in the state
is endemic.
For a start, at least 30% (possibly more) of our taxes just disappear
in the complicated merry go round (giving with one hand taking away
with the other) of the left wing social engineering way of collecting
them.
But what really grates is the way the left prefers to describe the 50p
rate as a tax on the rich when they knew it was no such f**king thing
because it kicked in at £150K.
OK, a good living, but, on those incomes, you’re still getting up
early on a cold Monday morning and the vast majority paying that tax
were nowhere near millionaires.
Some headmasters were paying that tax, top healthcare professionals
and small business people - the responsible dedicated hard workers in
our society that frankly deserve everything they get.
I don’t know about you, but I rather believe the years of hard work
and dedication to become a top surgeon and the truly frightening
responsibility that goes with it rather deserves more than, “You’re a
lucky bastard you don't deserve to earn that kind of money.”
No wonder Maggie called it the politics of envy.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
steve robinson
May 21, 2012, 6:47:11 AM5/21/12
to
Feral Underclass wrote:
> Only the self employed rich would be able to do that. The idle rich
> and the overpaid employees would stay where they are.
But thier money wouldnt
> and the overpaid employees would stay where they are.
But thier money wouldnt
steve robinson
May 21, 2012, 6:47:52 AM5/21/12
to
Feral Underclass wrote:
> That would be as well, not instead. So, having established that the
> tax cut for the rich wasn't to encourage more businesses to move to
> the UK, what was it actually for?
To encourage more businesspeople to move to the uk
> tax cut for the rich wasn't to encourage more businesses to move to
> the UK, what was it actually for?
To encourage more businesspeople to move to the uk
mondeo-man - YES
May 21, 2012, 7:47:43 AM5/21/12
to
On 21/05/2012 11:43, Feral Underclass wrote:
> "steve robinson"<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> "steve robinson"<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Only the self employed rich would be able to do that. The idle rich
> and the overpaid employees would stay where they are.
Agreed, as soon as we drastically reduce the number of Sate employees in
> and the overpaid employees would stay where they are.
the latter categories and force them to get jobs that actually
contribute to the economy, instead of leaching off it, things will improve.
--
OUT OF MY WAY you plebs
mondeo-man - YES
May 21, 2012, 7:47:24 AM5/21/12
to
On 21/05/2012 11:43, Feral Underclass wrote:
> But as you know, that one was down to the Liberals. If the toffs had
> full power the tax cut for the rich would have been a lot bigger.
It be so dreadfully worrying for you to find that your only sorce of
income is at risk of drying up like that. It's far less worrying,
however, for the poor bastards working their bollocks off to keep you in
luxury.
mondeo-man - YES
May 21, 2012, 7:47:36 AM5/21/12
to
On 21/05/2012 11:43, Feral Underclass wrote:
No, they were increased because incapability Brown f*cked the economy so
effectively.
mondeo-man - YES
May 21, 2012, 7:49:17 AM5/21/12
to
On 21/05/2012 11:43, Feral Underclass wrote:
> for the tax cut for the rich?
Well, when it takes five fire engines and 25 "firepeople" to try AND
FAIL to rescue a seagull in a 3 foot deep paddling pond it's obviously
about time that we got rid of some of the useless idle bastards. Most of
them are too busy doing a second job, in any event!
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128585/group-25-firemen-called-rescue-seagull-3ft-deep-pond-elf-safety-says-risky.html
sutartsorric
May 21, 2012, 7:51:35 AM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 12:47 pm, mondeo-man - YES <es...@home.com> wrote:
> On 21/05/2012 11:43, Feral Underclass wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "DVH"<d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Feral Underclass"<ne...@here.ever> wrote in message
> >>news:j86ir79qgjvsrf6v9...@4ax.com...
> >>> "DVH"<d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Feral Underclass"<ne...@here.ever> wrote in message
> >>>>news:05bfr7p7sg8cpdv0s...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> allantracy<allanbintr...@ireland.com> wrote:
> On 21/05/2012 11:43, Feral Underclass wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "DVH"<d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Feral Underclass"<ne...@here.ever> wrote in message
> >>news:j86ir79qgjvsrf6v9...@4ax.com...
> >>> "DVH"<d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Feral Underclass"<ne...@here.ever> wrote in message
> >>>>news:05bfr7p7sg8cpdv0s...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>>> typical socialist...you'd rather be poorer as a nation than
> >>>>>>> see some people become millionaires
>
> >>>>>> Lefties so hate and resent self-made millionaires because deep down
> >>>>>> they know their precious big state can't do without them.
>
> >>>>>> That's because their precious big state could never achieve what self-
> >>>>>> made millionaires achieve, it wouldn't even know where to start.
>
> >>>>> If they can do it themselves why do they need government handouts in
> >>>>> the form of tax cuts
>
> >>>> How many times do you need to be told... A tax cut isn't a government
> >>>> handout.
>
> >>>>> and free staff under the pretense of training?
>
> >>> It's extra money for the rich, which amounts to the same thing.
>
> >>> It's
> >>> not just a tax cut for self employed entrepreneurs either, every
> >>> single one of the front bench of the toff party got the same tax cut.
>
> >> And millions of less well off were taken out of paying income tax
> >> altogether.
>
> > Paid for by cuts in benefits to cripples, nearly-deads and dolescum.
> > But as you know, that one was down to the Liberals. If the toffs had
> > full power the tax cut for the rich would have been a lot bigger.
>
> It be so dreadfully worrying for you to find that your only sorce of
> income is at risk of drying up like that. It's far less worrying,
> however, for the poor bastards working their bollocks off to keep you in
> luxury.
Which obviously does not include you, because you can post three times
> >>>>>>> typical socialist...you'd rather be poorer as a nation than
> >>>>>>> see some people become millionaires
>
> >>>>>> Lefties so hate and resent self-made millionaires because deep down
> >>>>>> they know their precious big state can't do without them.
>
> >>>>>> That's because their precious big state could never achieve what self-
> >>>>>> made millionaires achieve, it wouldn't even know where to start.
>
> >>>>> If they can do it themselves why do they need government handouts in
> >>>>> the form of tax cuts
>
> >>>> How many times do you need to be told... A tax cut isn't a government
> >>>> handout.
>
> >>>>> and free staff under the pretense of training?
>
> >>> It's extra money for the rich, which amounts to the same thing.
>
> >>> It's
> >>> not just a tax cut for self employed entrepreneurs either, every
> >>> single one of the front bench of the toff party got the same tax cut.
>
> >> And millions of less well off were taken out of paying income tax
> >> altogether.
>
> > Paid for by cuts in benefits to cripples, nearly-deads and dolescum.
> > But as you know, that one was down to the Liberals. If the toffs had
> > full power the tax cut for the rich would have been a lot bigger.
>
> It be so dreadfully worrying for you to find that your only sorce of
> income is at risk of drying up like that. It's far less worrying,
> however, for the poor bastards working their bollocks off to keep you in
> luxury.
here in quick succession.
Do some work, you idle git.
mondeo-man - YES
May 21, 2012, 7:57:46 AM5/21/12
to
mondeo-man - YES
May 21, 2012, 9:24:44 AM5/21/12
to
having done the week's shopping! What's your excuse for posting at this
time of the day on your office computer when you should be working?
Why not say the same to Fecal Underpants who posted five times at 11.43
today on this thread alone?
sutartsorric
May 21, 2012, 11:19:12 AM5/21/12
to
long and hard working career.
I pity you poor workers who have not yet reaped the benefits of a long
term outlook on life - like wot I have.
Soon, I may reach pension age and then your taxes will pay something
towards enhancing my even more comfortable lifestyle.
Office computer? Far too judgemental methinks.
mondeo-man - YES
May 21, 2012, 2:56:53 PM5/21/12
to
judgemental than : "Do some work, you idle git.", now was it?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
0 new messages