Dear God. Is there anything these people wouldn't tax given a chance?

[Burney]

A 'wealth tax', in God's name! Heaven forfend people should be able to spend the money they've earned in order to help their kids.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/03/blame-bank-mum-dad-britain-inequality-capitalism

[PSRB]

A 'wealth tax', in God's name! Heaven forfend people should be able to spend the money they've earned in order to help their kids.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/03/blame-bank-mum-dad-britain-inequality-capitalism

What a ****ing lunatic.....her, not you

[redgunamo]

A 'wealth tax', in God's name! Heaven forfend people should be able to spend the money they've earned in order to help their kids.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/03/blame-bank-mum-dad-britain-inequality-capitalism

Indeed. These people hate breeding, especially *good* breeding.

There's a lesson there, I reckon.

[Burney]

Indeed. These people hate breeding, especially *good* breeding.

There's a lesson there, I reckon.

Apart from the sheer envy underpinning the whole thing, what I find mystifying is their persistent belief that - contrary to a century of evidence - the state is competent to effectively redistribute wealth. It isn't. It takes money, pisses 90% of it up the wall on admin and jobs for the boys.

[Sir C]

A 'wealth tax', in God's name! Heaven forfend people should be able to spend the money they've earned in order to help their kids.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/03/blame-bank-mum-dad-britain-inequality-capitalism

The communists are coming for us. You laughed at me, but when such views are freely expressible, the next step is the gulag

[Monty92]

Apart from the sheer envy underpinning the whole thing, what I find mystifying is their persistent belief that - contrary to a century of evidence - the state is competent to effectively redistribute wealth. It isn't. It takes money and pisses 90% of it up the wall on admin and jobs for the boys.

You mean the system is rigged? Jezza, is that you?

[redgunamo]

Apart from the sheer envy underpinning the whole thing, what I find mystifying is their persistent belief that - contrary to a century of evidence - the state is competent to effectively redistribute wealth. It isn't. It takes money, pisses 90% of it up the wall on admin and jobs for the boys.

:hehe: They don't believe that; they just want your money. Or at least, they want you *not* to have it.

Convincing everyone not to have children was genius really, as it took away the main reason, or injunction, anybody had to fight against high taxation, low wages and long working hours.

[redgunamo]

You mean the system is rigged? Jezza, is that you?

Why is B editing your posts :-(

[Burney]

The communists are coming for us. You laughed at me, but when such views are freely expressible, the next step is the gulag

Thankfully, of course, they're about to get annihilated by a public vote, so they won't get us.

Of course all that means is that we'll have to get used to being taxed by tories instead, but hey-ho. :-(

[Ash]

:hehe: They don't believe that; they just want your money. Or at least, they want you *not* to have it.

Convincing everyone not to have children was genius really, as it took away the main reason, or injunction, anybody had to fight against high taxation, low wages and long working hours.

I think it is children that have persuaded people not to have children, tbf.

[Burney]

:hehe: They don't believe that; they just want your money. Or at least, they want you *not* to have it.

Convincing everyone not to have children was genius really, as it took away the main reason, or injunction, anybody had to fight against high taxation, low wages and long working hours.

Oh, but they do. At least the younger, idealistic ones do. They actually think that, by taking your money away and giving it to the state, we will end up with a happier, healthier and wealthier society. I mean yes, it's motivated by the initial desire to take your wealth away, but that doesn't mean they don't genuinely believe that the state is best placed to provide despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[Luis Anaconda]

Oh, but they do. At least the younger, idealistic ones do. They actually think that, by taking your money away and giving it to the state, we will end up with a happier, healthier and wealthier society. I mean yes, it's motivated by the initial desire to take your wealth away, but that doesn't mean they don't genuinely believe that the state is best placed to provide despite all the evidence to the contrary.
:-( I have a 70something acquaintance who genuinely believes Labour are going to win the election and Jezza will build a better more equal society. If only there were cheap care homes we could put these people in

[Burney]

:-( I have a 70something acquaintance who genuinely believes Labour are going to win the election and Jezza will build a better more equal society. If only there were cheap care homes we could put these people in

:nod: They're like cultists predicting the rapture. And, like such cultists, on June 9th (or, more accurately at about 10.30pm on June 8th), when it is apparent they were horribly wrong, they will explain this failure as being due not them being wrong, but to a lack of faith on the part of others.

[Luis Anaconda]

:nod: They're like cultists predicting the rapture. And, like such cultists, on June 9th (or, more accurately at about 10.30pm on June 8th), when it is apparent they were horribly wrong, they will explain this failure as being due not them being wrong, but to a lack of faith on the part of others.

Indeed - it was the mainstream media wot did it of course

[redgunamo]

Oh, but they do. At least the younger, idealistic ones do. They actually think that, by taking your money away and giving it to the state, we will end up with a happier, healthier and wealthier society. I mean yes, it's motivated by the initial desire to take your wealth away, but that doesn't mean they don't genuinely believe that the state is best placed to provide despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Oh, young people are stupid; it doesn't matter what they think. They don't have any money either and until they do, they won't hope to understand. It's actually everybody else that's the trouble.

As I say, the only reason you fight for the money in your own pocket is because you have, or demand to have, a stake in the future and a personal responsibility for that future. No children, means no future anyway so therefore, what difference does it make how much of your cash they take away from you and what they spend it on. What does anybody care so long as you have successfully avoided responsibility for the consequences by not having children.

[redgunamo]

I think it is children that have persuaded people not to have children, tbf.

I don't see that. Presumably you were a children, or child anyway, and you turned out alright. Why would you imagine children were a bad thing, if not for the reasons I've outlined?

Of course, naturally, I too believe children are bad, which is why the sensitive man has as little to do with them as possible; as we agreed before, that's what wives are for. However, that is, imo, no excuse for actually not having them.

[redgunamo]

Of course all that means is that we'll have to get used to being taxed by tories instead, but hey-ho. :-(

Well, quite. Precisely. It's unavoidable now.

[Ash]

I don't see that. Presumably you were a children, or child anyway, and you turned out alright. Why would you imagine children were a bad thing, if not for the reasons I've outlined?

Of course, naturally, I too believe children are bad, which is why the sensitive man has as little to do with them as possible; as we agreed before, that's what wives are for. However, that is, imo, no excuse for actually not having them.

My dear old dad used to advise me as a small child: "Never have kids, Ash. They're a nightmare and a millstone round your neck. If I hadn't had kids I'd have a villa in the south of France by now."

Sound advice, really. Especially as I struggle to even look after myself properly, let alone anyone else.

[Peter]

A 'wealth tax', in God's name! Heaven forfend people should be able to spend the money they've earned in order to help their kids.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/03/blame-bank-mum-dad-britain-inequality-capitalism

Inheritance tax to 90%?? FFS......

I can't say I would view my parents' house as unearned wealth. They mortgaged themselves up to their eyeballs in their late 30s and worked like lunatics for 20 years to pay for it. Not only is it not unearned, but the earnings that paid for it were also taxed.

I haven't see a penny of it (and quite right too) but if I had, purely to help with a first deposit, that apparently would have made me some kind of middle class ****.

****ing Guardian :mad:

[Sir C]

Inheritance tax to 90%?? FFS......

I can't say I would view my parents' house as unearned wealth. They mortgaged themselves up to their eyeballs in their late 30s and worked like lunatics for 20 years to pay for it. Not only is it not unearned, but the earnings that paid for it were also taxed.

I haven't see a penny of it (and quite right too) but if I had, purely to help with a first deposit, that apparently would have made me some kind of middle class ****.

****ing Guardian :mad:

Peter. I can't help feeling that you're ready to step out of the darkness of schoolboy liberalism, into the daylight of middle-aged reactionary conservatism.

Here. Take my hand. Step into the light.

[Burney]

Inheritance tax to 90%?? FFS......

I can't say I would view my parents' house as unearned wealth. They mortgaged themselves up to their eyeballs in their late 30s and worked like lunatics for 20 years to pay for it. Not only is it not unearned, but the earnings that paid for it were also taxed.

I haven't see a penny of it (and quite right too) but if I had, purely to help with a first deposit, that apparently would have made me some kind of middle class ****.

****ing Guardian :mad:

I like how what we used to call 'saving' is now 'wealth hoarding'.

[Peter]

I don't see that. Presumably you were a children, or child anyway, and you turned out alright. Why would you imagine children were a bad thing, if not for the reasons I've outlined?

Of course, naturally, I too believe children are bad, which is why the sensitive man has as little to do with them as possible; as we agreed before, that's what wives are for. However, that is, imo, no excuse for actually not having them.

I find your view of women's role in society hugely offensive. Or, rather, I would if I gave a **** about that sort of thing.

I find children incredibly annoying. Why would I want one? Also, as I am a **** I am assuming they would be. So one **** fewer in the world and all thanks to me. You should thank me.

[Peter]

Peter. I can't help feeling that you're ready to step out of the darkness of schoolboy liberalism, into the daylight of middle-aged reactionary conservatism.

Here. Take my hand. Step into the light.

I am not, and never have been, a liberal. Of course, I was once a schoolboy.

It ****s me off when people believe that the state has some kind of a moral duty to interfere in a family's financial decisions

[Peter]

My dear old dad used to advise me as a small child: "Never have kids, Ash. They're a nightmare and a millstone round your neck. If I hadn't had kids I'd have a villa in the south of France by now."

Sound advice, really. Especially as I struggle to even look after myself properly, let alone anyone else.

He will tell you that you lack confidence and that the wife is there to look after the kids.

He hasn't met my wife :D

[Peter]

I like how what we used to call 'saving' is now 'wealth hoarding'.

The whole premise is *******s. If you wish to tackle wealth accumulation then tackle it as it happens. To be appalled by parents passing on wealth to their children makes no sense whatsoever. This smacks of someone suffering from property envy.

[Sir C]

I am not, and never have been, a liberal. Of course, I was once a schoolboy.

It ****s me off when people believe that the state has some kind of a moral duty to interfere in a family's financial decisions

Apologies, p. I don't really know what a liberal is, it's all just varying degrees of leftyism to me.

But of course you are right. It is up to families to make provision for families so that they can pay for food, schools, housing, medical care and old age, and it is for the state to repair the roads and employ policeman and soldiers.

You really are ready to join us :cloud9:

[Burney]

it is for the state to repair the roads and employ policeman and soldiers.

Filthy statism!

I'm not really sure about policemen, tbh. I feel they are an oppressive instrument of the state who exist merely to circumscribe my ability to protect my self, family and property. Allow me to arm myself and give me the freedom to act in self-defence and there would be no need of police.

[Sir C]

Filthy statism!

I'm not really sure about policemen, tbh. I feel they are an oppressive instrument of the state who exist merely to circumscribe my ability to protect my self, family and property. Allow me to arm myself and give me the freedom to act in self-defence and there would be no need of police.

But we need an oppressive instrument of the state to keep the oiks in check.

Here's the deal. People earning less than £50,000 per annum will pay a special police tax which will be used to subjugate them. Those earning more than this amount have no need of subjugation and will therefore be exempt the tax.

Compromise, you see? That's how to do politics.

[Peter]

Apologies, p. I don't really know what a liberal is, it's all just varying degrees of leftyism to me.

But of course you are right. It is up to families to make provision for families so that they can pay for food, schools, housing, medical care and old age, and it is for the state to repair the roads and employ policeman and soldiers.

You really are ready to join us :cloud9:

Nah, I like a bit of statism. But if my dad wants to slip me five grand he should be able to. Hasn't happened yet but you never know..... :D

[Burney]

But we need an oppressive instrument of the state to keep the oiks in check.

Here's the deal. People earning less than £50,000 per annum will pay a special police tax which will be used to subjugate them. Those earning more than this amount have no need of subjugation and will therefore be exempt the tax.

Compromise, you see? That's how to do politics.

What about hiring private militia? Wouldn't you like to s**** about surrounded by heavily armed men ready to do extreme violence to anyone who dares oppose you?

[Sir C]

Nah, I like a bit of statism. But if my dad wants to slip me five grand he should be able to. Hasn't happened yet but you never know..... :D

You don't though. Not really. You've just been brainwashed. You've had decades of Ben Elton and Alexei Sayle and all your friends preaching cobblers and you've just never really stopped to think about it.

Until now.

:cloud9:

[Sir C]

What about hiring private militia? Wouldn't you like to s**** about surrounded by heavily armed men ready to do extreme violence to anyone who dares oppose you?

Naturally. Why do you think I travel so much in Asia and Africa? :shrug:

[Peter]

You don't though. Not really. You've just been brainwashed. You've had decades of Ben Elton and Alexei Sayle and all your friends preaching cobblers and you've just never really stopped to think about it.

Until now.

:cloud9:

You don't play this character very well. Its beneath you.

[redgunamo]

That's the point I'm trying to make though; without kids you don't actually *need* a villa in France,
do you. And are probably fairly happy to have spared yourself the trouble and expense. Even moreso as such dwellings always seem to attract wives and children :-\

So it doesn't much matter if the government takes all our money away in any case



My dear old dad used to advise me as a small child: "Never have kids, Ash. They're a nightmare and a millstone round your neck. If I hadn't had kids I'd have a villa in the south of France by now."

Sound advice, really. Especially as I struggle to even look after myself properly, let alone anyone else.

[Ash]

That's the point I'm trying to make though; without kids you don't actually *need* a villa in France,
do you. And are probably fairly happy to have spared yourself the trouble and expense. Even moreso as such dwellings always seem to attract wives and children :-\

So it doesn't much matter if the government takes all our money away in any case

Um, my villa is some way off. Mainly because, as you say, I don't need one, don't want one and could really do without the hassle.

[redgunamo]

Um, my villa is some way off. Mainly because, as you say, I don't need one, don't want one and could really do without the hassle.

It's about achieving your dreams too and mine was always to have loads of hounds, for which I needed a "big villa in France." The place and the money and a' that is for them. Wives and their foul, guzzling brood are collateral.

[redgunamo]

I find your view of women's role in society hugely offensive. Or, rather, I would if I gave a **** about that sort of thing.

Well, quite. It's none of your business, it is *their* business. Or do you also think men should decide what's right and best for them :rubchin:

[Ash]

Well, quite. It's none of your business, it is *their* business. Or do you also think men should decide what's right and best for them :rubchin:

The idea of a woman's place being in the home appalls and terrifies me. What would be the point of going to work if it were not for the company of all the attractive women?

[redgunamo]

The idea of a woman's place being in the home appalls and terrifies me. What would be the point of going to work if it were not for the company of all the attractive women?

Naturally, but that might be Berni's wife though. Or Sir C's missus. And if they too are whiling away their working days trying to peek down *your* wife's blouse, so to speak, as well then the whole thing just seems rather roundabout, to me :-\

[Ash]

Naturally, but that might be Berni's wife though. Or Sir C's missus. And if they too are whiling away their working days trying to peek down *your* wife's blouse, so to speak, as well then the whole thing just seems rather roundabout, to me :-\

I think the old look, don't touch rule has a lot to be said for it. Anyway, I was describing the healthy and wholesome meeting of minds, as much as the gorping at boobies.

[redgunamo]

I think the old look, don't touch rule has a lot to be said for it. Anyway, I was describing the healthy and wholesome meeting of minds, as much as the gorping at boobies.

I've never been interested in women I can't touch, to be honest. And as for the H&WMofM, I'd rather talk to my hounds.

Anyway, isn't the whole point of this that there *are* no rules? Or anyway, that everyone makes them up as they go along according to their own convenience?