FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


More Bad News for Brits? Wealth Redistribution





S3nd K3ys
First cameras will soon track yours and everyone's vehicle at every turn and keep the records for years. Now this...

Quote:
The Tories should support the redistribution of wealth and try to narrow the gap between rich and poor, Oliver Letwin, the party's new policy chief, says today.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he says: "Of course, inequality matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich and poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets."

Although he refuses to be drawn on specific proposals, he signals a dramatic break with the past by saying that his party should support the redistribution principle.

"We do redistribute money and we should redistribute money," he says. "But we have to find ways that empower people rather than reducing them to dependency."



It gets worse.

Quote:
He adds that the party's policy review group on social justice, chaired by Iain Duncan Smith, has been charged with drawing up proposals for reducing inequality.


The saving grace in this news is that, like many wealth redistribution ******-bites, he doesn't have the balls to pull the trigger or to fully embrace the grand plan.

Quote:
However, he stopped short of calling for redistribution or a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor.


I'd appreciate some feedback from those in the UK as to what is the extent of this guy's influence and chances for making this happen.

h/t Captain's Quarters.
gonzo
Wow, and they're so much safer since it became illegal for citizens to defend their family with their own guns.

It must be a coincidence that home invasion robbery frequency radically began increasing annually.
a.han
Maybe i'm being quite naive but surley some form of redistribution is a good thing.

People on the lower end of the wealth scale not only lack the oppourtunites to gain wealth but also the lack of funds to pursue these oppourtunities when they arrise.

It's not the fault of the people that they are born into a certain "class" so surely it would be better for the majority if those who could afford it help to provide oppourtunities for the less fortunate. These oppourtunities could be created by working towards an economy that provides good paying jobs for everyone.

I don't know if I got the right points across, but I don't see how redistribution of wealth is as such a bad idea is others make out.
gonzo
a.han wrote:
Maybe i'm being quite naive but surley some form of redistribution is a good thing..


great give me 90% of your money now. RIGHT NOW
polarBear
That's not redistribution, that's ignorance. Redistributive economic models act much like this:

My country exports mainly some specific thing, say, copper. Then the government taxes the act of exporting copper, and with that money they for instance build houses for the poor, and give money to other industries, like, for instance, wires. And so on.
roryoc
wealth distibution is completely ludacris! i meen come on it means people who didnt work at school and are layabouts and live on the dole get more more than they deserve and people who work hard have some taken away from them. If your poor and want some more money get working!

(what did the fact that we are not allowed to have guns have anything to do with this, in fact i supprt it as there are less deaths which is the main thing)
polarBear
Quote:
wealth distibution is completely ludacris! i meen come on it means people who didnt work at school and are layabouts and live on the dole get more more than they deserve and people who work hard have some taken away from them. If your poor and want some more money get working!

What's ludicrous? Think about it:

Your life is crap. You, your wife and your kids work 14 hours a day for some greedy bastard that pays you $0.80 per hour. When you come home you don't eat, because you can't pay a fridge and the crappy food you can pay gets rot soon.
When you were a kid you wanted to be an astronaut, but when you were 9 your dad put a hat on your hand and said "bring me money, I lost two of my four jobs". You couldn't manage to study a lot like that huh? So you were kicked out of the public school you were in. Anyway, the teachers just didn't bother to teach anything, because they were much more worried about paying their rent than about making you learn.

It's not like you WANTED it to be like that. You just got there. And this type of policies can help you get out of there, and eventually get a better life. So why not?
i_am_mine
polarBear wrote:
Quote:
wealth distibution is completely ludacris! i meen come on it means people who didnt work at school and are layabouts and live on the dole get more more than they deserve and people who work hard have some taken away from them. If your poor and want some more money get working!

What's ludicrous? Think about it:

Your life is crap. You, your wife and your kids work 14 hours a day for some greedy bastard that pays you $0.80 per hour. When you come home you don't eat, because you can't pay a fridge and the crappy food you can pay gets rot soon.
When you were a kid you wanted to be an astronaut, but when you were 9 your dad put a hat on your hand and said "bring me money, I lost two of my four jobs". You couldn't manage to study a lot like that huh? So you were kicked out of the public school you were in. Anyway, the teachers just didn't bother to teach anything, because they were much more worried about paying their rent than about making you learn.

It's not like you WANTED it to be like that. You just got there. And this type of policies can help you get out of there, and eventually get a better life. So why not?


What's ludicrous?

Why ofcourse its Evil,2006 !

Laughing

The United Kingdom should have more leaders like Bush Jr. Here, so that there can be some Good in their economy.You know like the poor can go on being poor, or even poorer, and the rich can get more tax cuts, and the Arms dealers and Weapons manufacturers can be better paid.



____________________________________________


Evil Inc.,
Promoting Equal Rights
And Democracy
Since January 4,2006.


, Evil Inc.,2006.

All Evil Copyright Lawsuits Will Fall Under Florida Jurisdiction.Homosexuals, Feminists,Atheists and Arabs Will Not Be Granted The Right To A Free Trial.May You Burn In Eternal Hell.

Thank You.Customer Care:1-800-BURN
i_am_mine
I thought this Cartoon was very relevant:
Ofcourse the rich can go the Government for help.
But the poor?

No ofcourse not.
Gone are the past ideals of lending a hand to the poor ( whose fate is decided not by their morality or deeds, but simply by chance, by chance they are born to a mother who does not have the means to give her child the opportunities offered by the world, even though she loves him or her as much as any mother would ).



Tell me Gonzo, does the bible not encourage you to give to the poor?

Quote:

Exodus
23:11 But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.

Leviticus
23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Exodus
23:11 But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.


Or shall you ask for "new testament"?
Not but ofcourse you couldn't bear wealth redistribution.

It's all so Evil.

I guess the " riches-beyond-measure " are only for Rich folks that support the war.


Thanks for playing.
i_am_mine
gonzo wrote:


great give me 90% of your money now. RIGHT NOW


oh and if you weren't so ignorant as you clearly are, you'd do some research into the subject of wealth redistribution and see that its very much unlike the "stick-up" you describe there.
gonzo
polarBear wrote:
That's not redistribution


Yes, it really is. Just on a much smaller scale.

If it doesn't work on a small scale, then how is it sane to expect it to work on a large scale?

Sure my example was hyperbolic. But the point is you were NOT very forthcoming poneying up your cash were you? And why not?
i_am_mine
If there ever was a personification of Hyperbole it'd be you.

gonzo wrote:

But the point is you were NOT very forthcoming poneying up your cash were you? And why not?


Really? Another Imaginary Post?

Wealth Redistribution is not the equivalent of reverting to Communism.For your underinformed mind, a great deal of Wealth Redistribution Ocurred after the First Depression in America.History?No?

Its ok.


Wealth Redistribution does not involve the handing over of cash from the rich to the poor from a brown gunny sack, although I'd forgive your thinking so since the term is rather vague.

It does infact involve one or more of the following: restructuring of tax on the salaried classes, restructuring of the revenue system as a whole, restructuring of social security and health-care plans to provide help to those on minimum wage, etc.

Thanks for playing.
nam_siddharth
This may be bad for some. But it is good for most british.
somnific
S3nd K3ys wrote:

I'd appreciate some feedback from those in the UK as to what is the extent of this guy's influence and chances for making this happen.


one thing is for sure , the daily telegraph is a racist , bigoted , hideous misuse of paper.

you can barely read a single article without it being written in overtly opinionated way


you can be sure that if the tories want to do something good, the daily telegraph make it seem bad...and vice versa.

id suggest you find another source , such as the guardian , for your UK or even world news. they present unbiased articles sheerly based on the facts , and leave the opinion making to you , the reader
tim_s
If the tories come into power, and there are no cabinet shuffles before then, Letwin will be in Brown's position - at least the second most powerfulman in Britain and some people think the most powerful. So what he says will count. We already have a great deal of wealth distribution - taxation is heavier on higher earnings, this money is then supposedly put to good use - hospitals (which no one has to pay for), schools (also free) and unemployment benefits. Blair is also currently supporting redistributing money internationally - paying to help grow the economies of the newer EU states.

I think this is only news worthy because traditionally the conservative party advocate low taxes and low public services - active wealth redistribution is left wing.

I don't know whether it's bad or good though.....
tim_s
oh, and the Telegraph is no worse than the Guardian or the Times - it's impossible to write anything more than description without adding an opinion, and as long as people know which slant any given newspaper is spinning a story it doesn't really matter. just read more papers and try to find the truth somewhere in the middle...

oops, i just realised i should have edited rather than reposting... oh well.
somnific
tim_s wrote:
oh, and the Telegraph is no worse than the Guardian


you're just plain wrong , lying through your teeth , or uninformed. I suggest you get a copy of both papers tomorro and do a simple compare and contrast , theres bound to be some articles in each paper about the same topic.

heres an example of my point.
the situation is thus: a youth is accused of stabbing someone on the street.


the guardian:
last night a youth was arrested in connection with the stabbing of so.and.so , he is being questioned today.

the daily telegraph:
last night , an evil yob was captured and has been detained for the stabbing of the defenceless so.and.so



and what dictates the telegraphs colourful use of words ? usually the colour of their skin , their citizen status , what political party theyre involved in....its absolutely impossible for the telegraph to give an unbiased account on practically every topic

go ahead and get the papers tomorrow...oh wait tomorrows sunday , well.......Ill do it for you on monday and Ill post back.

good day to you
S3nd K3ys
somnific wrote:

id suggest you find another source , such as the guardian ,




somnific, is there a gas leak in your house???

Let me give you an example of the Guradian's bias against Isreal..

Liz McGregor, Guardian wrote:

Thursday May 17, 2001

In the old days in apartheid South Africa, one heard a British accent - or indeed a French or German one - with a sinking heart. It invariably meant that yet another racist loser had arrived to bolster the cause of white supremacy.



The story starts with defamation of the Apartheid South African immigrant, and by proxy, their Israeli "counterpart". Yeah, that's fair, unbiased reporting isn't it?

A "racist loser" my be acceptable language down at the pub after work, but its not acceptable in a sober, unbiased printed article. Whether it is justified or not (continued below), it incites hatred.

Quote:
By the 70s, the horrors of apartheid were so widely known one assumed that anyone who chose to settle in South Africa was comfortable with the idea that black people were thrown off their land and denied skilled jobs to give whites privileged access.


Here he is suggesting that Arabs in today's Israel are thrown off their land, and denied skilled jobs. The Oslo accords transfered large tracts of lands to the Palestinian Authority, has been conveniently overlooked. Similarly the peace treaty with Egypt, where the Sinai was returned for and end to hostilities after Egypt and Syria attacked (for the forth time) in 1973.

No actual evidence of restrictive hiring practices in Israel are mentioned. Arabs citizens of Israel have rights like any other. They have the right to buy a house where they like, to vote for members of the Knesset, to stand for election, to serve on the bench of the High Court. They have the right (but not the obligation) to serve in the armed services. There are high ranking Arab and Druze officers in the army and police. They have served as ministers in Sharon's Cabinet. Some dozen members of the Likud are Arab.

I could go on and on, but please do tell me again how the Guardian is not biased... Rolling Eyes
gonzo
i_am_mine wrote:

Its ok.

guess again




Quote:
Wealth Redistribution does not involve the handing over of cash from the rich to the poor


uh huh

Quote:
restructuring of tax on the salaried classes,


taking money from people

Quote:
restructuring of social security and health-care plans to provide help to those on minimum wage
, giving it to someone else.


So instead of being "vauge" you've opted to equivocate. Good plan.
SunburnedCactus
Welcome to the UK, where left is the new right!
S3nd K3ys
gonzo wrote:


So instead of being "vauge" you've opted to equivocate. Good plan.


gonzo
S3nd K3ys wrote:
gonzo wrote:


So instead of being "vauge" you've opted to equivocate. Good plan.




Related topics
bad news and very bad news
Grea8 news for Bill Gates!!!
I wish to gain more money
Bad news about the Server 2
Bad news about the Server 2?
Drink more water
Hyderabad Bomb Blasts
how do you know you are in a bad relationship
Future
the economy hurts right now, so bad......
The Real South Africa! - What the Media Will Not Tell You!
Obama down in polls
Bad News
Is Fox News Good ot Bad.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.