Tigger

Nov 24 2014, 07:06 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 24 2014, 01:14 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 24 2014, 10:20 AM

I don't get all this hoo-ha about envy regarding money, possessions, status etc. Speaking personally, it's a load of tosh. Lets take it down a notch.

If I go to a restaurant and eat a "normal" sort of a meal and be happily contented with that, I don't envy the bloke who I can see across the room, shovelling down two tatties more than a pig. It is the totally unneccessay behaviour of the glutton that irks. I apply this dislike of gluttony in whatever form it takes. People can be gluttons for money, possessions, status etc. I don't envy the gluttony, because envy means I would like to do the same. I don't, but I do dislike seeing gluttony, in any form, flaunted.

Gluttony strongly implies excessive quantities rather than high quality.

Being moderately well heeled I enjoy a fine quality wine over quaffable plonk, a tailored suit in wool rather than an 'off the peg suit' in polyester, hand made English shoes rather than mass produced Asian shoes, a quality private education for my children rather than an average state education, a meal cooked by a skilled chef and competently served in comfortable surroundings rather than the dish of the day dumped down in front of me in a Harvester, a finely engineered car which transports me in safety and cosseted comfort rather than a run of the mill saloon with a cheap plastic and velour interior, a home sufficiently large that I can entertain without inconveniencing my neighbours or guests, scheduled business class flights so I can travel when I want and change my arrangements as I wish, a hand tooled antique English shotgun rather than a cheap Spanish pigeon gun just to mention a few choices I choose to make. Incidentally in making those choices and paying for them out of tax paid income or tax paid capital I am making a contribution to reducing unemployment, improving the economy and contributing further taxes in the form of purchase based taxes on the goods I buy just as I am with the employment I provide.

Unless and until you have experienced some of the finer things in life and learnt to recognise them I would not expect you to appreciate them. Certainly an appreciation of quality is not gluttony.

I've got a few quid in the bank these days but I take a different line, I don't like posh restaurants mainly because I don't like people kissing my arse just because I'm spending money, wines all taste the same to me, a bit like cider gone off in fact, I rarely wear a tailored suit unless someone has died, German cars are not for me either, I don't like the image they give off, a French estate car is more to my taste and frankly it's better than the Hun car it replaced, my shotgun is rarely used not because it is 130 years old and quite valuable but because I prefer to use a .17hmr, it's more of a challenge and I love the precision you can literally place shots, my house is rather large but then there are seven of us and I'm already looking forward to downsizing and getting a detached bungalow when the young uns sod off to uni!

I've tried a lot of apparently upmarket things and generally find them over rated and often very poor value for money, and I could not give a toss about the image I project either, in fact I've had shop assistants and car wash attendants look down their noses at me.

I guess I've got no class!

Quote:

 

You really are a moron. It is nothing to do with bigger, better or more expensive than anyone else has. I have always made it quite clear that my companies were relatively modest sized enterprises and that the wealth I have acquired is also relatively modest, and have only ever referred to it in support of and in explanation of my arguments. It is of course quite possible that there are posters on this forum who indeed have acquired far more than I have and as long as it was done honestly and through dint of skill, competence and commitment and not as lottery winners or footballers I admire and respect them for it.

Quote:

 

I would bet a pound to a penny though that you are not and never will be one of them.

Quote:

 

I hold in contempt plebs such as you who deride those who have got off their backsides, have aspirations, taken risks, developed businesses and made the wealth creation opportunities which provides employment and the tax revenues so essential to our society's prosperity. I have been aware of the word plebeian and its pejorative since adolescence, having suffered Latin at school. I rarely use it as I rarely hold someone in sufficient disregard to feel justified in its use.

Quote:

 

It is a shame you can never see the bigger picture but then a thick pig only has one destiny to be skewered, roasted and consumed by others. Mitchell, 'the nasty little man' you refer to, was an elected member of our Parliament whose reputation and career were largely destroyed by the lies and corruption within the Metropolitan Police. There is no evidence that he referred to anyone as a pleb that day. But you, as a biased, bigoted, uninformed cretin full of bile and venom, simply see Mitchell as a 'privileged Tory' and out pours your usual resentment and envy and assumption that he is guilty as charged. Thick pigs like you make assumptions that they can never support.

Quote:

 

I can trade insults and ad hominem attacks with you ad nauseam if thats what floats your boat.

Quote:

 

Mr Pig best take a long look in the mirror and forget the word altruism as it has been degraded by the left and now has a completely new meaning.

disgruntled porker

Nov 25 2014, 09:40 AM

Quote:

 

Mr Pig best take a long look in the mirror and forget the word altruism as it has been degraded by the left and now has a completely new meaning.

I think you may have point there.
Why do you wish you had studied Latin ReJ?

RJD

Nov 25 2014, 09:45 AM

I have also noted that those people I know, wife, SIL, etc. who did study Latin at school have a much better grasp of the meanings of words and are better Scrabble players than me. I struggle for a win.

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 09:49 AM

RJD

Nov 25 2014, 09:45 AM

I have also noted that those people I know, wife, SIL, etc. who did study Latin at school have a much better grasp of the meanings of words and are better Scrabble players than me. I struggle for a win.

I studied Latin at school.

RJD

Nov 25 2014, 09:52 AM

Are you any good at Scrabble?

disgruntled porker

Nov 25 2014, 09:27 AM

TO THE REST OF THE FORUM, I APPOLOGISE FOR THE WAY THIS THREAD HAS GONE, BUT I FEEL I MUST DEFEND MYSELF WHEN ANOTHER MEMBER ATTEMPTS A CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 10:49 AM

disgruntled porker

Nov 25 2014, 09:27 AM

TO THE REST OF THE FORUM, I APPOLOGISE FOR THE WAY THIS THREAD HAS GONE, BUT I FEEL I MUST DEFEND MYSELF WHEN ANOTHER MEMBER ATTEMPTS A CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

Its a two way trade moonbeam!

disgruntled porker

Nov 25 2014, 11:42 AM

Hey, I said nothing to aggravate you until you made a snide comment about me never having had any of the "finer" things in life and never likely to experience them, even though you know nothing about me.

disgruntled porker

Nov 25 2014, 11:42 AM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 10:49 AM

disgruntled porker

Nov 25 2014, 09:27 AM

TO THE REST OF THE FORUM, I APPOLOGISE FOR THE WAY THIS THREAD HAS GONE, BUT I FEEL I MUST DEFEND MYSELF WHEN ANOTHER MEMBER ATTEMPTS A CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

Its a two way trade moonbeam!

Hey, I said nothing to aggravate you until you made a snide comment about me never having had any of the "finer" things in life and never likely to experience them, even though you know nothing about me.

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 12:46 PM

If a person has created a degree of wealth and paid their taxes on it then they have every right to spend it how they think fit,

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 12:50 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 12:46 PM

If a person has created a degree of wealth and paid their taxes on it then they have every right to spend it how they think fit,

That is the heart of the matter, number of the filthy rich who pay between Zero and one per cent of their income in tax.

Quote:

 

In my first response I said 'unless and until' you did experience them not that you were never likely to experience them, and unless and until one does experience real quality of product and service one is not likely to appreciate either. Do try not to misrepresent what I wrote.

Quote:

 

The overiding point I was making was that with your gluttony analogy, by failing to understand the meaning of gluttony you were confusing excessive quantities of consumption with the concept of quality.

Quote:

 

To illustrate, one individual has every wall in his drawing room covered with cheap prints all of a mediocre quality while another has one exceptional original piece artfully lit and hung. The latter individual gets as much if not more pleasure from his single item which might be worth many times the sum total of the first chaps collection. Does this make him a glutton?

Quote:

 

Likewise one individual might have his pie and chips washed down by a pint of lager seven nights a week while another enjoys an artfully cooked meal prepared by a gifted chef and accompanied by fine wine in tasteful surroundings just once or twice a week. It may cost him considerably more but does this make him the glutton?

Quote:

 

If a person has created a degree of wealth and paid their taxes on it then they have every right to spend it how they think fit, providing it is within the law. I elected to use choices I have made to illustrate the above point not to big myself up. I am confident enough in my own skin and with my own achievements to have no need to boast about them, but that doesn't mean one can't draw on life's experiences to illustrate a point.

Quote:

 

Anyway the whole discussion has becoming eminently boring and entirely unrewarding, so unless you have any more observations to make I will cease to cast my pearls before swine!

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 12:50 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 12:46 PM

If a person has created a degree of wealth and paid their taxes on it then they have every right to spend it how they think fit,

That is the heart of the matter, number of the filthy rich who pay between Zero and one per cent of their income in tax.

Quote:

 

Asda’s equality policy

The Loony Party being strong advocates of equal pay agree that the women workers of Asda should have equal pay with the men.
We have it on good authority that George Osborne also agrees with this, and to save needless court costs, has asked for the men’s wages to be reduced accordingly.

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 12:53 PM

Whilst "Greed " may be an emotive word that does not mean that it shouldn't be discussed. Sometimes just dismissing any attempts to discuss fairness (also a word acused of being overly emotive) by saying it is not about fairness but merely envy smacks of calling anyone wishing to discuss race or immigration a racist.

As to the schools situation surely the question is what tax breaks are the private schools getting and are they justified.

Entrenched privilege does exist and social mobility is poor. Trying to reduce these things is not spite and envy it should be something that all decent people should aspire to achieve.

Balancing equality of opportunities whilst allowing freedom to those who have wealth to use that wealth to their advantage will always be a difficult balancing act which is not helped by those from the further reaches of each political wing resorting to throwing little but slogans about.

I do not like that one man lives in a mansion whilst many others struggle to heat humble abodes. But it doesn't matter what I like it matters what I and all of us do.

So where is the line between greed and not greed lie?

disgruntled porker

Nov 25 2014, 01:29 PM

Quote:

 

In my first response I said 'unless and until' you did experience them not that you were never likely to experience them, and unless and until one does experience real quality of product and service one is not likely to appreciate either. Do try not to misrepresent what I wrote.

"Unless and until" are a thinly veiled insinuation equating to "never have and not likely to" in my book.

Quote:

 

The overiding point I was making was that with your gluttony analogy, by failing to understand the meaning of gluttony you were confusing excessive quantities of consumption with the concept of quality.

Wrong again. I was refering to amount and not quality. Read the post again and you will realise that, even though you would never admit it.

Quote:

 

To illustrate, one individual has every wall in his drawing room covered with cheap prints all of a mediocre quality while another has one exceptional original piece artfully lit and hung. The latter individual gets as much if not more pleasure from his single item which might be worth many times the sum total of the first chaps collection. Does this make him a glutton?

Not at all. No one has insinuated otherwise. Again, between the lines, you are saying that the latter has got it right, whilst the first man is obviously an arsehole.

Quote:

 

Likewise one individual might have his pie and chips washed down by a pint of lager seven nights a week while another enjoys an artfully cooked meal prepared by a gifted chef and accompanied by fine wine in tasteful surroundings just once or twice a week. It may cost him considerably more but does this make him the glutton?

Of course not. The other way around if anything. You see, you have totally missed the point. However, you are hinting that the man having the fine meal is by far the better individual, which is a tad irksome and speaks volumes about your mindset.

Quote:

 

If a person has created a degree of wealth and paid their taxes on it then they have every right to spend it how they think fit, providing it is within the law. I elected to use choices I have made to illustrate the above point not to big myself up. I am confident enough in my own skin and with my own achievements to have no need to boast about them, but that doesn't mean one can't draw on life's experiences to illustrate a point.

No problem again. The bit about no need to boast raised a smile though. If this was the case, why do you do it? Don't say you don't. It's all there in black and white for all to see.

Quote:

 

Anyway the whole discussion has becoming eminently boring and entirely unrewarding, so unless you have any more observations to make I will cease to cast my pearls before swine!

Pearls before swine? One of my favourites. Did you see it in one of my previous posts and decided to remember it for later. I've never seen anyone else use it on here. I got it from my old history master some 40 odd years ago. I've been using it ever since.

AndyK

Nov 25 2014, 01:32 PM

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 12:50 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 12:46 PM

If a person has created a degree of wealth and paid their taxes on it then they have every right to spend it how they think fit,

That is the heart of the matter, number of the filthy rich who pay between Zero and one per cent of their income in tax.

Well MRLP has a neat policy to fix inequality problems.

http://www.loonyparty.com/about/policy-proposals/

Quote:

 

Asda’s equality policy

The Loony Party being strong advocates of equal pay agree that the women workers of Asda should have equal pay with the men.
We have it on good authority that George Osborne also agrees with this, and to save needless court costs, has asked for the men’s wages to be reduced accordingly.

So there you have it, the solution is to make everybody poor so nobody has to pay tax.

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 01:25 PM

The top 1% of income taxpayers pay 29% of the personal income tax paid in this country. Pray tell what percentage of that 1% pay between zero and 1% of their income in tax?

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 01:43 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 01:25 PM

The top 1% of income taxpayers pay 29% of the personal income tax paid in this country. Pray tell what percentage of that 1% pay between zero and 1% of their income in tax?

Ask George Osborne he was the one who was "shocked" when he was given the information

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17661011


10 April 2012 Last updated at 12:58

Millionaire tax avoiders 'shock' chancellor

Chancellor George Osborne says he is "shocked" that some of the UK's richest people have organised their finances so that they pay virtually no income tax.


http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/11/19/its-not-by-chance-that-hmrc-is-not-closing-the-tax-gap-its-policy/

It’s not by chance that HMRC is not closing the tax gap: it’s policy Posted on November 19 2014 As the BBC has noted:
The Public Accounts Committee has criticised HM Revenue & Customs for its “unacceptably slow” action against tax avoiders. Margaret Hodge, chair of the committee, said the inaction was putting tax revenues at risk: “HMRC must do more, faster.”
There is, of course, not a hope of that happening.
The senior management of HMRC is only dedicated to reducing its staff number, and not to collecting tax. That is why the real tax gap is vastly higher than HMRC estimate, as I have explained here.
It is time it was realised that HMRC’s refusal to collect tax has, under this government, been policy, and not chance.
How could austerity be justified if tax could be collected instead? I am aware of how provocative such a statement is but I now think it likely to be true. HMRC’s approach to sacking staff, reducing its budget, refusing to properly calculate the tax gap and to be evasive on all issues relating to it can only suggest that there is ideological policy behind this approach, and I am sure that the ideology is that of austerity and shrinking the size of government because of a supposed shortage of tax revenues when in practice there need be no such shortage if only the appropriate resources to collect it were allocated to the task. -

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 12:23 PM

disgruntled porker

Nov 25 2014, 11:42 AM

Hey, I said nothing to aggravate you until you made a snide comment about me never having had any of the "finer" things in life and never likely to experience them, even though you know nothing about me.

Quite, I have the same problem with people who assume just because I hate the Tories I am left wing.

This is an example of why I hate the Tories. (I really reluctant to post this reference but the disgraceful way David Cameron's government has treated disabled children really is inexplicable.)

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/21076

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 02:04 PM

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 01:43 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 01:25 PM

The top 1% of income taxpayers pay 29% of the personal income tax paid in this country. Pray tell what percentage of that 1% pay between zero and 1% of their income in tax?

Ask George Osborne he was the one who was "shocked" when he was given the information

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17661011


10 April 2012 Last updated at 12:58

Millionaire tax avoiders 'shock' chancellor

Chancellor George Osborne says he is "shocked" that some of the UK's richest people have organised their finances so that they pay virtually no income tax.


http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/11/19/its-not-by-chance-that-hmrc-is-not-closing-the-tax-gap-its-policy/

It’s not by chance that HMRC is not closing the tax gap: it’s policy Posted on November 19 2014 As the BBC has noted:
The Public Accounts Committee has criticised HM Revenue & Customs for its “unacceptably slow” action against tax avoiders. Margaret Hodge, chair of the committee, said the inaction was putting tax revenues at risk: “HMRC must do more, faster.”
There is, of course, not a hope of that happening.
The senior management of HMRC is only dedicated to reducing its staff number, and not to collecting tax. That is why the real tax gap is vastly higher than HMRC estimate, as I have explained here.
It is time it was realised that HMRC’s refusal to collect tax has, under this government, been policy, and not chance.
How could austerity be justified if tax could be collected instead? I am aware of how provocative such a statement is but I now think it likely to be true. HMRC’s approach to sacking staff, reducing its budget, refusing to properly calculate the tax gap and to be evasive on all issues relating to it can only suggest that there is ideological policy behind this approach, and I am sure that the ideology is that of austerity and shrinking the size of government because of a supposed shortage of tax revenues when in practice there need be no such shortage if only the appropriate resources to collect it were allocated to the task. -

So according to your evidence Osborne knows of 20 rich individuals who are arranging their affairs to avoid tax. The top 1% of UK taxpayers number around 293,000 so the problem at the heart of the matter is under 0.007% of this particular group of taxpayers. So there is no evidence the other 292,980 taxpayers in this group who contribute 29% of income tax collected are evading or aggressively avoiding income tax. Thanks for that. Why does your evidence never quite support your post?

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 01:43 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 01:25 PM

The top 1% of income taxpayers pay 29% of the personal income tax paid in this country. Pray tell what percentage of that 1% pay between zero and 1% of their income in tax?

Ask George Osborne he was the one who was "shocked" when he was given the information

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17661011


10 April 2012 Last updated at 12:58

Millionaire tax avoiders 'shock' chancellor

Chancellor George Osborne says he is "shocked" that some of the UK's richest people have organised their finances so that they pay virtually no income tax.


http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/11/19/its-not-by-chance-that-hmrc-is-not-closing-the-tax-gap-its-policy/

It’s not by chance that HMRC is not closing the tax gap: it’s policy Posted on November 19 2014 As the BBC has noted:
The Public Accounts Committee has criticised HM Revenue & Customs for its “unacceptably slow” action against tax avoiders. Margaret Hodge, chair of the committee, said the inaction was putting tax revenues at risk: “HMRC must do more, faster.”
There is, of course, not a hope of that happening.
The senior management of HMRC is only dedicated to reducing its staff number, and not to collecting tax. That is why the real tax gap is vastly higher than HMRC estimate, as I have explained here.
It is time it was realised that HMRC’s refusal to collect tax has, under this government, been policy, and not chance.
How could austerity be justified if tax could be collected instead? I am aware of how provocative such a statement is but I now think it likely to be true. HMRC’s approach to sacking staff, reducing its budget, refusing to properly calculate the tax gap and to be evasive on all issues relating to it can only suggest that there is ideological policy behind this approach, and I am sure that the ideology is that of austerity and shrinking the size of government because of a supposed shortage of tax revenues when in practice there need be no such shortage if only the appropriate resources to collect it were allocated to the task. -

RJD

Nov 25 2014, 03:49 PM

You hatred is emotional, unbalanced, one sided and yes you are a left winger.

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 01:33 PM

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 12:53 PM

Whilst "Greed " may be an emotive word that does not mean that it shouldn't be discussed. Sometimes just dismissing any attempts to discuss fairness (also a word acused of being overly emotive) by saying it is not about fairness but merely envy smacks of calling anyone wishing to discuss race or immigration a racist.

As to the schools situation surely the question is what tax breaks are the private schools getting and are they justified.

Entrenched privilege does exist and social mobility is poor. Trying to reduce these things is not spite and envy it should be something that all decent people should aspire to achieve.

Balancing equality of opportunities whilst allowing freedom to those who have wealth to use that wealth to their advantage will always be a difficult balancing act which is not helped by those from the further reaches of each political wing resorting to throwing little but slogans about.

I do not like that one man lives in a mansion whilst many others struggle to heat humble abodes. But it doesn't matter what I like it matters what I and all of us do.

So where is the line between greed and not greed lie?

At face value a reasonable post. However the principle behind it seems to be that those who have, will effectively give what they have until those who have not, also have. At what point does this extend from fairness to legalised theft? or from the greed of the rich to being the greed of the poor?

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 04:05 PM

RJD

Nov 25 2014, 03:49 PM

You hatred is emotional, unbalanced, one sided and yes you are a left winger.

You haven't read the reference then as per usual RJD. I will have to state it yet again, I am a member of two organisations dedicated to getting disabled people into work where possible. The where possible being the being difference between Iain Duncan Smith and the two organisations.

The two organisations use very comprehensive mental and physical tests to determine what if any work a disabled person is capable of, what, if any education/training would be needed for them to do that job, and what if any workplace modifications would be needed for them to do the job.
The government and Iain Duncan Smith do not carry out such testing.

RJD

Nov 25 2014, 04:20 PM

I am very surprised that you have much time for such charitable work. None the less you miss the point, here on this Forum, you have shown over the years absolute zero interest in anything that improves opportunity for more jobs, opportunity for individuals to improve their CV in order that they may be considered more suitable for such.

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 04:27 PM

RJD

Nov 25 2014, 04:20 PM

I am very surprised that you have much time for such charitable work. None the less you miss the point, here on this Forum, you have shown over the years absolute zero interest in anything that improves opportunity for more jobs, opportunity for individuals to improve their CV in order that they may be considered more suitable for such.

The two organisations I am a member of do just what you are stating I have no interest in. Do wake up RJD.

jaguar

Nov 25 2014, 04:59 PM

I would be interested in knowing, what are these The two organisations you are a member of, as you appear to spend a lot of time on the internet researching all your links?

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 05:13 PM

jaguar

Nov 25 2014, 04:59 PM

I would be interested in knowing, what are these The two organisations you are a member of, as you appear to spend a lot of time on the internet researching all your links?

Member of it not work for, my researching data means they don't need to, as I sort out what is of possible use to them and what isn't.

If you want to check this every weekday please feel free. (This is just one source.)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 05:21 PM

I wonder how many of your links they actually follow.

Quote:

 

Momma always said: "There is only so much fortune a man
really needs - and the rest is for showin' off"

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 04:14 PM

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 01:33 PM

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 12:53 PM

Whilst "Greed " may be an emotive word that does not mean that it shouldn't be discussed. Sometimes just dismissing any attempts to discuss fairness (also a word acused of being overly emotive) by saying it is not about fairness but merely envy smacks of calling anyone wishing to discuss race or immigration a racist.

As to the schools situation surely the question is what tax breaks are the private schools getting and are they justified.

Entrenched privilege does exist and social mobility is poor. Trying to reduce these things is not spite and envy it should be something that all decent people should aspire to achieve.

Balancing equality of opportunities whilst allowing freedom to those who have wealth to use that wealth to their advantage will always be a difficult balancing act which is not helped by those from the further reaches of each political wing resorting to throwing little but slogans about.

I do not like that one man lives in a mansion whilst many others struggle to heat humble abodes. But it doesn't matter what I like it matters what I and all of us do.

So where is the line between greed and not greed lie?

At face value a reasonable post. However the principle behind it seems to be that those who have, will effectively give what they have until those who have not, also have. At what point does this extend from fairness to legalised theft? or from the greed of the rich to being the greed of the poor?

You accuse Porky of reading between the lines and now you tell me what the principle behind my post is

The whole point of the post is to have a serious adult conversation about greed. If there is any priciple it would be that certain wealth disparites are immoral. I beleive there should be disparities because peopel are different, have different talents and work with differing amounts of effort. To reward all the same would also be immoral. It is the level of the disparity that it would make sense to bring some balance too.

One of the problems that I have with the debate in general that those who discuss it are either advocating taxing other people more or adamantly defending not paying anymore themselves. I beleive it is a numbers game and cannot really be resolved by taxing the really rich more. Therefore to make life better for those less fortunate than me I would have to pay more tax. For that to be palatable all I would need would to be assured that I was not being taken for a ride...easier said than done.

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 05:21 PM

papasmurf

Nov 25 2014, 05:13 PM

jaguar

Nov 25 2014, 04:59 PM

I would be interested in knowing, what are these The two organisations you are a member of, as you appear to spend a lot of time on the internet researching all your links?

Member of it not work for, my researching data means they don't need to, as I sort out what is of possible use to them and what isn't.

If you want to check this every weekday please feel free. (This is just one source.)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications

I wonder how many of your links they actually follow.

disgruntled porker

Nov 25 2014, 07:01 PM

As a prime porker, I have been adapting my keen anosmic senses from sniffing out truffles to sniffing out bullshit. I have become very adept at it. I'll leave you with this:

Quote:

 

Momma always said: "There is only so much fortune a man
really needs - and the rest is for showin' off"

Forrest Gump

Major Sinic

Nov 25 2014, 07:44 PM

Well I certainly did which is how I discovered his 'evidence' was actually an article which revealed that Osborne was 'shocked' at the aggressive tax avoidance of just 20 high net worth earners

ACH1967

Nov 25 2014, 12:53 PM

Whilst "Greed " may be an emotive word that does not mean that it shouldn't be discussed. Sometimes just dismissing any attempts to discuss fairness (also a word acused of being overly emotive) by saying it is not about fairness but merely envy smacks of calling anyone wishing to discuss race or immigration a racist.

As to the schools situation surely the question is what tax breaks are the private schools getting and are they justified.

Entrenched privilege does exist and social mobility is poor. Trying to reduce these things is not spite and envy it should be something that all decent people should aspire to achieve.

Balancing equality of opportunities whilst allowing freedom to those who have wealth to use that wealth to their advantage will always be a difficult balancing act which is not helped by those from the further reaches of each political wing resorting to throwing little but slogans about.

I do not like that one man lives in a mansion whilst many others struggle to heat humble abodes. But it doesn't matter what I like it matters what I and all of us do.

So where is the line between greed and not greed lie?