Nah mate, The London People's Front.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Nah mate, The London People's Front.
Hard to astern his voting record without understanding what the whip position was.
The world is full of poor people who do drugs and never go to jail. It’s not as though he used his privilege to avoid prosecution anyway.
Yep, Morrissey is a deeply unpleasant man really, as that article makes clear. In fact I think it actually leaves some stuff out, like him telling Der Spiegel that refugees had made Germany the rape capital of Europe.
A musician friend of mine absolutely worshipped Morrisey growing up. He’s the same age as me (32) and up until just a few years ago he’d listen to his music on an almost daily basis.
He absolutely can’t stand him now, said he no longer thinks of his music as coming from the same tortured, complex, emotional genius that it once did and instead he can only hear the whinging of a miserable man who is equally self centred and self loathing.
He's determined to be notorious and, nowadays, his music can't get him the required attention.
Indeed, I think a lot of people feel like that. Especially given his personality is very much front and centre in his music.
In fact the real irony is that his anti-Thatcher, anti-Tory, anti-royalist, anti-capitalist, pro-vegan, pro animal welfare, pro-LGBT sentiments probably influenced many of his rather cultish fans into holding the sort of liberal, left wing beliefs he is now transgressing.
Like many of their supporters, Morrissey can't be bothered to look into the funding of Farage, Robinson etc etc. They're useful idiots, the tools of rich patrons; their 'convictions' are for sale.
Aye my friend is very much of that breed, hence why he’s rejected him so completely.
Unless we pay everything cash on demand, we will always use future cashflows- some of this debt will be inflated away anyhow.
There's a huge and fundamental difference between creating a system that uses debt as a vehicle to facilitate increased growth and profitability, and one in which ever increasing and forecasted debt is the legitimate business model.
The first model is predicated on the growth being more profitable than the interest. The second model is a house of cards that will inevitably fall down as growth isn't perpetual and the importing of young people to relentlessly try to offset the aged is merely creating a bigger ponzi for future generations.
This is why every recession gets deeper and will continue to get deeper. Imagine if Bernie Madoff were given a government bailout to keep his business allfloat. Would that have solved the problem? Of course not, his "fund" would have merely gotten bigger and bigger and the inevitable crash would have cost another zero or two.
I haven't heard anyone claim pensions caused the 2008 recession before, I must admit. I daresay one could justify the opinion in some tenuous way though, if one were desperate to do so.
Your man's on QT tonight.
It's not a Ponzi scheme we have per se- it's a system that just hasn't adapted to demographics, Zirp etc...
Maybe a pyramid scheme is better terminology?
The definition being "A pyramid scheme is a business model that recruits members via a promise of payments or services for enrolling others into the scheme".
The government promises ever increasing services that are only deliverable by enrolling an ever increasing amount of people into the tax system. The only difference is instead of "recruits", government "forces".
The health budget is the obvious example of this, but pensions and social care are also covered. Health spend was 0.5% of GDP post war, 1% of GDP by the 50's, 2% by the 80's, 3% by the 90's, 6% by 2000's, is over 7% now and is forecasted to need to hit 14% by 2060 (it'll be earlier than that without radical reform). That's as a % of growth... we're literally planning to fail.
This will boil your piss.
the larger health budget is necessary because we have a generation of baby boomers now retiring and getting old though, right?
Yes that's right and the vast majority will have being paying their income tax and NI from the early 1960's and some are still paying! All governments use current tax intake to pay current debts, its not 'invested' at all. That means every generation has to pay for the previous one, which overall is a reasonable exchange; however when something like the baby boomer spike occurs (and remember has been there for years) and successive governments have known about it but done little to off set the burden falling on the current and future generations, then we have the problems we are now facing.
Also I recall Margaret Thatcher as Education Minister stopped free school milk for pupils, just as the baby boomers (peak numbers) arrived in education, so I suppose some effort to address the balance was attempted???
Ergh. I wish the worst on people like this. They're a fecking scourge to every person on Earth.
Looking at this link in 2016 UK health spending was 9%, and US health spending was 17%. You seem to think a lower percentage is better, so do you think the US should be copying the UK? It's quite a difference.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS
Who, diabetics?
I think the 9% is both publicly funded and privately funded. The same is the case is the US. Private healthcare could be 30% of GDP for all I care because it isn't paid for via general taxation. If everyone earning £50+k wants to spend £5k a year on healthcare that's not my business.
Neither a low nor high % is good or bad in and of itself. But a model that is predicated on growing by more than 1% per decade of GDP is obviously unsustainable.
Bear in mind the current health budget is 19% of tax spend. So assuming that total spend is correlated to GDP over the next 40 years we will be spending 38% of tax take on health... To afford this we'd need to either privatise the entire education system or privatise everything else apart from health, social protections and education. This is ignoring the fact that social protections are forecasting the same level of deficit, meaning the only two departments that could be financed would be health and social protections. We'd have to eradicate education, defence, general public services services, foreign aid, police etc.
And in terms of "austerity" how Labour have been able to sell this false myth is beyond me. The Tories have been taxing and spending at a greater level than ever before. The country feel like they've been victims of austerity because we've been allocating more and more money to the pyramid scheme departments at the expense of other departments. Show me on the green line below where the alleged "austerity" is?
To show what austerity actually looks like a similar image for Greece (viewing the average line focusing on 2008 to present))
I misunderstood, you're not arguing about efficiency or sustainability at all, you're merely saying you don't want to pay taxes for anybody else's benefit but your own. The rest certainly contains some truths but given the bolded is actually a smokescreen to try and make your real aim appear less cnuttish than it is. Doesn't work for me, but each to their own.I think the 9% is both publicly funded and privately funded. The same is the case is the US. Private healthcare could be 30% of GDP for all I care because it isn't paid for via general taxation. If everyone earning £50+k wants to spend £5k a year on healthcare that's not my business.
Neither a low nor high % is good or bad in and of itself. But a model that is predicated on growing by more than 1% per decade of GDP is obviously unsustainable.
Bear in mind the current health budget is 19% of tax spend. So assuming that total spend is correlated to GDP over the next 40 years we will be spending 38% of tax take on health... To afford this we'd need to either privatise the entire education system or privatise everything else apart from health, social protections and education. This is ignoring the fact that social protections are forecasting the same level of deficit, meaning the only two departments that could be financed would be health and social protections. We'd have to eradicate education, defence, general public services services, foreign aid, police etc.
And in terms of "austerity" how Labour have been able to sell this false myth is beyond me. The Tories have been taxing and spending at a greater level than ever before. The country feel like they've been victims of austerity because we've been allocating more and more money to the pyramid scheme departments at the expense of other departments. Show me on the green line below where the alleged "austerity" is?
To show what austerity actually looks like a similar image for Greece (viewing the average line focusing on 2008 to present))
Polarised Politics
Not true at all. I'm comfortable paying for other people but I'm not comfortable putting money into a pyramid/ponzi scheme. If we had a proper plan surrounding long term healthcare funding then that would be great.
I'd have to pay for others in any system as I wouldn't see thousands of people without healthcare. Whether this be via charitable donations, an insurance based system with premiums covering the uninsured (like vehicle insurance) or the current "system". I for one have faith in humanity and believe that if tax was for example 20% of GDP instead of 40%, we'd see an increase in the donations into the many billions, which would go into private charities that would squander far less every year (as they have a personal, financial and moral interest in keeping their businesses affloat).
However the stupidity of the current system is criminal (it literally would be if a private firm were running it in this way).
Last edited:
If you're saying you would be happy to pay the same amount in tax as you do now so long as half of it was spent via charities then I'll happily withdraw my allegation of cnuttism, but if you're really still just trying to come up with arguments to pay less then it stands I'm afraid.
Cnuttishness apart, whether charities are actually more efficient than governments is somewhat open to question. I'm not a fan of them personally, but if anyone comes up with some convincing evidence to the contrary I'm open to persuasion.
I'd happily pay, especially if I were to decide where my donation went.
I'd donate at least twice as much to education and defence vs what I currently pay. At least the same for healthcare (if it weren't being squandered), but less for transport (roads are a shambles), local councils, interest, foreign aid, pensions, welfare etc.
From what I've read charities are more efficient, but not ones who become colossal in size (as they end up acting identically to government). The benefit of a charity is they're audited in the way of a normal company so they can't create the type of pyramid scheme model that pensions and health "enjoy".
So you would pay less for the roads because they are crap...that makes totally sense. Those roads that carries students and teachers to schools/universities (education), ambulances, doctors and patients (health care), you and all the trucks and peoples necessary for an economic system to work efficiently.
Is what I can't stand about people "I don't wanna pay for this but I would pay for that". They don't realize how some of the things might indirectly affect in the present and even less in the future (even directly). Not to speak the lack of empathy. Social system countries had been improving over the years if decently funded through taxes. Some of the services you will use them, some not.
Some people will use more, some people will use less. Don't be a non empathetic cnut
Some people will abuse the system. News to you, no system is perfect. And being true, most of the society does not abuse it and when it does, is corrected
Did you watch Panorama this week? It would seem not as your Thatcherite views on spending suggest ignorance of the highest level.
I'd pay less for roads because the money is spent awfully. Instead of resurfacing they constantly patch, which is a ridiculous false economy. They also pay the lowest cost to resurface because they don't pay an extra few for them to bee done quickly, which is a false economy as the commercial impact is far greater than the extra cost. I'd contribute to roads if the decision makers weren't commercially illiterate idiots.
As a business owner I'd privatise the roads. Pay for what you use and they roads would be immaculate as otherwise they'd lose the business. The M6 toll road is the best road on the road, because the profits are reinvested instead of squandered.
Address the point rather than making ideological platitudes. The primary point being: how are we paying for this pyramid/ponzi scheme?
I'm more of a Singapore and pre-Chinese involved Hong Kong man myself (but no did not see it). Happy to debate any point you think I would disagree with that was "ignorant".
If you want to have a greater insight into some of my views (not all) I'd suggest watching Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman videos on YouTube.
Last edited:
You don't pay less for crappy things that needs to be improved. You protest/vote to use the money wisely. Yes, make workers on minimum wage to make them pay direct taxes. Super smart in an economy. Business owners should pay for this roads that are used for their wares, also for their workers as they use them as resource. The same. they should pay for education as their resources comes ready for productions thanks to the education system. Also healthcare.
No one in their right mind would use a road daily if it is not for going to work. So as a consequence, private business should pay for it, not the workers.
Is not ideology, are facts. Business should pay for public expenditure in everything that is used for their benefit. 99% would not study engineering, IT, professional studies if it would not be to be dedicated to the private business most of the times. Money that private business spends on paying the fees for ports, ariports and specially roads don't cover all the benefits than private companies extract from public investment on them.
Whithout any kind of production, many of university grades will not exist as they aim to produce, the same of infrastructures. So if businesses wants to use them, they have to pay. Much more that what they are paying. Specially looking at the raising inequality
How to pay for this NON ponzi schemne. Pay your fecking taxes and make the government to use wisely instead of lobbying to benefit only the private companies
Maybe We should have an annual referendum type vote to decide how our taxes are spent? What could possibly go wrong.
I vote for a pomzi scheme
This is why democracy doesn't work in the current form. It caters to short term idiotic vote winning platitudes like "£350m a week" or "free student fees and all debt wiped out". When I give my staff a pay rise it's because it's sustainable long term. If my business barely breaks even the previous year, I get paid minimum wage and my staff have no pay rises. If we do well they get pay rises and I get a dividend.
If my business' turnover stays identical (with inflation) my salary stays the same and my staff get no pay rise, our business doesn't collapse! If the economy grows 1%, every single government department demands a 5% increase and because of short term political pressure some will get it (NHS/securities particularly).
If I ran a vote every year on staff pay rises every single one would tick the maximum box. What they don't realise is by doing that they are literally voting for themselves to be unemployed.
What you don't get is that business owners merely pass costs into the consumer. You ask me to pay a £20 minimum wage, that's fantastic... I increase the price of my products by a correlating x% and everyone celebrating more money suddenly pays much more for everything they want to buy.
If someone said I pay 35% corporation tax tomorrow I'd put my prices up as would all my competitiors. I still need to earn my £x salary and also need to declare a £x dividend. You add £250k to my CT bill, I add the same net value to my product prices and my competitors all do the same.
If you read my previous post or understood the issue in question... That a ponzi/pyramid scheme has no bearing on tax, money or peoples willingness to contribute or otherwise. This kind of scheme is destined to fail irrespective of ethics, morals, finance or willpower. It's predisposed on there being an everlasting source of young tax earners to pay for the aging population.
5m elderly people getting paid for by 10m youngsters is great. But what happens when those 10m youngsters become elderley? You need 20m youngsters to pay for them. When they're elderly you need 40m to pay for them, then 80m, then 160m, then 320m.
Do you believe that the only problem with that business model is the willingness of people to pay taxes?
Last edited:
Well yeah, but the problem is that roads are an inherently difficult area in which to create competition, are they not? The government may not do a great job on them but there's at least an incentive not to feck up because if you do then people can kick you out. If a private company fecks up a road then people still need to make that road, and even if the government then intervene to solve the problem it's not something that goes away automatically.
Your assumption here again is that because there's a profit incentive private business automatically get it right. Which isn't always the case. There's still plenty of gross incompetence and negligence and there are often plenty of feck ups. Plenty of private companies squander their own profits and rarely do the ones responsible for making those decisions ever actually find themselves held accountable.
Right. How on Earth would this work?
Firstly, road choices don't operate on free market principles. They are literally physical paths between locations. They are needed to allow people to travel between destinations.
What happens if a single business monopolises a particular area? How is that policed? What exactly do you do if the road still isn't well maintained but there's no option? I assume the government bails out "National Roads" due to the inherent unprofitability of maintaining an entire countries road network as occurs on the train network? Do we only privatise the profitable roads?What if you live in a rural area, or is that the stupid fault of the people who live there? Etc, etc.
A country cannot be run on the same principles as a business. The country is not a business, and, thankfully, is not yet entirely run in that manner. Nor are the finances of a country remotely comparable to household income and expenditure management.
The general answer you tend to get in regards to this sort of stuff is that people can use alternative methods of transport, but then that ignores the chaos that would cause - if trains are a shambles and are left to private enterprises without even the possibility that the government may intervene if necessary, then it would quite clearly be unpractical both environmentally and spatially for people to just stop using trains and drive instead.