Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
BBC NEWS 24 - Now I've Heard Everything - Polly Toynbee
13 views
Skip to first unread message
allantracy
May 23, 2012, 4:13:32 PM5/23/12
to
She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
(again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
Of course, no mention that it’s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
crisis, that’s so spooking businesses at the moment.
But, best of all, her claim that private sector wages are being
subsidised by the state because businesses won’t pay a living wage,
talk about arguing white is black.
Of course, all of this went unchallenged, we are on the BBC after all,
as was Robert Preston’s assertion that the government funding
infrastructure investment begs the question that, if the money can be
found, why can’t they just invest it in the public sector.
Someone seriously needs to ask how come a so-called BBC economics
editor can’t differentiate between spending and investment, perhaps
because his prior experience for the job was being a music teacher
with a background in the Trotsky party.
Anyway Polly, how come if we have taken the trouble to establish a so-
called minimum living wage, why is it that the state then comes along
and taxes four grand’s worth of it?
I mean, just who is this living wage meant for and just might it
explain why those tax credits are so necessary, in order to give
people back the taxes they, by your own minimum wage definition, are
clearly in no position to afford in the first f**king place.
Then, think on, only 30% of tax revenues come from income tax the rest
70% comes from indirect taxes, levied regardless of any ability to
pay, indeed, even those on benefits have to pay those taxes.
Some of the big earners are VAT, fuel duty, corporate taxes (yes we
all pay those in the end) fags and alcohol all paid whether your
Richard Branson or on the dole.
If anything is keeping the poor poor in this country, it ain’t the
privates sector, it’s the state and those that work within it, pimping
off the least well off, making them poor in the first place and
keeping them poor.
We see how Brown’s big state was clearly nothing less than a
protection racket on the weakest in our society and how socialist was
that?
(again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
Of course, no mention that it’s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
crisis, that’s so spooking businesses at the moment.
But, best of all, her claim that private sector wages are being
subsidised by the state because businesses won’t pay a living wage,
talk about arguing white is black.
Of course, all of this went unchallenged, we are on the BBC after all,
as was Robert Preston’s assertion that the government funding
infrastructure investment begs the question that, if the money can be
found, why can’t they just invest it in the public sector.
Someone seriously needs to ask how come a so-called BBC economics
editor can’t differentiate between spending and investment, perhaps
because his prior experience for the job was being a music teacher
with a background in the Trotsky party.
Anyway Polly, how come if we have taken the trouble to establish a so-
called minimum living wage, why is it that the state then comes along
and taxes four grand’s worth of it?
I mean, just who is this living wage meant for and just might it
explain why those tax credits are so necessary, in order to give
people back the taxes they, by your own minimum wage definition, are
clearly in no position to afford in the first f**king place.
Then, think on, only 30% of tax revenues come from income tax the rest
70% comes from indirect taxes, levied regardless of any ability to
pay, indeed, even those on benefits have to pay those taxes.
Some of the big earners are VAT, fuel duty, corporate taxes (yes we
all pay those in the end) fags and alcohol all paid whether your
Richard Branson or on the dole.
If anything is keeping the poor poor in this country, it ain’t the
privates sector, it’s the state and those that work within it, pimping
off the least well off, making them poor in the first place and
keeping them poor.
We see how Brown’s big state was clearly nothing less than a
protection racket on the weakest in our society and how socialist was
that?
charlie61Ltd
May 24, 2012, 3:52:22 AM5/24/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:13:32 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
<allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>(again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>
>Of course, no mention that it’s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
>crisis, that’s so spooking businesses at the moment.
>
>But, best of all, her claim that private sector wages are being
>subsidised by the state because businesses won’t pay a living wage,
>talk about arguing white is black.
>
>Of course, all of this went unchallenged, we are on the BBC after all,
>as was Robert Preston’s assertion that the government funding
>infrastructure investment begs the question that, if the money can be
>found, why can’t they just invest it in the public sector.
>
If you think about it and start to address what they said in a
<allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>(again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>
>Of course, no mention that it’s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
>crisis, that’s so spooking businesses at the moment.
>
>But, best of all, her claim that private sector wages are being
>subsidised by the state because businesses won’t pay a living wage,
>talk about arguing white is black.
>
>Of course, all of this went unchallenged, we are on the BBC after all,
>as was Robert Preston’s assertion that the government funding
>infrastructure investment begs the question that, if the money can be
>found, why can’t they just invest it in the public sector.
>
rational way you go round in circles. Their arguments are nonsensical
and you may as well just put it down to stupidity and make do with
that.
JNugent
May 24, 2012, 4:03:05 AM5/24/12
to
On 24/05/2012 08:52, charlie61Ltd wrote:
> <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>>
>> Of course, no mention that it’s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
>> crisis, that’s so spooking businesses at the moment.
>>
>> But, best of all, her claim that private sector wages are being
>> subsidised by the state because businesses won’t pay a living wage,
>> talk about arguing white is black.
>>
>> Of course, all of this went unchallenged, we are on the BBC after all,
>> as was Robert Preston’s assertion that the government funding
>> infrastructure investment begs the question that, if the money can be
>> found, why can’t they just invest it in the public sector.
> If you think about it and start to address what they said in a
> rational way you go round in circles. Their arguments are nonsensical
> and you may as well just put it down to stupidity and make do with
> that.
Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
> <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>>
>> Of course, no mention that it’s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
>> crisis, that’s so spooking businesses at the moment.
>>
>> But, best of all, her claim that private sector wages are being
>> subsidised by the state because businesses won’t pay a living wage,
>> talk about arguing white is black.
>>
>> Of course, all of this went unchallenged, we are on the BBC after all,
>> as was Robert Preston’s assertion that the government funding
>> infrastructure investment begs the question that, if the money can be
>> found, why can’t they just invest it in the public sector.
> If you think about it and start to address what they said in a
> rational way you go round in circles. Their arguments are nonsensical
> and you may as well just put it down to stupidity and make do with
> that.
She is a millionaire with several homes and irons in many fires, who firmly
believes that the living standards of those who work for a living are too
high and ought to be reduced, with the excess being creamed off for those who
have no intention of ever doing a hand's turn.
She is disgusting.
sutartsorric
May 24, 2012, 4:11:30 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 9:03 am, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 24/05/2012 08:52, charlie61Ltd wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <allanbintr...@ireland.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/2012 08:52, charlie61Ltd wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
(I think) about a year after Tony Bliar was elected, which indicated
that she knew although he may be pursuing rather right of centre
policies at first, because of his majority and popularity he would
switch to a hard left agenda in 1999. In other words, he was the
lefts' Trojan Horse.
Anyone who can make that kind of character error, does not deserve to
be taken seriously.
charlie61Ltd
May 24, 2012, 4:20:17 AM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:03:05 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>On 24/05/2012 08:52, charlie61Ltd wrote:
>
>> <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
>>> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>>> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>>>
>>> Of course, no mention that it’s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
>>> crisis, that’s so spooking businesses at the moment.
>>>
>>> But, best of all, her claim that private sector wages are being
>>> subsidised by the state because businesses won’t pay a living wage,
>>> talk about arguing white is black.
>>>
>>> Of course, all of this went unchallenged, we are on the BBC after all,
>>> as was Robert Preston’s assertion that the government funding
>>> infrastructure investment begs the question that, if the money can be
>>> found, why can’t they just invest it in the public sector.
Last nights EU meeting shambles can be found here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9286803/Camerons-fury-as-EU-tries-to-spring-tax-on-City-at-Brussels-summit.html
wrote:
>On 24/05/2012 08:52, charlie61Ltd wrote:
>
>> <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
>>> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>>> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>>>
>>> Of course, no mention that it’s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
>>> crisis, that’s so spooking businesses at the moment.
>>>
>>> But, best of all, her claim that private sector wages are being
>>> subsidised by the state because businesses won’t pay a living wage,
>>> talk about arguing white is black.
>>>
>>> Of course, all of this went unchallenged, we are on the BBC after all,
>>> as was Robert Preston’s assertion that the government funding
>>> infrastructure investment begs the question that, if the money can be
>>> found, why can’t they just invest it in the public sector.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9286803/Camerons-fury-as-EU-tries-to-spring-tax-on-City-at-Brussels-summit.html
LebesgueMeasure
May 24, 2012, 5:00:52 AM5/24/12
to
"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:a2689q...@mid.individual.net...
socialism in the Labour Party. She stood for election as an SDP candidate
in 1983. Hardly a firebrand socialist. But then exaggeration and BS is
your usual mode of argument.
> She is a millionaire with several homes and irons in many fires, who
> firmly believes that the living standards of those who work for a living
> are too high
>
>
Which of course would include her, so I'll take those comments as
meaningless partisan BS.
Don't get me wrong, I loath Toynbee, her smugness, her authoritarianism
(e.g. her support for totalitarian ID Cards and her failure to condemn
labour's anti-freedom agenda) and her total inability to read the New Labour
project or Blair accurately. But a typical socialist, she isn't.
news:a2689q...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
>
She was a founder member of the SDP, which was a rejection of nascent
> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
>
socialism in the Labour Party. She stood for election as an SDP candidate
in 1983. Hardly a firebrand socialist. But then exaggeration and BS is
your usual mode of argument.
> She is a millionaire with several homes and irons in many fires, who
> firmly believes that the living standards of those who work for a living
> are too high
>
>
meaningless partisan BS.
Don't get me wrong, I loath Toynbee, her smugness, her authoritarianism
(e.g. her support for totalitarian ID Cards and her failure to condemn
labour's anti-freedom agenda) and her total inability to read the New Labour
project or Blair accurately. But a typical socialist, she isn't.
abelard
May 24, 2012, 5:24:37 AM5/24/12
to
--
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
May 24, 2012, 5:27:31 AM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:00:52 +0100, "LebesgueMeasure"
<lebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:a2689q...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
>>
>She was a founder member of the SDP, which was a rejection of nascent
>socialism in the Labour Party.
no it wasn't, it was a highly successful ploy to take over
<lebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:a2689q...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
>>
>She was a founder member of the SDP, which was a rejection of nascent
>socialism in the Labour Party.
the erstwhile liberal party...
a problem which still undermines that once genuine party
> She stood for election as an SDP candidate
>in 1983. Hardly a firebrand socialist. But then exaggeration and BS is
>your usual mode of argument.
>
>> She is a millionaire with several homes and irons in many fires, who
>> firmly believes that the living standards of those who work for a living
>> are too high
>>
>>
>Which of course would include her, so I'll take those comments as
>meaningless partisan BS.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I loath Toynbee, her smugness, her authoritarianism
>(e.g. her support for totalitarian ID Cards and her failure to condemn
>labour's anti-freedom agenda) and her total inability to read the New Labour
>project or Blair accurately. But a typical socialist, she isn't.
you just don't like the reflection in the mirror...with very
good cause
AC
May 24, 2012, 5:54:25 AM5/24/12
to
allantracy wrote:
> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
Yup
> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>
> Of course, no mention that it’s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
> crisis, that’s so spooking businesses at the moment.
And, would *please* stop posting your OT rightard ranting in a TV NG.
This post has nothing to do with TV. Its just your immature attention
seeking public wank.
--
AC
JNugent
May 24, 2012, 6:46:49 AM5/24/12
to
On 24/05/2012 10:00, LebesgueMeasure wrote:
> "JNugent"<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
> She was a founder member of the SDP, which was a rejection of nascent
> socialism in the Labour Party. She stood for election as an SDP candidate
> in 1983. Hardly a firebrand socialist. But then exaggeration and BS is
> your usual mode of argument.
The Gang of Four were socialists who feared never being able again to get
into government. The SDP was a disguise.
>> She is a millionaire with several homes and irons in many fires, who
>> firmly believes that the living standards of those who work for a living
>> are too high
> Which of course would include her, so I'll take those comments as
> meaningless partisan BS.
There's nothing innately unlikely about a worker (not a word which really
sits well with Toynbee, but I know what you mean) wanting workers' pay
reduced by yet more taxation. Every trade union functionary is, in theory at
least, a "worker", and and they more or less to a man support policies of
increasing taxes.
> Don't get me wrong, I loath Toynbee, her smugness, her authoritarianism
> (e.g. her support for totalitarian ID Cards and her failure to condemn
> labour's anti-freedom agenda) and her total inability to read the New Labour
> project or Blair accurately. But a typical socialist, she isn't.
What is a "typical" socialist?
Not that that is how I described her.
> "JNugent"<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
> She was a founder member of the SDP, which was a rejection of nascent
> socialism in the Labour Party. She stood for election as an SDP candidate
> in 1983. Hardly a firebrand socialist. But then exaggeration and BS is
> your usual mode of argument.
into government. The SDP was a disguise.
>> She is a millionaire with several homes and irons in many fires, who
>> firmly believes that the living standards of those who work for a living
>> are too high
> Which of course would include her, so I'll take those comments as
> meaningless partisan BS.
sits well with Toynbee, but I know what you mean) wanting workers' pay
reduced by yet more taxation. Every trade union functionary is, in theory at
least, a "worker", and and they more or less to a man support policies of
increasing taxes.
> Don't get me wrong, I loath Toynbee, her smugness, her authoritarianism
> (e.g. her support for totalitarian ID Cards and her failure to condemn
> labour's anti-freedom agenda) and her total inability to read the New Labour
> project or Blair accurately. But a typical socialist, she isn't.
Not that that is how I described her.
LebesgueMeasure
May 24, 2012, 7:04:14 AM5/24/12
to
"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:a26hsq...@mid.individual.net...
> On 24/05/2012 10:00, LebesgueMeasure wrote:
>
>> "JNugent"<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
>
>> She was a founder member of the SDP, which was a rejection of nascent
>> socialism in the Labour Party. She stood for election as an SDP
>> candidate
>> in 1983. Hardly a firebrand socialist. But then exaggeration and BS is
>> your usual mode of argument.
>
> The Gang of Four were socialists who feared never being able again to get
> into government. The SDP was a disguise.
>
Paranoid drivel. The social democrats believed wholly in the free-market
>
>> "JNugent"<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
>
>> She was a founder member of the SDP, which was a rejection of nascent
>> socialism in the Labour Party. She stood for election as an SDP
>> candidate
>> in 1983. Hardly a firebrand socialist. But then exaggeration and BS is
>> your usual mode of argument.
>
> The Gang of Four were socialists who feared never being able again to get
> into government. The SDP was a disguise.
>
system, which means by definition they are not socialists
> There's nothing innately unlikely about a worker (not a word which really
> sits well with Toynbee,
>
definition a worker. Just because you have an exaggerated hatred of her
politics does not alter that.
> but I know what you mean) wanting workers' pay reduced by yet more
> taxation.
philanthropy.
>> Don't get me wrong, I loath Toynbee, her smugness, her authoritarianism
>> (e.g. her support for totalitarian ID Cards and her failure to condemn
>> labour's anti-freedom agenda) and her total inability to read the New
>> Labour
>> project or Blair accurately. But a typical socialist, she isn't.
>
> What is a "typical" socialist?
>
economic affairs of the country. But I take your point that hatred for
freedom is as much as factor in the conservative party as it is the labour
party.
abelard
May 24, 2012, 8:15:12 AM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:04:14 +0100, "LebesgueMeasure"
<lebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:a26hsq...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 24/05/2012 10:00, LebesgueMeasure wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent"<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
>>
>>> She was a founder member of the SDP, which was a rejection of nascent
>>> socialism in the Labour Party. She stood for election as an SDP
>>> candidate
>>> in 1983. Hardly a firebrand socialist. But then exaggeration and BS is
>>> your usual mode of argument.
>>
>> The Gang of Four were socialists who feared never being able again to get
>> into government. The SDP was a disguise.
>>
>Paranoid drivel. The social democrats believed wholly in the free-market
>system, which means by definition they are not socialists
rotf
<lebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:a26hsq...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 24/05/2012 10:00, LebesgueMeasure wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent"<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
>>
>>> She was a founder member of the SDP, which was a rejection of nascent
>>> socialism in the Labour Party. She stood for election as an SDP
>>> candidate
>>> in 1983. Hardly a firebrand socialist. But then exaggeration and BS is
>>> your usual mode of argument.
>>
>> The Gang of Four were socialists who feared never being able again to get
>> into government. The SDP was a disguise.
>>
>Paranoid drivel. The social democrats believed wholly in the free-market
>system, which means by definition they are not socialists
>> There's nothing innately unlikely about a worker (not a word which really
>> sits well with Toynbee,
>>
>Why do you say that? Employers pay her for her output therefore she is by
>definition a worker. Just because you have an exaggerated hatred of her
>politics does not alter that.
>
>> but I know what you mean) wanting workers' pay reduced by yet more
>> taxation.
>Well you can't bomb the crap out of Libya or replace Trident on
>philanthropy.
>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I loath Toynbee, her smugness, her authoritarianism
>>> (e.g. her support for totalitarian ID Cards and her failure to condemn
>>> labour's anti-freedom agenda) and her total inability to read the New
>>> Labour
>>> project or Blair accurately. But a typical socialist, she isn't.
>>
>> What is a "typical" socialist?
>>
>Someone who wants the state to take a central role in organising the
>economic affairs of the country.
mugabe, mao....
every socialist is like that
> But I take your point that hatred for
>freedom is as much as factor in the conservative party as it is the labour
>party.
>
abelard
May 24, 2012, 8:18:29 AM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:54:25 +0100, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>allantracy wrote:
>> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>
>Yup
>> Of course, no mention that it’s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
>> crisis, that’s so spooking businesses at the moment.
>
>Er, no. Its your precious banks that went tits up causing the "EU crisis".
course it is...course it is....
>allantracy wrote:
>> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>
>Yup
>> Of course, no mention that it’s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
>> crisis, that’s so spooking businesses at the moment.
>
>Er, no. Its your precious banks that went tits up causing the "EU crisis".
they just keep lending to socialist governments...those
same governments who print the money they play with...
those same banks the socialist governments control....
those same banks the socialist governments tax into
insolvencies....
you are incorrigibly thick
rest binned unread
Big Les Wade
May 24, 2012, 9:36:56 AM5/24/12
to
allantracy <allanb...@ireland.com> posted
tax year 2010-11.
Income tax/CGT/NICs 55%
VAT 19%
Corporation_Tax 9%
Hydrocarbon_oils 6%
Stamp_Taxes 2%
Tobacco_duties 2%
Alcohol duties 2%
Other 4%
Source: HMRC TAX & NIC RECEIPTS
Monthly and annual historical record
24 January 2012
KAI Data, Policy & Coordination
HM Revenue and Customs
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/menu.htm
The fact that you got that so wrong disinclines me to believe the rest
of your post.
--
Les
>Then, think on, only 30% of tax revenues come from income tax the rest
>70% comes from indirect taxes,
False. Here is a breakdown of total HMRC receipts (£447,159m) for the
>70% comes from indirect taxes,
tax year 2010-11.
Income tax/CGT/NICs 55%
VAT 19%
Corporation_Tax 9%
Hydrocarbon_oils 6%
Stamp_Taxes 2%
Tobacco_duties 2%
Alcohol duties 2%
Other 4%
Source: HMRC TAX & NIC RECEIPTS
Monthly and annual historical record
24 January 2012
KAI Data, Policy & Coordination
HM Revenue and Customs
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/menu.htm
The fact that you got that so wrong disinclines me to believe the rest
of your post.
--
Les
aaa
May 24, 2012, 10:36:11 AM5/24/12
to
allantracy wrote:
> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>
> Of course, no mention that it�s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
> crisis, that�s so spooking businesses at the moment.
>
> But, best of all, her claim that private sector wages are being
> subsidised by the state because businesses won�t pay a living wage,
> talk about arguing white is black.
>
That bit is true, many people only work for the minimum wage due to
> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>
> Of course, no mention that it�s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
> crisis, that�s so spooking businesses at the moment.
>
> But, best of all, her claim that private sector wages are being
> subsidised by the state because businesses won�t pay a living wage,
> talk about arguing white is black.
>
additional benefits they can receive from the state. So the state is
effectively subsidising low wages, to the benefit of often wealthy
people.
Why people your staff �8 per hour when you can pay them �6 per hour and
they make up the �2 difference with benefits/tax credits. As the boss
you get to pocket an extra �2 per hour per worker.
Replacing benefits with a citizens wage would address this issue.
Howard
May 24, 2012, 1:16:53 PM5/24/12
to
Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> The fact that you got that so wrong disinclines me to believe the rest
> of your post.
CGT is not an income tax.
> The fact that you got that so wrong disinclines me to believe the rest
> of your post.
H
Howard
May 24, 2012, 1:16:53 PM5/24/12
to
allantracy <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
Toynbee is a raving loony left wing nutter given a loud haler by the
> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
Guardian.
Why anyone lays her any attention beats me.
Howard
abelard
May 24, 2012, 2:25:46 PM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 18:16:53 +0100, Howar...@home.com (Howard)
wrote:
many people want to believe the tripe...it's about emotion/religion/
faith....not about reason
wrote:
faith....not about reason
JNugent
May 24, 2012, 6:26:49 PM5/24/12
to
On 24/05/2012 18:16, Howard wrote:
> allantracy<allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
>> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>
> Toynbee is a raving loony left wing nutter given a loud haler by the
> Guardian.
According to Mr Lebesque, she's almost a Chicago-school free marketeer, well
> allantracy<allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
>> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>
> Toynbee is a raving loony left wing nutter given a loud haler by the
> Guardian.
to the right of David Willetts or John Redwood.
> Why anyone lays her any attention beats me.
No. A typo. It just has to be.
Howard
May 25, 2012, 8:33:54 AM5/25/12
to
it's not freudian .... hehe
Howard
Richard McKenzie
May 25, 2012, 10:46:38 AM5/25/12
to
On May 24, 9:03 am, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 24/05/2012 08:52, charlie61Ltd wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <allanbintr...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Though i disagree with her medling i think its right that we should
address an imbalance.
If i require to employ the services of a professional most likely i
will spend a lot of money for little advice. (i recall challenging an
answer a solicitor gave me and they responded that if i were to ask
the same question to 40 lawyers i will get 40 different answers). Now
in my opinion most professionals are overpaid, but unfortunately the
market (set my the professionals) dictate the price so consumers have
no choice.
Take Chris Hune's mistress she faces a legal bill of upto a £1million
(source Daily Mail) surely this just epitomises the exuberant charges
professionals charge and surely if the solicitors she employed were
any good they should have the forsight (from experience) that her
court case was a waste of time and money.
If the market does not allow for prices to fall because of collusion
then addressing the imbalance is their punishment due.
JNugent
May 25, 2012, 3:00:52 PM5/25/12
to
On 25/05/2012 15:46, Richard McKenzie wrote:
> JNugent<jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> charlie61Ltd wrote:
>>> <allanbintr...@ireland.com> wrote:
>>>> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>>>> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>>>> Of course, no mention that it�s her precious f**king EU, and the Euro
>>>> crisis, that�s so spooking businesses at the moment.
propose to penalise for it.
> If i require to employ the services of a professional most likely i
> will spend a lot of money for little advice. (i recall challenging an
> answer a solicitor gave me and they responded that if i were to ask
> the same question to 40 lawyers i will get 40 different answers). Now
> in my opinion most professionals are overpaid, but unfortunately the
> market (set my the professionals) dictate the price so consumers have
> no choice.
> Take Chris Hune's mistress she faces a legal bill of upto a �1million
You'll have me in tears.
Was she *forced* to try to sue the Daily Mail? Who threatened to kill her if
she didn't?
What was she trying to do in suing the publication?
Oh yes... she was trying to get a lot of money from it, and because there was
a lot of money at stake, she spent a lot on legal advice and services. When
she did that, she knew what the rules of the game were - they were the same
as they always are: "Don't sue *unless* you can afford to lose all your own
legal costs and all of your intended victim's costs as well, because if you
lose, you're liable for the lot".
> and surely if the solicitors she employed were
> any good they should have the forsight (from experience) that her
> court case was a waste of time and money.
How do you know they didn't?
> If the market does not allow for prices to fall because of collusion
> then addressing the imbalance is their punishment due.
What market are you talking about? There is no ready market in chancey
litigation.
> JNugent<jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> charlie61Ltd wrote:
>>> <allanbintr...@ireland.com> wrote:
>>>> She was moaning about the private sector all being greedy bastards
>>>> (again) this time by sitting on their money and failing to invest.
>>>> crisis, that�s so spooking businesses at the moment.
>>>> But, best of all, her claim that private sector wages are being
>>>> subsidised by the state because businesses won�t pay a living wage,
>>>> talk about arguing white is black.
>>>> Of course, all of this went unchallenged, we are on the BBC after all,
>>>> as was Robert Preston�s assertion that the government funding
>>>> Of course, all of this went unchallenged, we are on the BBC after all,
>>>> infrastructure investment begs the question that, if the money can be
>>>> found, why can�t they just invest it in the public sector.
>>> If you think about it and start to address what they said in a
>>> rational way you go round in circles. Their arguments are nonsensical
>>> and you may as well just put it down to stupidity and make do with
>>> that.
>> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
>> She is a millionaire with several homes and irons in many fires, who firmly
>> believes that the living standards of those who work for a living are too
>> high and ought to be reduced, with the excess being creamed off for those who
>> have no intention of ever doing a hand's turn.
>> She is disgusting.
>>> rational way you go round in circles. Their arguments are nonsensical
>>> and you may as well just put it down to stupidity and make do with
>>> that.
>> Toynbee represents everything that one should detest in socialism.
>> She is a millionaire with several homes and irons in many fires, who firmly
>> believes that the living standards of those who work for a living are too
>> high and ought to be reduced, with the excess being creamed off for those who
>> have no intention of ever doing a hand's turn.
>> She is disgusting.
> Though i disagree with her medling i think its right that we should
> address an imbalance.
Then you need to identify an imbalance which is the fault of those whom you
> address an imbalance.
propose to penalise for it.
> If i require to employ the services of a professional most likely i
> will spend a lot of money for little advice. (i recall challenging an
> answer a solicitor gave me and they responded that if i were to ask
> the same question to 40 lawyers i will get 40 different answers). Now
> in my opinion most professionals are overpaid, but unfortunately the
> market (set my the professionals) dictate the price so consumers have
> no choice.
> (source Daily Mail) surely this just epitomises the exuberant charges
> professionals charge
Oh, boo hoo!
> professionals charge
You'll have me in tears.
Was she *forced* to try to sue the Daily Mail? Who threatened to kill her if
she didn't?
What was she trying to do in suing the publication?
Oh yes... she was trying to get a lot of money from it, and because there was
a lot of money at stake, she spent a lot on legal advice and services. When
she did that, she knew what the rules of the game were - they were the same
as they always are: "Don't sue *unless* you can afford to lose all your own
legal costs and all of your intended victim's costs as well, because if you
lose, you're liable for the lot".
> and surely if the solicitors she employed were
> any good they should have the forsight (from experience) that her
> court case was a waste of time and money.
> If the market does not allow for prices to fall because of collusion
> then addressing the imbalance is their punishment due.
litigation.
0 new messages