National News Boris Johnson - PM

Pillox

Junior Member
Joined
25 Dec 2019
Messages
130
Where did I say Tories had been ‘impeccable’ ? Equally , your use of the phrase ‘chaotic mess’ is simply not accurate. Let’s try and get the extremities out of the language used, it’s not Twitter here, but a pair of old buffers on a lower league forum. 😉

It really is accurate though isnt it. You having your head up their arses doesn't change that.
 

MarkG

Well-known member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,343
But what about the bodies pilling up
In the streets ?

Where’s the clamour because the local factory wasn’t allowed to botch together a ventilator out of spare vacuum cleaner parts and a whoopee cushion ? We are crying out for ventilators it’s a disgrace.

Also the nightingale hospitals. Full to the brim but the government aren’t telling us.
 

Sheik djibouti

Well-known member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
1,224
But what about the bodies pilling up
In the streets ?

Where’s the clamour because the local factory wasn’t allowed to botch together a ventilator out of spare vacuum cleaner parts and a whoopee cushion ? We are crying out for ventilators it’s a disgrace.

Also the nightingale hospitals. Full to the brim but the government aren’t telling us.
You seem to have difficulty telling the difference between a shambles and a humanitarian disaster
 
  • Like
Reactions: QR

QR

Well-known member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
1,627
The EU is not a country.......................... its a ponzi pyramid scheme of administrators. :D
Can you explain that please. The bit in bold in case you do your usual trick of answering a different question.
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
5,276
Can you explain that please. The bit in bold in case you do your usual trick of answering a different question.

My pleasure.....
The European Union is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are located primarily in Europe.
It spends 114 million euros a year shuffling from one building to another.
It takes money from the wealthy states and liberally shares it to the poorer states.
It has a budget, not from producing anything but from taking it from its members.
The EU has agreed on a budget of €165.8 billion for the year 2019, representing around 1% of the EU-28's gross national income GNI).
The EU has a long-term budget of €1,082.5 billion for the period 2014–2020, representing 1.02% of the EU-28's GNI.

It just does admin at great cost and its financial structure is lacking in nett contributors so could collapse if another nett contributor leaves... just like any other MLM/Pyramid/Ponzi scheme ....................
 

chuckbert

Well-known member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
2,036
its financial structure is lacking in nett contributors so could collapse if another nett contributor leaves... just like any other MLM/Pyramid/Ponzi scheme ....................
Well, not really. MLM and Ponzi rely on ever growing numbers of small contributors entering at the bottom to feed the structure. The EU is more like other structures which rely on a small number of major contributors to feed the whole, like families or collectives.
 

MC Yellow

Well-known member
Joined
17 Dec 2017
Messages
1,252
Well, not really. MLM and Ponzi rely on ever growing numbers of small contributors entering at the bottom to feed the structure. The EU is more like other structures which rely on a small number of major contributors to feed the whole, like families or collectives.

A bit like an inverted pyramid then. Even more unstable... more eggs in one basket.
 

Navegante

Active member
Joined
14 Feb 2018
Messages
919
It just does admin at great cost and its financial structure is lacking in nett contributors so could collapse if another nett contributor leaves... just like any other MLM/Pyramid/Ponzi scheme ....................

It's a club. If somebody leaves, they will have to increase membership fees and/or reduce outgoings. It benefits it's members* so I find it hard to imagine it will collapse if another net contributor leaves.

*with the exception of Blighty, of course, who was getting rogered senseless from all angles by Johnny Foreigner.
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
5,276
Well, not really. MLM and Ponzi rely on ever growing numbers of small contributors entering at the bottom to feed the structure. The EU is more like other structures which rely on a small number of major contributors to feed the whole, like families or collectives.

They ran out of countries to feed the structure a while ago. They are now in the "blokes in the pub & tax territory".
Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. 
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!" 
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" 

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill! 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. 
 

QR

Well-known member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
1,627
They ran out of countries to feed the structure a while ago. They are now in the "blokes in the pub & tax territory".
Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. 
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!" 
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" 

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill! 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. 
And it's only true if you are cutting services so you can cut tax for the rich. Which right wing 'think-tank' do you get this crap from??
 

QR

Well-known member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
1,627
You sound rather embittered.

More p1ssed off with a Tory government that sells the false need for austerity.


There is no direct correlation between the two.
There is with this Government.

Out of interest, what is your definition of rich ( earnings per annum).

All things are relative. The rich know who they are.
 

bashamwonderland

Active member
Joined
19 Dec 2017
Messages
921
In many ways we are all rich. We are in the top 1% of the top 1% of all people who have ever lived. It's all good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m

m

Well-known member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
2,480
Out of interest, what is your definition of rich ( earnings per annum).

That's an interesting question, and although it wasn't asked of me I'll give an answer.

In the context given 'the rich' for me are not possible to define by the metrics 'per annum'.

Mainly because very much effort is put in to hiding precisely that! (Offshore accounts etc)

Also, I'd say it wasn't a fixed amount PA when considering dividends, wealth tied up in assets, investment performance etc.

I would discount nearly all salaried individuals from being rich - assuming this is their sole means of earning.

For instance, someone earning £150K PA would be well off or comfortable rather than rich.
 

Similar threads


Top Bottom