300,000 jobs in public sector face the axe

Alan_Cross

A._Badger wrote: »

Of course I wouldn't agree. It wouldn't raise a fraction of what is needed and it would destroy business confidence. Is it that socialists cannot learn from history, or just that they refuse to?

But surely we are all in this together..? Did not one of your great men say as much? Those who can afford to pay the most should surely, in our nation's great hour of need, rise to the challenge, should they not?

Your argument is trotted out ever and again as a specious twaddle which 'justifies' always letting those with greatest wealth off the hook and forcing those of comparatively modest means to take the greatest hit.

It is the argument which says that bosses of all kinds must, of course, be paid ridiculous multiples of what their average employees earn.

Arrant nonsense. If I am going to have to take it on the chin, I want to know that dear Ashcroft is going to get a proportionate and similar uppercut.

Is he, though? Is he, hell.

jonewer

LizEstelle wrote: »

I for one would bang up taxes on top earners and put a 95% tax on all bankers bonuses, for starters

This is the problem with socialists. You are motivated by spite and envy of those richer than you, and you disguise it as concern for those poorer than you.

You do know that if you levied a 95% tax on bonuses, the financial sector would go somewhere else, the governemnt tax take would plummet in a catastrophic fashion, borrowing would spike, no-one would buy our debt, taxes would rise exponentially and the whole country would be staring bankrupty in the face within 24 months. Then, when we're properly a third world country, the IMF comes in and dictates an austerity package that makes the current round of cuts look like a penny coin that rolled under the sofa.

But dont let reality get in the way of your spiteful little socialist fantasy.

A._Badger

Alan_Cross wrote: »

But surely we are all in this together..? Did not one of your great men say as much? Those who can afford to pay the most should surely, in our nation's great hour of need, rise to the challenge, should they not?

I don't have a 'great man'. It is a testament to the limitations in your thinking that you assume anyone who doesn't cherish the persistently failing dogma of socialism must be a Tory.

The long and short of it is your remedy doesn't work. Every time it has been tried, it has failed and, most often, led to societal misery of untold proportions.

And you don't need to worship at the altar of Margaret Thatcher to know that.

dave4545454

lynzpower wrote: »

my god what a nasty thing to say. What is wrong with you?

nothing wrong with me, i just don't put up with bullies who spend their time following me around on here just to attack me to make up for their own insecurities.

chucky

dave4545454 wrote: »

nothing wrong with me, i just don't put up with bullies who spend their time following me around on here just to attack me to make up for their own insecurities.

good on you - ignore the selective readers

marklv

jonewer wrote: »

This is the problem with socialists. You are motivated by spite and envy of those richer than you, and you disguise it as concern for those poorer than you.

I don't think it's envy. It's a question of fairness - and ensuring that society is not totally dominated by the rich, as in medieval times right up to the 20th century. Some rich people certainly deserve their wealth, but many others do not - they just got lucky and have no special talents. Similarly, there are plenty of talented and intelligent people who are on low earnings and/or possess low wealth through no fault of their own. The picture is a lot more complicated that you would think.

jonewer wrote: »

You do know that if you levied a 95% tax on bonuses, the financial sector would go somewhere else, the governemnt tax take would plummet in a catastrophic fashion, borrowing would spike, no-one would buy our debt, taxes would rise exponentially and the whole country would be staring bankrupty in the face within 24 months. Then, when we're properly a third world country, the IMF comes in and dictates an austerity package that makes the current round of cuts look like a penny coin that rolled under the sofa.

But dont let reality get in the way of your spiteful little socialist fantasy.

That's why I would never levy such a high tax rate! But at the same time, there is no reason to have a giveaway rate either.

Thrugelmir

LizEstelle wrote: »

I wouldn't argue with that. It's just that you seem to believe there is only one way of doing the clearing.

I for one would bang up taxes on top earners and put a 95% tax on all bankers bonuses, for starters.

You wouldn't agree? Too left wing for you? I wonder if it would be too left wing for Cleggie and Cable. Can't be too long before the cracks begin to appear...

A lazy suggestion. One that shows a fair degree of ignorance. We live in a global world now. Where the BRICS will have little qualm in taking the bankers on board.

Communism fell with the Berlin Wall. New Labour was born shortly afterwards. Are you trying to tell me Tony Blair was left wing? :cool:

Think you should realign yourself with the SWP.

donaldtramp

LIZesstelle

Does one by any chance detect the smugness of someone who does not have a child in school or a friend or relation needing hospital treatment... as the majority of us do..?

This is precisely nasty Toryism 'getting the axe out'.

and
Alan Cross

Yep, it'll be cut after predictable Tory cut, all paraded in front of us with a superficial whitewash of Cleggery but cheered to the rafters by the kind of smugness portrayed in the OP.

So its "Nasty Toryism" and "predictable tory cuts" eh?

You should have a read at what Brown's chancellor was saying just before the election in that famous left wing paper The Guardian.....

Have a read, try to understand the basics and then get back to us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s, as the country's leading experts on tax and spending warned that Britain faces "two parliaments of pain" to repair the black hole in the state's finances.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies said hefty tax rises and Whitehall spending cuts of 25% were in prospect during the six-year squeeze lasting until 2017 that would follow the chancellor's "treading water" budget yesterday.

The_White_Horse

lefties are morons. no point trying to argue with them.

mitchaa

The military benefit from a non contributory final salary pension,surely this should be looked at? NHS/Police etc at least have contributory pension schemes.