Why are savings rates on the floor?

bigadaj

doughnutmachine wrote: »

until about 100 years ago you had to be a male protestant landowner to vote. i would argue that britain was at it's most successful during that period....

i really don't see why a long term unemployed !!!!less layabout should have the same say in the country's future as a productive member of society.

Well that is the problem with a democracy. Self interest generally rules, until markets or logic start to intervene should things get extreme. That was thatchers real genius, give away subsidised council homes (but not too much or you do a dame Shirley porter), privatise industry and give cheap shares etc so people at the bottom got something out of it.

grey_gym_sock

doughnutmachine wrote: »

i really don't see why a long term unemployed !!!!less layabout should have the same say in the country's future as a productive member of society.

absolutely. it's a good thing that the monarchy has no real power nowadays.

or are you thinking of inherited wealth? ban ppl over 18 from living off trust funds? 100% inheritance tax on estates over £5m? that sort of thing?

doughnutmachine

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

absolutely. it's a good thing that the monarchy has no real power nowadays.

or are you thinking of inherited wealth? ban ppl over 18 from living off trust funds? 100% inheritance tax on estates over £5m? that sort of thing?

tbh, i honestly think the likes of the Queen has a better grip on what the people think than a lot of politicians. If she was in charge i don't think the UK would be giving billions each year to the EU and letting in asylum seekers that want to kill UK citizens....

i think society benefits by having a small proportion of people with a large private income.... ok some will end up as stuck up princesses spending their lifes collecting louboutins, but you get some like zak goldsmith crusading for green issues

tbh, my reference to layabouts was really refering to people that wear clothes made from manmade fibres that watch a lot of daytime telly.... you really think a life of watching Jeremy Kyle and smoking roll ups means a person can make an intelligent decision on who to vote for?

Like it or lump it, if someone holds down a job or owns a property they are more likely to be intelligent enough to make an informed decision on voting. I'd also argue that people that make a larger contribution to society should have a bigger say on how it is run.

MoneySaverLog

Because we the tax payers are giving the banks cheap loans so they don't need our savings anymore

CKhalvashi

talexuser wrote: »

It does matter who you vote for! The left would nationalise everything and fund business directly by owning it, the right believes in small state, competition and entrepreneurship but funds business through printing money and channeling through the banks so they can have a cut of profits on the journey - the private enterprise way. :rotfl:

I believe in both; essential services should be nationalised, and there should be open competition.

The BBC needs to be put into the private market, and we take the rail and buses back, how does that sound?

CK

pqrdef

doughnutmachine wrote: »

tbh, my reference to layabouts was really refering to people that wear clothes made from manmade fibres that watch a lot of daytime telly.... you really think a life of watching Jeremy Kyle and smoking roll ups means a person can make an intelligent decision on who to vote for?

There's something to be said for being in touch with the basic realities of life, which Cameron & Co clearly are not.

But I don't know why a better class of voters would get it right when the professionals they vote for, with all their policy wonks and think tanks and advisers and reports and debates, still keep getting it wrong.

You-kip

iAMaLONDONER wrote: »

Exactly this is why we need referendums

especially on the EU

Latest polls everywhere suggests that if the British people get a Vote on an In-Out Referendum then we'd be out with with a Majority possibly 65% in favour.

RuthAnderson

the exchange rates are just fluctuating they are not fixed and tend to change with the market share and value

bowlhead99

Thanks for your off topic contribution RuthAnderson, from the quality of this and the rest of your posts I suspect you are just building your post count until you are allowed to post links, before spamming us. As a pre-emptive measure, I hit the spam button. I hope others do likewise or report you. To other readers in the thread, magically resurrected from the dead this weekend after two months, I apologise for interrupting your morning

pqrdef

You-kip wrote: »

Latest polls everywhere suggests that if the British people get a Vote on an In-Out Referendum then we'd be out with with a Majority possibly 65% in favour.

Depends what question you ask.

Do you want to commit economic suicide? Yes 70%

Do you want to stick it to the Germans? Yes 80%

Do you want to stick it to the Frogs? Yes 90%

Do you want to spite Nick Clegg? Yes 99%.


The Scottish vote will be interesting though.