Divide & conquer

lemonjelly

bendix wrote: »

Here's a tip for you. Simply repeating an ill-thought through (and ultimately wrong) theory several times doesn't make it any more true.

And here you are with incessant drivel, rather than giving a thoughtful, logical & insightful riposte.

Here's a tip for you bendix. Post something relevant rather than your futile attempts at funnies that make only you laugh.

bendix wrote: »

With every new post, you continue to reveal insidious little insights into your nature.

Not content with portraying yourself as a self-obsessed 'cuts but so long as they don't affect me' quasi bigot with alarming and idiotic views (supported by posted links) professing to 'prove' the superior intelligence of white people over blacks; and not content with constant 'oh so discrete' messages hinting at your support for BNP which you're scared of shouting out loud; you now reveal yourself to be a quasi-anti-semite too.

bendix wrote: »

oh. ok.

Ummmmm. Right.

Anyway, you're welsh. Your view doesnt count.

And then you criticise one poster for alleged BNP leanings, & follow it within minutes by posting a racist remark yourself.

Pot & kettle.

Or to be more specific. Hypocrite.

Still wanna marry me? Or are you still scared of that question?

bendix

lemonjelly wrote: »

And here you are with incessant drivel, rather than giving a thoughtful, logical & insightful riposte.

Here's a tip for you bendix. Post something relevant rather than your futile attempts at funnies that make only you laugh.





And then you criticise one poster for alleged BNP leanings, & follow it within minutes by posting a racist remark yourself.

Pot & kettle.

Or to be more specific. Hypocrite.

Still wanna marry me? Or are you still scared of that question?

You are the one claiming the private sector created the need for an austerity program, yet you haven't explained why.

You mumble something about the bank bailouts, yet as it's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, the Govt's stake in the bailed out banks is accounted for as an ASSET in their balance sheet, not a liability and quite rightly so - it is an investment, not a cost. And, i might add, it is an investment that is currently in profit.

Ergo, the banks have actually helped the public finances, not hindered them.

The austerity packages are being undertaken to reduce the structural deficit. The structural deficit exists because the labour government of the last ten years systematically spent more than it earned.

How hard is that to understand?

Given that, could you please explain in words that even an idiot like i can understand how the private sector has created this situation?

bendix

lemonjelly wrote: »

And then you criticise one poster for alleged BNP leanings, & follow it within minutes by posting a racist remark yourself.

Pot & kettle.

Or to be more specific. Hypocrite.

Still wanna marry me? Or are you still scared of that question?

Ignoring the welsh is not racist. It's just common sense and good breeding. Everyone knows that.

lynzpower

bendix wrote: »

Ignoring the welsh is not racist. It's just common sense and good breeding. Everyone knows that.

It is racist and Ive reported it as such.

Theres really no need.

bendix

lynzpower wrote: »

It is racist and Ive reported it as such.

Theres really no need.

Is saying people who live 'south of the river' should be ignored racist too?

If so, report me again please.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Given that, could you please explain in words that even an idiot like i can understand how the private sector has created this situation?

okay...who was responsible for lending out money to people who were unlikely to be able to pay it back?

who then cut back in lending to business, just at a time when it was most needed?

who reduced wages to the minimum they could get away with and creamed off profits in the good times (often to offshore untaxable places), thereby lowering tax revenue (and so increasing the deficit).

bendix

ninky wrote: »

okay...who was responsible for lending out money to people who were unlikely to be able to pay it back?

who then cut back in lending to business, just at a time when it was most needed?

who reduced wages to the minimum they could get away with and creamed off profits in the good times (often to offshore untaxable places), thereby lowering tax revenue (and so increasing the deficit).

The current austerity drive - the need to cut public spending by 25-40% - has NOTHING to do with any of these things. They are not part of the same problem.

The PUBLIC debt and the structural deficit has not been created by the private sector. It has been caused by governments spending more than they have.

There is absolutely no link between Osborne declaring benefits need to be reduced and public sector pensions reformed and a bank lending too much money to Mr and Mrs Joe Public.

On your last point - an intersting one I concede - if you are aware of any business illegally avoiding paying tax, could you please report it to the Inland Revenue, and I'm sure they will take it up with those businesses concerned. Many thanks.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

The current austerity drive - the need to cut public spending by 25-40% - has NOTHING to do with any of these things. They are not part of the same problem.

The PUBLIC debt and the structural deficit has not been created by the private sector. It has been caused by governments spending more than they have.

There is absolutely no link between Osborne declaring benefits need to be reduced and public sector pensions reformed and a bank lending too much money to Mr and Mrs Joe Public.

On your last point - an intersting one I concede - if you are aware of any business illegally avoiding paying tax, could you please report it to the Inland Revenue, and I'm sure they will take it up with those businesses concerned. Many thanks.

of course it is linked. there are two sides to a deficit - outgoings and incomings. whilst the government can control the outgoings, the behaviour of the private sector has a massive impact on incomings.

as for tax avoidance...well that's legal unfortunately. but it's clear that by paying minimum in wages and conducting business like this http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/19/tax-free-cd-boom-casts-doubt-on-treasury-claims the uk deficit has been greatly increased. the 110 million of just this one offshore 'scam' could go somewhere to help if it was in the coffers of the treasury.

lemonjelly

bendix wrote: »

You are the one claiming the private sector created the need for an austerity program, yet you haven't explained why.

You mumble something about the bank bailouts, yet as it's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, the Govt's stake in the bailed out banks is accounted for as an ASSET in their balance sheet, not a liability and quite rightly so - it is an investment, not a cost. And, i might add, it is an investment that is currently in profit.

Ergo, the banks have actually helped the public finances, not hindered them.

The austerity packages are being undertaken to reduce the structural deficit. The structural deficit exists because the labour government of the last ten years systematically spent more than it earned.

How hard is that to understand?

Given that, could you please explain in words that even an idiot like i can understand how the private sector has created this situation?

I've discussed it numerous times. However;

Firstly, the over-zealous lending nature of the finance industry, combined with the selling of products that still no-one properly understands created a black hole in the banking sector, & the only way to stabilize this was for government intervetion. This cost a phenomenal amount of money. There is quite a double standard I feel in the economic system requiring taxpayers to stump up all this cash to save a private industry, yet within months be planning to do away with a huge amount of the public sector.

The blame doesn't lie solely with the banking sector. Private industries everywhere are getting the welfare state to subsidise their employees wages with things like tax credits. If employers paid a decent wage to their staff, the need for tax credits would be gone (as well as thousands of housing benefit & council tax benefit claims) thus saving the economy millions.

Lets look further at the volume of tax breaks given to various business' to promote they have their business' in the UK. This is many more billions withdrawn by the private sector from the public purse. This is worsened by their tax evasion (we all know it happens) and their tax avoidance.

I also suggest you re-read my post rather than jump to conclusions. What I am stating is that socially there are divisions being fuelled & created, which benefits the current government to get their ideas through parliament. The impact on many will be tremendous. The division really is an issue, as we were told, when Cameron & Clegg strolled out onto 10 Downing Street's lawn, that we were all in this together. Surely the actions of the private sector - both historically, & also in more recent times highlights that we clearly are not in this together. The private sector clearly sees itself as being distinct, & should now be spared any impact from the cuts. I'd argue that the private sector should be putting more into community schemes, and looking at what it can do socially, rather than dumping their rubbish in us (figuratively as well as literally) arguing it isn't their problem. The private sector can have significant advers effects on a local area, pollution, refuse, increased traffic, wear & tear on local services and the like. They need to be putting more in.

bendix

Hang on . . what are businesses doing wrong by paying people minimum wage? They are low earners for a reason - they don't have the skills to be competitive enough to earn more.

Are you turning Tory ninky, and advocating the abolition of the minimum wage?

It is an employer's right to pay whatever salary it can freely negotiate (subject to minimum wage) with the employee. One could argue that if they were obliged to pay more, then they wouldn't hire said people, thus reducing the tax-take further.