the Austerity Con or Con

[MrGongGong]

sure?

http://www.paramvir.net/show.1.The-Theatre-of-Magical-Beings.html

[teamsaint]

Just one question.
When its too expensive to live in London, and too expensive to commute, (as it would be in a "free market") for people on less than , say, £30k a year, (random figure plucked from the air) who will do all the work for the rich people?

[Beef Oven]

Just one question.
When its too expensive to live in London, and too expensive to commute, (as it would be in a "free market") for people on less than , say, £30k a year, (random figure plucked from the air) who will do all the work for the rich people?

Yeah, let's storm the Winter Palace. Bloody rich people, I aint gonna work for 'em no more, not never again.

[Beef Oven]

QUOTE=MrGongGong;296710]please no
i've not had my tea yet
and if ever there was a face for a pie

Is that his "smuggest of the smug" face ?[/QUOTE]

[

[teamsaint]

Yeah, let's storm the Winter Palace. Bloody rich people, I aint gonna work for 'em no more, not never again.

answer the question please, Mr Oven. Answer the question !!


no such thing as a free lunch? no such thing as a free market more like !!

[Beef Oven]

answer the question please, Mr Oven. Answer the question !!


no such thing as a free lunch? no such thing as a free market more like !!

Not sure what the question is, but I will say as follows.

We need a sensible approach to transport.

In my world, it would be subsidised by the tax receipts and mainly publicly owned. As would utilities, university education, NHS and other vital services etc.

A massive house building project, strategically managed to meet the demand for housing now and the next 25 years.

A few more power stations and a couple of international airports.

Freeze settlement immigration for five years, take stock and assist the millions of young people already in Britain into work.

Increase benefit payments to disabled people who need more assistance, and reduce/cease payments to people who don't.

And to assist people to take advantage of all the ensuing employment opportunities from the above measures, the benefits system can be redesigned to help people to see work as the best option for providing for themselves and their families.

[teamsaint]

well that is a good answer to a non existent question.
I agree with a good deal of your answer.
But not the daft bits.

i think we could form a working coalition !!

(I would nationalise the Proms too.)

[Beef Oven]

well that is a good answer to a non existent question.
I agree with a good deal of your answer.
But not the daft bits.

i think we could form a working coalition !!

(I would nationalise the Proms too.)

What bits do you think are daft?

[teamsaint]

What bits do you think are daft?

I am far too polite to say.

but nobody has all the right answers.

But since you ask, I think that the assumption that there are many people who see benefits as a better "option" than work is incorrect. There are some, but not that many. Those on the take are mostly very rich.

And the question of "settlement immigration" is part of a much wider question of population and resource distribution IMO.

[MrGongGong]

In my world, it would be subsidised by the tax receipts and mainly publicly owned. As would utilities, university education, NHS and other vital services etc.

A massive house building project, strategically managed to meet the demand for housing now and the next 25 years.

Freedom for Tooting then ?

(Great South Indian veggie food )

What part of the kipper recipe book has such old style socialist ideas ?



(you missed the bit about Xenakis being played through public loudspeakers to encourage the workers to strive for greater efficiency )

[teamsaint]

did that work well in Greece?

[Beef Oven]

I am far too polite to say.

but nobody has all the right answers.

But since you ask, I think that the assumption that there are many people who see benefits as a better "option" than work is incorrect. There are some, but not that many. Those on the take are mostly very rich.

And the question of "settlement immigration" is part of a much wider question of population and resource distribution IMO.

I didn't make the assumption that there are many people who see benefits as a better option than work. I believe that we have a benefits system that does not help people to get into work. I don't think it's a big deal at the moment because we are not doing the things to generate long-term job opportunities. If we embarked on a complete redevelopment of the country's infrastructure, focusing on house/town building, more power stations, 2 airports etc, then we'd have the jobs available for people, so it'd be relatively painless to make sensible changes to our silly Michael Phillpot system.

Settlement immigration might be part of a wider question, but I was only thinking of taking one simple, no-brainer step to take the pressure off of employment, cities etc.

Yes, good point about tackling those well-off people that take liberties, even if it's not strictly relevant.

[teamsaint]

it IS relevant though. we are talking (at least I am) about people making a contribution to a society that works properly.
You also have to integrate tax and benefits in a coherent manner ( a doddle that one !) at the same time as having decent work opportunities.

anyway, as said, I agree with your plans to develop infrastucture, especially infrastucture that benefits the many.

[Beef Oven]

it IS relevant though. we are talking (at least I am) about people making a contribution to a society that works properly.
You also have to integrate tax and benefits in a coherent manner ( a doddle that one !) at the same time as having decent work opportunities.

anyway, as said, I agree with your plans to develop infrastucture, especially infrastucture that benefits the many.

The rich might think they are pulling their weight, given that the top 1% high earners in the UK account for a whopping 27% of the HMRC take, and the bottom 50% of earners only account for 11%.

[teamsaint]

The rich might think they are pulling their weight, given that the top 1% high earners in the UK account for a whopping 27% of the HMRC take, and the bottom 50% of earners only account for 11%.

and what % of income and wealth do they have ?

The approach used by the BBC and Nick (do we really have to pay all this higher rate tax) Robinson might fool some people some of the time.......