Thatcher is dead

salsarider79

Thatcher did do some good things while in power. So did Hitler :roll:

I don't get how people cannot remember what she did to this country. Inflation hit 15% unemployment went to over 3million (not including those not counted for not claiming benefits, etc.) and how many houses were repossed and business went down the drain? My parents lost 2 houses because of that cow. One of those was when the morgage went from about £300 per month to nearly £800. I think my dad lost 4 jobs because of business' he was working for going bust.
Also funny to remember people complaining about British Rail. They did the job far better than any of the existing companies. And we didn't have to bail British Rail out.

Don't worry though, Tony Blair and Labours stupid PFI schemes to get schools and hospitals built, hasn't been forgotten. Far as I'm concerned, that cow taught the succeding govenments how to screw the system for there own means. You'll see several Labour councillors landing huge jobs with companies they've helped over the last 8 years or so. Wonder if some of them will be in the banking sector.

Rant over :evil:

cedargreen

The current financial crisis is a direct result of right-wing, free market policies started by Thatcher and continued by everyone else for fear of upsetting big business. Like extremists everywhere, her supporters claim her dismal policies failed because they weren't implemented thoroughly enough.
Anyone who thinks Thatcher was good for Britain will have to explain how the collapse of manufacturing, the squandering of North Sea oil and gas revenue and swivel-eyed imposition of market forces on public services has benefitted anyone except a useless corporate 'elite'.
I'd feel more sympathy for Thatcher if she had mellowed even a tiny bit, but her schmoozing with dictators like Pinochet and her failure to acknowledge that any of her policies might have been wrong means I will be celebrating her demise.
She might have been a strong leader, but so was Pol Pot.

cedargreen

salsarider79 wrote:

Thatcher did do some good things while in power. So did Hitler :roll:

You have invoked Godwin's law. And what were the good things he did?

Porgy

cedargreen wrote:

salsarider79 wrote:

Thatcher did do some good things while in power. So did Hitler :roll:

You have invoked Godwin's law. And what were the good things he did?

he killed himself

markwalker

Porgy wrote:

[

And Thatcher was a 2 eyed war-mongering lying prime minister - are you prejudiced against disabled people?

That one (brown) yes

[I'd love to hear how a flat tax on rich and poor alike was in any way fair. :? :roll:

This didnt replace income tax did it? The so called rich were and are already taxed more.

Porgy

markwalker wrote:

This didnt replace income tax did it? The so called rich were and are already taxed more.

I'm nudging into the higher rate of tax right now - and i think its fair enough that i should pay it. And when i was a penniless student and got hit with council tax i had no choice but to not pay....so I'm still wondering how a flat tax on all regardless of income is fair.

What's missing is a higher rate again for the highest earners...it means the rest of us pay far more than our fair share.

markwalker

Porgy wrote:

markwalker wrote:

This didnt replace income tax did it? The so called rich were and are already taxed more.

I'm nudging into the higher rate of tax right now - and i think its fair enough that i should pay it. And when i was a penniless student and got hit with council tax i had no choice but to not pay....so I'm still wondering how a flat tax on all regardless of income is fair.

What's missing is a higher rate again for the highest earners...it means the rest of us pay far more than our fair share.

perfectly fair, did you not use services in broadly equal measures to wealthier people? Did you pooh less? Were you a less valuable member of society? perhaps the poor should have been excused along with their vote? Perhaps the real answer would have been to get some peoples paid for them? such as students perhaps

Porgy

markwalker wrote:

did you not use services in broadly equal measures to wealthier people? Did you pooh less?

Probably not - no children - no car - no house - I don't see what pooing has to do with tax?

I had a student grant which just covered essentials - my education was state funded but then my parents had paid taxes allt heir life in expectation that their children would be educated.

Were you a less valuable member of society? perhaps the poor should have been excused along with their vote? Perhaps the real answer would have been to get some peoples paid for them? such as students perhaps

I couldn't pay becasue I didn;t have the money - seems silly for you to argue against that.

I've more than made up for it since I've been earning and happy to pay a bit more these days to make up for those who can't pay.

And yes- there is evidence that wealthy people get better services from the government and local authorities - more cars, better supported children, better education, health, etc. and better street services, etc. etc...just go and look around Bromley and compare that to Lambeth.

Since I've been earning more I've had a child and driven a car, relied on various council services - none of which I did particularly as a student...but then that's not really the point. The rich should pay more becasue they can afford more.

In reality - contrary to what you say - the rich in this country pay a smaller amount of tax than the poor beacuse of all the opportunities for creative accountancy and tax free beenfits only open to the rich.

markwalker

Porgy wrote:

markwalker wrote:

Porgy wrote:

markwalker wrote:

This didnt replace income tax did it? The so called rich were and are already taxed more.

I'm nudging into the higher rate of tax right now - and i think its fair enough that i should pay it. And when i was a penniless student and got hit with council tax i had no choice but to not pay....so I'm still wondering how a flat tax on all regardless of income is fair.

What's missing is a higher rate again for the highest earners...it means the rest of us pay far more than our fair share.

perfectly fair, did you not use services in broadly equal measures to wealthier people? Did you pooh less? Were you a less valuable member of society? perhaps the poor should have been excused along with their vote? Perhaps the real answer would have been to get some peoples paid for them? such as students perhaps

I couldn't pay becasue I didn;t have the money - seems silly for you to argue against that.

Im not really Im just saying that in theory it was fair, in practice it was very difficult for some members of society

Porgy

markwalker wrote:

Porgy wrote:

markwalker wrote:

Porgy wrote:

markwalker wrote:

This didnt replace income tax did it? The so called rich were and are already taxed more.

I'm nudging into the higher rate of tax right now - and i think its fair enough that i should pay it. And when i was a penniless student and got hit with council tax i had no choice but to not pay....so I'm still wondering how a flat tax on all regardless of income is fair.

What's missing is a higher rate again for the highest earners...it means the rest of us pay far more than our fair share.

perfectly fair, did you not use services in broadly equal measures to wealthier people? Did you pooh less? Were you a less valuable member of society? perhaps the poor should have been excused along with their vote? Perhaps the real answer would have been to get some peoples paid for them? such as students perhaps

I couldn't pay becasue I didn;t have the money - seems silly for you to argue against that.

Im not really Im just saying that in theory it was fair, in practice it was very difficult for some members of society

In theory it wasn't fair though - if you tax everyone £100 a month including people who earn only £100 a month and less then it's quite obviously not fair. At least it should be a percentage....and I would argue a higher percentage for the wealthy to make it progressive, so that those who do best out of society are forced to put something back.

A hundred pound is 10% of someone earning £1000 a month but only 1% of the income of someone on £10,000 a month. And yet the person with £10,000 a month income is more likely to live in a better part of town with better amenities, better hospitals and schools, less crime, better looked after streets, parks etc. and more likely to have multiple cars, etc.

btw - figures used are for illustrative purposes only.

markwalker

Porgy, Ill never agree with you on this.

Porgy

markwalker wrote:

Porgy, Ill never agree with you on this.

i'd be interested to know why though - i think i put my case fairly well so far - and i just can't see why you disagree with my logic.

I mean we can argue the toss about figures, and percentages, but surely a flat tax is inherently unfair. No?

alfablue

Poll tax? No, there was nothing fair about it, it was a regressive tax. The poor got poorer as the rich had their former rate bills cut to a fraction because of the subsidy provided by the poor. BTW the rich generally get rich on the back of cheap labour provided by the poor, and in Thatcher's Britain, there was, of course, no minimum wage. Those who wish we had the Thatcher years back need their sanity testing (or their memory).

Edit: The not so well hidden agenda for Thatcher was of course, once Labour Councils (predominantly in poor areas) impose this poll tax the hard hit poor will no longer vote for labour - Thatcher misjudged this badly (and defied the warnings of her own inner circle), and she got the blame, as appropriate.

markwalker

Porgy wrote:

markwalker wrote:

Porgy, Ill never agree with you on this.

i'd be interested to know why though - i think i put my case fairly well so far - and i just can't see why you disagree with my logic.

I mean we can argue the toss about figures, and percentages, but surely a flat tax is inherently unfair. No?

becaasue tey wernet taxed 100% and the social system kicked in for the lowest paid.

And it is fair.

As for Alpha Blues comments it sounds like bleeding heart views. Bless.

And in case he doubts it were not all born or created equal are we?

alfablue

markwalker wrote:

Porgy wrote:

markwalker wrote:

Porgy, Ill never agree with you on this.

i'd be interested to know why though - i think i put my case fairly well so far - and i just can't see why you disagree with my logic.

I mean we can argue the toss about figures, and percentages, but surely a flat tax is inherently unfair. No?

becaasue tey wernet taxed 100% and the social system kicked in for the lowest paid.

And it is fair.

As for Alpha Blues comments it sounds like bleeding heart views. Bless.

And in case he doubts it were not all born or created equal are we?

Bleeding heart views? I am so gobsmacked by the power of your argument Mark. Well done!

It is simple, and really this discussion may as well end. I accept that there are people who believe in "me first", greed, exploitation of others, low taxes (but want all the services just the same) etc, and those that don't. I don't like that there are such people, I would prefer that there was some social conscience, but hey, even when they fall ill, I, will care for them (even though they thought f*** all about anyone else). Part of life's rich tapestry I guess.

markwalker

alfablue wrote:

markwalker wrote:

Porgy wrote:

markwalker wrote:

Porgy, Ill never agree with you on this.

i'd be interested to know why though - i think i put my case fairly well so far - and i just can't see why you disagree with my logic.

I mean we can argue the toss about figures, and percentages, but surely a flat tax is inherently unfair. No?

becaasue tey wernet taxed 100% and the social system kicked in for the lowest paid.

And it is fair.

As for Alpha Blues comments it sounds like bleeding heart views. Bless.

And in case he doubts it were not all born or created equal are we?

Bleeding heart views? I am so gobsmacked by the power of your argument Mark. Well done!

It is simple, and really this discussion may as well end. I accept that there are people who believe in "me first", greed, exploitation of others, low taxes (but want all the services just the same) etc, and those that don't. I don't like that there are such people, I would prefer that there was some social conscience, but hey, even when they fall ill, I, will care for them (even though they thought f*** all about anyone else). Part of life's rich tapestry I guess.

Its notan argument its a statement.

alfablue

oh, a statement. From someone so wise and with such moral authority, I should be humbled!

Frank the tank

It makes me smile when people talk about this new labour government and imply that things would be better under the tories. One of the reasons this country is in the sh1t is because Blair is Thatchers b@st@rd son and picked up where Major left off. In other words we've really had 30years of tory rule albeit the last 12years or so the tory has had a red rosette on.

markwalker

alfablue wrote:

oh, a statement. From someone so wise and with such moral authority, I should be humbled!

you are

alfablue

I think not, somehow

markwalker

alfablue wrote:

I think not, somehow

ignorance is bliss

alfablue

Bliss is not being a greedy, selfish, tory twat with selective memory and the potential to criticise politicians on the basis of their disabilities. If that is intelligence, please spare me!

iainment

markwalker wrote:

alfablue wrote:

I think not, somehow

ignorance is bliss

and you should be comfortable in your bliss. As they say ignorance is bliss and you are certainly ignorant on this.

Pip pip.

Porgy

markwalker wrote:

Its notan argument its a statement.

At least I can say I tried to engage with you in debate - now your ignorance and arrogance is showing through. You know that you haven't got a leg to stand on - and therefore refuse to engage in a debate.

I'd be interested to know how old you are and a little about your personal background as you come across as a posh teenager - and i've met plenty of them - Dad owns a factory and they just end up parroting their parents' views. :roll:

markwalker

alfablue wrote:

Bliss is not being a greedy, selfish, tory fool with selective memory and the potential to criticise politicians on the basis of their disabilities. If that is intelligence, please spare me!

I critiscise him on his actions, his disability is just a feature like being fat or a labour supporter.

As it happens, his disability might be causing him to make mistakes, eg that inexcusable letter he wrote recently where he scrawled a note of condolance and couldnt even spell the guys name right

tebbit

Don't even put John Major and Tony Blair in the same class, the joke at the time was that Major was a plant by the Labour Party to run the country in disguise, a belief in a classless society, student grants, which I took advantage of. The joke backfired when we realised Tony Blair was actually a Tory plant.

As for the poll tax as a £75 a week apprentice, I paid 25% of the total when I became a £90 a week apprentice I paid full poll tax, suddenly being a student rather than apprentice started to appeal.

Seanos

markwalker wrote:

As it happens, his disability might be causing him to make mistakes, eg that inexcusable letter he wrote recently where he scrawled a note of condolance and couldnt even spell the guys name right

Do you know what irony is?

Or as you might put it, 'do you no waht ironee is'

balthazar

Porgy wrote:

markwalker wrote:

Porgy, Ill never agree with you on this.

i'd be interested to know why though - i think i put my case fairly well so far - and i just can't see why you disagree with my logic.

I mean we can argue the toss about figures, and percentages, but surely a flat tax is inherently unfair. No?

I agree: that you put your case well, and that markwalker hasn't made an equivalent case for flat taxation.

As an abstraction of his comments, I'd say he believes that services and other taxation expenditure has absolute value, and is a cost which must be directly covered by the individual. I agree with you that these costs should be scaled according to income, so they affect everybody equally, or close to. That's what our current system aspires to, or at least nods in the direction of.

I also support higher scale taxation for mega-earners, on a curve that aims toward 100%. I expect markwalker's eyes are bleeding now, or some gasket is threatening to burst.

markwalker

balthazar wrote:

Porgy wrote:

markwalker wrote:

Porgy, Ill never agree with you on this.

i'd be interested to know why though - i think i put my case fairly well so far - and i just can't see why you disagree with my logic.

I mean we can argue the toss about figures, and percentages, but surely a flat tax is inherently unfair. No?

I agree: that you put your case well, and that markwalker hasn't made an equivalent case for flat taxation.

As an abstraction of his comments, I'd say he believes that services and other taxation expenditure has absolute value, and is a cost which must be directly covered by the individual. I agree with you that these costs should be scaled according to income, so they affect everybody equally, or close to. That's what our current system aspires to, or at least nods in the direction of.

I also support higher scale taxation for mega-earners, on a curve that aims toward 100%. I expect markwalker's eyes are bleeding now, or some gasket is threatening to burst.

100% taxation? And at what point would that lkick in? More importantly which of our honourable MPS is appropriate for setting the level?.

Im not busting a gasket i just think its the most ridiculous statement ive heard for a long time. Do you subscribe to Communist ideolgy?

tebbit

100% taxation, right which planet are you on? You will never get a 100% of a portion of someone's income it is a disincentive, some tax increases are ok, the one that moght get rid of Tracy Emin sounds great to me. However too great a tax increase will be counter productive will have a detrimental effect on the economy.