Social Media Defence Force

OrangeRKN wrote:Agreeing with people is more effective at reinforcing and strengthening their beliefs than arguing against them (which will often just strengthen the position you are arguing against). Ignore that opening line about putting more in to get more out or where they think the earning lines for higher taxation should fool. The bulk of their post is actually pretty good - identifying the ultra wealthy as the class enemy. Agree with them on that specifically. Something like "I think you're right, the ultra rich are hoarding wealth that is so desperately needed to help the poorest in society. People are struggling with losing their jobs because of coronavirus but the world's billionaires have actually just got richer. No one needs that much money and coorporations like Amazon need to pay their fair share."

Maybe I am misinterpreting what you mean, but if I have it correctly then I don't agree. Public services are for the public (i.e. everyone) and they should be funded to a sufficient standard so that they are good enough no matter how rich or poor you are. Are you saying that, for example, higher tax payers should receive a better standard of healthcare so, I don't know, there would be a 'higher rate tax payers only' wing in NHS hospitals?

I started a different post about this a while back. I am no economist or expert on politics or anything but from what I have read there are a small minority of people who have a ridiculous amount of wealth. Like far too much to spend. And if we just took a harder stance on tax evasion and put a cap on how much you could hoard... and I still mean you can be a multimillionaire! Just not a billionaire - then apparently we would be able to support our state services. Surely that is the real problem? I will see if I cam find the post. This is very interesting.

I'm not saying I'm right! I just think the solution appears obvious to me. I don't know why more people aren't cross about it? I do also think people shouldn't create life they can't protect economically or otherwise. And I think jail should be awful so people would try to avoid it more but there you go.

yes definitely, I agree completely. I'm sure we've all read the snazzy headlines about the top 1% hoarding 95% of all wealth etc. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be a billionaire. People will suggest that billionaires have earned their money, why should they share their wealth, we're all just jealous proles annoyed that we didn't think of Google first etc. Okay, let's just allow billions of people to suffer in chronic poverty because it might upset billionaires to pay fractionally more tax than they do at the moment.
Completely disagree on your point about prisons, by the way... maybe we should stick to economics for the time being!

Well I spent 7 years locking up the baddies so I am gonna stick to my views on criminal justice. I keep thinking lockdown is changing the way people see things. Extra time to think? I keep seeing news that makes me hopeful... So, here's hoping.

It's hard to be hopeful when things have clearly been getting so much worse for a long time now and we just handed the Conservatives a huge majority in parliament. Far too many people have been hoodwinked and they're too far down the rabbit hole to ever come back out.

I actually travelled to another city to canvass for labour in a blue seat area and cried my eyes out at the election results but I will never lose hope.

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

rinks wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

Remember the outrage of that berk on Question Time, who not only refused to believe that his £85k put him in the top 5%, but also reckoned he wasn’t even in the top 50%.

rinks wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

Remember the outrage of that berk on Question Time, who not only refused to believe that his £85k put him in the top 5%, but also reckoned he wasn’t even in the top 50%.

Knoyleo wrote:

rinks wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

Remember the outrage of that berk on Question Time, who not only refused to believe that his £85k put him in the top 5%, but also reckoned he wasn’t even in the top 50%.

Yeah but lawyers and surgeons earn more, so he couldn't have been well off.

Lex-Man wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

rinks wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

Remember the outrage of that berk on Question Time, who not only refused to believe that his £85k put him in the top 5%, but also reckoned he wasn’t even in the top 50%.

Yeah but lawyers and surgeons earn more, so he couldn't have been well off.

Except that as people pointed out afterwards most Lawyers and Doctors don't earn 85k. The problem is the ideal amount of money to earn a month is probably about £400 more than you currently earn.

Cuttooth wrote:

rinks wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

Remember the outrage of that berk on Question Time, who not only refused to believe that his £85k put him in the top 5%, but also reckoned he wasn’t even in the top 50%.

The audience reaction from "Too right my friend we can barely scrape by!" to "wait what" was amazing.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

rinks wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

Remember the outrage of that berk on Question Time, who not only refused to believe that his £85k put him in the top 5%, but also reckoned he wasn’t even in the top 50%.

Yeah but lawyers and surgeons earn more, so he couldn't have been well off.

Except that as people pointed out afterwards most Lawyers and Doctors don't earn 85k. The problem is the ideal amount of money to earn a month is probably about £400 more than you currently earn.

Call me cynical but I think human nature works against this. People (I'm speaking generally) will strive to have and do more. Obviously I am of the opinion that everyone should have enough to satisfy their essential needs, but I also think people need more than just that. But where is the line drawn?

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

rinks wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

Remember the outrage of that berk on Question Time, who not only refused to believe that his £85k put him in the top 5%, but also reckoned he wasn’t even in the top 50%.

Yeah but lawyers and surgeons earn more, so he couldn't have been well off.

Except that as people pointed out afterwards most Lawyers and Doctors don't earn 85k. The problem is the ideal amount of money to earn a month is probably about £400 more than you currently earn.

Call me cynical but I think human nature works against this. People (I'm speaking generally) will strive to have and do more. Obviously I am of the opinion that everyone should have enough to satisfy their essential needs, but I also think people need more than just that. But where is the line drawn?

I think that was Lex's point?

Knoyleo wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:

rinks wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

Remember the outrage of that berk on Question Time, who not only refused to believe that his £85k put him in the top 5%, but also reckoned he wasn’t even in the top 50%.

The audience reaction from "Too right my friend we can barely scrape by!" to "wait what" was amazing.

Labour: You earn over £80k?
Man: Yes, and I am not in the top 5%!
Audience, mumbling: You are.

Cuttooth wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:

rinks wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

Remember the outrage of that berk on Question Time, who not only refused to believe that his £85k put him in the top 5%, but also reckoned he wasn’t even in the top 50%.

The audience reaction from "Too right my friend we can barely scrape by!" to "wait what" was amazing.

Labour: You earn over £80k?
Man: Yes, and I am not in the top 5%!
Audience, mumbling: You are.

I just don't get how you can get so far in life to earn £80k and think it must be some average wage.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Oh my god I literally just remembered I sacked this person about five years ago !

What the strawberry float I think the fact we've still been friends on Facebook all this time completely passed me by!

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

rinks wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

Remember the outrage of that berk on Question Time, who not only refused to believe that his £85k put him in the top 5%, but also reckoned he wasn’t even in the top 50%.

Yeah but lawyers and surgeons earn more, so he couldn't have been well off.

Except that as people pointed out afterwards most Lawyers and Doctors don't earn 85k. The problem is the ideal amount of money to earn a month is probably about £400 more than you currently earn.

Call me cynical but I think human nature works against this. People (I'm speaking generally) will strive to have and do more. Obviously I am of the opinion that everyone should have enough to satisfy their essential needs, but I also think people need more than just that. But where is the line drawn?

I think that was Lex's point?

Ahh you could be right. I was a bit confused by the "you" but it makes sense now you say that.

Cuttooth wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:

rinks wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:But what is the response to that original quote? I want to say that, if socialist policies were properly implemented, it would only be the very top earners (<5%?) who would pay more and they have far too much so can easily afford to lose it, but is that a bit of a fib?

Well, "socialist policies" is a pretty broad term, too broad to be able to give any specifics about an exact % of the population affected, but if you look at, for example, the last Labour manifesto, and the tax plans in that, only individuals earning over £80k per year would have seen an increased tax bill, which is the top 5% of earners, so not even the top 5% of total population.

Remember the outrage of that berk on Question Time, who not only refused to believe that his £85k put him in the top 5%, but also reckoned he wasn’t even in the top 50%.

The audience reaction from "Too right my friend we can barely scrape by!" to "wait what" was amazing.

Labour: You earn over £80k?
Man: Yes, and I am not in the top 5%!
Audience, mumbling: You are.

I just don't get how you can get so far in life to earn £80k and think it must be some average wage.

Grumpy David wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Oh my god I literally just remembered I sacked this person about five years ago !

What the strawberry float I think the fact we've still been friends on Facebook all this time completely passed me by!

Wtf.

How many people have you sacked in those 5 years to not remember this?!

Cuttooth wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Oh my god I literally just remembered I sacked this person about five years ago !

What the strawberry float I think the fact we've still been friends on Facebook all this time completely passed me by!

Wtf.

How many people have you sacked in those 5 years to not remember this?!

He’s really good at recruitment so it can’t be many.