Got a spare €400m ?

nathancom

PBlakeney wrote:

I think that people's points are being lost within their arguments.

Mr, VTech think that there should be no poverty in the UK given the systems put in place.

Mr. Nathancom thinks that poverty does indeed exist within the UK.

You are both correct.

Now, how do we fix it?

No, you are only right if Vtech didn't actually say "no one in Britain knows....true poverty". That is a remarkably flippant remark from someone who has described the extent of his own personal wealth in detail. It must be so easy to imagine there in no poverty in UK whilst looking at your wine collection and personalised number plates.

bernithebiker

nathancom wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I think that people's points are being lost within their arguments.

Mr, VTech think that there should be no poverty in the UK given the systems put in place.

Mr. Nathancom thinks that poverty does indeed exist within the UK.

You are both correct.

Now, how do we fix it?

No, you are only right if Vtech didn't actually say "no one in Britain knows....true poverty". That is a remarkably flippant remark from someone who has described the extent of his own personal wealth in detail. It must be so easy to imagine there in no poverty in UK whilst looking at your wine collection and personalised number plates.

I think that's a bit unfair on Vtech. Clearly there is worse poverty in Somalia, Syria, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. then here. Apparently, people in the latter country eat grass to survive, and however bad it might be in Peckham, I've yet to see anyone munching on the lawn.....

mr_goo

One flaw with the track design for that abhorrent yacht. It doesn't appear to be wide enough to race Chaffinch Range Rovers around it. But on the bright side for Range Rover owners their does appear to be a disabled parking bay outside the casino.

pblakeney

bernithebiker wrote:

I think that's a bit unfair on Vtech. Clearly there is worse poverty in Somalia, Syria, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. then here. Apparently, people in the latter country eat grass to survive, and however bad it might be in Peckham, I've yet to see anyone munching on the lawn.....

Thank you.
I was about to type a similar response.

pinno

bernithebiker wrote:

nathancom wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I think that...

Mr, VTech thinks that there should be no poverty in the UK given the systems put in place.

Mr. Nathancom thinks...

Now, how do we fix it?

No, you are only right if Vtech didn't actually say "no one in Britain knows....true poverty". That is a remarkably flippant remark from someone who has described the extent of his own personal...

I think that's a bit unfair on Vtech. Clearly there is worse poverty in Somalia, Syria, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. then here. Apparently, people in the latter country eat grass to survive, and however bad it might be in Peckham, I've yet to see anyone munching on the lawn.....

I'm sure there a few people in Peckham who munch on lawns

'The Spirit level' - a bloody good read.

The way I see it is this. Organisations from BP to Starbucks are so big, they have more power than politicians. The current government are the elite for the elite and the opposition are too scared to really change fiscal policy and the taxation system so that there is a fairer distribution of wealth.
We live in a low wage/high cost economy. Income tax and most forms of taxation are regressive. The more you earn, the more you should pay. We should end tax havens, loopholes, evasion, the 'non-dom' status of individuals.
It is a flawed argument to say that if I tax the rich more, the wealth that they create will not filter downwards as much. It is a weak justification for employing clever accountants and not paying their due. The very people to whom the money should filter downwards, are the very people who have been squeezed to make those at the top rich.
Recently, Peter Stringfellow (like him or loathe him) offered the HMRC a substantial voluntary income tax contribution - they turned him down.

sloppyschleckonds

PBlakeney wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

I think that's a bit unfair on Vtech. Clearly there is worse poverty in Somalia, Syria, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. then here. Apparently, people in the latter country eat grass to survive, and however bad it might be in Peckham, I've yet to see anyone munching on the lawn.....

Thank you.
I was about to type a similar response.

They aren't first world countries.

pblakeney

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

I think that's a bit unfair on Vtech. Clearly there is worse poverty in Somalia, Syria, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. then here. Apparently, people in the latter country eat grass to survive, and however bad it might be in Peckham, I've yet to see anyone munching on the lawn.....

Thank you.
I was about to type a similar response.

They aren't first world countries.

So. Do they not count then?
True poverty is what was referred to. Those are places with true poverty.

If we are discussing relative poverty then everything is relative. Poverty, wealth, beliefs, morals, and everyone's response will be relative to their lives and any further discussion futile.

nathancom

PBlakeney wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

I think that's a bit unfair on Vtech. Clearly there is worse poverty in Somalia, Syria, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. then here. Apparently, people in the latter country eat grass to survive, and however bad it might be in Peckham, I've yet to see anyone munching on the lawn.....

Thank you.
I was about to type a similar response.

They aren't first world countries.

So. Do they not count then?
True poverty is what was referred to. Those are places with true poverty.

If we are discussing relative poverty then everything is relative. Poverty, wealth, beliefs, morals, and everyone's response will be relative to their lives and any further discussion futile.

Eh, just because there is someone out there that is worse off than you does not mean that you are not badly off. That is like saying your terminal cancer isn't as bad as his because he has 3 months left and you have 6 months. Quit whining already...

The concerted attempts by the Tories to attack the poor in the last 3 years have left us as a nation less sympathetic to the plight of those around us. Many of the lives being led in this country are ones marked by real poverty - I think there is some confusion here between famine and poverty.

A quote by a British Sociographer, Danny Dorling:

"people in different parts of Britain and people living within different quarters of its cities are living in different worlds with different norms and expectations. This was not the case a few decades ago. This is not the case to the same extent in the majority of affluent nations in the world."

Our ruling elites have effectively ghettoised the working class, turning it into a underclass that will work for less than a living wage and has neither the political knowledge or will to fight against this. However, I can't see this from my kitchen window so I guess it isn't happening.

bernithebiker

nathancom wrote:

I think there is some confusion here between famine and poverty.

Surely if you're too poor to eat then you're living in poverty?

nathancom

bernithebiker wrote:

nathancom wrote:

I think there is some confusion here between famine and poverty.

Surely if you're too poor to eat then you're living in poverty?

Yes, while a state of famine presupposes a state of poverty, the inverse is not true. There are large numbers in non Western countries who are also not at the risk of starvation but who are very much living lives of poverty.

bernithebiker

nathancom wrote:

There are large numbers in non Western countries who are also not at the risk of starvation but who are very much living lives of poverty.

I think we can all agree on that, but we have drifted away from the original point, which was that whilst there is 'poverty' in the UK, it is nothing like as severe as that encountered in some other countries.

VTech

@nathancom, I reckon I know a little more than you and your comments earlier are (i say again) terrible.
Your willingness to argue with me is making you look a fool.

In the UK, if your malnutrition you can walk into ANY hospital and they will feed you and make you better. Are you saying that this is true poverty ?
Other countries where poverty of the highest level exists they have nothing, mothers watch kids die as they have no food, this doesn't (shouldn't) happen in the UK and would only happen if people allowed it as anyone could take a sick or hungry child to the police station, hospital or many places and food will be on hand instantly.

Also your cancer comment was in very poor taste but I won't go there as you won't understand that anyway.

Finally, you mention that I spout on about personal wealth, I've no idea what your talking about, I simply buy what I want hoping that I can earn enough to pay for it and when my luck runs out I will hopefully look back and have enjoyed the ride.

We have one chance, I'm using mine the way I see fit.

steerpike

VTech wrote:

@nathancom, I reckon I know a little more than you and your comments earlier are (i say again) terrible.
Your willingness to argue with me is making you look a fool.

this is priceless stuff! VTech - please, please tell me that you're a parody/satire account??!

MattC59

Boys boys boys !

You're arguing amongst yourselves to what end. It's all point less as you've failed to take into account a very important point. Vtech talks utter horse sh!t.

(Apologies Mods, but facts are facts)

VTech

MattC59 wrote:

Boys boys boys !

You're arguing amongst yourselves to what end. It's all point less as you've failed to take into account a very important point. Vtech talks utter horse sh!t.

So you are saying we or people in the UK know true poverty ?

MattC59, I've met and dealt with people like you and nathancom and also the clingers on like steer pike and rarely do they amount to much. Spending too much time fighting with others in an attempt to make up for other failings and arguing points even thought others are laughing at them.

I find it quite funny as I write this as I know you are thinking the same of me as I am writing about you but the reality is that I know my flaws and can poke fun at them whilst you follow me to make yours

You argue with me yet with no substance, you won't reply to my question that you are inferring that i am talking horse sh[t about as you know I am 100% correct but you feel that by writing an opinion, others will somehow laugh and believe you and to some point you may be right but are them the kind of people you would want backing you up ?

As an employer or a friend I went people with true opinions, not followers trying to say what they think I want to hear. Like I said, I've met people like you.

ballysmate

I have skimmed through this thread and how predictable, a thread that turns into an attack on the rich and Vtech.
I agree that the yacht is vulgar and personalised plates mark you out as being a tosser but if it is your money, spend it as you see fit.
Just as predictable was the attack on those nasty Tories, but I didn't expect them to be given the blame or credit for how people think.We have had people labelled as morons because they don't share a posters stance and someone called for the super rich to be taken out back and shot. The compassionate left eh?
I have no trouble with how anyone spends their wealth as long as they came by it honestly.
Never ceases to amaze me how socialists always think they know how other people should spend their money.
I have stated on here before that everyone should shoulder their full tax burden and fully agree that loopholes should be closed. But aside from that, if you have it, spend it as you wish. I hold no envy for anyone wealthier than me, or anyone else for that matter. Good luck to you.

MattC59

VTech wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Boys boys boys !

You're arguing amongst yourselves to what end. It's all point less as you've failed to take into account a very important point. Vtech talks utter horse sh!t.

So you are saying we or people in the UK know true poverty ?
No, I'm saying that you talk utter horse sh!t.

MattC59, I've met and dealt with people like you and nathancom and also the clingers on like steer pike and rarely do they amount to much. Spending too much time fighting with others in an attempt to make up for other failings and arguing points even thought others are laughing at them.
You're wrong, and clearly too stupid to see why, (hint, count up my posts where I'm fighting and get back to me)

I find it quite funny as I write this as I know you are thinking the same of me as I am writing about you but the reality is that I know my flaws and can poke fun at them whilst you follow me to make yours
No, I just think you're a sanctimonious idiot, where as you, and you have stated this in your posts, hate me. I have better things to do with my energy than hate someone who I find mildly irritating.

You argue with me yet with no substance, you won't reply to my question that you are inferring that i am talking horse sh[t about as you know I am 100% correct but you feel that by writing an opinion, others will somehow laugh and believe you and to some point you may be right but are them the kind of people you would want backing you up ?
I see no argument from me in this thread, and I haven't inferred that you're talking horse sh!t in this thread. I've stated that you talk horse sh!t, or bull sh!t as you may have heard it called in the past. That's not opinion, it's a fact backed up by a number of your posts, including this one.

As an employer or a friend I went people with true opinions, not followers trying to say what they think I want to hear. Like I said, I've met people like you.
No, you think you might have, I'm pretty sure that you haven't though.
Anyway, what does that first sentence have to do with me ? I don't believe I've said anything that I think that you want to hear.

Anyway Thrushy, the long and the short of it is, that we're going to have to agree to disagree, because you're wrong.

Stevo_666

This one was always going to morph into an Adam Smith institute vs bitter lefties slanging match. That said I don't reckon anyone is really clear what the hell this argument is about exactly - tax, poverty, conspicuous spending, capitalism v socialism?

Although I did drive through Peckham the other day and no-one was munching the lawn. TBH there weren't many lawns to munch there, so maybe Peckham is in poverty?

sloppyschleckonds

VTech wrote:

MattC59, I've met and dealt with people like you and nathancom and also the clingers on like steer pike and rarely do they amount to much.

That is just crass vtec.

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

I have skimmed through this thread and how predictable, a thread that turns into an attack on the rich, foxes and Vtech.
I agree that the yacht is vulgar and personalised plates mark you out as being a foxy lady but if it is your money, spend it as you see fit women in bra's.
Just as predictable was the attack on those nasty Tories, but I didn't expect them to be given the blame or credit for how people stink.We have had people labelled as morons because they don't share a posters stance and someone called for the super rich and foxes to be taken out back and shot. The compassionate left eh [who said anything about being compassionate?]
I have no trouble with how anyone spends their wealth as long as they give it to me honestly.
Never ceases to amaze me how socialists always think they know how other people should spend their money and I will go to the pound shop more often as Pinarello advised.
I have stated on here before that I should shoulder my full tax burden and fully agree that snare traps and fur coats should be stopped. But aside from that, if you have it, give it to me. I hold no envy for anyone wanting to live in Toad Hall with me, or anyone else for that matter. Good luck to you.

FTFY

verylonglegs

Without digging into this one too deeply am I the only one who finds it utterly bizarre to see foodbank donation shelves in supermarkets that turns billions of pounds of profits every year? They probably chuck away more food value than what's donated every week.
That's a nod too toward the is there poverty in UK argument, should foodbanks exist in any country that is supposed to have a functional benefits system? Something isn't right.

rolf_f

pinarello001 wrote:

Do not see why personal number plates are such a problem for some. I know a few people who have them. One is a nurse (grade f) who works in the MacMillan Unit in a hospital. She has dedicated her life to caring for the ill and terminally ill. She spent £22k on one. She is also gay and the plate always makes me smile.
My other friend owned a restaurant and cocktail bar called the L'Aperitif. After sale of the premises (property price downturn) and debts paid, he had little left over for years of hard work. His number plate YE52LAP, was the only real thing of value. You could not meet a more approachable man.
Up here it is common and I guess the culture daan saaf is different. Most people here see it as 'cool'. I see many cars from Ford Fiesta's to Citroen Saxo's with personal plates. I am totally indifferent to them

This is sort of my point. Like any generalisation, it is easy to come up with countless examples of, eg in this case, nice people who have personalised plates. But it doesn't stop me assuming that the owner of a car with a private plate is a dipstick. And most of the time I'm probably right. And therefore I can't help but see private plates as an expensive means of giving an initial bad impression.

I can agree to some degree with Vtech that poverty in this country is hardly equivalent to the poverty that is experienced in the third world. But of course, that doesn't mean that the misery that the truly poor in this country endure is any less. Poverty is a relative thing as well as an absolute. But the whole 'we shouldn't give aid to the third world when there are people starving in the UK' thing is something I find offensive.

VTech

MattC59 wrote:

VTech wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Boys boys boys !

You're arguing amongst yourselves to what end. It's all point less as you've failed to take into account a very important point. Vtech talks utter horse sh!t.

So you are saying we or people in the UK know true poverty ?
No, I'm saying that you talk utter horse sh!t.

MattC59, I've met and dealt with people like you and nathancom and also the clingers on like steer pike and rarely do they amount to much. Spending too much time fighting with others in an attempt to make up for other failings and arguing points even thought others are laughing at them.
You're wrong, and clearly too stupid to see why, (hint, count up my posts where I'm fighting and get back to me)

I find it quite funny as I write this as I know you are thinking the same of me as I am writing about you but the reality is that I know my flaws and can poke fun at them whilst you follow me to make yours
No, I just think you're a sanctimonious idiot, where as you, and you have stated this in your posts, hate me. I have better things to do with my energy than hate someone who I find mildly irritating.

You argue with me yet with no substance, you won't reply to my question that you are inferring that i am talking horse sh[t about as you know I am 100% correct but you feel that by writing an opinion, others will somehow laugh and believe you and to some point you may be right but are them the kind of people you would want backing you up ?
I see no argument from me in this thread, and I haven't inferred that you're talking horse sh!t in this thread. I've stated that you talk horse sh!t, or bull sh!t as you may have heard it called in the past. That's not opinion, it's a fact backed up by a number of your posts, including this one.

As an employer or a friend I went people with true opinions, not followers trying to say what they think I want to hear. Like I said, I've met people like you.
No, you think you might have, I'm pretty sure that you haven't though.
Anyway, what does that first sentence have to do with me ? I don't believe I've said anything that I think that you want to hear.

Anyway Thrushy, the long and the short of it is, that we're going to have to agree to disagree, because you're wrong.

No substance and your wrong on another count, I don't dislike you, why would I ?
I like you, like I like a clown at the circus.

@Rolf F, I am sure many, if not countless people suffer in this country, I don't want anyone to think that I would suggest otherwise. My comment was only made at those that would have us believe that true poverty exists here which is demeaning to the real people in real poverty where food can't be had no mater what they try or do.

@ et all, Im not sure how much further this will go but if you like what you have read, follow my posts and I am sure MatC59 will be along to turn into into the circus he loves and me and him with have our man love and start afresh.
I honestly don't know why he hasn't got the balls to ask me on a date.

pinno

VTech wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

VTech wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Boys boys boys !
Anyway Thrushy, the long and the short of it is, that we're going to have to agree to disagree, because you're wrong.

@ et all, Im not sure how much further this will go but if you like what you have read, follow my posts and I am sure MatC59 will be along to turn into into the circus he loves and me and him with have our man love and start afresh.
I honestly don't know why he hasn't got the balls to ask me on a date.

Oh go on Matt, you can't turn an offer like that down.

diplodicus

Not meaning to have a pop at you VTech, but I clicked on your strava link in your signature. More cycling and less posting is needed, I think :twisted:

d87francis

I have to second the suggestion for reading "The Spirit Level", it really makes the case for relative poverty and inequality having a far greater social impact than GDP etc. Regardless we still have shocking levels of abject poverty in Britain, not to blame you for not noticing, the media's only concentration on poverty in Britain is to deride them. Neo-liberalism and especially austerity is exacerbating such social apartheid that most who lead comfortable lives are entirely disconnected from those who suffer. If we can't get rid of capitalism let's at least head back towards a more social democratic, empirically, less ideologically, driven model. After all, even Greenspan admitted he got "free markets" wrong!

There's a TED talk by Richard Wilkinson, one of the authors of "The Spirit Level" here: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

VTech

diplodicus wrote:

Not meaning to have a pop at you VTech, but I clicked on your strava link in your signature. More cycling and less posting is needed, I think :twisted:

I'm actually cycling more than ever but the strava link causes me more trouble so never bothered to update it due to the type of cycling I've been doing.

ballysmate

There is a thread on here about poverty and relative poverty somewhere so this is a bit of déjà vu really.
People on here bemoan the inequality of wealth. It is true, there is inequality and always will be. They cite the super rich and claim,’It’s not fair!’ They think that the rich should somehow have money taken off them and given to the poor.
But it is relative isn’t it? The gulf between the wealth of posters on here and Sugar, Branson etc is huge, but so is the gulf between the poverty stricken and someone sat in a warm 3 bed semi typing on a keyboard. Should their wealth be equalised or do people only advocate wealth sharing for people with more money than themselves?
Why stop at the border, lets share our wealth with our third world brothers and make everyone equal, or do your principles stop before selling your homes to feed the starving?
If you could redistribute this countries wealth to make everyone equal, to the last pound, how long do you think it would take for the first millionaire to emerge? My guess is, not long. That is not just human nature, but nature itself, survival of the fittest.
Life isn’t always fair, people. You don’t always get what you deserve.
If you want financial equality, go live in a commune and start the day with a group hug.
Having said all that, I believe in a fair tax regime and a viable welfare system, to safeguard those who are unfortunate. Again, there are numerous threads, discussing what is a viable welfare system.
People like Vtech and the Kingpin of Scottish Recycling undoubtedly have more money than me, but I don’t cast envious glances at them.

VTech

@Ballysmate, You have made the best point in the thread. The problem isn't wealth that most here are moaning about. I doubt anyone here (that includes MattC59) are bad people and don't realise whats really going on. The issue as written is the unfairness of systems but I honestly "think" that with the tax loopholes which is a real issue of wealth we give people no option but to look.

You have a few sets of people.

Average income who think high earners should pay more than the 40% tax rate whilst they should pay less.
Medium income who pay a fair share .
High income earners who want to pay less.


The problem is, whilst we have the average earners making huge noises about how the rich should pay more, the MP's listen to them as they are the main voting group and the ones targeted in almost all mandates. They are in fact the ones causing almost all of the problems they want to eradicate.
I will explain.

Whilst I agree that low income earners should get benefits (I 100% agree that workers, even in the lowest paid jobs should have a salary they can afford to live on in comfort) I also strongly disagree that high earned should pay more tax.

Why should someone pay 58% here when they can use a loophole, completely legally and pay 10-20% ?????
We are squeezing them into making these "morally" wrong choices and in turn the money is lost from the system.
There is no need to charge more than 40% tax and I think that is too much.
If we came to an understanding that although not legally wrong, but hugely morally wrong we could all work together for a top cap of 30% for example and why would people need to bank abroad ?

We lose billions, YES BILLIONS a year of non-paid tax which mar ally belongs to the country but legally disappears.

Remember this, for every high earning tax payer looking to pay less tax, we have 20,000 low income earners looking to pay NO tax.

nathancom

Thank God you don't run the country.