Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

To make the rich work harder pay them more....


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 32 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 27 Feb 2014 16:36:26 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 27 Feb 2014 16:58:37 GMT
You have said, more than once: 'no work no pay, will put an end to JKers' and this was the policy in the USSR too. Accordingly do YOU say: 'to make the poor work stop their benefits'?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 17:02:21 GMT
No....why are the poor who are in work on benefits?...think more deeply.

Posted on 27 Feb 2014 17:06:39 GMT
NO...What do you plan to do with the JKers?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 17:09:39 GMT
Take their benefits away, what would you do with those who are paid so little they have to claim tax credits? Could kooky live and thrive on the minimum wage. Gomsy pays a living wage.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 17:16:04 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Feb 2014 17:22:55 GMT
Apparently more than 62% of UKey households are on Benefits, plus they get 'free' education, health services, 'social care' and sports grants - it's all like your Utopia, the old USSR. Only if you didn't work back in the USSR you got nothing from the gov.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 17:18:17 GMT
?.?........wheeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!.....kooky on his slide by and avoid the question run?!?!

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 17:29:29 GMT
Like you did?

And KooKy did not <<aviod>>. Howzabout 62% are on Benefits for the same reasons the USSR gov had the entire population on handouts/subsidies?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 17:31:09 GMT
<<wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!...>> Hammock spinning out of control? calm down

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 17:34:47 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 27 Feb 2014 17:37:14 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 18:07:25 GMT
Spin says:
Goms: RBS, a bank owned by the tax-payer has announced losses of 8.2 billion and yet it paid half a billion, tax-payers money, in bonuses to its executives. Shares in RBS have fallen but revelations about how it intentionally drove perfectly viable business into the ground in order to recuperate and re-invest its loans is, in itself, a reason why the bonus system is unethical, immoral and should be punished under laws concerning Fraud.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 18:28:09 GMT
Amazon don't like words that are a way of describing a natural human function....ooooohhhhhhhhhhhh!

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 18:45:24 GMT
$*!e is in The Oxford Dictionary which they sell.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 18:50:00 GMT
eric rambler says:
I think you will find that these are secret policies. You might be arrested for leaking them here, perhaps you should delete quickly.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 18:52:09 GMT
Is the 'answer' to stop most gov spending: stop bailing out banks, stop paying 200 billion a year in Benefits and 35 billion in personal social services, and to cut Income Tax and let capitalism work?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 19:00:08 GMT
Spin says:
Gordon: the answer is not to penalise the elderly, the disabled and the poor simply to ensure fraudulent banks stay afloat, mismanage their business loans and mortgages, and ensure their executives get more money than they need or deserve...

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 19:16:57 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Feb 2014 19:17:38 GMT
The gov pays households 235 billion a year in Benefits and personal social services and spends another 200 billion on health and education, that's 30% of GDP.

Howzabout an orderly break up of the big banks so that in future they are not 'too big to fail'?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 19:24:21 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Feb 2014 19:32:06 GMT
Spin says:
Gordon:What a ridiculous notion. So if a bank gets "too big" how on earth do propose stopping the rights of a person to choose to invest in that bank or open an account? Is the same rule to be applied to multi-national business? If so how does one stop people buying their product if they "get too large"? Business and capitalism halts, by law, at a certain point? Nonsense. And the idea of separating the investment branch of a bank from its commercial branch is a fantasy as well, a means of keeping the perturbed tax-payer quiet for the moment, since it is the commercial branch that enables investment. Not only that, but the banks invest in the very businesses it funds; to stop investment by means of the commercial sector, means the banks can only invest their own profits and so they will reduce investing their profits in private houses and small businesses. mortgages and business loans will only be given to guaranteed profitable ventures. And there will be nothing we can do about. If a bank cannot invest its commercial capital it sure as hell cannot support society with such a limited and customer-dependent income.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 20:49:06 GMT
Now you appear to believe that banks should be bailed out at taxpayers expense and that they should be allowed to be as big (monopolistic) as they choose, contradicting your earlier post.

Banks have not always combined commercial banking and speculative and risky financial trading in the same institution, so there's no reason why these functions should not be separated again. There should be no Central Bank, public funded, underwriting of speculative banking activities. Banks that handle customers money, provide them with services and loans, whether household or commercial, should be separated from institutions that engage in speculative trades. No gov is suggesting that commercial banks should NOT be allowed to provide finance for industry. What should be prohibited is speculative trading in things like hedge funds that put depositors assets at risk and force the Central Bank to underwrite them should they become insolvent through speculation, or face a collapse of the financial system.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 20:57:24 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Feb 2014 21:22:14 GMT
Spin says:
Gordon: id you read my posts properly you will see that I do not believe the banks should be bailed out. Banks are private companies; their success or failure is their own fault. The government invests tax payers money in private enterprises; do you require the government to separate the money you give it from the investments it makes with your money? Capitalism cannot be reformed by employing capitalist philosophy. A complete change in societal economics is required. ie; the abandonment of the belief that capitalism is the "cure" for its own faults..

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 21:14:21 GMT
OK I give up, whatever you say Spinny.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 21:16:14 GMT
Ted....never, never, never give up...a brighter future awaits.Hammer Sickle Star Wreath Wallet Soft Leather USSR Cold War Russia Russian Socialist communist Printed Picture Wallet

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 21:21:29 GMT
This is Spinny we are talking about...read through his posts.

Now then have you given up on your plan to the oldest human to pass the Navvy Seal entrance test? How's it going?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 21:23:30 GMT
Going well Teddy. Gomsy has lost another five pounds of flab.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Feb 2014 21:29:34 GMT
Spin says:
Goms; Shame. Now your woman has nothing to hang on to =)
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  6
Total posts:  32
Initial post:  27 Feb 2014
Latest post:  2 Mar 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions