Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,289,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

Page 34 of 38 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 2,476 to 2,550 of 2818
  1. #2476
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    She was your head of state too, you measly Canadian subject. Now Charles is.
    Figurative head of state. I won't be taking any orders from King Chuck either.

    There was a governor general that had some liason-y Queeny-like role in Canadian politics when I was a kid, like he had to transmit her permission to form a new gov't or some shit. I think they told him to fuck off back to rainy land around the time I was a teenager though. We're also not obliged to join any more of your wars; the last time we did as a matter of course was WWII.

    My home province also abolished the appointment of senators (equivalent to Lords) in their provincial parliament, and replaced them with elected senators. So you can take that stupid institution and stick it too. We're practically America Junior now in Alberta. Yee haw!
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  2. #2477
    In other news, I signed a Labour petition on twitter a couple of weeks ago demanding a windfall tax on energy companies, and now I keep getting emails from Keir Starmer asking me to donate to the Labour party. But thanks to the Tories I don't have any to send. Irony I guess.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  3. #2478
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,812
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    This man prepared 70 years for his first job, and the job is: sign a piece of paper without being weird. Drops the ball so hard he becomes a meme:
    https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1...8FtcZsBHcZlpew
    Last edited by oskar; 09-11-2022 at 04:02 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  4. #2479
    "Move that, peasant!"

    Man of the people.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  5. #2480
    Our new PM, the "Brains Truss," has quietly dropped the Ministry for Brexit Opportunities, after the last minister for BO was unable to identify any, apart from switching to imperial measures in a motorway tunnel in East London. Take that Eurolibtards!

    Also, turns out her royal curtsy needs a bit more practice.

    https://twitter.com/imshanereaction/...08620072206336
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  6. #2481
    Few people know this, but the Queen hated weather forecasts. Respect to Met Office, it's what she would have wanted.

    https://twitter.com/metoffice/status...67498410778631
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  7. #2482
    Met Office are shit anyway, any excuse for a bit of downtime eh? I get my weather updates from Metcheck, who are still providing mid-term forecasts.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #2483
    She hated bicycles too.

    https://twitter.com/Sex_Peston/statu...70728980238336

    Seriously, the reaction to her death is so out of proportion. Like I said, I liked her personally, but ffs she was just a figurehead. Give her a nice funeral, hand Chuck the golden sceptre, and let's get on with our lives.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  9. #2484
    I'm not remotely surprised by the reaction to her death. She's obviously going to be given a state funeral, and it will probably go down as the most significant state funeral in the history of the UK. You won't see anything like this again. They'll make a big deal for Charles but the people won't give as much of a shit, there won't be nearly as many people lining the procession route throwing flowers.

    This doesn't bother me at all. There are a lot of people who want to celebrate the Queen. Let them.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #2485
    I'm not stopping them, I'm questioning whether we need the entire country to stop for 10 days to mourn a figurehead, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Even for Churchill I would have thought 3 days is enough, and he actually did something besides being born into a royal family. Again not dissing the Queen, she was alright, but the reaction to her dying is way OTT imo.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  11. #2486
    All the radio stations are playing sad music nonstop (presumably for the whole 10 days?). The BBC has followed her coffin being driven around Scotland all day today, and basically hasn't stopped talking about her and the rest of the royals since she died. Is this going to go on for 10 whole days too? Is this why her funeral's not for another 8 days so we can all get over the shock of a 96 yo woman dying? This is on top of the other stuff with weather reports and bike racks, and who knows what else, and parliament going into recess. It's like some kind of state of hysteria. And I'll bet most people don't really give that much of a shit.

    Surely you must at least agree the BBC should not be used to promote this degree of reverence in an outdated monarchal feudal class system.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  12. #2487
    Is this going to go on for 10 whole days too?
    Yes. Get comfortable.

    This is on top of the other stuff with weather reports and bike racks, and who knows what else, and parliament going into recess. It's like some kind of state of hysteria.
    Were you not here when Diana died? The country went into a state of hysteria and shock, and she was only a member of the Royal Family by marriage.

    I agree that things like cancelling weather reports is OTT, but at least for the most part it's a choice. Shops are allowed to open. It's not North Korea shit where people are forced to mourn. You can turn the TV off and drink beer, and nobody will give a shit.

    Surely you must at least agree the BBC should not be used to promote this degree of reverence in an outdated monarchal feudal class system.
    I don't know how many times I have to tell you that the BBC is state TV. My views on the BBC are that they should stop pretending to not be state TV, stop forcing people to buy a fucking license to watch it, and just pay for it with state money (regular tax). That way, its employees are employed by the state, and people can stop moaning about them broadcasting state propaganda.

    My problem with the BBC is they pretend to be independent. I don't give a fuck what they broadcast.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #2488
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    ]

    Were you not here when Diana died? The country went into a state of hysteria and shock, and she was only a member of the Royal Family by marriage.
    I was living in Canada then, but I do remember hearing about the reaction over here. That seemed OTT too.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  14. #2489
    That of course was more of a shock, a healthy young woman dying in a car crash rather than an elderly lady dying peacefully. And people kinda liked Diana because she was perceived as normal, even though she was born into nobility and grew up at Sandringham. But she was a nursery teaching assistant when she got engaged to Charles, which made her a little more relatable than the rest of the family.

    But yeah we went totally hysterical when that happened. Having witnessed that, what we're seeing now is absolutely not a surprise to me. The Queen was always going to be afforded more fanfare.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #2490
    The Queen's death has been an entirely expected overreaction in terms of TV coverage and cancelling events. It's ridiculous, but not surprising.
  16. #2491
    EU announces windfall tax on energy companies, the same one Truss has refused to implement.

    Stupid Eurolibtards taking money from the wealth profiteers and giving it to people who need it!

    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  17. #2492
    Kinda hope that both the UK and the EU continue as is, it'll be interesting to see who is getting cheaper energy in five years.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #2493
    How do you figure?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  19. #2494
    Well if the energy companies are being taxed more they'll just charge the consumer more, or invest less in infrastructure and maintenance. I doubt the shareholders will get lower dividends.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #2495
    Taxing private energy companies isn't much of a solution to me. Nationalising them is. Shareholders shouldn't be making profit from energy, the state should be.

    I'm mostly capitalist, but where essential infrastructure are natural monopolies, where no true competition exists and people have no choice but to consume, I lean socialist. If the state is making this profit, it's significant enough to allow for reduced tax, which in turn stimulates the economy. A little bit of socialism is good for capitalism.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #2496
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well if the energy companies are being taxed more they'll just charge the consumer more, or invest less in infrastructure and maintenance. I doubt the shareholders will get lower dividends.
    It's the "windfall" part of the tax that makes it work. They're being taxed on unexpected, excess profits. I.e., they have what they expect to earn as profits, the prices go way up, so they end up making a lot more than they thought they would. They already had their exploration, infrastructure, maintenance budgets covered in their original budget, the extra profit is just a windfall.

    And if they get a windfall tax and they say "we don't like this, we'll raise the prices," they'll just get taxed again when their new profits come in. They don't really have an out.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  22. #2497
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Taxing private energy companies isn't much of a solution to me. Nationalising them is. Shareholders shouldn't be making profit from energy, the state should be.

    I'm mostly capitalist, but where essential infrastructure are natural monopolies, where no true competition exists and people have no choice but to consume, I lean socialist. If the state is making this profit, it's significant enough to allow for reduced tax, which in turn stimulates the economy. A little bit of socialism is good for capitalism.
    The problem is that the prices are set on the global market, so it's going to cost the same no matter what. Well, not exactly, because OFGEM sets the price cap on energy in a screwy way - basically whichever is more expensive of gas vs. electricity drives the cap. It's corrupt because it allows the price of electricity (in this case) to be way higher than it actually costs to supply.

    They could solve all these problems by fixing the OFGEM. It's whole reason for being there is ostensibly to keep the public from being screwed. But instead it's doing the opposite.

    Nationalisation costs a lot of money and it isn't clear how it's any better than just having functioning regulatory bodies. Water too. If they wanted to force the companies to fix the infrastructure rather than pocket the money they could. Just fine them an obscene amount every time they dump shit in the rivers and seas. And if they don't comply then seize their assets. It's not complicated really.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  23. #2498
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Taxing private energy companies isn't much of a solution to me. Nationalising them is. Shareholders shouldn't be making profit from energy, the state should be.

    I'm mostly capitalist, but where essential infrastructure are natural monopolies, where no true competition exists and people have no choice but to consume, I lean socialist. If the state is making this profit, it's significant enough to allow for reduced tax, which in turn stimulates the economy. A little bit of socialism is good for capitalism.
    Totally agreed.
    Where the mere notion of competition is problematic (like with roads), we recognize that the gov't has responsibility to step in, to prevent a private monopoly.

    It's just problematic in the US today that any mention of a socialistic program is treated like inviting Putin to dinner.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  24. #2499
    Poop raises a good point about it being expensive to nationalise. That's all very well if it's worth it in the long run, but how can you be certain a new government doesn't come along and reprivatise?

    idk about the other points he raises, but a government that owns its own energy companies should be able to charge what the hell it likes for energy. If the consumer pays the market price, that means the state is getting the profit that private companies were getting.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #2500
    There's a 2.4 mile queue to see the Queen lying in state. It might get as long as five miles, up to 30 hours. This is the most British thing to have ever happened, and it's happening right now. What times we live in.

    Up to half a million people. People are going to die in this queue.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #2501
    The fact the Tories are so resistant to doing a windfall tax is probably the clearest evidence that it's in the average person's interest lol.

    Best as I can understand it, the energy market has two parts: suppliers and retailers. The suppliers for gas sell it at a global price. Right now that price is very high because of the war in UA. The suppliers aren't spending any more than before to get the gas out of the ground, so they're making enormous profits.

    The electricity suppliers use different means of making leccy, like solar, wind, hyrdo, coal, gas, etc. Our energy regulator (OFGEM) doesn't want to upset the ones who are making leccy out of gas, so they're setting the prices of electricity stupidly high so it covers their asses too. But, it really shouldn't be much higher than it was two years ago, maybe a few %, and certainly not 200% or 300% or whatever goofy number it's gone up by now. We're getting screwed.

    The retailers selling electricity can charge us stupid because OFGEM said so, and so they can make a nice profit, depending on how much of the leccy is coming from sources other than gas. The retailers selling gas are just passing on the big prices they're being charged by the suppliers, so overall the gas retailers don't make very good profits because the biggest markup is for gas before it gets to them to pass to you. The gas suppliers are raking in more than Big Daddy Warbucks right now.

    Nationalising electricity would probably be worth it as we make our own (though some of that comes from burning gas). But it costs money, and better would just be to say to the retailers "Ok fuckfaces, no more easy rides for you. You get x% profit and if you don't like it too bad."

    Nationalising gas would be hugely expensive and unless we nationalise Norway and Qatar somehow (because that's where we import a lot of our gas from), we're still going to be paying a lot for our gas until the market price goes back down. So we're kind of at the whim of the market on gas, just like everyone else. The best we can do is tax the gas suppliers up the ass and pass it on to the consumer. They'll still be fine, they just won't be swimming in money the way they are now.

    Nationalising water is probably the best case to make, because otherwise it's a monopoly and the consumer has no choice who to buy their water from. Or, they could just properly regulate it and it would be easier and cheaper than nationalisation.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  27. #2502
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There's a 2.4 mile queue to see the Queen lying in state. It might get as long as five miles, up to 30 hours. This is the most British thing to have ever happened, and it's happening right now. What times we live in.

    Up to half a million people. People are going to die in this queue.
    Yeah, and we think people travelling to Mecca to pray at a wall are mental.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  28. #2503
    Looking at the plans the Tories are currently putting on the table makes me think they've already given up on winning the next election and are just trying to plunder as much from the country as they can for their rich mates while they still have the chance to do so. Either that or they think we're all idiots.

    No windfall tax.
    Boost to bankers' bonuses.
    Scrap corporation tax rise.
    Allowing fracking.
    Taking away workers' rights.

    None of these can be popular ideas with any voter with a functioning synapse.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  29. #2504
    Windfall tax - not saying I hate the idea, but what is a reasonable profit margin in your opinion? Let's not talk about how that profit is measured. Also, what is a reasonable level of profit to be made per domestic household?

    Bankers' bonuses - they either pay them a higher base salary, or lower base and higher bonus. Doesn't matter either way. 45%+ ends up in the government coffers. That's better for the treasury than lower compensation and higher bank profits (albeit the numbers are complicated when you think about tax on dividends, VAT, inheritance tax, etc). Impact on banker behaviour is an interesting counterpoint.

    Corp tax - raising the rate post-brexit is disastrous in the medium and long term. Ignoring companies relocating, an increase in Corp tax rate only whacks small enterprises. Avoiding Corp tax is very easy for global entities. There is an argument though that increasing the rate encourages company investment.

    Fully agree on the next two points.
  30. #2505
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bean Counter View Post
    Windfall tax - not saying I hate the idea, but what is a reasonable profit margin in your opinion? Let's not talk about how that profit is measured. Also, what is a reasonable level of profit to be made per domestic household?
    I appreciate that these are probably rhetorical questions.

    I appreciate that it doesn't feel like there is a "right" answer to those questions.

    My concern is that the rampant runaway disparities in wealth equality are the greatest social problem of our time.
    The fact that the divide between the wealthy and the poor keep getting worse is problematic.
    The percentage of people with wealth is shrinking. The percentage of people in poverty is increasing. This cannot go on forever.
    It's not a remotely equitable way to run a society. It needs to be stopped before widespread revolutions and socio-political unrest cause much bigger problems, IMO.

    I do not have any answers of how to accomplish this without pulling some socialist / communist feeling policies. Limiting personal wealth, limiting the disparity between wages within a single company, over-taxing the wealthy and under-taxing the poor.

    Any form of wealth redistribution by a gov't is an almost impossible thing to get right... but doing nothing is also pure folly.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  31. #2506
    I don't like the idea of limiting wealth, we should instead be focussing on legal wealth. If someone quite legally becomes a billionaire, we should respect that, not envy it. We should be motivated to work harder and/or smarter. We should be incentivised, not demotivated.

    I don't have a problem with rich fuckers swanning around in yachts provided that it's paid for with legit money.

    I also don't have a problem with inheritance. I appreciate that it serves to help create dynasties and powerful families, but on the other hand I have a huge moral problem with telling people what they can and can't do with their legal assets when they die.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #2507
    @ bean

    Windfall Tax: Fixing "reasonable" profit margins is a technical question. In WWII, windfall taxes as high as 90% were imposed on excess profits. I guess "excess" here is defined as beyond what would be expected in peacetime. I suppose they could apply a similar standard here?

    Agree with Mojo that wealth distribution needs to be better. People should not be choosing between heating and eating while others are getting richer and richer, full stop.

    Bankers: While I'm not against people making stupid salaries in principle as long as they're being taxed at a higher rate, I can't imagine the policy they're proposing would have broad mass appeal. It's not a good look.

    Corp tax- good point about small businesses, you may be correct. But, they've also been giving big tax breaks to companies like BP and Amazon (at least according to Starmer). That surely can't be legit.


    @Ong - People should be free to accumulate wealth, yes, but at some point a person has more money than they could possibly spend in a lifetime, while others are destitute through no fault of their own. Are you ok with that? Doesn't really sit well with me.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  33. #2508
    I'm ok with people accumulating legal wealth, even if it's obscene wealth. Let's set our hypothetical limit at a billion. Does that mean that someone worth a billion isn't allowed to receive payment for their labour? Ronaldo is probably a billionaire. Should he play football for free now?

    It's not Ronaldo's fault that other people are poor. If you set a limit on Ronaldo's wealth and he stops playing football and just chills for the rest of his life, what has that achieved? Is someone else getting richer as a result? He's not paying income tax anymore. The more Ronaldo earns, the more the taxman earns. So long as people are paying tax on their earnings, then they are a net benefit to the economy as they accumulate wealth. The richer they get, the better for everyone.

    If people are poor in the UK while Ronaldo earns a billion, that's the fault of the government. And you say "destitute through no fault of their own". In the UK, most people who are poor have the resources at their disposal to not be poor. I've never complained about being poor because I knew how not to be poor... get a fucking job. And "poor" in the UK is still a life of luxury compared to what "poor" means on a global scale.

    It doesn't sit well with me that there are billions of people in the world who truly are poor. They don't have opportunity like I do. But the fault lies with their own corrupt governments. It's their responsibility to create an environment which gives their people opportunity, not Ronaldo's.

    Closer to home, very few people in the UK are poor though no fault of their own. Very few indeed. In nearly all cases, you could look back at their lives and say "you made a mistake here". I fucked about at college, if I didn't maybe I could have got a better job in my 20s and would have had a more productive life. That's my fault, nobody else's. I had the opportunity, I just didn't take it. Everyone has access to college in the UK if they choose to go down that path. Everyone has opportunity. So I'm not buying the "no fault of their own". Make better life decisions.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #2509
    I mean, Ronaldo isn't the best example. He's a billionaire by being hugely talented, and incredibly fit. His life has been dedicated to perfecting his talent. You might not give a toss about footballers, and you might think they earn obscene amounts of money, but you have to respect the hard work it takes to be an elite footballer. He has spent his entire life making optimal life decisions.

    I'm using Ronaldo as an example because other than a few alleged tax issues, his wealth is legit.

    But as best as I'm aware, Elon Musk accumulated his wealth legally. Good for him if he did. And if he didn't, prosecute him and confiscate illegally earned assets.

    That's my ideal. Don't cap wealth, just make sure that those who are obscenely rich have acquired their wealth legally.

    The problem of course is the obscenely rich are insanely powerful. So the idea that these people will ever willingly open their books for scrutiny is laughable. But so is the idea that they will allow a wealth cap to happen. Both ideals are fantasy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #2510
    "It's what she would have wanted." The Queen famously hated the idea of little kids having fun.





    It's like there's a national competition going on right now to see who can think up the most ridiculous way to pay respect.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  36. #2511
    I didn't say we should cap wealth. What I would suggest is instead taxing it at a higher rate than we currently do, and just spreading the moolah around better.

    As for everyone who is poor being their own fault, this is just so patently untrue as a generalisation that it's not even worth arguing over.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  37. #2512
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    As for everyone who is poor being their own fault, this is just so patently untrue as a generalisation that it's not even worth arguing over.
    "Poor" is subjective. Anyone in the UK is capable of earning £50k a year if they make good life decisions. Nearly everyone. And we have welfare for those who can't support themselves, even those who can't be bothered. Everyone has a roof and food, with a few exceptions obviously because we do have homeless people on the streets. But they can get off the streets if they make better decisions. The support exists.

    Most people aged 30+ in the UK who are poor are poor by choice. Not conscious choice like "I've decided I'm going to be poor", but through the decisions they have made through their lives. Poor youths have the opportunity to not be poor.

    The elderly who have worked hard all their life and have a pitiful pension are probably the largest demographic of people in the UK who are poor by no fault of their own. Immigrants would arguably be the next, but they are economically better off the instant they set foot in the country, which is precisely why they came here. And they now have opportunity to not be poor if they make good life decisions.

    Why do you think people in the UK are poor?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #2513
    I just read about a Canadian woman who has flown in from Alberta to camp outside Buckingham Palace for a week as a mark of respect.

    During the funeral, I'll be showing my respect by scrubbing tiny bits of shit off toilets and removing pubic hair from bathtubs. For double pay.

    It's what she would have wanted.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 09-15-2022 at 02:37 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  39. #2514
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Why do you think people in the UK are poor?
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The elderly who have worked hard all their life and have a pitiful pension are probably the largest demographic of people in the UK who are poor by no fault of their own.
    This, for one.

    Also, there are a lot of jobs that are insecure, poorly-paid, and don't give people a chance for advancement. They're living hand-to-mouth and it's not because they spend too much, it's because they don't have enough to spend. Then throw in 10% inflation with no pay rise and it's not hard to see it's out of their hands.

    Mental illness can be another reason. A lot of homeless people are those who fell through the cracks of the mental health system and can't hold a job for reasons that aren't their fault, unless you think schizophrenia is a life choice. But i'll give you credit for not thinking that.

    At the risk of being crass, being talentless is another. A person with an 80 IQ is not going to become a banker. They're going to be doing menial jobs for shit pay. That's the only choice they have, either that or going on benefits. They might not be as poor as you, but they're still too poor for me to be happy about someone sitting on a giant pile of cash because his parents happened to be rich, or because he was born with a giant brain or because he's a sociopath who is happy to make a good living by scamming people, e.g., estate agents.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  40. #2515
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I just read about a Canadian woman who has flown in from Alberta to camp outside Buckingham Palace for a
    Proof that you don't have to be British to be a cap-doffing muppet.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  41. #2516
    Also, there are a lot of jobs that are insecure, poorly-paid, and don't give people a chance for advancement.
    So leave, get a better job. That's a life decision. Nobody is forcing anyone to stay working for a company who doesn't even offer job security.

    Mental illness can be another reason.
    A lot of people with mental illnesses are successful.

    A lot of homeless people are those who fell through the cracks of the mental health system and can't hold a job for reasons that aren't their fault, unless you think schizophrenia is a life choice.
    My brother has schizophrenia. Maybe it was the psychedelic drugs (life choice), maybe it was the way his brain is wired. idk. But what I can tell you is he's not what I would class as poor. He gets full welfare, basically double what I got, maybe more. I never asked him, none of my business. But legit mentally ill people get probably a minimum of £20k a year. That's basically a full time salary at minimum wage. I don't consider that to be "poor". That's enough money for a comfortable survival if you're careful with how you spend money. £30k is about the national average, anyone earning that is certainly not poor.

    I'd say any adult earning less significantly less than £20k a year is poor. People who earn more but struggle to make ends meet, maybe they're not making good economic decisions. How many poor people in the UK do you suppose have a smartphone?

    A person with an 80 IQ is not going to become a banker.
    Probably not, but our society doesn't just reward intelligence, it also rewards hard work. And that doesn't just mean physical. Worst case scenario if you really can't get a decent job is you get £20k at minimum wage. Ok no holiday in the Maldives but enough to get by. More than what most people in the world have, and 66% of what the average Brit has.

    or because he's a sociopath who is happy to make a good living by scamming people, e.g., estate agents.
    If you think estate agents are scamming their clients, then go into business as an estate agent that doesn't scam their clients. Presumably you'll be charging significantly less for your services, so you'll have no problem getting customers. Capitalism baby.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #2517
    Fun fact - tyre fitters get a better salary than computer technicians, on average.

    lol IQ
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #2518
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So leave, get a better job. That's a life decision. Nobody is forcing anyone to stay working for a company who doesn't even offer job security.
    And what if you can't? You act like the only thing keeping anyone from being a success is they're not trying hard enough. It's such a simpleminded way of thinking.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    A lot of people with mental illnesses are successful.
    Ergo, the ones who aren't successful are lazy. There's a theme here.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If you think estate agents are scamming their clients, then go into business as an estate agent that doesn't scam their clients. Presumably you'll be charging significantly less for your services, so you'll have no problem getting customers. Capitalism baby.
    The money is made from the scamming.

    This is like saying "if you think con artists are getting rich selling snake oil, invent a snake oil that works."
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  44. #2519
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fun fact - tyre fitters get a better salary than computer technicians, on average.

    lol IQ
    Do you know the average IQ of a tyre fitter vs. the average IQ of a computer technician? Do you think it takes a genius to install a hard drive lol?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  45. #2520
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How many poor people in the UK do you suppose have a smartphone?
    Ikr? And what about all those people in dinghies bringing bigscreen TVs with them?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  46. #2521
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    And what if you can't? You act like the only thing keeping anyone from being a success is they're not trying hard enough. It's such a simpleminded way of thinking.
    Can't leave your job? You make it sound like changing career is something only a lucky few do. Ok maybe people can't leave their job at a day's notice but if you don't want to work for an employer, do something about it. That's on you. The opportunities are there.

    Ergo, the ones who aren't successful are lazy. There's a theme here.
    This is your wild imagination putting words into my mouth. When I've been saying everyone is capable of not being poor, I've been keen to emphasise "nearly everyone". Some people are not capable of living independently, they are not capable of making sound life decisions. This is a very small minority of the population. Most people are independent and make their own decisions in life.

    You're using the word "lazy". I'm not suggesting the people who make poor life decisions are lazy. That's you making assumptions. I'm suggesting that they could have made better decisions. The fact they didn't could be for a multitude of reasons, laziness is just one potential. Some are lazy. Others are thick. You can become less lazy. You can become smarter. All it takes is motivation and application.

    If you don't push yourself to not be poor, you have chosen to be poor.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #2522
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,962
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The fallacy that working hard and making good life choices is all you need to not be poor is so clearly, obviously, undeniably mad that any assertion otherwise can only be taken as either lunacy, ignorance, or just ong playing devil's advocate for a conversation.

    I've met a lot of poor people. Not many of them don't work very hard. Often multiple jobs.

    I've met a lot of rich people. They make just as many shit life decisions as anyone. It's just that having money makes those problems go away or matter less.


    Life is an absolute crap shoot. Sure, you can make good choices and be smart, but that's really more about who your parents were and what your early education was like and whether you had to deal with a gang on your block that left you literally no choice as to whether or not to be a part of it.

    Things beyond our control affect our actual life circumstances far more than we want to believe.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 09-16-2022 at 01:49 AM.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  48. #2523
    Life isn't fair, I'm not pretending it is. People are born lucky or born unlucky. But, in the UK and USA, poor people have a chance.

    Maybe not everyone can be filthy rich. But everyone can be not poor.

    I've met a lot of poor people. Not many of them don't work very hard. Often multiple jobs.
    Why is someone with multiple jobs poor?

    Things beyond our control affect our actual life circumstances far more than we want to believe.
    Yeah life can throw curveballs. People can lose their job for no fault of their own. Peoples' partners leave them for selfish reasons. People die, leaving partners in financial trouble. People get less healthy as they get older. There's tons of not-their-fault reasons why people are not well off. But for most people, those reason do not apply for their entire lives. We're in control of most of the decisions we make.

    I know rich people make poor life decisions, I'm being particularly simplistic in my comments. Not all life decisions are equal. Some mistakes are bigger than others, though they might not seem it at the time. And not everyone who is poor has made bad life decisions.

    But let's be brutally honest here. I have poor friends. In nearly all cases they are capable of being better off if they want it. They are capable of working full time, they are capable of managing their finances better. If they don't, that's a bad life decision. If they're lucky it won't impact their life too much. If they're not it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #2524
    I always find myself mixing between thinking everybody in the UK has the same opportunity and capable of almost anything if they work hard, and that some people really don't. The reality is it depends on the individual. Free schools, libraries and healthcare are great, but only if they are exploited.

    I've seen plenty of examples over the years. Working in a supermarket as a student, there was a lad who wasn't very bright but worked his balls off. He's now managing a store and earning a comfortable living. Ditto an old mate that now earns a decent wage painting and decorating. He is bottom 5% on IQ, maybe even lower. Then we have my two cousins: one is disabled and would love to work, but can't realistically do much. Her brother is in his fifties and no interest in working, but now in the position where his mental health is such that he wouldn't be able to do much. But he does have a reasonably comfortable life considering.

    Going back to the tax thing: wealth tax doesn't make a lot of sense. The prospect of people having to sell the family home to pay it isn't palatable. Then we have inheritance tax, which is 40% above £325k in the UK. So those that accumulate wealth pay a shit load of tax when alive and then a shit load when they go. I think there's an onus on rich people to give away their wealth to charity though, which is very popular among Californians at least. The company I work for is being put into charitable trust and I saw this week that the guy that owns Patagonia is doing the same.
  50. #2525
    We don't all have the same opportunity. But we all have at our disposal the tools required to improve our lives. You just have to use them.

    Nearly everyone is capable of being not poor. That's all I stand by. I know it's not a fair world, that some have better opportunities than others for no reason other than luck, and I know capitalism is not a perfect system because it rewards certain traits in humanity that shouldn't be rewarded, like greed and corruption. But every economic system is at the mercy of those who have the means and will to exploit it.

    The reality is it depends on the individual.
    Absolutely. It depends on their ambition, their motivation, and their application. These traits are far more important than luck when it comes to not being poor. When it comes to being filthy rich, maybe luck is more important. But we're not talking about being rich. We're talking about not being poor. And anyone capable of working is capable of not being poor.

    But he does have a reasonably comfortable life considering.
    This is kinda my point. In the UK, even those who are incapable of working get enough of an income to be well above the global threshold for poverty. The concept of "poor" in the UK is almost offensive. It's like the rest of the world doesn't matter. The standard of living for pretty much everyone in the UK is far better than most of the world. Capitalism did this.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #2526
    Apparently there was a queue to join the queue.

    British ^ 2
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #2527
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Apparently there was a queue to join the queue.

    British ^ 2
    You have to question why they don't organise things better - have an online queue where you sign up, and they tell you "ok you're time is 2-4 pm," or whatever, then you go and boom, you're in and out.

    Instead, we have people passing out and cracking their heads because they have to stand on their feet for 24 hours.

    I think it's just to show us how much "everyone" supports the monarchy.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  53. #2528
    As for wealth distribution, here's a graph showing UK compared to other countries. The critical comparison is between us and the median for developed countries (dotted line). Everyone but the 90th %tile (top 10% of earners) has significantly lower income than the median person in a similar %tile in the developed world.





    Maybe you don't notice this if you've lived here your entire life, because it just seems normal. Canada is not much richer than the UK, but nearly everyone can afford to heat their homes and eat a decent meal.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 09-16-2022 at 08:48 PM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  54. #2529
    If you think it's ok for the 6th richest country in the world to have 30% of its children living in poverty, I don't know what to say to you.

    https://www.jrf.org.uk/data
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  55. #2530
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If you think it's ok for the 6th richest country in the world to have 30% of its children living in poverty, I don't know what to say to you.

    https://www.jrf.org.uk/data
    How are they defining "poverty"? Because I'm going to go out on a limb and say my idea of poverty differs to theirs. I feel like we've stepped up a gear here, from abusing the word "poor"and now "poverty".

    Surely by their metric I've been living in poverty for the last ten years plus. And I spend £100 a weed a month.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #2531
    Come on poop, that's bad analysis you linked. I'm not denying some kids live in hardship, but this is akin to the union rep I heard being angry about half the staff in the organisation earning less than the median. Obviously 30% ish earn less than 60% of the median. That's before we get into measurement technique, regional differences, etc.

    Do we also need to talk about whether it's responsible to have 2+ kids when you don't earn a lot?
    Last edited by The Bean Counter; 09-17-2022 at 05:01 AM.
  57. #2532
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bean Counter View Post
    Come on poop, that's bad analysis you linked.
    Which one? Both of them are just counting, adding, and dividing numbers.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Bean Counter View Post
    I'm not denying some kids live in hardship, but this is akin to the union rep I heard being angry about half the staff in the organisation earning less than the median. Obviously 30% ish earn less than 60% of the median. That's before we get into measurement technique, regional differences, etc.
    It's not akin to that union rep argument at all. Every country has rich and poor. In the UK, the poor are poorer than in other countries. The rich, otoh, are doing about average compared to the rich in other countries.





    Quote Originally Posted by The Bean Counter View Post
    Do we also need to talk about whether it's responsible to have 2+ kids when you don't earn a lot?
    So some parents make "poor life decisions," (around 30% of the people in the country who have kids according to Ong). Even if you accept that argument, I still don't see why that means the kids should have to suffer. What poor life decisions have they made?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  58. #2533
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How are they defining "poverty"? Because I'm going to go out on a limb and say my idea of poverty differs to theirs. I feel like we've stepped up a gear here, from abusing the word "poor"and now "poverty".

    Surely by their metric I've been living in poverty for the last ten years plus. And I spend £100 a weed a month.

    When's the last time you went to a dentist? An optometrist? Would you be happy to give up weed for a month to see one or the other?

    Including your weed budget, how much do you have to spend on niceties each month? How often do you go to a restaurant, take a trip, buy a book, a new shirt, or whatever you'd consider something nice to have or do?

    How much savings do you have? How much equity do you own in property? If you got sick and couldn't work, how long would you be able to go without some kind of gov't intervention? If prices suddenly rose, how much of your disposable income would that eat into?

    I don't really want the answers to these questions. Point is, you don't necessarily have to be starving or freezing to be living in poverty.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  59. #2534
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Which one? Both of them are just counting, adding, and dividing numbers.


    It's not akin to that union rep argument at all. Every country has rich and poor. In the UK, the poor are poorer than in other countries. The rich, otoh, are doing about average compared to the rich in other countries.
    The JRF link. It's dumb and it would be shocking if it was published and made it past peer review. Here's how the conversation should go:

    Random: Bean, have a guess what % of children live in poverty in the UK? It's shocking.
    Bean: how are you measuring poverty?
    Random: It says here it's based on a household income of 60% of the UK median.
    Bean: ok, so about 30%.
    Random: wait, how did you know that?
    Bean: 50% median * 60% = 30%. Your results might differ a little bit if households with higher incomes have fewer or a greater number of kids on average.
    Random: ah, ok. But shocking isn't it?
    Bean: no, it's just basic maths. It doesn't tell us anything.

    So it's exactly the same as my union rep example.

    I've seen other poverty studies which say the minimum standard is one holiday per year, otherwise it's poverty. Right, ok.


    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So some parents make "poor life decisions," (around 30% of the people in the country who have kids according to Ong). Even if you accept that argument, I still don't see why that means the kids should have to suffer. What poor life decisions have they made?
    Agree kids shouldn't suffer obviously. I gather the estimate is 100,000 don't have one hot meal every single day. So a couple of %, which is still unacceptable. But, that's what free school meals are for and benefits, plus the social care system acts as some form of protection. I know a few people with kids unwilling to work that are all doing just fine on benefits. One of which prioritises themselves over their kids.
  60. #2535
    How would you like them to define it? 60% of the median UK household income of £31.4k is <£19k. That's the maximum they can earn and be considered poor, the majority are earning still less. For a household. You think a house earning < £19k is not low income?


    Here's how Canada defines poverty

    Based on data from the 1992 Family Expenditures Survey, the average family spent 43% of its after-tax income on food, shelter and clothing. Statistics Canada added an additional 20% margin.
    So if you spend 63% of your income on basics, you're considered poor in Canada. 6.4% of Canadians are in poverty by that metric.

    Applying that to the UK, a person in a house earning £19k would have to spend at least £11970 a year, or ~£1k a month on food, rent, and clothes, to be considered poor. How many households spend <£1k a month on essentials? Even if you're living in a poor area, renting a 2bed flat is going to cost a few hundred a month. Eating costs money. Clothes cost money.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  61. #2536
    Norway (admittedly a wealthy country with a v. good record on wealth distribution) uses a very similar method to JRF.

    The most commonly used measure to define economic poverty in Norway is an income which is less than 60% of the annual median disposable equivalised household income.[1] Under this definition, 9.4% of Norwegian children aged between 0–17 years lived under the poverty line in 2014, which was up from 7.6% in 2006.[1] However, extreme poverty as a measure is not commonly used because it is almost non-existent in Norway.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  62. #2537
    The point is this kind of aggregated data is almost useless. The devil is in the detail and the imperfections of the measurement. I'd want to see the data segregated into at least 50 sub-sections to understand what's going on.

    For example:
    1. The minimum wage yields approx. £16k per year take home pay full time. The aggregated data suggests 30% of households (not individuals) are on less than this. Yet the unemployment rate is less than 4%. About 20% of workers are part-time, so that goes some way to explaining things, but part-time workers are often comfortably off, or live with a full-time worker. Pensioners will be a chunk of this group.

    2. Taken on face value, 20%-30% of the UK population would be homeless. But they receive a wide range of government support on top. That raises the question of using "income" as a measurement of the standard of living. How is it measured? Does it include benefits including non-income benefits and when costs are covered by the state? Is it based only on PAYE records? How does it adjust for cash in hand work and criminal activity? Etc, etc.

    3. A bunch of groups need to be called out in the analysis. Pensioners need to be adjusted for or reported separately. People that own their own home and continue to work part-time need to be separated out e.g. my father in law now works a minimum wage job part-time, but is more than comfortable.

    4. Regional differences matter.

    5. Household status matters. How many people? What kind of accommodation? What is the age of the household and stage of their career?

    So as always, the available data and reports always raise more questions than they answer. As a numbers person by trade, a good chunk of research/analysis that reaches the popular press is really poor. The press is also incapable of reporting on anything accurately or without a political slant.

    All of this is to stay we need to be really careful using such bad, basic analysis when making judgement. It's obvious some people in the UK are struggling, but I'd welcome seeing more data and analysis on the subject.

    Finally, I find the use of the word "poverty" egregious in the developed world. It refers to relatively low income in the reports, not people that don't have their basic needs met.
  63. #2538
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Norway (admittedly a wealthy country with a v. good record on wealth distribution) uses a very similar method to JRF.
    It's a measure of relative income and almost pointless. It has nothing to do with standard of living, starvation, homelessness, etc.

    Norway is an interesting country though. I was there recently. I think they said the oil is basically everybody's generous state pension and then some on top. Couple of hundred thousand each, if not more. Nice problem to have for a government. The UK definitely has a problem with the distribution of wealth.
  64. #2539
    Question for you guys:

    Who is better at allocating resources and redistributing wealth? Government, charities or wealthy entrepreneurs?
  65. #2540
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    How often do you go to a restaurant, take a trip, buy a book, a new shirt, or whatever you'd consider something nice to have or do?
    I went to two music festivals this summer, one in France. But even so, your comment here only serves to show how our idea of "poverty" differs, like you can't afford to eat in a restaurant? Poverty.

    Nice things are not a measure of poverty. Essentials are.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #2541
    One thing I did notice today while shopping for food is that the value brand labels I've been eating for years are selling out. The 80p fishfingers I usually get? Nope. Usually there's loads, like I'm the only one who buys them.

    People seem to be being less snobby.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #2542
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,812
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz


    I think it's neat that we get to see this play out. Makes me think if people in the past tolerated royalty in part because of how entertaining it is. Like a real life Truman Show.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  68. #2543
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bean Counter View Post
    The UK definitely has a problem with the distribution of wealth.
    This is my point in a nutshell.

    Yes I appreciate the measures are rough ones, and that there's a big difference between renting in the sticks and in central London. I appreciate if you live with someone who pays all the bills then you can live comfortably on less. The point of those figures (and the use of the word "poverty" in relation to them) is about wealth distribution. What they are really talking about is relative poverty.

    Interesting point about Norway. MBN to live somewhere where the resources are being used to support everyone, not just company shareholders.

    And to Ong who claims poverty must involve being hungry, this isn't the 1800s mate. When the overall living standards rise, they should rise for everyone, not just those at the top.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  69. #2544
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    And to Ong who claims poverty must involve being hungry
    It's not, it's also about opportunity. And it's not about holidays and PlayStations. Poverty in the UK is families using food banks while still drinking beer and wine and smoking 20 ciggies a day. Poverty is a week in a shitty caravan park at Weston-super-Mare instead of Butlins further down the coast. It's moaning about the minimum wage being nearly £10 an hour, basically 66% of the national average.

    The standard of living is already high for most people. You want better, go get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #2545
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What they are really talking about is relative poverty.
    Nope. The measures don't tell you that at all. They don't tell you anything.

    Relative poverty isn't a thing either imo. You either live in poverty or you don't. Somebody earning 60% of the median in Switzerland is probably doing just fine. You can be relatively poor compared to the population.
  71. #2546
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's not, it's also about opportunity. And it's not about holidays and PlayStations. Poverty in the UK is families using food banks while still drinking beer and wine and smoking 20 ciggies a day. Poverty is a week in a shitty caravan park at Weston-super-Mare instead of Butlins further down the coast. It's moaning about the minimum wage being nearly £10 an hour, basically 66% of the national average.

    The standard of living is already high for most people. You want better, go get it.

    And here is the reason why the UK will continue to have such horrible wealth inequality. People don't look at royalty and others who are born with a silver spoon and say "what did they do to deserve this amount of wealth?", they look at the poor and say "they deserve this."
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  72. #2547
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bean Counter View Post
    Nope. The measures don't tell you that at all. They don't tell you anything.
    Your argument seems to boil down to "their measures are bad because they don't individually analyse each of 70m different people's circumstances."



    Quote Originally Posted by The Bean Counter View Post
    Relative poverty isn't a thing either imo.
    Try living on what Ong does for six months and then tell me that.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  73. #2548
    Relative poverty is a funny concept. If most people were billionaires but I was only a millionaire, is that relative poverty? I can afford a life of luxury, just not a yacht and private jet?

    And no, it's not fair that some people are wealthy because they were shat out of the right vagina. But that's the luck of the draw. It's also not fair to take someone's legally earned wealth away from them just because other people aren't making the most of the opportunity they have.

    What do you want to do? Confiscate Buckingham Palace and evict the occupants because "it's not fair"? Do you believe you are acting fairly if you do that?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #2549
    If it were me, I would confiscate a big chunk of the royal property, sell the proceeds, and distribute the wealth. This wouldn't necessarily mean giving every poor person £5k or something, it might be hiring enough doctors and nurses, building schools, etc.. And fwiw, they have royalty in other countries, they just aren't fawned over like they are here.

    But nope, the MEGA people would shit their pants if Chuck didn't have a choice of which palace to hang out in, swimming in money while he counts his diamonds.

    "Poor people deserve to be poor." Do they also deserve to have underfunded public services? Do they deserve to go to underresourced schools and wait 6 weeks to see a GP when they get sick, and wait 18 hours for an ambulance when they have a heart attack?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  75. #2550
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's also not fair to take someone's legally earned wealth away from them just because other people aren't making the most of the opportunity they have.
    You mean like the kid who has to go to a state school because his parents can't afford to send him to Eton? Yeah, lazy cunt. Why hasn't been out there grafting?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •