Bank Of England Says People Need To Accept They Are Poorer

[Mister M]

5 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Heston was right that political parties and society have changed hugely. The examples I gave would never even have been dreamed of 20 or 30 years ago :

 

I was not allowed to video my lad winning his first ever Fly race, but what happened during Covid was "more and more restrictions on our lives" in the stratosphere.

Woke cobblers writ large, a pub with a Golli collection being forced to close because somebody complained about it and it was taken up by the woke media. Removing historical statues and renaming organisations and buildings. Being asked to apologies for stuff which happened hundreds of years ago and was "normal" for the time.

Now they're even starting to force kids to eat meat free meals at school...... 

Political parties change for lots of reasons, sometimes because society changes, or that they have to respond to people's concerns etc.

The example of you not being able to video your lad is possibly because there has been safeguarding legislation being introduced. 

If Covid happened 20 / 30 years ago the likelihood is the same restrictions would've been brought into play, simply because 20 / 30 years ago we knew that communicable diseases spread when people mix.

The example of the golly doll would've happened too, because as in the case you refer, suppliers / brewers would not have wanted to be associated with knuckle draggers. The removal of statues elevating slave traders was way overdue.

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Mister M said:

No not always, but I wasn't stating that the amount of tax payable and use it is put to may not be favourable to all. Just about everyone will have some complaint that Governments aren't using the revenue collected from them in a way that suits them.

What I was pointing to was research which showed that societies which have less extremes of inequalities in income have more desirable outcomes on metrics such as economic growth, social mobility social stability etc - and over the least 20 to 30 years there's been a great deal of research to show this.

Are you suggesting even higher taxes to be given away to those the government of the day think need it ?

And, unless that means "just" a rise in the income tax threshold (rather than an increase in benefits, which are open to abuse anyway) you are just perpetuating the poverty trap.

[Mister M]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Are you suggesting even higher taxes to be given away to those the government of the day think need it ?

And, unless that means "just" a rise in the income tax threshold (rather than an increase in benefits, which are open to abuse anyway) you are just perpetuating the poverty trap.

Are you suggesting even higher taxes to be given away to those the government of the day think need it ?

No, not necessarily, for example

A tenth of UK millionaires paid lower rate of tax than someone earning just £15k (thelondoneconomic.com)

 

 And with regards to benefit abuse, worth pointing out that there is many times more abuse of the tax system than the benefits system. If as much effort were put into clamping down on tax fraud as benefit fraud, and the govt were serious about the poverty trap, then fewer people would be in the poverty trap in the first place.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Mister M

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Are you suggesting even higher taxes to be given away to those the government of the day think need it ?

No, not necessarily, for example

A tenth of UK millionaires paid lower rate of tax than someone earning just £15k (thelondoneconomic.com)

 

 And with regards to benefit abuse, worth pointing out that there is many times more abuse of the tax system than the benefits system. If as much effort were put into clamping down on tax fraud as benefit fraud, and the govt were serious about the poverty trap, then fewer people would be in the poverty trap in the first place.

Very well said.

Millionaires and other extremely rich are having a laugh at the tax complainers on here,  who think that the poor lefties are their enemies , whilst it's the very rich guys taking them for a ride.

They have no idea that when they vote for guys like Sunak,  they are putting the noose around their own necks,  whilst he goes home to his extremely rich wife and they both laugh at how naive they all are.

Wise up Chekkers

[Mister M]

5 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Very well said.

Millionaires and other extremely rich are having a laugh at the tax complainers on here,  who think that the poor lefties are their enemies , whilst it's the very rich guys taking them for a ride.

They have no idea that when they vote for guys like Sunak,  they are putting the noose around their own necks,  whilst he goes home to his extremely rich wife and they both laugh at how naive they all are.

Wise up Chekkers

Good point.

In recent years so much retail activity has migrated online, governments could lower the taxes paid by physical shops and retailers on the streets, by taxing online traders fairly.

[Chekhov]

4 hours ago, Mister M said:

Political parties change for lots of reasons, sometimes because society changes, or that they have to respond to people's concerns etc.

The example of you not being able to video your lad is possibly because there has been safeguarding legislation being introduced. 

If Covid happened 20 / 30 years ago the likelihood is the same restrictions would've been brought into play, simply because 20 / 30 years ago we knew that communicable diseases spread when people mix.

The example of the golly doll would've happened too, because as in the case you refer, suppliers / brewers would not have wanted to be associated with knuckle draggers. The removal of statues elevating slave traders was way overdue.

>>The example of you not being able to video your lad is possibly because there has been safeguarding legislation being introduced.<

 

I am fully aware of why some paranoid parents think the way they do, and they prove know little about risk probability. The ban is a disproportionate reaction involving significant restrictions other people's freedoms. And that latter phrase applies to more and more, including Covid.

 

>>If Covid happened 20 / 30 years ago the likelihood is the same restrictions would've been brought into play<<

 

You are wrong, and even more certainly wrong if it were say 50 years ago. And it's nothing to do with what we know/knew about communicable diseases spreading when people mix and all to do with society's rising in risk aversion and willingness to be regulated and restricted "to keep us safe". See above.

 

>>The example of the golly doll would've happened too, because as in the case you refer, suppliers / brewers would not have wanted to be associated with knuckle draggers<<

 

This is rubbish, I can assure you 100% it would not have happened 20 or 30 years ago.

 

>>The removal of statues elevating slave traders was way overdue.<<

 

In your view and I disagree with you totally. In fact, have never met anyone face to face who agrees with it.

You cannot change history and you should not be judging people by "modern" standards.

As far as I am aware none of these people, like Colston, had statues made of them because they were slave traders (like many Africans BTW), the statue was not celebrating slavery. So the fact the fact Colston might have been a slave trader is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Colston gave a great deal of money to his native city Bristol. In fact I'd say if they're going to remove his statue and his name from Colston hall, they should give the money back to his descendants.

 

Colston hall website :

Our former name, Colston Hall, acted as a memorial to the slave trader Edward Colston, and meant that not everyone felt welcome or that they belong in their city’s music venue.

That is a total load of woke cobblers. How many people, said, I don't want to go to Colston hall because it is named after Edward Colston ?

Nobody ? Or just hardly anyone ?

I would warrant that before the incident with his statue hardly anyone (in the real world) even knew he was a slave trader.

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

50 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Are you suggesting even higher taxes to be given away to those the government of the day think need it ?

No, not necessarily, for example

A tenth of UK millionaires paid lower rate of tax than someone earning just £15k (thelondoneconomic.com)

 And with regards to benefit abuse, worth pointing out that there is many times more abuse of the tax system than the benefits system. If as much effort were put into clamping down on tax fraud as benefit fraud, and the govt were serious about the poverty trap, then fewer people would be in the poverty trap in the first place.

You won't find me defending tax avoiders, that said the incredibly complex tax system (designed to socially engineer society) invites it. But I think 45 or 50% should be the top rate of tax, are you suggesting it should be more than that ?

 

>>And with regards to benefit abuse, worth pointing out that there is many times more abuse of the tax system than the benefits system<<
 

Depending on ones definition of abuse of the benefits system. If one counts people who make little effort to find work, but put a lot of effort into being looking how to stay on benefits (we have all met, or even know, these kinds of people), I am not sure I agree with you.

30 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Very well said.

Millionaires and other extremely rich are having a laugh at the tax complainers on here,  who think that the poor lefties are their enemies , whilst it's the very rich guys taking them for a ride.

They have no idea that when they vote for guys like Sunak,  they are putting the noose around their own necks,  whilst he goes home to his extremely rich wife and they both laugh at how naive they all are.

Wise up Chekkers

See above

Edited May 4, 2023 by Chekhov

[fools]

1 hour ago, Mister M said:

Are you suggesting even higher taxes to be given away to those the government of the day think need it ?

No, not necessarily, for example

A tenth of UK millionaires paid lower rate of tax than someone earning just £15k (thelondoneconomic.com)

 

 And with regards to benefit abuse, worth pointing out that there is many times more abuse of the tax system than the benefits system. If as much effort were put into clamping down on tax fraud as benefit fraud, and the govt were serious about the poverty trap, then fewer people would be in the poverty trap in the first place.

this forum needs more left-wing misleading headlines.

[Mister M]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

>>The example of you not being able to video your lad is possibly because there has been safeguarding legislation being introduced.<

 

I am fully aware of why some paranoid parents think the way they do, and they prove know little about risk probability. The ban is a disproportionate reaction involving significant restrictions other people's freedoms. And that latter phrase applies to more and more, including Covid.

I guess it's about balance isn't it.

I don't know much about the area but we know that paedophiles are particularly devious in their activities.

Sadly you weren't able to take a photo of your child at an event because of the risk that other adults posed. However, in your back garden or in front of the building you would be allowed to take a photo of him.

Quote

 

>>If Covid happened 20 / 30 years ago the likelihood is the same restrictions would've been brought into play<<

 

You are wrong, and even more certainly wrong if it were say 50 years ago. And it's nothing to do with what we know/knew about communicable diseases spreading when people mix and all to do with society's rising in risk aversion and willingness to be regulated and restricted "to keep us safe". 

I remember the HIV crisis of the early 1980s, and significant but necessary restrictions were brought in to help stop the spread of the disease. Through education and the passing of laws, certain activities in at risk groups were introduced.

Quote

 

>>The example of the golly doll would've happened too, because as in the case you refer, suppliers / brewers would not have wanted to be associated with knuckle draggers<<

 

This is rubbish, I can assure you 100% it would not have happened 20 or 30 years ago.

Robertson's Marmalade introduced a ban of the golli doll at the turn of the Millennium. So it did happen.

 

Quote

 

>>The removal of statues elevating slave traders was way overdue.<<

 

In your view and I disagree with you totally. In fact, have never met anyone face to face who agrees with it.

You cannot change history and you should not be judging people by "modern" standards.

As far as I am aware none of these people, like Colston, had statues made of them because they were slave traders (like many Africans BTW), the statue was not celebrating slavery. So the fact the fact Colston might have been a slave trader is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Colston gave a great deal of money to his native city Bristol. In fact I'd say if they're going to remove his statue and his name from Colston hall, they should give the money back to his descendants.

I'm not trying to change history. And if you've never met met anyone face to face who agrees with the removal of statues, well so what? That doesn't mean that the removal of the statues was wrong. Just that you should widen your friendship circle perhaps?

Yes he did give a great deal of money back to Bristol, but that simply begs the question where did the money come from in the first place.

Look, if these statues are going to exist at all,  I think it would've been far better had all these people who made money in terrible ways had their statues in museums rather than on the street. At least then the context could be explained much more.

Quote

 

Colston hall website :

Our former name, Colston Hall, acted as a memorial to the slave trader Edward Colston, and meant that not everyone felt welcome or that they belong in their city’s music venue.

That is a total load of woke cobblers. How many people, said, I don't want to go to Colston hall because it is named after Edward Colston ?

Nobody ? Or just hardly anyone ?

I would warrant that before the incident with his statue hardly anyone (in the real world) even knew he was a slave trader.

 

You said above - you shouldn't judge history by modern standards. Actually I think we should.

I've been debating on the Guardian thread about that newspaper's recent cartoon featuring Richard Sharp, which used Anti Semitic tropes. Those tropes are centuries old, and as we know were employed by Hitler and Goebbels and other Nazis to turn people against Jewish people. I think if we don't judge things as terrible, even if they happen in the past, then we risk creating an environment where terrible things can happen again.

In terms of Bristol, well it's a very multi cultural city with many of its sons and daughters descending from the slave trade. Do you think they want to have that rubbed in their faces whenever they're in Bristol centre. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Mister M

[Al Bundy]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

>>The example of you not being able to video your lad is possibly because there has been safeguarding legislation being introduced.<

 

I am fully aware of why some paranoid parents think the way they do, and they prove know little about risk probability. The ban is a disproportionate reaction involving significant restrictions other people's freedoms. And that latter phrase applies to more and more, including Covid.

 

>>If Covid happened 20 / 30 years ago the likelihood is the same restrictions would've been brought into play<<

 

You are wrong, and even more certainly wrong if it were say 50 years ago. And it's nothing to do with what we know/knew about communicable diseases spreading when people mix and all to do with society's rising in risk aversion and willingness to be regulated and restricted "to keep us safe". See above.

 

>>The example of the golly doll would've happened too, because as in the case you refer, suppliers / brewers would not have wanted to be associated with knuckle draggers<<

 

This is rubbish, I can assure you 100% it would not have happened 20 or 30 years ago.

 

>>The removal of statues elevating slave traders was way overdue.<<

 

In your view and I disagree with you totally. In fact, have never met anyone face to face who agrees with it.

You cannot change history and you should not be judging people by "modern" standards.

As far as I am aware none of these people, like Colston, had statues made of them because they were slave traders (like many Africans BTW), the statue was not celebrating slavery. So the fact the fact Colston might have been a slave trader is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Colston gave a great deal of money to his native city Bristol. In fact I'd say if they're going to remove his statue and his name from Colston hall, they should give the money back to his descendants.

 

Colston hall website :

Our former name, Colston Hall, acted as a memorial to the slave trader Edward Colston, and meant that not everyone felt welcome or that they belong in their city’s music venue.

That is a total load of woke cobblers. How many people, said, I don't want to go to Colston hall because it is named after Edward Colston ?

Nobody ? Or just hardly anyone ?

I would warrant that before the incident with his statue hardly anyone (in the real world) even knew he was a slave trader.

 

I am guessing a couple of middle class white folk named, Sage, and Milo being offended on behalf of black people might have.

 

Sage and Milo!!!!! FFS 

😂😂😂

 

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Al Bundy