Mecky Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I gather that financial efficiency is your thing, well how is having most of the countries wealth sitting in the bank accounts of a small amount of people (which is the way it is in the current system that you seem to defend) an efficient use of money? Employ him at £1 per hour and let see what he says then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Jim, you may as well talk to the wall, your protagonists have no concept of the relationship between business, profit, taxation and public spending. Never will have, just expect the "state" to pay. Not realising that the state only has the money we give it. I try to educate and inform but some students are a lot dimmer than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I gather that financial efficiency is your thing, well how is having most of the countries wealth sitting in the bank accounts of a small amount of people (which is the way it is in the current system that you seem to defend) an efficient use of money? It may have escaped your notice but we have a national financial crisis. One of the factors that caused it is the abject waste of public funds. As a tax payer I am incandescent at the amount of my money, that I work very hard for, our so called political elite (lol) can flush away and never be held accountable for. I suggest the people, like you, who think it's OK to squander so much cash are the ones who don't have to pay much tax because they get everything for nothing from a system that rewards idleness and stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 What’s wrong with the idea of a homeless unemployed people being offered food and accommodation in return for work. What is wrong with it is that it isn't something for nothing. That's what the likes of Plain Talker and his ilk want. They expect somebody else's hard earned cash to be handed to them unconditionally in return for nothing. THAT is Labour policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Employ him at £1 per hour and let see what he says then So you're not disagreeing with my example of public sector waste and why services are being privatised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 What is wrong with it is that it isn't something for nothing. That's what the likes of Plain Talker and his ilk want. They expect somebody else's hard earned cash to be handed to them unconditionally in return for nothing. THAT is Labour policy. 1) his? HIS? eh? *looks down at chest!* 2) no, FROM each according to his ability to pay, TO each according to his need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 1) his? HIS? eh? *looks down at chest!* 2) no, FROM each according to his ability to pay, TO each according to his need. If you look at my previous posts you will see that I am saying that tax is being taken FROM people who can least afford it (young, old, disabled, unemployed) and far too much is being given TO those who not only don't need it but don't deserve it either. It has created a situation where there is no incentive to work. Labour have created a situation where ability to pay is irrelevant. You pay tax whether you can afford it or not. Can all pensioners afford Council Tax? No, but they all have to pay it. Does everyone on benefits need it? Of course not, but they want it and they can all get it. It's absurd to suggest we are taxed according to our ability to pay and we get what we need in return. That ideal of the welfare state went out in the 1960s. Sorry about the whole he/she thing. I'm new here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 48 hours per week at £5 per hour tax free. If I was out of work I would take that job. Of course banks would lend to those people they do now. we know your not out of work but would you still take a pay cut to back up what your saying?. why are you also in favour of these people working a 6 day week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 we know your not out of work but would you still take a pay cut to back up what your saying?. why are you also in favour of these people working a 6 day week? I work a six day week. luv it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 we know your not out of work but would you still take a pay cut to back up what your saying?. why are you also in favour of these people working a 6 day week? Sorry did not fully answer your question. I would rather work and earn rather than stay at home festering and sponging on the state. I would rather look at myself in the mirror and see a net contributor to society than a net "taker". Work keeps me fit, physically and mentally. I am looking forward to our Xmas party and my next holiday. If all had to look forward to was my next appointment at the social security office I would soon get depressed. Work is worth it, no matter how much you earn or what you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.