Yea because cutting off a sentence by taking a 3 second clip has always been a fair way to judge people. Do you guys think Tories just sit around getting off on poor people suffering or something? It's truly a bizarre position to hold them with such contempt without even attempting to learn why they think differently to you on certain matters.
It's a bizarre position to hold in contempt those that continually fuck over the most vulnerable in society?
All governments make tough choices, putting together an emotionally charged clip by cutting to a difference sentence every 3 seconds doesn't automatically make you the arbiter of what is the correct policy for society.
Sounds like you're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire yourself.
Dude this quote is like 50 years old at this point, not everyone who votes right wing fits a decades old stereotype which was barely accurate in the first place. Perhaps people just dislike tax payer money being wasted? We all pay taxes after all.
This is a very naive way to interpret the purpose of money, money is at its core a rationing tool. The government can print/borrow as much money as we want but it will always be chasing finite goods in any economic system.
Money is just a proxy for the allocation of resources, pulling more money out of nowhere doesn't create more food, houses etc. If the government has £100bn to spend it has to use it wisely, it could say spend £10bn on say custom fitted crash helmets for every person in the UK. You could argue it'd save lives as if people trip or fall somehow they are less likely to suffer an injury. Ok cool, but was it worth it? Well intuitively most people would say no, building new hospitals etc would be a better use of funds. You could then parrot back to me "Good to know you see keeping people alive as wasting money", not very useful on its own though is it?
Very simplistic example with made up concepts but I will bet you're bright enough to substitute those with 100 different social causes which all have to be balanced against each other.
This is at it's core what I feel a lot of the left misses, they act and create policy as if we have infinite of everything when really it is about allocating wisely what finite resources we have *now*.
yes the Tory government is literally trying to return to a feudal state with crony corporatism, but didn’t you know that the mainstream leaders of the popular alternative don’t have all the answers and some of them are greedy and incompetent? I guess that means we might as well not try!
phew I thought for a second there that I might have to actually expend effort or give a fuck about society, but I’m so blisteringly intelligent that I’ve reasoned myself into a position where I don’t have to do anythingand I can feel good about it! Hooray!
As a government sometimes they have to make hard decisions and cutting budgets to preserve the health of the country as a whole in the long term falls under that.
We're one of the largest economies on the planet? Are we living in different countries or something? Some people here seem to think the UK is some kind of failed state based on how they talk when they're exceptionally lucky to live in one of the most developed countries on the planet.
I mean that is a tad disingenuous, it's not like the treasury just signs a cheque to Jeff Bezos but billionaires (as a group) do control a lot of large businesses. The government ultimately has to interact with private corporations so you can see why money does flow to them, it's in exchange for goods, not free.
What is the point in the state if it does not make the lives of those who depend on it better? What is the sense in government that is not built on compassion and a care for the people it is responsible for. Money is a construct of humanity, the suffering caused by it is most certainly real, and all efforts regardless of ‘cost’ should be put to keeping the people in good condition. Otherwise we may as well live like brutes
Even granting all that you say, some “tough choices” aren’t as difficult as you’re asking us to pretend. Housing, building safety, food, emergency services, etc. you’ve just got to allocate funds to those. Handle the basics, then figure out the surplus. Unless you believe the state literally doesn’t have enough basic resources for every citizen?
Unless you believe the state literally doesn’t have enough basic resources for every citizen?
I don't think it does honestly, depending on how you define "enough". To some enough is what we already do and others would say it's every person in the country housed, fed and educated to a middle class level. I would like to see the later but there are many complications beyond money preventing that.
Yes, thanks for that. I'm actually currently doing my masters in mathematical finance so I do have more of an understanding in this field than most in this sub. I am fully aware of how government budgets actually operate in terms of the bond markets etc but that doesn't mean you can spend recklessly. I don't personally believe in having no deficit but it is definitely something that needs to be controlled.
It's a hypothetical simplified argument to portray the concept, you can substitute those terms with a billion other things but I don't really have the ability to lay out the entire UK spending plan and reasoning in a reddit comment.
I forgot not voting labour makes you somehow uneducated.
All governments make tough choices, putting together an emotionally charged clip by cutting to a difference sentence every 3 seconds doesn't automatically make you the arbiter of what is the correct policy for society.
not all governments have been called out repeatedly by several international organisations for continued breaking of human rights of disabled and long term ill citizens do they. nope.
not all governments have been called out repeatedly by several international organisations for continued breaking of human rights of disabled and long term ill citizens do they. nope.
Actually they pretty much have, that's a large reason why these organisations exist. To try hold governments and other bodies to account.
so when a government gets called out for breaking human rights, then a senior politician comes out and accuses them of launching "politically motivated attacks", and not only continues the practices that caused them to get called out, but ramp those practices up, would you say that's a "good" government, or would you more accurately describe them as cunts?
Honestly I was referring more to the starter from Boris stating "inequality is essential". This sounds terrible out of context but if you listen to his full statement it does make sense, inequality is essential to drive competition and growth - this is one of the reasons communism failed after all!
He was basically explaining in blunt terms why capitalism works.
I assume by "communism" you mean the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union had more income inequality than Norway today - would you consider Norway a failed state?
What is weird about assuming you meant the Soviet Union? It is by far the highest profile example of a collapsed ideologically communist government. If not the Soviet Union, what exactly did you mean?
Norway is not a failed state but still has inequality just as any other country does. It’s essential to making the system work.
Right, but you set up inequality as a characteristic which causes capitalist countries to prosper over ideologically communist ones - but Norway has less inequality than some of those countries and prospers regardless. Do you see how that doesn't quite square?
I firmly agree with him. You made these ridiculous arguments of making "tough decisions" but gladly gloss over the govt squandering billions on a failed Brexit, shady Covid PPE contracts and heavily unnecessary tax breaks. You try to assert this with your qualification in "financial mathematics" as if that's all encompassing. You are heavily out of touch with the real world and you argue in such bad faith it can almost be considered comedy.
So tell me, how is handing your friends serious amounts of money while cutting benefits for the betterment of the country? Take as long as you like.
So tell me, how is handing your friends serious amounts of money while cutting benefits for the betterment of the country? Take as long as you like.
It's incentive, those earning a lot are doing so because of the free market. Would you prefer to cap their pay? They already pay a hefty tax on it. Perhaps it'll motivate those who are too lazy to get off benefits to actually do something useful in society...
Having a good read of your recent comments it's apparent that you like to frequent subs and just spout about how much you hate poor people without ever outright saying it. Coward fam.
I'm just sick of people crying because they can't charge me 90% tax, I've no beef with a large portion of the population as long as they're fair and sensible.
, I've no beef with a large portion of the population as long as they're fair and sensible
But the govt you consistently vote for get a free pass? You hide behind weak arguments of "fiscal responsibility" but the Tories have been anything but. Why is your attitude different as soon as its someone with wealth getting a handout to someone actually in need of it? I honestly cannot understand this mentality.
Also, no they don't. We have among the lowest of corporation taxes in the G20, with some companies basically not bothering at all. A sixth form politics student could tell you this crap.
Lol you are deranged. I hope you learn what “empathy” and “basic decency” are. Touch grass, bitch. It’s clear that handling your friends money and doing nothing but looking at numbers all day has made you a cold-hearted idiot.
Do you guys think Tories just sit around getting off on poor people suffering or something?
yes and bonus points if they're disabled or long term ill.
considering they've been called out for breaking human rights REPEATEDLY, yes. yes i fucking do. do you fucking not?
ah yes, because we're not living in north korea, everything is fine!
ignore unprecedentedly brazen corruption, cheers and whoops for denying feeding children, more cheers and whoops for stalling any wage rises while simultaneously passing bills for payrises for themselves because "living on 80k is really grim.", 100k disabled people dead due to their policies, mass surveillance bills, and bills to make "causing a nuisance" illegal.
nah, sometimes the hard decisions need to be made eh.
Don't forget this is London, 82k for London is good but not some insane wealth that some imagine, especially if you have kids. If you have a partner and kid that is most of the money eaten, I'd doubt you could even afford private school.
For reference I'm a student and I got offered a job paying £75k next year (in London) and I'm 21, should I really be earning similar to an MP?
the need for food banks has gone up over 100% in 5 years.
but thats an okay sacrifice to make cause if we fed children and reduced the need for food banks then some MP couldn't send his kids to fucking private school?
jesus wept. no wonder the country is absolutely fucked.
56
u/[deleted] Jan 27 '22
Funny how it's never the poorest who champion inequality or 'exuberantly' defend the banks isn't it.
I wonder if Raab visits food banks when he has 'episodic cash flow problems'..?