danst96
Established Member
This kind of response just weakens your entire argument. Bcer said it best.
US Election November 5th
- Thread starter Blister
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
ey_tony
Established Member
Of course people can be successful in whatever they do but not earn a lot in the process but the answer I gave was in reference to wealth inequality...while you are at it where is it written that one has an automatic right to wealth equality? Wealth equality is a garbage and meaningless soundbite spouted by hard of thinking left wingers.
By "successful" you just seem to mean "wealthy"; there are also many "successful" people who are not particularly wealthy.
Can't you answer the question yourself? Maybe you just need to try harder? It wouldn't hurt you to have a go at answering these very simple questions.
Wealth inequality where it exists is not the fault of the wealthy who have achieved their wealth through hard work.
I know socialists believe that they have the entitlement to take a share the wealth and profits of those who have worked hard to achieve their success...sorry but that isn't how the world works...only in the minds of socialists.
The only way you'll ever achieve wealth equality is through communism or if EVERYONE puts in the same level of effort into making a success of their lives and generates their own earning power which is just never going to happen hence why wealth inequality is a meaningless soundbite.
I ran a very competitive business for well over 30 years always in direct competition with other providers. I was very fortunate in that I was good at what I did and never had slack periods where many competitors either struggled regularly or went out of business through lack of custom.
I worked hard and most of my clients were through word of mouth but luck didn't come into it...I regularly worked up to 7 days a week x 12 hour days where necessary. Yes I was successful but it was through hard work hence I have little empathy for your left wing wealth inequality nonsense.
Something tells me that when you see someone working 12 hour shifts for minimum wage you don't fall over yourself congratulating them on their success.
ey_tony
Established Member
I respect anyone who puts in a good day's graft, including the worker on minimum wage.
However is it my fault or that of anyone else who is remotely successful that people are in minimum wage jobs? Most are in those jobs simply because they don't have necessary skills or education for better paying jobs. I don't see how I'm remotely responsible for their situations
Wealth inequality doesn't bother me in the slightest.
What does bother me is having to pay excess taxes to fund the lifestyle choices of the benefit lovers or layabouts, those with fake disablement claims, the costs of self imposed drug and substance addictions and the subsidies the 'hard working families' always seem attract especially at budget time and all economic migrants coming to this country for a better life under the guise of seeking asylum.
I don't care what the wealthy earn or how much they have in the bank as it doesn't bother me in the slightest,. I'm only concerned about affording to be able to pay my bills, heat my home and pay for decent food.
I don't believe anyone thinks you are. The root of all this thinking seems to spring from narcissism. It's all about you - what they're doing to you, what they're taking from you, how hard you worked, how you're a marker of your definition of success and how anyone who falls short of that must be feckless, lazy or on the make.
Urrgh.
Why???
You expect ME to fly to the US to 'check it out' at MY expense- when I have already shown that what you are pushing is far right codswallop and is in fact WRONG...
Verifiably wrong...
At NO point were 'hard drugs legalised'- at one point 'possession of drug PARAPHERNALIA' laws were deemed unlawful AS THEY STOOD by the courts (not the drugs themselves, but things like scales, spoons, needles etc) which has since been rectified ...
You are parroting far right 'talking points' which are mostly promoted by a 'news organisation' that has already suffered being required to pay out over 3/4 of a BILLION dollars for the lies they told by the courts- and with more cases upcoming lol...
You REALLY need to get your head out of that far rightwing bubble and start using verifiable sources...
But you won't...
Well this has been as boring as I expected, so don't bother replying, because I have wasted enough time on someone who simply shifts the goalposts whenever they want (**** those goalposts have broken the sound barrier lol and are rapidly approaching lightspeed...)
I can see you are one of those 'alternative facts' types that lives in their own little fantasy world, where verifiable facts are simply ignored...
Last edited:
danst96
Established Member
It was hypothetical, don't be so immature, I was simply saying you are making an argument about something you evidently have no first hand experience of.
I won't engage with someone who clearly thinks there's only one way someone should think and differing opinions are bashed and ridiculed. I've simply tried to share my own experience and my opinion, which you clearly forgot that you have the right to politely disagree with.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Not sure that anyone has pushed for wealth equality, so it's like you're arguing against a position that no one has. A reduction in wealth inequality is the point being made.
Wealth inequality continues to exist because those with wealth have a vested interest in the status quo, and the funds and power to influence the rules to ensure it does not change.
I think it's fair to say that Tony just wants to lampoon his caricature of the left, regardless of what the left may be beyond that caricature.
RobinBHM
Established Member
Tony, Where would you rather live?
A society where the rich are extraordinarily rich and the poor are very poor, or one where the rich are merely very well off but even those on the lowest incomes also enjoy a decent standard of living?
U.K. has much higher wealth inequality than most equivalent Western economies only eclipsed by USA
U.K. has much lower standard of living for the majority of its citizens and much poorer public services.
Currently in the U.K. 6 million people are in fuel poverty, 4.8 million in food poverty
Here is the extreme left wing Marxist Financial Times:
Britain and the US are poor societies with some very rich people
Let’s look at income distribution and see where U.K. lies
“Britain is a different story. While the top earners rank fifth, the average household ranks 12th and the poorest 5 per cent rank 15th. Far from simply losing touch with their western European peers, last year the lowest-earning bracket of British households had a standard of living that was 20 per cent weaker than their counterparts in Slovenia”
Tony, I have presented you with evidence that shows wealth inequality in the U.K. means the lowest paid have a much lower standard of living than other equivalent economies.
Tony please could rethink your belief wealth inequality is a meaningless soundbite, or if you can’t please can you provide a reasoned counter argument, that would be most appreciated.
Last edited:
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
There is a pattern of being angered by an imaginary enemy isn't there. It's like reading Barney Farmer's excellent "The Male Online" comic strip.
Well put. The virtue signalling is an attempt to veil their behaviour and thoughts.
The more virtue signalling, the more underhand the person is doing it.
You could plot it on a graph.
A society where the rich are extraordinarily rich and the poor are very poor, or one where the rich are merely very well off but even those on the lowest incomes also enjoy a decent standard of living?
U.K. has much higher wealth inequality than most equivalent Western economies only eclipsed by USA
U.K. has much lower standard of living for the majority of its citizens and much poorer public services.
Currently in the U.K. 6 million people are in fuel poverty, 4.8 million in food poverty
Here is the extreme left wing Marxist Financial Times:
Britain and the US are poor societies with some very rich people
Let’s look at income distribution and see where U.K. lies
“Britain is a different story. While the top earners rank fifth, the average household ranks 12th and the poorest 5 per cent rank 15th. Far from simply losing touch with their western European peers, last year the lowest-earning bracket of British households had a standard of living that was 20 per cent weaker than their counterparts in Slovenia”
Tony, I have presented you with evidence that shows wealth inequality in the U.K. means the lowest paid have a much lower standard of living than other equivalent economies.
Tony please could rethink your belief wealth inequality is a meaningless soundbite, or if you can’t please can you provide a reasoned counter argument, that would be most appreciated.
Yet I would wager you’re a big supporter of low skilled immigration, which is currently the number one driver of lowering wages.
I suspect you like lowering wages because you feel it benefits you in some way.
The trouble is, how do you mask this so that:
1) You aren’t responsible.
2) You can blame it on someone else.
3) Come out looking like the good guy.
Tricky but; let’s give it a go!
1) We need them for our economy (self interest)
2) They don’t lower wages (deliberate denial of reality and basic economics)
3) We should support people who want to better their life (virtue signalling to hide intention 1).
4) Our own people are too lazy to do it so we need them to do the jobs our people won’t (yes that is a genuine position of the ‘we care about the working class brigade’).
Now the excuses are over, we need to deflect and as if by magic, the people to blame here, are you political opponents; the conservatives!
(Who are ironically also low wage, mass immigration)
Now if you just go around pretending to care, posting graphs, blaming the right, you can virtue signal about how compassionate you are, whilst supporting one of the key drivers behind the increases the wealth gap.
Last edited:
BC'er
Established Member
Which study? Who conducted it? How large was the sample? How long did the study last? Who paid for it and why? Who cited it and why? What parts of it did they cite and did they cite them accurately?
Get the picture? (Rhetorical question)
The Trump obsession is just another tragicomedy example of mass media induced herd-think. I'm not American, you're not American, we both have crooks and moral reprobates aplenty in our own so-called governments, which unfailingly dance to the tune of their true masters, the financial oligarchs, the same as Trump did and will.
Arguing over how to divide the ever-shrinking pieces of other people's pies while the bakers laugh in your faces. One really can't blame them for laughing at people so wilfully blind and wilfully ignorant.
BC'er
Established Member
I hate to be the one to tell you...
Attachments
I like thatI hate to be the one to tell you...
. It's very good. I've said it before - it's a mad world where we (well, some people anyway) thought the internet was going to save us from the Murdochs and Dacres and every other sh*t eating editorialised journalistic bastid. But it's probably made it worse. Now any t-w-a-t can say what he wants unfettered by the filter of publishing and actually have a huge audience. That's why we have even bigger idiots in our politics these days than ever before.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Seems the climate war was lost in the 2000 US election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0024cxp
Worth listening to again. They do end on an optimistic note.
Personally I think it was lost much earlier. There was plenty of warning.
Just picked up last weeks New Scientist, also saying it is too late.
https://www.newscientist.com/podcas...e-go-past-1-5-degrees-there-is-no-going-back/
Doesn't bode well, we are up **** creek.
Harris might make some efforts and is obviously the best bet. The world does not need another total moron like Trump.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0024cxp
Worth listening to again. They do end on an optimistic note.
Personally I think it was lost much earlier. There was plenty of warning.
Just picked up last weeks New Scientist, also saying it is too late.
https://www.newscientist.com/podcas...e-go-past-1-5-degrees-there-is-no-going-back/
Doesn't bode well, we are up **** creek.
Harris might make some efforts and is obviously the best bet. The world does not need another total moron like Trump.
BC'er
Established Member
Oh what a surprise! Here comes Jacob with another transparent attempt to steer the conversation off into some backwater full of canards.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Climate change is the big issue of our time, perhaps the biggest ever, and the outcome of this USA election could be extremely relevant.Oh what a surprise! Here comes Jacob with another transparent attempt to steer the conversation off into some backwater full of canards.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-denies-climate-crisis-after-hurricane-helene
Last edited:
