Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  >      Home login  
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 81
The Great DebatePage 8 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

I couldn't disagree with you more! It's one hell of a get out to claim it's subliminal! I don't believe this attitude exists at any level of consciousness.

And you're perfectly entitled to disagree, I made it clear that this was JMO.
But I still maintain that if people see others existing on entitlement (Quite literally in their case!) they may well think; "sod this, I'm not working either" And you can't prove me wrong!

If so, then why didn't the entitlement culture be at it's peak when the 1% owned much more than 70% of the land?

Well obviously we have only had a welfare state for about half a century, and before that the Lord of the manor would exact all manner of violent retribution on those of his unfortunate subjects who he felt weren't working as hard as they could.
We still live with the relics of that feudal system in place.
The Duke of Westminster is still the richest native of this country, how much hard work did he do for his 300 acres of central London.. valued at what...£3.5 Billion in 2003?
How much rent do the people who live/trade in those locations pay him? And if we buy anything from those people, or stay in those hotels, we are paying him too, those rental charges are in the price of everything. Tenant farmers pay rent too, and that's in the price of our food. We all work for them...
Where I live it's the Duke of Marlborough, he owns most of the farmland in between Woodstock and Witney. My son lives in a village just to the north of Oxford, and presumably he once owned much of that land too, because they still have to get his approval for any alterations, because it's in the deeds!
50% of all the land in this country is "unregistered" at the Land Registry, because it's never changed hands in 1000 years!
And that's certainly not because they're "more capable"!
You seldom hear about the 'achievements' of the Aristocracy in the media....
Because there are none!
I can't see any logic in this system.

 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 83
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/1/2010 10:53:22 AM

In my opinion this view of British history owes more to the fantasies of Sir Walter Scott than fact. My mother was alive before the introduction of the welfare state. She has yet to tell me of being harrassed at the hands of beastly Barons and evil Earls.

Well what about the Scottish and Irish Land clearances?
(- a bit before your Mum I hope! )
That resulted in the Crofters Act of 1886.
That's not all that long ago.

I don't believe that achievement necessarily has to be in immediate quantifiable material terms.

Agreed, the point I was making was in response to your bit about "Less capable hands", and the point I was trying to make was that there's really no "meritocracy" in the "aristocracy". And there's a very strong possibility that the "wealth creating assets" you spoke of, would fall into the hands of the "more capable"
There may have been once, but I've seen no evidence that they are either "natural leaders" or "high achievers", and that's despite having had the benefits of the best health and education that money can buy. (As in Jamie Blandford's case, and I'm not sure his dad can 'disinherit him' without an Act of Parliament...?)
I'll concede that they often excel in fields, which by their nature are the province of the wealthy (mainly) like polo, yachting, motor racing, showjumping, exploring etc., but I still feel that despite all their advantages, their actual achievements are scarce. And their participation is facilitated by their lack of any obligation towards constructive, necessary work, in other words, because they're bored...
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 85
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/1/2010 12:12:19 PM

One group of people in a country believe that another group of people in that country have obtained their wealth unfairly and through little actual work. Furthermore they believe that these people are too insular with their wealth; keeping it amongst themselves. They decide to forcibly take that wealth and give it to the state.

Socialism...........or National Socialism?

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it...!

Where did I say "forcibly take it"...?
We're only talking about leaving the inheritance tax where it is now!
Not 'revolution' FFS!

 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 87
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/2/2010 8:14:34 AM
The failure for some to see that many have worked and not inherited wealth, although their wealth will be inherited, shows the ignorance that class hatred brings with it and the bigoted views of those who have nothing, and do not wish to see others with anything that they will never have ..

Get over it ..

Jumping to conclusions is not the best form of exercise!

Without giving you personal details, in response to a personal attack,
-lets just say that my Dad died before the threshold was raised.
And the above view is both ignorant of the facts, and totally incorrect.
I have paid higher rate taxes for most of my working life, and never resented it,
I was paying 60% in the eighties, and it never bothered me, I still had plenty left.

Tony Benn is a hero of mine, and he renounced his inherited peerage to stand as a democratically elected MP.
It is not only "poor people" who object to unfair systems,
and not all "rich people" vote tory.
That conclusion just shows a narrow minded, blinkered view of the world.
Try to stick to facts rather than making sweeping generalisations about things which you have absolutely no knowledge of.
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 88
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/2/2010 5:35:23 PM
another kick in the bollocks for brown

The next government must move urgently to axe the planned National Insurance hike and outline plans to reduce the UK's deficit or risk a recession relapse, a business group has warned.

In a down a 90 day challenge laid down to the incoming government, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) set out a 12-step plan to promote business growth and economic recovery after the General Election.

It said Labour's planned rise in employer National Insurance contributions in 2011 was a "tax on jobs" and must be cancelled in full, alongside other proposals including freezing public sector pay, developing a radical plan to speed-up next generation broadband and introducing a moratorium on any new employment law before 2014.

David Frost, director general of the BCC, said: "During the first 90 days after an election, an incoming government must make concrete proposals to reduce red tape and tax burdens on business; review how to move the economy away from an over-reliance on consumption and the public sector; and commit to improving Britain's energy, transport and digital infrastructure."

He added: "We will be judging the performance of the next government against its delivery of a clear plan for business.

"Putting business growth at the very core of a new administration's thinking is fundamental to returning our economy to health quickly and for the long-term."

Recent output figures for the economy showed the fragility of the UK recovery, with gross domestic product (GDP) growing by a weaker-than-expected 0.2% in the first quarter of 2010.

The GDP estimate added to economic fears, coming as unemployment data also showed joblessness rising to a 16-year high of 2.5 million.

Public borrowing for the year to the end of March came in lower than the Government's original grim forecasts, at £163.4 billion versus a Budget prediction of £167 billion.

But the figure was still the worst on record and confirmed the scale of the challenge faced in reducing the deficit to a manageable level.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 90
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/3/2010 2:26:58 PM
I watched a program earlier on Ch 4, and it seems the little embarrassment that Brown had, while on 'walkabout', could never happen to Cameron;
Everywhere he went, Tory supporters, and people from Central Office were bussed in to make sure the press only saw happy smiling people!
There were no 'ordinary members of the public allowed anywhere near him,
the reporter was asking everyone how they knew Cameron was visiting, and every single one was from Tory Central Office, or the Local Conservative Club!
The whole thing was 'stage-managed' and a complete sham.
Shame he seems to think the British public is so stupid, and that this wouldn't come out!

Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 91
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/3/2010 2:37:58 PM

I watched a program earlier on Ch 4, and it seems the little embarrassment that Brown had, while on 'walkabout', could never happen to Cameron;

ahhh you mean the dear old life long labour supporter who was pushed to the front by a labour aide?

looking forward to next friday .....

brown on the phone to pickfords, im moving house can you arrange a few wagons?

errrrr mr brown, 10 downing street? no worries sir that was booked ages ago by a mr mandleson and blair

 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 92
The Great Debate
Posted: 5/3/2010 3:41:42 PM

so the other poster was (as do often happens) wrong to claim that the raising of the threshold was a tax break for the very wealthy.

Ok sorry, I'll rephrase that: A Tax Giveaway to the most wealthy


Like the ones you made on Dave and foxhunting?

Yes facts exactly like those , you've got it

 Forrest Grump
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 95
view profile
The Great Debate
Posted: 1/18/2011 1:03:32 PM
Sorry about the delay in replying. but I need to clarify certain points.

Anniesea Msg132

3. The two-year period may be extended if and ONLY IF both the Council (the party of the first part) and the Member State (the party of the second part) agree.

4. After two years, if the Member State does not agree with the Council to extend the period and there is no withdrawal agreement in place, the Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question.

Spot on. At last someone who understands PLAIN ENGLISH.

unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,unanimously decides to extend this period.

Means exactly what is says on the tin….
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  >