|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 2, 2020 20:12:45 GMT
Tbf, you said yourself that it was a poor decision to sack the charity CEO, even though you had no evidence on what the blog contained. I haven't read the entire discussion, but surely your entire argument isn't based on: 'If you're against the way income distribution is handled then you might as well give up all your material possessions, if you don't, then clearly you're a hypocrite and your point is invalid'? That's pretty childish, let's be honest. I assume you're not racist, do you protest? I assume you're not sexist, do you protest? I assume you're against slavery, do you donate all your spare money? The list can go on. I can only assume that you've never complained or thought anything wasn't right, in your entire life. That the world is perfect? Oldie has been protesting and standing up for human rights all his life, joining protests and being part of groups I believe. What have you done? Have you walked a mile in his shoes? You've come on here and made a judgement about his entire life, which tbh I think is disgusting. You can agree, disagree and argue with someone - but you're now trying to take the water out of someones life and how they choose to live it. You've gone too far here, Jung. The issue here is that Oldie has feathered his own nest with the system that he's now arguing against. I don't feel that explaining that is in any way 'going too far', of course, as always, you can disagree, but I thought we were allowed to express personal opinion on here? And the clothes you buy most certainly contribute to child labour. The bottle of coca-cola you buy means that families in India don't have enough clean water. If you're so desperate to condemn his life choices (which is a farce), how about you applaud what he's done in protesting? Or do you just want ton consistently bully him? You can state an opinion, as we all can. But you're not. You're talking in statements and you're judging someones life, which isn't yours to judge. I noticed you ignored every single point I made, I can only assume you accept your hypocrisy in not denying them. At least Oldie can see that there are issues in the why the country works. What do you do? You bury your head in the sand. You've gone way too far. Have an opinion on his opinions, debate, argue - do whatever. But who are you to judge someone's life choices? |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 2, 2020 20:16:00 GMT
😂😂😂 Comedy gold. If I do as you suggest.... On the CNN, it was an articulate black lawyer stating her case. Nobody is forced to agree with it. But a real person involved with the BLM stating her / their perspective. Don't need to agree but it's there for all to listen to. As opposed to links to the Daily Mail and J. Hartley-Brewer whose knowledge of the issues this lady articulates (rightly or wrongly) are, like yours, close to zero. Another insult. Be back in a bit, just going to curl up in a corner and have a bit of a cry.  There is no insult in that post. Starting to wonder about your standards of what an insult actually is. Care to point it out, please? And to give reasoning why you believe it to be an insult, of course. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 22:43:45 GMT
Another insult. Be back in a bit, just going to curl up in a corner and have a bit of a cry. There is no insult in that post. Starting to wonder about your standards of what an insult actually is. Care to point it out, please? And to give reasoning why you believe it to be an insult, of course. The statement that my knowledge is close to zero is, in my opinion, a bit worse than what you decided was an insult aimed at you a few days back, the difference is, I think it's funny. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 23:01:27 GMT
The issue here is that Oldie has feathered his own nest with the system that he's now arguing against. I don't feel that explaining that is in any way 'going too far', of course, as always, you can disagree, but I thought we were allowed to express personal opinion on here? And the clothes you buy most certainly contribute to child labour. The bottle of coca-cola you buy means that families in India don't have enough clean water. If you're so desperate to condemn his life choices (which is a farce), how about you applaud what he's done in protesting? Or do you just want ton consistently bully him? You can state an opinion, as we all can. But you're not. You're talking in statements and you're judging someones life, which isn't yours to judge. I noticed you ignored every single point I made, I can only assume you accept your hypocrisy in not denying them. At least Oldie can see that there are issues in the why the country works. What do you do? You bury your head in the sand. You've gone way too far. Have an opinion on his opinions, debate, argue - do whatever. But who are you to judge someone's life choices? The difference is, I'm not on here telling other people to dress differently whilst wearing trainers made in a sweat shop, or drinking Cola whilst telling other people it's unethical to. I don't protest against things that I disagree with by walking down streets shouting, or wearing t-shirts, that isn't the most effective course of action. Or, another example, like Lewis Hamilton, having a car painted black, which will achieve the square root of nothing. If he's that concerned about the issues then maybe a good starting point would be to get himself domiciled for tax purposes back to the UK from Monaco and pay into the system. You can make whatever assumptions you are comfortable with, it's not hugely important in the scheme of things. No, no head burying here, I'm well aware of the issues being discussed, my proposal is that the person who is saying that income distribution should be flat should lead by example. If he won't then it's not unreasonable to question how sincere he is. Am I wrong? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 7:56:55 GMT
The issue here is that Oldie has feathered his own nest with the system that he's now arguing against. I don't feel that explaining that is in any way 'going too far', of course, as always, you can disagree, but I thought we were allowed to express personal opinion on here? And the clothes you buy most certainly contribute to child labour. The bottle of coca-cola you buy means that families in India don't have enough clean water. If you're so desperate to condemn his life choices (which is a farce), how about you applaud what he's done in protesting? Or do you just want ton consistently bully him? You can state an opinion, as we all can. But you're not. You're talking in statements and you're judging someones life, which isn't yours to judge. I noticed you ignored every single point I made, I can only assume you accept your hypocrisy in not denying them. At least Oldie can see that there are issues in the why the country works. What do you do? You bury your head in the sand. You've gone way too far. Have an opinion on his opinions, debate, argue - do whatever. But who are you to judge someone's life choices? I think the point is Oldie protests louder than most about wealth distribution and inequalities yet doesn’t want to say what he is personally willing to do to help redress the balance. If everyone with those views takes his stance then those ‘inequalities’ will never be balanced. Unless people are willing to change themselves how can they expect wider change? Until then it will constantly be perceived as classic do as I say not do as I do. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 3, 2020 8:06:12 GMT
And the clothes you buy most certainly contribute to child labour. The bottle of coca-cola you buy means that families in India don't have enough clean water. If you're so desperate to condemn his life choices (which is a farce), how about you applaud what he's done in protesting? Or do you just want ton consistently bully him? You can state an opinion, as we all can. But you're not. You're talking in statements and you're judging someones life, which isn't yours to judge. I noticed you ignored every single point I made, I can only assume you accept your hypocrisy in not denying them. At least Oldie can see that there are issues in the why the country works. What do you do? You bury your head in the sand. You've gone way too far. Have an opinion on his opinions, debate, argue - do whatever. But who are you to judge someone's life choices? The difference is, I'm not on here telling other people to dress differently whilst wearing trainers made in a sweat shop, or drinking Cola whilst telling other people it's unethical to. I don't protest against things that I disagree with by walking down streets shouting, or wearing t-shirts, that isn't the most effective course of action. Or, another example, like Lewis Hamilton, having a car painted black, which will achieve the square root of nothing. If he's that concerned about the issues then maybe a good starting point would be to get himself domiciled for tax purposes back to the UK from Monaco and pay into the system. You can make whatever assumptions you are comfortable with, it's not hugely important in the scheme of things. No, no head burying here, I'm well aware of the issues being discussed, my proposal is that the person who is saying that income distribution should be flat should lead by example. If he won't then it's not unreasonable to question how sincere he is. Am I wrong? And where is it that Oldie said exactly that you should be donating your income and assets? I assume you can quote him? Otherwise you have no argument. Who'd have thought, someone has an opinion on a football forum, and the high and mighty who now believe they have the right to judge their entire life, are now trying to tell them to give away their money and assets. You have a strange concept of what drives change or an effective cause of action. Some how you seem to think giving away money will drive the change the world needs. What makes you think Hamilton paying taxes in the UK will stop racism? I mean, is that really what you think? It sounds like you have a problem with people being successful, tbh. And regarding your last point, yes. You are completely wrong. You said the CEO of a charity shouldn't have been sacked, why don't you go and donate your spare income to help the guy? You should lead by example. I expect the proof of bank transfer by the end of the day then. Let's hold you against the standards you hold others to, hmm? Like I said before, you can argue your point against Oldie's, that's fair enough. But you can't go judging and mocking his life. That's too far. Do you think that's acceptable? There is no insult in that post. Starting to wonder about your standards of what an insult actually is. Care to point it out, please? And to give reasoning why you believe it to be an insult, of course. The statement that my knowledge is close to zero is, in my opinion, a bit worse than what you decided was an insult aimed at you a few days back, the difference is, I think it's funny. So you want it both ways, typical. Either you insulted me, or Oldie didn't insult you and you redact your statement. Which is it? |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 3, 2020 8:12:55 GMT
And the clothes you buy most certainly contribute to child labour. The bottle of coca-cola you buy means that families in India don't have enough clean water. If you're so desperate to condemn his life choices (which is a farce), how about you applaud what he's done in protesting? Or do you just want ton consistently bully him? You can state an opinion, as we all can. But you're not. You're talking in statements and you're judging someones life, which isn't yours to judge. I noticed you ignored every single point I made, I can only assume you accept your hypocrisy in not denying them. At least Oldie can see that there are issues in the why the country works. What do you do? You bury your head in the sand. You've gone way too far. Have an opinion on his opinions, debate, argue - do whatever. But who are you to judge someone's life choices? I think the point is Oldie protests louder than most about wealth distribution and inequalities yet doesn’t want to say what he is personally willing to do to help redress the balance. If everyone with those views takes his stance then those ‘inequalities’ will never be balanced. Unless people are willing to change themselves how can they expect wider change? Until then it will constantly be perceived as classic do as I say not do as I do. The problem is eric that Jung is painting a scenario where Oldie is the only person who'd lose out, with no real benefit to the community. Then he's saying, well you're a hypocrite for not making that decision. Which is ridiculous. A fairer thing to say would be, well what are you doing about it to drive change? Start a petition, protest etc. It's nice to complain and highlight the problem, but what can we do to actually fix it. Of course, argue against the point, that's more than fair. But to continuously drive home the same stupid point over pages and then starting to make judgement and assumptions on their life, isn't fair, or indeed right. In terms of debating change, I'm not sure one person giving up their wealth does it. We'd need change on a much larger scale. Dare I say, from the government. To bring the debate back on track (without the need to make assumptions on people's lives), Oldie - what would you suggest would drive this change? What do you think can be done about it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 8:37:26 GMT
And the clothes you buy most certainly contribute to child labour. The bottle of coca-cola you buy means that families in India don't have enough clean water. If you're so desperate to condemn his life choices (which is a farce), how about you applaud what he's done in protesting? Or do you just want ton consistently bully him? You can state an opinion, as we all can. But you're not. You're talking in statements and you're judging someones life, which isn't yours to judge. I noticed you ignored every single point I made, I can only assume you accept your hypocrisy in not denying them. At least Oldie can see that there are issues in the why the country works. What do you do? You bury your head in the sand. You've gone way too far. Have an opinion on his opinions, debate, argue - do whatever. But who are you to judge someone's life choices? I think the point is Oldie protests louder than most about wealth distribution and inequalities yet doesn’t want to say what he is personally willing to do to help redress the balance. If everyone with those views takes his stance then those ‘inequalities’ will never be balanced. Unless people are willing to change themselves how can they expect wider change? Until then it will constantly be perceived as classic do as I say not do as I do. Eric If one believes that our current structures in our society leave far to many forced to lead insecure lives, both economically and socially, then I believe we have a duty to highlight this and argue for change to address the problem. Flag waiving, making childish comments like "this is a great country" resolves nothing and acts like a camouflage to avoid addressing the very real issues. So very specifically my personal beliefs are that we, in this country, have A) A terrible housing problem where to many cannot afford suitable housing (size / location), or require in work benefits to be able to afford the rents. B) An under invested education system in areas of most need. C) An under invested social services system leaving people, from children to the frail and elderly, exposed. D) An under invested health system which prevents it from delivering a first class service worthy of the quality of its practitioners. Now, you could (I would) wrap all that up as an income distribution problem. That is, the country generates enough GDP to allow us to pay for all of those 4 areas in full, but we do not. The fact of the matter is that since the 1980s and the reforms to local government, the deregulation of our finance sector and the ideological withdrawal of the "State" from service provision we have witnessed a shift in wealth ownership from production to asset ownership. This favours a to small of a minority, at the expense of the majority. So, completely contrary to what Mr Jung chooses to extrapolate as my views, that extrapolation itself constructed through the very narrow prism of his nationalist (to wit: This is a great country) views, I am not advocating to destruction of the capitalist system. I strongly believe in the free market, but NOT an unfettered one. An unfettered free market is the law of the jungle where there are absolute winners and absolute losers, one of huge gain and great loss. That, for me, is not a civilised society, and definitely not a great one. If all this requires more taxes then so be it, and I would gladly pay my share. As I always have done. Asking me to bequeath anything I might own is a non argument, the rant of a child who cannot, is unable, to suggest a solution for the issues highlighted. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 8:49:52 GMT
The difference is, I'm not on here telling other people to dress differently whilst wearing trainers made in a sweat shop, or drinking Cola whilst telling other people it's unethical to. I don't protest against things that I disagree with by walking down streets shouting, or wearing t-shirts, that isn't the most effective course of action. Or, another example, like Lewis Hamilton, having a car painted black, which will achieve the square root of nothing. If he's that concerned about the issues then maybe a good starting point would be to get himself domiciled for tax purposes back to the UK from Monaco and pay into the system. You can make whatever assumptions you are comfortable with, it's not hugely important in the scheme of things. No, no head burying here, I'm well aware of the issues being discussed, my proposal is that the person who is saying that income distribution should be flat should lead by example. If he won't then it's not unreasonable to question how sincere he is. Am I wrong? And where is it that Oldie said exactly that you should be donating your income and assets? I assume you can quote him? Otherwise you have no argument. Who'd have thought, someone has an opinion on a football forum, and the high and mighty who now believe they have the right to judge their entire life, are now trying to tell them to give away their money and assets. You have a strange concept of what drives change or an effective cause of action. Some how you seem to think giving away money will drive the change the world needs. What makes you think Hamilton paying taxes in the UK will stop racism? I mean, is that really what you think? It sounds like you have a problem with people being successful, tbh. And regarding your last point, yes. You are completely wrong. You said the CEO of a charity shouldn't have been sacked, why don't you go and donate your spare income to help the guy? You should lead by example. I expect the proof of bank transfer by the end of the day then. Let's hold you against the standards you hold others to, hmm? Like I said before, you can argue your point against Oldie's, that's fair enough. But you can't go judging and mocking his life. That's too far. Do you think that's acceptable? The statement that my knowledge is close to zero is, in my opinion, a bit worse than what you decided was an insult aimed at you a few days back, the difference is, I think it's funny. So you want it both ways, typical. Either you insulted me, or Oldie didn't insult you and you redact your statement. Which is it? Firstly, Oldie is more than capable of fighting his own arguments. Secondly, I've not suggested that he said I should cede any of my assets, my comments were in reply to your previous post. Thirdly, I'm not judging his entire life, just his comments on income distribution. Fourth. Guy removed from position at the charity. You would have a point had my argument have been that income distribution should be flattened to support him, but I didn't go anywhere near suggesting that, all I said was that, in my opinion, the trustees have made a poor / incorrect decision. Fifth. It's Oldie suggesting that moving money around in this way, ie, flattening of income distribution, will affect change, so why are you telling me that it's me who has a strange concept of what drives change, all I'm doing is highlighting that he doesn't truly believe that income should be flatly distributed. It's Oldie's argument, not mine. Take it up with him, not me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 9:02:59 GMT
I think the point is Oldie protests louder than most about wealth distribution and inequalities yet doesn’t want to say what he is personally willing to do to help redress the balance. If everyone with those views takes his stance then those ‘inequalities’ will never be balanced. Unless people are willing to change themselves how can they expect wider change? Until then it will constantly be perceived as classic do as I say not do as I do. Eric If one believes that our current structures in our society leave far to many forced to lead insecure lives, both economically and socially, then I believe we have a duty to highlight this and argue for change to address the problem. Flag waiving, making childish comments like "this is a great country" resolves nothing and acts like a camouflage to avoid addressing the very real issues. So very specifically my personal beliefs are that we, in this country, have A) A terrible housing problem where to many cannot afford suitable housing (size / location), or require in work benefits to be able to afford the rents. B) An under invested education system in areas of most need. C) An under invested social services system leaving people, from children to the frail and elderly, exposed. D) An under invested health system which prevents it from delivering a first class service worthy of the quality of its practitioners. Now, you could (I would) wrap all that up as an income distribution problem. That is, the country generates enough GDP to allow us to pay for all of those 4 areas in full, but we do not. The fact of the matter is that since the 1980s and the reforms to local government, the deregulation of our finance sector and the ideological withdrawal of the "State" from service provision we have witnessed a shift in wealth ownership from production to asset ownership. This favours a to small of a minority, at the expense of the majority. So, completely contrary to what Mr Jung chooses to extrapolate as my views, that extrapolation itself constructed through the very narrow prism of his nationalist (to wit: This is a great country) views, I am not advocating to destruction of the capitalist system. I strongly believe in the free market, but NOT an unfettered one. An unfettered free market is the law of the jungle where there are absolute winners and absolute losers, one of huge gain and great loss. That, for me, is not a civilised society, and definitely not a great one. If all this requires more taxes then so be it, and I would gladly pay my share. As I always have done. Asking me to bequeath anything I might own is a non argument, the rant of a child who cannot, is unable, to suggest a solution for the issues highlighted. But I've told you how to pay more tax, I gave you the address to send your payment to. You carry on talking the country down, as is your right. There are no absolute winners and losers. You're an employer, or have been, how many people did you hold at gun point and force to enter into an employment contract against their will? I suspect that we agree that staff attend work (mostly) not out of choice but because they know that tomorrow a bill will fall through their letter box, this is the reality, we are slaves to money , so one of the challenges as an employer is to keep staff motivated, that improves morale / attendance / productivity, all even half decent employers understand this. Of course, if you flood the 'low skilled' sector of the labour market then of course you create opportunity for a certain type of employer. But apparently arguing against free movement is racist. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 9:03:00 GMT
Morning Gassy
"
To bring the debate back on track (without the need to make assumptions on people's lives), Oldie - what would you suggest would drive this change? What do you think can be done about it? "
How to drive this change.
A proposition to the electorate of a programme that addresses the four areas I have highlighted above. Costed and with the taxation implications honestly expressed. Both corporate and personal. What does this look like on the ground?
1. A large social housing building programme, say 1million units over 5 years
2. New schools in areas of most need and an expansion of the curriculum to capture non academic skills, with a clear path for those who choose those non academic skills into tertiary education and subsequent qualifications.
3. Social service provision linked to health care and...state funded care homes, targeted child care services such as "Sure Start"
4. Raise health care spending to that of our peers, by at least 2% of GDP.
Not very radical is it, not very "right on"
No reds under the bed, no revolutions no capitalists to the Guillotine.
I will nod to Tony and Gordon on the way out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 9:19:13 GMT
Eric If one believes that our current structures in our society leave far to many forced to lead insecure lives, both economically and socially, then I believe we have a duty to highlight this and argue for change to address the problem. Flag waiving, making childish comments like "this is a great country" resolves nothing and acts like a camouflage to avoid addressing the very real issues. So very specifically my personal beliefs are that we, in this country, have A) A terrible housing problem where to many cannot afford suitable housing (size / location), or require in work benefits to be able to afford the rents. B) An under invested education system in areas of most need. C) An under invested social services system leaving people, from children to the frail and elderly, exposed. D) An under invested health system which prevents it from delivering a first class service worthy of the quality of its practitioners. Now, you could (I would) wrap all that up as an income distribution problem. That is, the country generates enough GDP to allow us to pay for all of those 4 areas in full, but we do not. The fact of the matter is that since the 1980s and the reforms to local government, the deregulation of our finance sector and the ideological withdrawal of the "State" from service provision we have witnessed a shift in wealth ownership from production to asset ownership. This favours a to small of a minority, at the expense of the majority. So, completely contrary to what Mr Jung chooses to extrapolate as my views, that extrapolation itself constructed through the very narrow prism of his nationalist (to wit: This is a great country) views, I am not advocating to destruction of the capitalist system. I strongly believe in the free market, but NOT an unfettered one. An unfettered free market is the law of the jungle where there are absolute winners and absolute losers, one of huge gain and great loss. That, for me, is not a civilised society, and definitely not a great one. If all this requires more taxes then so be it, and I would gladly pay my share. As I always have done. Asking me to bequeath anything I might own is a non argument, the rant of a child who cannot, is unable, to suggest a solution for the issues highlighted. But I've told you how to pay more tax, I gave you the address to send your payment to. You carry on talking the country down, as is your right. There are no absolute winners and losers. You're an employer, or have been, how many people did you hold at gun point and force to enter into an employment contract against their will? I suspect that we agree that staff attend work (mostly) not out of choice but because they know that tomorrow a bill will fall through their letter box, this is the reality, we are slaves to money , so one of the challenges as an employer is to keep staff motivated, that improves morale / attendance / productivity, all even half decent employers understand this. Of course, if you flood the 'low skilled' sector of the labour market then of course you create opportunity for a certain type of employer. But apparently arguing against free movement is racist. Well, that's full of tosh. And addresses none of the issues I believe in, am I wrong? You "TOLD" me where to pay more to tax? Who are you to tell anyone anything? I mean really. In contrast I am advocating, arguing for, to try and carry consensus. You might want to try it. You state there are no absolute winners and losers. In what context? You just threw it out there. My context was an unfettered free market, what's your context for that statement? You know I have been an employer, both here and in the States. I have witnessed at first hand the lives to many people are forced to lead. Flood the market with low skilled labour? Is this the economic nationalism of your Cerberus? |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 3, 2020 9:48:16 GMT
And where is it that Oldie said exactly that you should be donating your income and assets? I assume you can quote him? Otherwise you have no argument. Who'd have thought, someone has an opinion on a football forum, and the high and mighty who now believe they have the right to judge their entire life, are now trying to tell them to give away their money and assets. You have a strange concept of what drives change or an effective cause of action. Some how you seem to think giving away money will drive the change the world needs. What makes you think Hamilton paying taxes in the UK will stop racism? I mean, is that really what you think? It sounds like you have a problem with people being successful, tbh. And regarding your last point, yes. You are completely wrong. You said the CEO of a charity shouldn't have been sacked, why don't you go and donate your spare income to help the guy? You should lead by example. I expect the proof of bank transfer by the end of the day then. Let's hold you against the standards you hold others to, hmm? Like I said before, you can argue your point against Oldie's, that's fair enough. But you can't go judging and mocking his life. That's too far. Do you think that's acceptable? So you want it both ways, typical. Either you insulted me, or Oldie didn't insult you and you redact your statement. Which is it? Firstly, Oldie is more than capable of fighting his own arguments. Secondly, I've not suggested that he said I should cede any of my assets, my comments were in reply to your previous post. Thirdly, I'm not judging his entire life, just his comments on income distribution. Fourth. Guy removed from position at the charity. You would have a point had my argument have been that income distribution should be flattened to support him, but I didn't go anywhere near suggesting that, all I said was that, in my opinion, the trustees have made a poor / incorrect decision. Fifth. It's Oldie suggesting that moving money around in this way, ie, flattening of income distribution, will affect change, so why are you telling me that it's me who has a strange concept of what drives change, all I'm doing is highlighting that he doesn't truly believe that income should be flatly distributed. It's Oldie's argument, not mine. Take it up with him, not me. 1. Who said he isn't? I'm just getting involved. Or is it a closed club where only you can comment? 2. Right, so we no logic to your argument then. A guy on an internet forum has an idea what would work in his opinion. You then constantly post about his life and how he should give up his assets. Makes sense. 3. You're making comments on his life, his success and ultimately his actions throughout his life. So yes, you are. 4. And Oldie said he thinks there is a better system. So you see now how pointless it is to suggest he gives up his assets. Good. 5. Sure, and instead of being proactive about it - pondering how he believes this can happen.. You just want to try and take this water constantly with arguments that we've established hold no real ground. I asked Oldie about how he thinks this could be done, and now you have a proper reply with actual debate. Instead, you chose the route of suggesting he gives up his assets and if he doesn't then he's a hypocrite. Is that really the debate you're after? Doesn't much sound like you're here to learn, rather just pick on a particular poster. I have taken it up with him, and look how the discussion continues, rather than trying to score points and wind someone up. 6. You didn't choose. Did you insult me, or will you redact your point that Oldie insulted you? Or we can ignore these posts and crack back on with sensible debate. Ball is in your court, Jung. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 3, 2020 9:56:38 GMT
Morning Gassy " To bring the debate back on track (without the need to make assumptions on people's lives), Oldie - what would you suggest would drive this change? What do you think can be done about it? " How to drive this change. A proposition to the electorate of a programme that addresses the four areas I have highlighted above. Costed and with the taxation implications honestly expressed. Both corporate and personal. What does this look like on the ground? 1. A large social housing building programme, say 1million units over 5 years 2. New schools in areas of most need and an expansion of the curriculum to capture non academic skills, with a clear path for those who choose those non academic skills into tertiary education and subsequent qualifications. 3. Social service provision linked to health care and...state funded care homes, targeted child care services such as "Sure Start" 4. Raise health care spending to that of our peers, by at least 2% of GDP. Not very radical is it, not very "right on" No reds under the bed, no revolutions no capitalists to the Guillotine. I will nod to Tony and Gordon on the way out. Glad to get his on track. I'm taking Scooby's previous advice on cracking on with the debate, rather than point scoring and trying to goad people into getting wound up. Perhaps others should take note. Your 4 points all sound nice, and fairly achievable. I'll be curious to hear others' opinions on the points raised, as I agree with them all. I don't always think something radical is needed - baby steps to get us going in the right direction. Do you think Covid will bring the classes (lower, middle, upper) together - or separate them further? The mega rich will just get richer of course, but I'm curious to hear people's thoughts |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 10:16:04 GMT
I think the point is Oldie protests louder than most about wealth distribution and inequalities yet doesn’t want to say what he is personally willing to do to help redress the balance. If everyone with those views takes his stance then those ‘inequalities’ will never be balanced. Unless people are willing to change themselves how can they expect wider change? Until then it will constantly be perceived as classic do as I say not do as I do. The problem is eric that Jung is painting a scenario where Oldie is the only person who'd lose out, with no real benefit to the community. Then he's saying, well you're a hypocrite for not making that decision. Which is ridiculous. A fairer thing to say would be, well what are you doing about it to drive change? Start a petition, protest etc. It's nice to complain and highlight the problem, but what can we do to actually fix it. Of course, argue against the point, that's more than fair. But to continuously drive home the same stupid point over pages and then starting to make judgement and assumptions on their life, isn't fair, or indeed right. In terms of debating change, I'm not sure one person giving up their wealth does it. We'd need change on a much larger scale. Dare I say, from the government. To bring the debate back on track (without the need to make assumptions on people's lives), Oldie - what would you suggest would drive this change? What do you think can be done about it? Perhaps the most vocal on financial rebalancing should set up some sort of JustGiving arrangement where they put their money where their mouths are and help the most needy rather than just making loads of noise and doing nothing until politicians force change? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 10:18:17 GMT
Morning Gassy " To bring the debate back on track (without the need to make assumptions on people's lives), Oldie - what would you suggest would drive this change? What do you think can be done about it? " How to drive this change. A proposition to the electorate of a programme that addresses the four areas I have highlighted above. Costed and with the taxation implications honestly expressed. Both corporate and personal. What does this look like on the ground? 1. A large social housing building programme, say 1million units over 5 years 2. New schools in areas of most need and an expansion of the curriculum to capture non academic skills, with a clear path for those who choose those non academic skills into tertiary education and subsequent qualifications. 3. Social service provision linked to health care and...state funded care homes, targeted child care services such as "Sure Start" 4. Raise health care spending to that of our peers, by at least 2% of GDP. Not very radical is it, not very "right on" No reds under the bed, no revolutions no capitalists to the Guillotine. I will nod to Tony and Gordon on the way out. Glad to get his on track. I'm taking Scooby's previous advice on cracking on with the debate, rather than point scoring and trying to goad people into getting wound up. Perhaps others should take note. Your 4 points all sound nice, and fairly achievable. I'll be curious to hear others' opinions on the points raised, as I agree with them all. I don't always think something radical is needed - baby steps to get us going in the right direction. Do you think Covid will bring the classes (lower, middle, upper) together - or separate them further? The mega rich will just get richer of course, but I'm curious to hear people's thoughts Thanks Gassy And yes, it is wise advice to not allow others to wind people up. Agreed, we don't need revolution, we need honesty and commitment. In terms of this crisis, it is an opportunity for people to consider what is important and to consider resolutions. That's why I think it's important to highlight the issues, right now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 10:21:33 GMT
The problem is eric that Jung is painting a scenario where Oldie is the only person who'd lose out, with no real benefit to the community. Then he's saying, well you're a hypocrite for not making that decision. Which is ridiculous. A fairer thing to say would be, well what are you doing about it to drive change? Start a petition, protest etc. It's nice to complain and highlight the problem, but what can we do to actually fix it. Of course, argue against the point, that's more than fair. But to continuously drive home the same stupid point over pages and then starting to make judgement and assumptions on their life, isn't fair, or indeed right. In terms of debating change, I'm not sure one person giving up their wealth does it. We'd need change on a much larger scale. Dare I say, from the government. To bring the debate back on track (without the need to make assumptions on people's lives), Oldie - what would you suggest would drive this change? What do you think can be done about it? Perhaps the most vocal on financial rebalancing should set up some sort of JustGiving arrangement where they put their money where their mouths are and help the most needy rather than just making loads of noise and doing nothing until politicians force change? Be sensible Eric. If I am wrong, state how. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 10:24:26 GMT
But I've told you how to pay more tax, I gave you the address to send your payment to. You carry on talking the country down, as is your right. There are no absolute winners and losers. You're an employer, or have been, how many people did you hold at gun point and force to enter into an employment contract against their will? I suspect that we agree that staff attend work (mostly) not out of choice but because they know that tomorrow a bill will fall through their letter box, this is the reality, we are slaves to money , so one of the challenges as an employer is to keep staff motivated, that improves morale / attendance / productivity, all even half decent employers understand this. Of course, if you flood the 'low skilled' sector of the labour market then of course you create opportunity for a certain type of employer. But apparently arguing against free movement is racist. Well, that's full of tosh. And addresses none of the issues I believe in, am I wrong? You "TOLD" me where to pay more to tax? Who are you to tell anyone anything? I mean really. In contrast I am advocating, arguing for, to try and carry consensus. You might want to try it. You state there are no absolute winners and losers. In what context? You just threw it out there. My context was an unfettered free market, what's your context for that statement? You know I have been an employer, both here and in the States. I have witnessed at first hand the lives to many people are forced to lead. Flood the market with low skilled labour? Is this the economic nationalism of your Cerberus? At this point you would no doubt say that I am making things up, in the quoted post I didn't tell you to pay more tax, I told you where to pay more tax. You are unlikely to affect much change on thread like this, on a backwater football forum, how many people are contributing to this thread, maybe 10? Hardly an audience that's going to drive a national agenda. Absolute winners and losers in absolute terms. Nobody is 'forced' to lead any life. Don't like the job, get a different one. Don't give me any sob stories about it not being that easy, I came from the bottom, so just don't want to hear it. Remember, hope is a more powerful message than fear. Not even sure what the word salad is in your last sentence. Are you saying that an over-subscribed sector in the workforce is likely to lead to higher wages and improved working conditions? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 10:26:59 GMT
Firstly, Oldie is more than capable of fighting his own arguments. Secondly, I've not suggested that he said I should cede any of my assets, my comments were in reply to your previous post. Thirdly, I'm not judging his entire life, just his comments on income distribution. Fourth. Guy removed from position at the charity. You would have a point had my argument have been that income distribution should be flattened to support him, but I didn't go anywhere near suggesting that, all I said was that, in my opinion, the trustees have made a poor / incorrect decision. Fifth. It's Oldie suggesting that moving money around in this way, ie, flattening of income distribution, will affect change, so why are you telling me that it's me who has a strange concept of what drives change, all I'm doing is highlighting that he doesn't truly believe that income should be flatly distributed. It's Oldie's argument, not mine. Take it up with him, not me. 1. Who said he isn't? I'm just getting involved. Or is it a closed club where only you can comment? 2. Right, so we no logic to your argument then. A guy on an internet forum has an idea what would work in his opinion. You then constantly post about his life and how he should give up his assets. Makes sense. 3. You're making comments on his life, his success and ultimately his actions throughout his life. So yes, you are. 4. And Oldie said he thinks there is a better system. So you see now how pointless it is to suggest he gives up his assets. Good. 5. Sure, and instead of being proactive about it - pondering how he believes this can happen.. You just want to try and take this water constantly with arguments that we've established hold no real ground. I asked Oldie about how he thinks this could be done, and now you have a proper reply with actual debate. Instead, you chose the route of suggesting he gives up his assets and if he doesn't then he's a hypocrite. Is that really the debate you're after? Doesn't much sound like you're here to learn, rather just pick on a particular poster. I have taken it up with him, and look how the discussion continues, rather than trying to score points and wind someone up. 6. You didn't choose. Did you insult me, or will you redact your point that Oldie insulted you? Or we can ignore these posts and crack back on with sensible debate. Ball is in your court, Jung. Could you write that so that it makes sense please and I'll take another look. I got as far as, 'Right, so we no logic then' and gave up. Thanks for your time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 11:01:52 GMT
Well, that's full of tosh. And addresses none of the issues I believe in, am I wrong? You "TOLD" me where to pay more to tax? Who are you to tell anyone anything? I mean really. In contrast I am advocating, arguing for, to try and carry consensus. You might want to try it. You state there are no absolute winners and losers. In what context? You just threw it out there. My context was an unfettered free market, what's your context for that statement? You know I have been an employer, both here and in the States. I have witnessed at first hand the lives to many people are forced to lead. Flood the market with low skilled labour? Is this the economic nationalism of your Cerberus? At this point you would no doubt say that I am making things up, in the quoted post I didn't tell you to pay more tax, I told you where to pay more tax. You are unlikely to affect much change on thread like this, on a backwater football forum, how many people are contributing to this thread, maybe 10? Hardly an audience that's going to drive a national agenda. Absolute winners and losers in absolute terms. Nobody is 'forced' to lead any life. Don't like the job, get a different one. Don't give me any sob stories about it not being that easy, I came from the bottom, so just don't want to hear it. Remember, hope is a more powerful message than fear. Not even sure what the word salad is in your last sentence. Are you saying that an over-subscribed sector in the workforce is likely to lead to higher wages and improved working conditions? I agree about a backwater football forum, but that's where we are. Still no alternative viewpoint from you. |
|
