Yellow jacket freedom fighters spreading to London

Thrugelmir

badgerhead wrote: »

There's more to contributing to a society and an economy then simply paying tax.

We live in a fiscally driven world. Where dog eats dog. Just to survive.

zagfles

Arklight wrote: »

Yeah, all the poor are really on £40,000 and signing on Wednesdays, and if not, well that's their fault for being lazy and stupid . No problem here. Pour yourself a nice drink, give yourself a big pat on the back for seeing through it all and keep stepping over the rough sleepers on the high street. They aren't really homeless, it's some sort of hipster glamping experience.

Yeah you really have been whooshed, haven't you? Let me try to make the point as simple as possible. Read the next sentence slowly and it might sink in.

A family with 4 kids could have quite a high income and still be defined as being in poverty.

Alternatively, don't bother actually analysing the issue, carry on with your sanctimonious little virtue signalling rants and pat yourself on the back for being such a morally superior human being.

John_G_Jones

MobileSaver wrote: »

That was not what was asked or asserted so I will ask again. Do you agree or disagree that parents who cannot afford to support children have the right to have children?

For the avoidance of doubt I am specifically talking about bringing more children into the world and am not talking about unexpected change of circumstances to parents who already have children.

I suspect he’s someone who knows every one of his rights and will assert them loudly but just looks confused when the question of responsibility comes up.

It is disingenuous on the whole to imply, as he does, that majority of children in poverty were actually born to well-off parents who subsequently fell upon hard times.

John_G_Jones

Arklight wrote: »

Many of the poor people I have met work really bloody hard and show a lot of ingenuity. If they were given more of a break or just had better luck they'd do really well.
.

Given?

Change the record, please. They had an education provided by the state, they had an NHS to fall back on if they were sick, they had an infrastructure provided, and they grew up in a stable democracy.

Can’t you understand that you can’t be taken seriously if you think that people keep needing to be given more? How can you honestly think that you can take the moral high ground on this with your weird idea that it is always someone else’s fault if you do badly?

John_G_Jones

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm not advocating population growth.

I'm simply stating the obvious, that we need to at least breed at the replacement rate, or we need to import workers to replace the ones we fail to breed.

Do you not understand the meaning of 'replacement rate'?

This makes no sense at all. We could get by perfectly well with a lower population.

The idea that we need to maintain this number, or the current demographics is just not true.

Why do you possibly believe that we need to stay up around seventy million? Why not plan our way to half that, and reduce the damage we do to the planet?

John_G_Jones

AG47 wrote: »

The freedom fighters are planning on doing a bank run every month until the banks collapse.

It's simple get as many people as possible around the world to withdraw everything from the system, and hold it in hard cash

Then they are stupid, as there are too few of them and they have too little money to have any effect at all.

AG47

HPC_Ghuol_Hunter wrote: »

Yellow jacket freedom fighters?!? What freedoms are they fighting for?

They are fighting to end the banking crimes

StevieJ

John_G_Jones wrote: »

This makes no sense at all. We could get by perfectly well with a lower population.

The idea that we need to maintain this number, or the current demographics is just not true.

Why do you possibly believe that we need to stay up around seventy million? Why not plan our way to half that, and reduce the damage we do to the planet?

How do you propose to do that? A form of Logan's run?

spencer999

is this the elephant in the room? Yes housing supply is low. But demand skyrocketed with open borders. It's not racism to point it out, it's numbers. They all have to live somewhere. It's economics for year 10.

Of course there is that theory that the fat cat gubbermint is conspiring against you....

lisyloo

is this the elephant in the room?

Bit hard to see what you are referring to but migrants tend to be economical in their use of housing.


Some like in caravans e.g. fruit pickers, fishermen live on ship, hotel workers sometimes live in hotels, builders/plumbers who want to prioritise making money share rooms.


Yes of course migrants increase demand but the ones coming here to make money/send it home, use the minimm amount of accomodation necessary and aren't going to buy a holiday home and leave it empty.