Join the Labour Party and save your country!

pinno

I have, read the link.

You expect us to read your links...

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

I have, read the link.

You expect us to read your links...

A 31 page theoretical paper on the issues with neo liberalism by an academic from the 'faculty of social sciences' from the Open University? Bound to be politically unbiased and with an extensive real world business experience...

And you expect me to read it all? :roll: My link was a 2 page Telegraph article and the relvant 'bar' parable was on one page.

Actually, he gives his bias away in the title - anyone who uses the phrase 'neo-liberalism' regularly is usually a leftie. This forum is evidence enough

Stevo_666

And in the mean time, donations to Corbyns labour dry up - what a surprise:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12190512/Labours-biggest-donors-abandon-party-and-pump-140k-into-leadership-challengers.html

With one donor saying:
“I am not giving money at the moment because I think his economic policies are completely illiterate, they just don’t add up,”

“I am Labour Party to my roots and will get involved again as soon as the party is presenting what I would regard as a coherent platform but sadly that isn’t now.”

Trouble is brewing in leftie la-la land...

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

They incentivise pension savings so that people are not a burden on the state in their old age. The lowering of the lifetime limit to one million would give a married man an annual income of circa £40,000pa. This policy will, over time, will greatly reduce the cost of pension contribution tax relief.

£1 million? Greatly? The average UK pension pot as of last year was £53,000.
Back to the great, and getting greater, divide......

So do you think that removing the tax incentives for people to save via their pensions is going to increase or decrease the average pension pot?

Setting a limit of £500k would still be 10x the average, so little difference.

Why set it at 10x the average? Why not set it at a level that ensures they will need no state support. Interestingly the bulk of people who will clobbered by this are public sector time servers.

And as for variable rates of relief - how would you administer that (genuine question)

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Why should your own personal choice to save money be subsidised to the tune of 40% ? its got nothing to do with rates of income tax, as well you should know.

As mentioned above, those who contribute the most get the biggest benefit from any tax cut - simple maths. It's like moaning that people who pend more in the shops benefit more from the sales. And as also mentioned above, incentivising pension saving and future financial self reliance is important. The size of the average pension pot that PBlakeney mentioned shows why the incentive needs to be kept.

we are now going to get another round of austerity... fan fcukung tastic, his policies are not working are they.

If they are raising other taxes, stop moaning. You make various statement above about cuts as if they are fact without backing them up. It takes a long time to sort out the damage done by Labours policies.[/quote]

You havent addressed him taking money from handicapped people... why is that?

Also, pension tax relief... you are assuming that those very people would not save for the retirement otherwise and would spend all their money and live off the SP, i dont think so, i would, regardless of the freebie that is pension tax relief,
do you know how much this relief costs the state? in total £50billion, thats alot of state spending isnt it? more than the state spends on defence... and a large portion of that goes to well off people.

look at it like this, cut pension tax relief by 25% and we d end austerity and as i said, people would still save for their retirement, just as 20% tax payers do.

of course like ISA s pension tax relief can work but my contention is that if cuts need to be made, then those should fall on the broadest shoulders and i (and you) can easily afford to have little less in our pension pots if it means those that, like my friend who recnetly died of MD, can live a dignified life, without having the stress of financial cuts in order that the wealthy can have a bit more.
thats all steve0 no politics, just what is morally right.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Why should your own personal choice to save money be subsidised to the tune of 40% ? its got nothing to do with rates of income tax, as well you should know.

As mentioned above, those who contribute the most get the biggest benefit from any tax cut - simple maths. It's like moaning that people who pend more in the shops benefit more from the sales. And as also mentioned above, incentivising pension saving and future financial self reliance is important. The size of the average pension pot that PBlakeney mentioned shows why the incentive needs to be kept.

we are now going to get another round of austerity... fan fcukung tastic, his policies are not working are they.

If they are raising other taxes, stop moaning. You make various statement above about cuts as if they are fact without backing them up. It takes a long time to sort out the damage done by Labours policies.

You havent addressed him taking money from handicapped people... why is that?

Also, pension tax relief... you are assuming that those very people would not save for the retirement otherwise and would spend all their money and live off the SP, i dont think so, i would, regardless of the freebie that is pension tax relief,
do you know how much this relief costs the state? in total £50billion, thats alot of state spending isnt it? more than the state spends on defence... and a large portion of that goes to well off people.

look at it like this, cut pension tax relief by 25% and we d end austerity and as i said, people would still save for their retirement, just as 20% tax payers do.

of course like ISA s pension tax relief can work but my contention is that if cuts need to be made, then those should fall on the broadest shoulders and i (and you) can easily afford to have little less in our pension pots if it means those that, like my friend who recnetly died of MD, can live a dignified life, without having the stress of financial cuts in order that the wealthy can have a bit more.
thats all steve0 no politics, just what is morally right.[/quote]

That £50bn is a windy number... It could be as low as £22bn but £34bn seems a credible number. Changes already in the pipeline will make bid savings so beware of double counting.

Btw - annual interest payments are £46bn a year

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

They incentivise pension savings so that people are not a burden on the state in their old age. The lowering of the lifetime limit to one million would give a married man an annual income of circa £40,000pa. This policy will, over time, will greatly reduce the cost of pension contribution tax relief.

£1 million? Greatly? The average UK pension pot as of last year was £53,000.
Back to the great, and getting greater, divide......

So do you think that removing the tax incentives for people to save via their pensions is going to increase or decrease the average pension pot?

Setting a limit of £500k would still be 10x the average, so little difference.

That doesn't answer my question.

I answered that reducing the limit would have little difference to the average.
Your question was about removing the incentives completely? I didn't suggest that and don't agree with it.

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why set it at 10x the average? Why not set it at a level that ensures they will need no state support. Interestingly the bulk of people who will clobbered by this are public sector time servers.

And as for variable rates of relief - how would you administer that (genuine question)

A random figure where the majority would still be encouraged to save, while the wealthy can benefit, but only so far.
How would I administer things? I haven't enough data for a full conclusion, but I agree with the way the limits are going as said by Stevo.

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

That £50bn is a windy number... It could be as low as £22bn but £34bn seems a credible number. Changes already in the pipeline will make bid savings so beware of double counting.

Btw - annual interest payments are £46bn a year

no its not, direct cost is 35bn, add in other relief on early payments etc and the figure is 50bn, HMRC figures, up considerably since the early 2000's.

interest payments might well be very high but its irrelevant to my argument that we should nt be taking money from handicapped people so 40% tax payers like me & Steve0, add a little extra toward their retirement.

we could leave disability payments as they are, reduce pensions tax relief and use the money to reduce these hi interest payments? or as is widely predicted, take money from disabled people and use it to give tax cuts to working able bodied people, i hope Osbourne will chose the former.

Stevo_666

Higher rate tax relief on pensions is approx £7bn per year. The higher numbers incluse all the other effect, i.e. relief for basic rate and non-taxpayer, tax free lump sums, employers NIC reductions and relief on pension fund income.

Frank the tank

I refer you all to the title of the OP.................Join the labour party save you country...............and dont vote f**king tory!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

You havent addressed him taking money from handicapped people... why is that?

Also, pension tax relief... you are assuming that those very people would not save for the retirement otherwise and would spend all their money and live off the SP, i dont think so, i would, regardless of the freebie that is pension tax relief,
do you know how much this relief costs the state? in total £50billion, thats alot of state spending isnt it? more than the state spends on defence... and a large portion of that goes to well off people.

look at it like this, cut pension tax relief by 25% and we d end austerity and as i said, people would still save for their retirement, just as 20% tax payers do.

of course like ISA s pension tax relief can work but my contention is that if cuts need to be made, then those should fall on the broadest shoulders and i (and you) can easily afford to have little less in our pension pots if it means those that, like my friend who recnetly died of MD, can live a dignified life, without having the stress of financial cuts in order that the wealthy can have a bit more.
thats all steve0 no politics, just what is morally right.

Why do you keep talking about cuts to handicapped funding when it is a separate issue. Diversionary tactics by you? I have no way of knowing whether payments to the handicapped are about right, too high or too low so can't comment. All I have is anecdotal evidence.

See my post above about the numbers. The impact of higher rate relief is much lower than you are implying - it is around £7bn pa.

If we are going to get moral, I've already stated my case. If you work hard, you do well, then you should get to keep most of it. Without that how can anyone be expected to work hard - at either end of the income scale. I work bloody hard for my own financial security and to give my family the best I can. I already contribute plenty to the state and I'm not going to let a bunch of self righteous, deluded (and sometimes jealous/spiteful) lefties take even more off me to spray around at whoever they think is a deserving recipient of my hard earned. They can **** right off and I don't care what you think of that.

Garry H

You're p1ss1ng in the wind mate. People don't like facts getting in the way of their own ideology.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

You havent addressed him taking money from handicapped people... why is that?

Also, pension tax relief... you are assuming that those very people would not save for the retirement otherwise and would spend all their money and live off the SP, i dont think so, i would, regardless of the freebie that is pension tax relief,
do you know how much this relief costs the state? in total £50billion, thats alot of state spending isnt it? more than the state spends on defence... and a large portion of that goes to well off people.

look at it like this, cut pension tax relief by 25% and we d end austerity and as i said, people would still save for their retirement, just as 20% tax payers do.

of course like ISA s pension tax relief can work but my contention is that if cuts need to be made, then those should fall on the broadest shoulders and i (and you) can easily afford to have little less in our pension pots if it means those that, like my friend who recnetly died of MD, can live a dignified life, without having the stress of financial cuts in order that the wealthy can have a bit more.
thats all steve0 no politics, just what is morally right.

Why do you keep talking about cuts to handicapped funding when it is a separate issue. Diversionary tactics by you? I have no way of knowing whether payments to the handicapped are about right, too high or too low so can't comment. All I have is anecdotal evidence.

See my post above about the numbers. The impact of higher rate relief is much lower than you are implying - it is around £7bn pa.

If we are going to get moral, I've already stated my case. If you work hard, you do well, then you should get to keep most of it. Without that how can anyone be expected to work hard - at either end of the income scale. I work bloody hard for my own financial security and to give my family the best I can. I already contribute plenty to the state and I'm not going to let a bunch of self righteous, deluded (and sometimes jealous/spiteful) lefties take even more off me to spray around at whoever they think is a deserving recipient of my hard earned. They can **** right off and I don't care what you think of that.

Yes steve0 says it all, take from the poor and give to you, by ur argument you d pay no tax because that is good for you, do I care what u think? No I don't you mean less than nothing to me, but maybe one day you ll need the safety net of the state and find it s not there.
You r everything I dislike about the right wing.... But it is fun seeing you write crap when ur on the vino

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I have, read the link.

You expect us to read your links...

A 31 page theoretical paper on the issues with neo liberalism by an academic from the 'faculty of social sciences' from the Open University? Bound to be politically unbiased and with an extensive real world business experience...

And you expect me to read it all? :roll: My link was a 2 page Telegraph article and the relvant 'bar' parable was on one page.

Actually, he gives his bias away in the title - anyone who uses the phrase 'neo-liberalism' regularly is usually a leftie. This forum is evidence enough

'Neo-Liberalism', 'Neo-Conservatism', 'Centrist' are all widely excepted terms. If you want to come up with your own political theory, carry on.
The notion of the Proliferation of Bureaucracy under neo-liberal governments was a term coined by the great Naom Chomski. Now if you think you have a better intellect or standing than him, then it is high time you produce a paper and publish it.
You expect us to read articles that back your theories but are too learned to expect to read anything that criticises right wing policy. Hmm...
Maybe you are worried that an academic piece such as the one quoted may have some substance, god forbid.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

You havent addressed him taking money from handicapped people... why is that?

Also, pension tax relief... you are assuming that those very people would not save for the retirement otherwise and would spend all their money and live off the SP, i dont think so, i would, regardless of the freebie that is pension tax relief,
do you know how much this relief costs the state? in total £50billion, thats alot of state spending isnt it? more than the state spends on defence... and a large portion of that goes to well off people.

look at it like this, cut pension tax relief by 25% and we d end austerity and as i said, people would still save for their retirement, just as 20% tax payers do.

of course like ISA s pension tax relief can work but my contention is that if cuts need to be made, then those should fall on the broadest shoulders and i (and you) can easily afford to have little less in our pension pots if it means those that, like my friend who recnetly died of MD, can live a dignified life, without having the stress of financial cuts in order that the wealthy can have a bit more.
thats all steve0 no politics, just what is morally right.

Why do you keep talking about cuts to handicapped funding when it is a separate issue. Diversionary tactics by you? I have no way of knowing whether payments to the handicapped are about right, too high or too low so can't comment. All I have is anecdotal evidence.

See my post above about the numbers. The impact of higher rate relief is much lower than you are implying - it is around £7bn pa.

If we are going to get moral, I've already stated my case. If you work hard, you do well, then you should get to keep most of it. Without that how can anyone be expected to work hard - at either end of the income scale. I work bloody hard for my own financial security and to give my family the best I can. I already contribute plenty to the state and I'm not going to let a bunch of self righteous, deluded (and sometimes jealous/spiteful) lefties take even more off me to spray around at whoever they think is a deserving recipient of my hard earned. They can **** right off and I don't care what you think of that.

Yes steve0 says it all, take from the poor and give to you, by ur argument you d pay no tax because that is good for you, do I care what u think? No I don't you mean less than nothing to me, but maybe one day you ll need the safety net of the state and find it s not there.
You r everything I dislike about the right wing.... But it is fun seeing you write crap when ur on the vino

I was 100% sober - just annoying that no matter how much tax you pay there is always someone like you who says that we need to pay more - it has been going on for ages and at some point you need to say enough is enough. Never said no tax - but how much can be milked out of people has its limits - probably one of the reasons why the tories are in power? If you think the natural human reaction to look after yourself and your family is something to dislike then so be it. Genuine cases of people in need should be supported but also true that charity begins at home.

And fyi I am planning my finances so that I should never have to rely on the state. Or at least that I have minimised that probability.

I only said that I did not care what you think about that particular view of mine - it was not a blanket statement about your views. Of the people on here you at least are willing to get stuck into a decent debate even if you are wrong most of the time

I have said it before that often the best way to raise more money is by providing a business friendly environment with reasonably low taxes on wealth creators and then the investment and jobs flow from that. Counter intuitive maybe. I recently gave an example where cutting the top income tax rate from 50% to 45% yielded £8billion in extra tax take. Sometimes tax rises are not the answer. Actually make that usually...

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I have, read the link.

You expect us to read your links...

A 31 page theoretical paper on the issues with neo liberalism by an academic from the 'faculty of social sciences' from the Open University? Bound to be politically unbiased and with an extensive real world business experience...

And you expect me to read it all? :roll: My link was a 2 page Telegraph article and the relvant 'bar' parable was on one page.

Actually, he gives his bias away in the title - anyone who uses the phrase 'neo-liberalism' regularly is usually a leftie. This forum is evidence enough

'Neo-Liberalism', 'Neo-Conservatism', 'Centrist' are all widely excepted terms. If you want to come up with your own political theory, carry on.
The notion of the Proliferation of Bureaucracy under neo-liberal governments was a term coined by the great Naom Chomski. Now if you think you have a better intellect or standing than him, then it is high time you produce a paper and publish it.
You expect us to read articles that back your theories but are too learned to expect to read anything that criticises right wing policy. Hmm...
Maybe you are worried that an academic piece such as the one quoted may have some substance, god forbid.

OK, hands up who on here has read the full article in the link? Apart from Pinno that is...and before I asked this question.

Don't all shout at once

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I have, read the link.

You expect us to read your links...

A 31 page theoretical paper on the issues with neo liberalism by an academic from the 'faculty of social sciences' from the Open University? Bound to be politically unbiased and with an extensive real world business experience...

And you expect me to read it all? :roll: My link was a 2 page Telegraph article and the relvant 'bar' parable was on one page.

Actually, he gives his bias away in the title - anyone who uses the phrase 'neo-liberalism' regularly is usually a leftie. This forum is evidence enough

'Neo-Liberalism', 'Neo-Conservatism', 'Centrist' are all widely excepted terms. If you want to come up with your own political theory, carry on.
The notion of the Proliferation of Bureaucracy under neo-liberal governments was a term coined by the great Naom Chomski. Now if you think you have a better intellect or standing than him, then it is high time you produce a paper and publish it.
You expect us to read articles that back your theories but are too learned to expect to read anything that criticises right wing policy. Hmm...
Maybe you are worried that an academic piece such as the one quoted may have some substance, god forbid.

OK, hands up who on here has read the full article in the link? Apart from Pinno that is...and before I asked this question.

Don't all shout at once

Poor deflection.

Stevo_666

Did you read it all? That will be one then...if you have?

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Did you read it all? That will be one then...if you have?

The issue was about the term 'Neo-Liberalism', so stop passing the ball around.

I'll buy this book for your Christmas present:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Profit-Over-Peo ... am+chomsky

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Did you read it all? That will be one then...if you have?

The issue was about the term 'Neo-Liberalism', so stop passing the ball around.

I'll buy this book for your Christmas present:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Profit-Over-Peo ... am+chomsky

I know what it means - I can use google. But I'm too busy too read 31 pages of the stuff just to keep you happy :roll:

Neo-liberalism, aka capitalism yep that thing that generates and increases wealth for most nations (see previous link by Bompington unless you're too lazy)...and is the system of choice because, well it's the best of the available systems. Shock exclusive coming up soon?

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Did you read it all? That will be one then...if you have?

The issue was about the term 'Neo-Liberalism', so stop passing the ball around.

I'll buy this book for your Christmas present:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Profit-Over-Peo ... am+chomsky

I know what it means - I can use google. But I'm too busy too read 31 pages of the stuff just to keep you happy :roll:

Neo-liberalism, aka capitalism yep that thing that generates and increases wealth for most nations (see previous link by Bompington unless you're too lazy)...and is the system of choice because, well it's the best of the available systems. Shock exclusive coming up soon?

Firstly (and i'm fed up repeating myself ad nauseum) I have nothing against Capitalism. I am against the inequalities that it throws up and some inherent flaws which are almost always obscured by the notion of individualism and free choice. Neo-Liberalism is defined as such:

Neoliberalism is an approach to economics and social studies in which control of economic factors is shifted from the public sector to the private sector.

So why are you so worried about the term Neo-Liberalism, without even actually knowing what it means?

Secondly, the whole concept of 'freedom' and 'choice' is often a misnomer. Promoting the idea that the individual can rise up from the gutters and be a millionaire - but... and there is a big but: Capitalism relies on the infinite growth, infinite resources and cheap labour. Without the armies of minions globally, the individual armed with money and infinite choice would be nothing.
Capitalism traps millions of people worldwide into a life cycle of poverty. 7 year old's in India making clay bricks, inhaling smoke all day, growing up as cripples and not getting an education to the sweatshops of Brazil where there are little boys addicted to the glue they put on the pairs of Adidas trainers they assemble for a paltry sum.
MOST of the worlds population live in poverty. Dire poverty. Do not bother bringing notions of poverty being relative because moral relativism is flawed (Rachels - the elements of Moral Philosophy - I have read it and I have read Naom Chomski BTW). It is only by virtue of the fact that what happens in the 3rd and developing world we can enjoy the trappings of materialism in the first world. So our wealth comes at a price.

The common denominator: Capitalism. True, overall standards of living has risen but there are still approx. 3bn living in poverty.
In your case, you are almost totally blind to any other viewpoint, you cannot accept any flaws in the capitalistic system or any criticism before banging on about some extreme alternative, to which I (and many others) have never preached or endorsed.
The problem I have with your perspective is that it never allows for any one else's perspective and is uni-dimensional. You have been bought, hook, line and sinker by the 'wealth creates wealth' ethic, the 'trickle down effect' and you continually dismiss or fail to accept that both theories have their flaws.
There is not a cats chance in hell that you will accept that the banking system has failed us and therefore should be at the centre of fixing the problems they caused , there is inequality in the UK, there are people earning silly money at the expense of others because it would question what you do for a living and your whole raison d'etre.
You have a good understanding of all the facts and figures and the way taxation works in the UK, you say it is predominantly fair but you spend your life helping various organisations pay as little tax as possible within the legal loopholes available. isn't that somewhat hypocritical?
I just hope that one morning, you don't wake up and start thinking.

Stevo_666

I see where you are coming from, but you are wrong, probably because you have bought into the anti-capitalist rhetoric perpetuating the myth that capitalism increases inequality when in reality is is reducing it - in a big way.

Have a read here, it is quite short. Then you think again...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/what-oxfam-doesnt-want-you-to-know-global-capitalism-means-theres-less-poverty-than-ever/

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

I see where you are coming from, but you are wrong, probably because you have bought into the anti-capitalist rhetoric perpetuating the myth that capitalism increases inequality when in reality is is reducing it - in a big way.

Have a read here, it is quite short. Then you think again...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/what-oxfam-doesnt-want-you-to-know-global-capitalism-means-theres-less-poverty-than-ever/

To use your rhetoric against you - it is the Spectator.

I have my own reservations about a number of International charities, particularly Christian Aid but that is a different argument.

When is it going to sink in - I AM NOT ANTI-CAPITALIST. Stop falling back on that mantra.

pblakeney

"The first Millennium Development Goal is to eradicate extreme poverty (halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015). Here's how the proportion of people in developing countries living on less than $1.25 a day."
Ah, that's sorted then. Do without food for 2 days and celebrate with a Costa espresso.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I see where you are coming from, but you are wrong, probably because you have bought into the anti-capitalist rhetoric perpetuating the myth that capitalism increases inequality when in reality is is reducing it - in a big way.

Have a read here, it is quite short. Then you think again...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/what-oxfam-doesnt-want-you-to-know-global-capitalism-means-theres-less-poverty-than-ever/

To use your rhetoric against you - it is the Spectator.

I have my own reservations about a number of International charities, particularly Christian Aid but that is a different argument.

When is it going to sink in - I AM NOT ANTI-CAPITALIST. Stop falling back on that mantra.

I was addressimg the paragraph where you point out 'dire poverty'.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I see where you are coming from, but you are wrong, probably because you have bought into the anti-capitalist rhetoric perpetuating the myth that capitalism increases inequality when in reality is is reducing it - in a big way.

Have a read here, it is quite short. Then you think again...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/what-oxfam-doesnt-want-you-to-know-global-capitalism-means-theres-less-poverty-than-ever/

To use your rhetoric against you - it is the Spectator.

I have my own reservations about a number of International charities, particularly Christian Aid but that is a different argument.

When is it going to sink in - I AM NOT ANTI-CAPITALIST. Stop falling back on that mantra.

I was addressimg the paragraph where you point out 'dire poverty'.

...and you failed.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

I see where you are coming from, but you are wrong, probably because you have bought into the anti-capitalist rhetoric perpetuating the myth that capitalism increases inequality when in reality is is reducing it - in a big way.

Have a read here, it is quite short. Then you think again...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/what-oxfam-doesnt-want-you-to-know-global-capitalism-means-theres-less-poverty-than-ever/

yep no doubt capitalism has reduced poverty, for many people, however, it also leaves large numbers behind and we arent all equal, cant all get on our bikes and we all need people to do the jobs we dont want to do, cleaners, care workers etc and then there is how the current tory party sees the disadvantaged as some sort of cash cow - as i ve said to you before, how can it be right to cut disability benefits and yet refuse to do anything about pension tax relief (ok changes have taken place at the higher end) which is just a benefit for the well off who have cash to save for their retirement?

And in recent years, our (tory and labour) version of capitalism has drastically reduced the chances that kids bought up in poor households can better themselves, eg healthcare, education, cost of HE.

with most things in life, there is a balance, the tories could learn alot from more socialist thinkers and they in turn could benefit from capitalism, its not a either or.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I see where you are coming from, but you are wrong, probably because you have bought into the anti-capitalist rhetoric perpetuating the myth that capitalism increases inequality when in reality is is reducing it - in a big way.

Have a read here, it is quite short. Then you think again...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/what-oxfam-doesnt-want-you-to-know-global-capitalism-means-theres-less-poverty-than-ever/

To use your rhetoric against you - it is the Spectator.

I have my own reservations about a number of International charities, particularly Christian Aid but that is a different argument.

When is it going to sink in - I AM NOT ANTI-CAPITALIST. Stop falling back on that mantra.

I was addressimg the paragraph where you point out 'dire poverty'.

...and you failed.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I see where you are coming from, but you are wrong, probably because you have bought into the anti-capitalist rhetoric perpetuating the myth that capitalism increases inequality when in reality is is reducing it - in a big way.

Have a read here, it is quite short. Then you think again...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/what-oxfam-doesnt-want-you-to-know-global-capitalism-means-theres-less-poverty-than-ever/

To use your rhetoric against you - it is the Spectator.

I have my own reservations about a number of International charities, particularly Christian Aid but that is a different argument.

When is it going to sink in - I AM NOT ANTI-CAPITALIST. Stop falling back on that mantra.

I was addressimg the paragraph where you point out 'dire poverty'.

...and you failed.

No, I addressed it. Whether you understood it or even read the facts in the link is another matter.

Edit: ignore the post above this one with no comment. Bloody phone.