Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
[So whats your problem with the rich then - if the middle class are the ones who dont get enough and wouldnt get any more even if the rich were taxed 90%?
At the end of the day, you could tax the rich whatever you want and the only people who'll really benefit are the wasters.
My problem with the rich is this------- the rich are rich at the expense of the poor. Money doesnt come out of thin air - it is taken from people.
Tescos executives make millions of pounds a year, that money comes from the pockets of the poor and middle class masses. Imo that money should be given to the staff that work in tescos - not to four or five fat cats sat at the top of the chain. In fact tescos should never have been allowed to get so big- we should have a collection of smaller businesses offering better service, better working conditions and much better wages. As these massive companies will not distribute their wealth in a reasonable manor we are only left with more stringent tax laws as a way of stopping their domination of the country.
You talk about well run businesses taking over form mis mananged businesses. The trouble with well run big business is that it makes as much money as it can from its customers while payin out as little as possible to its staff distributers and suppliers-- that is a shocking state of affairs imo and it is why tescos and other massive companies have completely scewed up independant farming, suppliers, distributers, labbelers, packaging companies and ruined town centres up and down this country.
[Edited on 22-04-2009 by Dr Pepper]
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
So whats your problem with the rich then - if the middle class are the ones who dont get enough and wouldnt get any more even if the rich were taxed 90%?
At the end of the day, you could tax the rich whatever you want and the only people who'll really benefit are the wasters.
Nothing
But more money from those earning very high wages that they dont NEED, they just WANT, does not help the economy.
Charging tax on a man who doesn't earn much
charging tax on a man that earns lots and won't miss it so much.
Wasters wont benefit, the countries debts will benefit.
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Pepper
My problem with the rich is this------- the rich are rich at the expense of the poor. Money doesnt come out of thin air - it is taken from people.
Tescos executives make millions of pounds a year, that money comes from the pockets of the poor and middle class masses. Imo that money should be given to the staff that work in tescos - not to four or five fat cats sat at the top of the chain. In fact tescos should never have been aloud to get so big- we should have a collection of smaller businesses offering better service, better working conditions and much better wages. As these massive companies will not distribute their wealth in a reasonable manor we are only left with more stringent tax laws as a way of stopping their domination of the country.
OK, so we have these small businesses instead of Tesco's. They are too small to benefit from economies of scale and therefore their prices are a lot higher than what Tesco can offer (whoiich is what happens and why Tesco is killing small businesses).
Who gets fucked then? The rich or the same 'poor' people who are so hard done to?
quote:
You talk about well run businesses taking over form mis mananged businesses. The trouble with well run big business is that it makes as much money as it can from its customers while payin out as little as possible to its staff distributers and suppliers-- that is a shocking state of affairs imo and it is why tescos and other massive companies have completely scewed up independant farming, suppliers, distributers, labbelers, packaging companies and ruined town centres up and down this country.
The aim of ALL (well 99%) businesses is to make as much money as possible. Tesco is at the top of the food chain as it gives so much business to the 'little men' that you list above. Without Tesco those companies wouldnt exist, let alone be complaining about big bad Tesco screwing them over.
Tesco also employs (and pays fairly well for what it is, and more than a smaller company would pay) a hell of a lot of people. Again you get rid of Tesco and who gets screwed...the poor people you want to save so much.
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
You're thinking too complex here, its very simple.
Bad companies go bust (these will usually be the ones with poor customer service/poor service in general) - jobs lost. Good companies become more efficient by getting rid of workers with poor work ethic - jobs lost.
Rubbish, understand companies more. Its CASHFLOW thats the main issue why companies are going bust. They are not being paid, bank wants money, the company can't pay. OH is an accountant, its the most commen reason for companies going bust
The demand for the product is still there, so the good companies need to employ more workers to handle the demand - the employers with good work ethic who lost their jobs from the bad company get a new job.
But u've jsut said they have increase company efficiency, so whilst the demand for the product/service may rise again, the company wont need to employ as many people as previous as they've refined the flow and dont need as many employees
Only the bad workers are left, and they have to either change their work ethic or be wasters (and if they choose that option its because they are wasters!).
Great, so put millions of people onto the dole, even if they DO want work and do have skills, but not as good a skill as someone else. They can work, want to work, but didn't get the job... tough luck then yeah? They are just a waster is what your saying??? So everyone goes on the dole, we get more in debt, everythign goes up in price to cover it, yet again the middle man gets shafted, and the rich stay rich...
The ecomony is complex, your not thinking enough.
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
So whats your problem with the rich then - if the middle class are the ones who dont get enough and wouldnt get any more even if the rich were taxed 90%?
At the end of the day, you could tax the rich whatever you want and the only people who'll really benefit are the wasters.
Nothing
But more money from those earning very high wages that they dont NEED, they just WANT, does not help the economy.
Charging tax on a man who doesn't earn much
charging tax on a man that earns lots and won't miss it so much.
Wasters wont benefit, the countries debts will benefit.
Ah right, so the people who have worked hard to reach the top dont NEED the money so its fine for the Govt. to tax them and take it off them?
As you said yourself, the real working man in the country (the middle class) wont benefit from any amount the rich are taxed.
And how does the rich person earning that money not help the economy? They spend the money - that helps employ the middle classes and keep them in jobs. Cut the amount being spent by the rich and you'll see fall in demand for products and a fall in employment of these middle classes.
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Pepper
My problem with the rich is this------- the rich are rich at the expense of the poor. Money doesnt come out of thin air - it is taken from people.
Tescos executives make millions of pounds a year, that money comes from the pockets of the poor and middle class masses. Imo that money should be given to the staff that work in tescos - not to four or five fat cats sat at the top of the chain. In fact tescos should never have been aloud to get so big- we should have a collection of smaller businesses offering better service, better working conditions and much better wages. As these massive companies will not distribute their wealth in a reasonable manor we are only left with more stringent tax laws as a way of stopping their domination of the country.
OK, so we have these small businesses instead of Tesco's. They are too small to benefit from economies of scale and therefore their prices are a lot higher than what Tesco can offer (whoiich is what happens and why Tesco is killing small businesses).
Who gets fucked then? The rich or the same 'poor' people who are so hard done to?
quote:
You talk about well run businesses taking over form mis mananged businesses. The trouble with well run big business is that it makes as much money as it can from its customers while payin out as little as possible to its staff distributers and suppliers-- that is a shocking state of affairs imo and it is why tescos and other massive companies have completely scewed up independant farming, suppliers, distributers, labbelers, packaging companies and ruined town centres up and down this country.
The aim of ALL (well 99%) businesses is to make as much money as possible. Tesco is at the top of the food chain as it gives so much business to the 'little men' that you list above. Without Tesco those companies wouldnt exist, let alone be complaining about big bad Tesco screwing them over.
Tesco also employs (and pays fairly well for what it is, and more than a smaller company would pay) a hell of a lot of people. Again you get rid of Tesco and who gets screwed...the poor people you want to save so much.
You are wrong on so many levels that I cant fit it into a post--- go and buy 'captive state' and read it- you will think different.
I work in independant retail and I assure you the multinationals are not cheaper than supermarkets.
I buy my meat from butcher - its much cheaper and far better quality that the meat tescos sells - and I know my butcher is paying a local farmer a fair price-- tescos has single handedly closed down much of british agriculture by forcing their prices so low that they can no longer trade with tescos and make a profit.
I buy my greens form a greengrocer who again is much cheaper than tescos and buys all his supplies froma local grower.
You really do need to do some research into how Tescos has become so big, and at what expense to this country that has happened at because I think you will be stunned at what you find
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
You're thinking too complex here, its very simple.
Bad companies go bust (these will usually be the ones with poor customer service/poor service in general) - jobs lost. Good companies become more efficient by getting rid of workers with poor work ethic - jobs lost.
Rubbish, understand companies more. Its CASHFLOW thats the main issue why companies are going bust. They are not being paid, bank wants money, the company can't pay. OH is an accountant, its the most commen reason for companies going bust
The demand for the product is still there, so the good companies need to employ more workers to handle the demand - the employers with good work ethic who lost their jobs from the bad company get a new job.
But u've jsut said they have increase company efficiency, so whilst the demand for the product/service may rise again, the company wont need to employ as many people as previous as they've refined the flow and dont need as many employees
Only the bad workers are left, and they have to either change their work ethic or be wasters (and if they choose that option its because they are wasters!).
Great, so put millions of people onto the dole, even if they DO want work and do have skills, but not as good a skill as someone else. They can work, want to work, but didn't get the job... tough luck then yeah? They are just a waster is what your saying??? So everyone goes on the dole, we get more in debt, everythign goes up in price to cover it, yet again the middle man gets shafted, and the rich stay rich...
The ecomony is complex, your not thinking enough.
Yes, my management economics degree does not help me at all in this 
Of course its cash flow - but what do you think employees get paid? Buttons?
The inefficient companies are throwing money out the window, money that would aid cashflow. Streamlining businesses would free up a hell of a lot of cash.
I know what you're saying about cashflow, and its totally correct, but what I wrote were the reason (well one of a few) why these companies going bust have poor cash flow.
Yes they become more efficient for their current level of demand. Once demand increases (from the other companies going bust) then they will have to employ more people. If they have excess labour to handle this increase in demand then they werent effient in the first place.
And again, I said nothing about people with good work ethics being wasters. Obviously the better skilled workers would (should) get the jobs first, but if the others who are skilled have a good work ethic and work hard then they will get the jobs - its the wasters Im on about, the ones happy to go to work and sit doing fuck all for half the day or more.
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
You say tescos gives money to the little man...
If our electrics go wrong in the store we call out a local electrician.
If tescos electrics go wrong they use one of their own electricians on a much lower wage than a local guy would make.
We use independant suppliers and distributers - tescos uses their own.
We have our work and decorating done by a local chippie and painter- tescos uses their own or another massive national building company who pays their staff peanuts.
WHEN A SUPERMARKET OPENS IN A MARKET TOWN IN THIS COUNTRY THE RESULT IS A NET LOSS OF 276 JOBS IN THAT AREA.
THATS A FACT
Now how the fuck does that support your idea that tesco supports the little man?
[Edited on 22-04-2009 by Dr Pepper]
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Pepper
You are wrong on so many levels that I cant fit it into a post--- go and buy 'captive state' and read it- you will think different.
I work in independant retail and I assure you the multinationals are not cheaper than supermarkets.
I buy my meat from butcher - its much cheaper and far better quality that the meat tescos sells - and I know my butcher is paying a local farmer a fair price-- tescos has single handedly closed down much of british agriculture by forcing their prices so low that they can no longer trade with tescos and make a profit.
I buy my greens form a greengrocer who again is much cheaper than tescos and buys all his supplies froma local grower.
You really do need to do some research into how Tescos has become so big, and at what expense to this country that has happened at because I think you will be stunned at what you find
Congratualtions, I own an independant retailer and I can assure you the economies of scale multi-nationals have over small retailers is huge. Im not saying they all pass these on, but in general they are lower priced than the smaller outlets.
If they arent - why dont consumers go to these smaller outlets and keep them in business?! The only ONE reason is ease of use with them all being in one place somewhere like Tesco - but if what you're saying is true nationwide then the small retailers have nothing to worry about....
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
Ah right, so the people who have worked hard to reach the top dont NEED the money so its fine for the Govt. to tax them and take it off them?
As you said yourself, the real working man in the country (the middle class) wont benefit from any amount the rich are taxed.
And how does the rich person earning that money not help the economy? They spend the money - that helps employ the middle classes and keep them in jobs. Cut the amount being spent by the rich and you'll see fall in demand for products and a fall in employment of these middle classes.
I never said it was fair, you lot were banging on that I did earlier, but i never said it once.
I said lifes unfair, deal with it (to john or joe).
Rich earning lots but taxed at same rate as middle/lower class wages, does not help the economy. it jsut lines the rich's pockets.
tax the rich MORE, which means the government gets more money, which helps with the UK's debts, which eventaully in turn will help the middle/lower class as we wont have as much debt to pay off.
Rich people spend money sure, but they will still spend that money.
Somoene earning £100k unless they are stupid with money, will not spend that amount every month. They can AFFORD to have the tax rate imposed on them.
Middle and lower class wages simply can NOT afford it.
[Edited on 22-04-2009 by VXR]
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
why dont consumers go to these smaller outlets and keep them in business?! .
If you dont know the answer to this then I suggest again that you actuially do a bit of research on the subject.
The biggest reason is due to the lobbying power of the supermarkets in parliament that has allowed them to snap up huge amounts of land in prime areas and plonk a superstore their with masses of parking.
Councils have been encouraged to give out planning permission to these supermarkets and restructure their local road system to make the older town centre a nightmare to park in so that business is forced to the out of town retail. THIS IS DEPITE THE PROTESTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREAS WHERE THESE MASSIVE STORES HAVE BEEN PLACED.
If you dont belive me I can recommend a few books that might change your mind- they are not conspiricy theories- they are cold hard fact.
There is a myth that supermarkets offer free parking -- THEY DONT- we are all paying for that in the fact that on average a families trip to buy food has increased by an average of 15 miles in the last 20 years. We are travelling further to buy food than we haveever done before--- that means bigger petrol bills, bigger pollution and much bigger road congestion.
When labour first came into power in their manifesto was a John Prescott white paper which was planning on taxing supermarkets on the size o their car park and on how far away from the town centre they were located.
This white paper eventually had to be scrapped because the supermarket lobbyists and people like john sainsbury had too much financial and political power for the government to resist.
So in effect the supermarkets are creating policy in this country rather than our eected polticians- the same has happened in banking and in the energy industry.
We are being governed by big business.
[Edited on 22-04-2009 by Dr Pepper]
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
Yes, my management economics degree does not help me at all in this
Of course its cash flow - but what do you think employees get paid? Buttons?
The inefficient companies are throwing money out the window, money that would aid cashflow. Streamlining businesses would free up a hell of a lot of cash.
I know what you're saying about cashflow, and its totally correct, but what I wrote were the reason (well one of a few) why these companies going bust have poor cash flow.
Yes they become more efficient for their current level of demand. Once demand increases (from the other companies going bust) then they will have to employ more people. If they have excess labour to handle this increase in demand then they werent effient in the first place.
And again, I said nothing about people with good work ethics being wasters. Obviously the better skilled workers would (should) get the jobs first, but if the others who are skilled have a good work ethic and work hard then they will get the jobs - its the wasters Im on about, the ones happy to go to work and sit doing fuck all for half the day or more.
We're over 3 million un-employed now.
So get all those companies to refine their ways even more, put another million out of work.
Where should 4 million people go for work whilst we're waiting for all these companies businesses to start thriving from the competition going under?
Weeks?
Months?
Years?
Again, your average person has mortgages, bills, families..... Most wont have any savings, as they can't afford to. Im one of those, i earn my wage, I pay my mortgage, my food, and i've not got much left. I can't afford to save each month, and if i had a family, i'd be fecked!!!!!
Rich people will ahve savings, if they don't, then its their fault for not planning. If I could save a nest egg every month, I would, and MOST (not all) other normal earning people are the same.
Whilst there is a lot of wasters, theres also a people who arn't, and they couldn't be employed quick enough on your plan, it simply wouldn't work.
And thats why this is being put in place.
[Edited on 22-04-2009 by VXR]
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
You've never been without money have you?
And this is why people think you're a dick.
You know nothing about me so I suggest you get some facts before posting stupid shite you've just made up.
I was born into a little terraced house in Anfield, officially one of the poorest areas in the whole country. My family had lived there for years upon years (generations in the same street).
My Dad worked hard, educated himself and got a semi decent job. That allowed us to move out of that area but still in a bit of a shit hole. We carried on moving up as my Dad worked and got better jobs.
He invested with his then employers to start up a company, they turned out to be crooks and he walked away from that business losing ALL his money and money his parents had lent him to invest.
So have I never been without money?!
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
And this is why people think you're a dick.
You know nothing about me so I suggest you get some facts before posting stupid shite you've just made up.
I was born into a little terraced house in Anfield, officially one of the poorest areas in the whole country. My family had lived there for years upon years (generations in the same street).
My Dad worked hard, educated himself and got a semi decent job. That allowed us to move out of that area but still in a bit of a shit hole. We carried on moving up as my Dad worked and got better jobs.
He invested with his then employers to start up a company, they turned out to be crooks and he walked away from that business losing ALL his money and money his parents had lent him to invest.
So have I never been without money?!
Hence why I editted it and removed it as soon as i'd posted as I fealt it was un-called for by me.
I cannot help if you quoted it quicker than I removed it.
Feel free to think im a male reproductive organ, but I removed it as im a decent guy, its jsut what popped into my head.
And i've said before, i post, and edit after......
And your comeback to this one is?????
And its not like i've just fired a load of insults off to you is it, it was actually a question, and a valied one at that. You've just thrown a hissy.
[Edited on 22-04-2009 by VXR]
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cosmo
why dont consumers go to these smaller outlets and keep them in business?! .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you dont know the answer to this then I suggest again that you actuially do a bit of research on the subject.
The biggest reason is due to the lobbying power of the supermarkets in parliament that has allowed them to snap up huge amounts of land in prime areas and plonk a superstore their with masses of parking.
Councils have been encouraged to give out planning permission to these supermarkets and restructure their local road system to make the older town centre a nightmare to park in so that business is forced to the out of town retail. THIS IS DEPITE THE PROTESTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREAS WHERE THESE MASSIVE STORES HAVE BEEN PLACED.
If you dont belive me I can recommend a few books that might change your mind- they are not conspiricy theories- they are cold hard fact.
There is a myth that supermarkets offer free parking -- THEY DONT- we are all paying for that in the fact that on average a families trip to buy food has increased by an average of 15 miles in the last 20 years. We are travelling further to buy food than we haveever done before--- that means bigger petrol bills, bigger pollution and much bigger road congestion.
When labour first came into power in their manifesto was a John Prescott white paper which was planning on taxing supermarkets on the size o their car park and on how far away from the town centre they were located.
This white paper eventually had to be scrapped because the supermarket lobbyists and people like john sainsbury had too much financial and political power for the government to resist.
So in effect the supermarkets are creating policy in this country rather than our elected polticians- the same has happened in banking and in the energy industry.
We are being governed by big business.
[Edited on 22-04-2009 by Dr Pepper]
|
ShEp
Member
Registered: 9th Aug 05
Location: Dingwall, Highland
User status: Offline
|
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
No comeback to it, just pointing out that assuming something like that makes you out to be a dick, if you edit it or not.
Like me assuming something that would insult you greatly, and deleting it - makes me a decent guy....
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ShEp
This is a good debated post, whats with the rolleyes?
Either get involved or don't.
Input to post = None 
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
Daimo - I added the question mark to your quote, it wasnt there when I quoted it.
So no, it wasnt a question when you asked, I turned it into one to answer it like I did.
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
No comeback to it, just pointing out that assuming something like that makes you out to be a dick, if you edit it or not.
Like me assuming something that would insult you greatly, and deleting it - makes me a decent guy....
So you assume nothing in life? I will call you a lier right now, everyone does, its human nature (Unless your not human????).
ironically, online, we fight, in real life, i bet we'd actually get on quite well. Both strongly opinionated and believe what we type is correct...
You so like me
|
ShEp
Member
Registered: 9th Aug 05
Location: Dingwall, Highland
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
quote:
Originally posted by ShEp
This is a good debated post, whats with the rolleyes?
Either get involved or don't.
Input to post = None
Last time I had an opinion you railroaded me and told me I was wrong.
I have my opinions, and I don;t feel the need to post them and have you having a hissy fit over them till you get your own way.
50% tax on 150k correct in my eyes.
If I as one person would see benefit from paying more taxes, I wouldn;t have a problem with it either,
But I wouldn;t see a difference, maybe members of parliment would just get the ability back to claim 10k a year to furnish a second home, or maybe even buy a third home just to sell and make a profit.
Thats whats wrong with the country, not Joe public, it's the mp's.
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ShEp
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
quote:
Originally posted by ShEp
This is a good debated post, whats with the rolleyes?
Either get involved or don't.
Input to post = None
Last time I had an opinion you railroaded me and told me I was wrong.
I have my opinions, and I don;t feel the need to post them and have you having a hissy fit over them till you get your own way.
50% tax on 150k correct in my eyes.
If I as one person would see benefit from paying more taxes, I wouldn;t have a problem with it either,
But I wouldn;t see a difference, maybe members of parliment would just get the ability back to claim 10k a year to furnish a second home, or maybe even buy a third home just to sell and make a profit.
Thats whats wrong with the country, not Joe public, it's the mp's.
agree with that mate - the trouble is that the mps who do have the right idea have their hands tied by two things
1- the political and financial power that big business has- the laws and regulations and taxes that need to be imposed can not be because big business will not let the government do it
2- the party political system... you can not as an mp speak out against your party without being sidelined in the back benches- and the parties leaders will not take action on big business because we have got ourselfs into a position where our political parties and public resources are part funded by these companies
I aggre that increased tax is pointless unless it is taken from the right people and given to the right areas of society - the chances of this happening are slim
[Edited on 22-04-2009 by Dr Pepper]
[Edited on 22-04-2009 by Dr Pepper]
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ShEp
Last time I had an opinion you railroaded me and told me I was wrong.
I have my opinions, and I don;t feel the need to post them and have you having a hissy fit over them till you get your own way.
50% tax on 150k correct in my eyes.
If I as one person would see benefit from paying more taxes, I wouldn;t have a problem with it either,
But I wouldn;t see a difference, maybe members of parliment would just get the ability back to claim 10k a year to furnish a second home, or maybe even buy a third home just to sell and make a profit.
Thats whats wrong with the country, not Joe public, it's the mp's.
No-ones having a hissy fit. Those two left the post earlier, and since then its been on topic and quite interesting to read the various opinions.
Morally right or wrong I can say if I (as in ME) think its right or wrong. Its an opinion. If your moral set doesn't match mine, of course im going to think your wrong. I have a high moral set which i stick to, and won't drop just becuase some web dudes say so. Im sure your exactly the same, you have your own morals. I choose to defend mine with more passion. People don't like this so im branded trouble...... No, im just confident with what I believe 
I totally totally agree with your last statement. In fact, corruption ion the government is part of the problem, but it looks like its finally starting to be sorted out with all the scandles recently.
People will always find a loophole though, to remain rich
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
No comeback to it, just pointing out that assuming something like that makes you out to be a dick, if you edit it or not.
Like me assuming something that would insult you greatly, and deleting it - makes me a decent guy....
So you assume nothing in life? I will call you a lier right now, everyone does, its human nature (Unless your not human????).
ironically, online, we fight, in real life, i bet we'd actually get on quite well. Both strongly opinionated and believe what we type is correct...
You so like me
I dont doubt Im like you, I know Im a bit of a tit on here most of the time and accept that.
And of course I assume, but I tend to not post them on here when I do as most likely they'll be wrong and Id get called out on them - like happened to you as you couldnt be further from the truth.
In regards to this whole tax thing (as I need to get out of here and get some work done before I become one of the people I was on about) - Im not saying you're view on taxing the rich to fund the poor is wrong. I know why the Govt. do it and can see the benefit of doing so. I do however think it is wrong to go to the sort of % they are doing (50% is just a joke tbh).
And in regards to the whole Tesco/efficiency thing - go to some of the larger economies than ours...Japan and Germany are two great exmples. As a population both those countries have a much much much better work ethic than in our country. The companies are run more efficiently due to this, and therefore the workers, in general, get paid better than over here (in both monetry value and the general working environment).
I know its not a nice thing to see a load of people getting laid off, but its what this country needs. Its one of a few things that will come from the recession IMO. Our companies will be more competitive in the world economy (and thus creating new jobs and bringing in more tax revenue), and the way british people work will change as a whole.
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
People will always find a loophole though, to remain rich
Yep, and those will always exist 
|
|
