|
Apparently may just accused the EU of meddling in the elections nice
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Kurtofan posted:art of the dead Ewan posted:https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/03/how-do-britains-highest-earners-feel-about-their-income 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Ewan posted:https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/03/how-do-britains-highest-earners-feel-about-their-income This should be put up as the ultimate indictment of capitalism, in that the bourgeois suck all the capital out of society and are sitting at the top of hierarchy yet they're still loving miserable.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Ewan posted:https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/03/how-do-britains-highest-earners-feel-about-their-income gently caress off. Holy poo poo capitalism is terrible, people are terrible, Giant Meteor 2017. MikeCrotch posted:This should be put up as the ultimate indictment of capitalism, in that the bourgeois suck all the capital out of society and are sitting at the top of hierarchy yet they're still loving miserable. A correct opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Agreed they should not be entitled to be unhappy
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
julian assflange posted:Agreed they should not be entitled to be unhappy Julian here with the desperately needed contrarian perspective. Thank you Julian.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:who puts weight on over the summer? Drinkers. Pub business is highest during the summer.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/859783194790330368 those meddling eurocrats! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Ewan posted:https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/03/how-do-britains-highest-earners-feel-about-their-income Terrible. I guess that this group would necessarily select incredibly greedy people. I'm surprised that top 1% is only £140,000 though, my recollection was that it was higher than that. JFairfax posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216 I can't work out whether I think this should be calculated on gross or net payments, it would be ridiculous to expect the calculation not to take the rebate etc into account but I can see why they would ignore that to jack the figures up. e: gently caress, something insightful in a Guardian comment, who knew: "It is a basic tenet of Conservatism that poor people only work harder if they are given less money, but rich people only work harder if they are given more money." knox_harrington fucked around with this message at 16:06 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
While this may seem like a very artificial distinction to make for people earning barely enough to survive (and I've been in a situation much much worse than that, mind you, so I know what I'm about to say feels from that perspective), the top 1% in income is a veeeery, very different thing from the top 1% in accumulated wealth, if only for the fact that the curve seems to grow exponentially at the extreme. However, on the subject of $100 million being easy, please bring the guillotine. How can a mind get so broken as to be able to think that, much less say it out loud and expect not to get burned at the stake?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
It's a distribution pattern to keep in mind - the middle class is where the tax revenue is, because that's where the millions of people are. The ultra-rich are very, very rich, but there are terribly few of them. In that vein, here's an interesting 2016 essay by Daniel Davies, presenting a theory of postwar history that is basically reverse Marxism: the dog that didn't bark is the absence of class struggle of the rich, and the entire neoliberal era is simply capital bothering to make itself felt. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, but Marx merely misapprehended the direction. ronya fucked around with this message at 16:22 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
knox_harrington posted:"It is a basic tenet of Conservatism that poor people only work harder if they are given less money, but rich people only work harder if they are given more money."
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:However, on the subject of $100 million being easy, please bring the guillotine. How can a mind get so broken as to be able to think that, much less say it out loud and expect not to get burned at the stake?  I think a 'driven and passionate individual' could start from £10m and get to £100m within 20 years, but he can gently caress off with zero. There's a reason why the saying 'the first million is the hardest' and it's because most don't get there and those that have that can take advantage of all kinds of poo poo that those without can't.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Be careful of that one. It inexorably leads you down the merry garden path of Workfare.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Evan Davis being pretty brutal with the tories re: Tories implementing Ed Milliband's manifesto. Do budget deficits matter? Why is no-one talking about them? DEBATE - BBC Newsnight
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Even the hipsteriest coffee places ive been to price their coffee within 50p of their local starbucks. The 99p filter coffees at Pret are a life saver.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Miftan posted:gently caress off. Holy poo poo capitalism is terrible, people are terrible, Giant Meteor 2017. Apart from all the other awful poo poo i'm horrified that 20 years isn't a long time to these people. Oh don't worry you can be rich! In 20 years! Your best years will be behind you, you know the ones when it's most fun to have a lot of money. But you can buy a yacht and do that think where you put coke on a bit of a prostitute and smoke her or something? IDK. 20 years is a long time. A lot of otherwise healthy people will be dead in 20 years. Are these people liches? It's yes isn't it. That's the secret.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Jeremy Corbyn is uniquely toxic to the electorate. Not uniquely. Take, for another example, your posting.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Apart from all the other awful poo poo i'm horrified that 20 years isn't a long time to these people. Oh don't worry you can be rich! In 20 years! Your best years will be behind you, you know the ones when it's most fun to have a lot of money. But you can buy a yacht and do that think where you put coke on a bit of a prostitute and smoke her or something? IDK. 20 years is a long time. A lot of otherwise healthy people will be dead in 20 years. Are these people liches? It's yes isn't it. That's the secret. I am willing to go out on a limb and say that very if any people are capable of going from 0 to 100m within 20 years. Mostly because at 0 you're still wondering where your next meal is coming from and where you sleep tonight.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Spuckuk posted:Not uniquely. Now, that's not fair. Pissflaps' posting is toxic to everyone, not just the electorate.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
ronya posted:Be careful of that one. It inexorably leads you down the merry garden path of Workfare. If you have a spare million of liquid assets, you can get above the median income by purely capitalist methods, like shares with high dividends, buying a row of houses and renting them out, buying up city or airport parking spaces. Your investment may go up or down, but it's creating an income that takes care of living and allows you to be driven and passionate elsewhere. Or write newspaper articles about how miserable you are, either way that's not something that workfare would provide people with. Regarde Aduck posted:Apart from all the other awful poo poo i'm horrified that 20 years isn't a long time to these people. Oh don't worry you can be rich! In 20 years! Your best years will be behind you, you know the ones when it's most fun to have a lot of money. But you can buy a yacht and do that think where you put coke on a bit of a prostitute and smoke her or something? IDK. 20 years is a long time. A lot of otherwise healthy people will be dead in 20 years. Are these people liches? It's yes isn't it. That's the secret.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Ewan posted:https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/03/how-do-britains-highest-earners-feel-about-their-income aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's not invalid if that applies to only some of the funding and we did, in fact, receive something for it in the first place. Something is more than nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Ewan posted:https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/03/how-do-britains-highest-earners-feel-about-their-income This is the kind of educational experience we want to see among the rich. He's basically saying "I work at my job and make more money than I'll ever really need, but these rich-by-birth bastards make me look like a pauper and they've done nothing to earn it". Now what he needs is the realisation that his employees who also work drat hard but don't earn salaries in the mid-sixes because they lack his opportunities feel the same way about him.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
There is only labour and capital after all.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
A grimly amusing thread written by the FT's Southern Africa correspondent: recent events in UK politics covered in the style of a foreign correspondent reporting on events in foreignland: https://twitter.com/jsphctrl/status/837722099313688577quote:March 3rd: The English People's Congress promised a firm line over a power-sharing deal with northern separatists today. O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 17:31 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/859783194790330368 The one thing I know for a fact about the current leadership of the European Union is that it is socialist as all hell, couldn't be more socialist, if anything it's maybe too socialist.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
To be fair if I were in charge of the EU:s negotiation team I wouldn't want to deal with May either.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Thank god I'm not playing a drinking game with "strong and stable". I kept watching that video and towards the end I thought "hmm wow she didn't say- ah there it is"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
I never thought I would long for the days of the pig fucker, but well here we are.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
John Woodcock has been reselected by the NEC to represent Labour. A man who has said in the event of a Labour majority of one he would withdraw his support from the party and prevent them forming a government because he doesn't want Corbyn to be Prime Minister. If you ever doubted whether there are significant elements within the party who are happy to tank Labours election chances just to prevent Corbyn being in charge, the fact that the NEC just backed him should be all the proof you need.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
jabby posted:John Woodcock has been reselected by the NEC to represent Labour. A man who has said in the event of a Labour majority of one he would withdraw his support from the party and prevent them forming a government because he doesn't want Corbyn to be Prime Minister. I'm not sure about that, it might have just been that due to the circumstances no good candidates submitted applications. There have been plenty of decent left-wing candidates nominated in seats where crusty blairites could have been put up.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:I never thought I would long for the days of the pig fucker, but well here we are. They were such carefree, loving times to live in
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I'm not sure about that, it might have just been that due to the circumstances no good candidates submitted applications. There have been plenty of decent left-wing candidates nominated in seats where crusty blairites could have been put up. He's publicity seeking and does more damage to the party than any number of attacks from Tory MPs. To paraphrase Malcolm Tucker, this is a situation where my left bollock with a smiley face drawn on it would be a better Labour candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
If you won't vote for a Labour government aren't you not a Labour MP in any meaningful sense?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:If you won't vote for a Labour government aren't you not a Labour MP in any meaningful sense? So basically he's scamming funding and resources from a party he doesn't support.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:So basically he's scamming funding and resources from a party he doesn't support. But enough about jeremy corbyn
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Are we sure John Woodcock isn't the chap quoted in that Guardian report?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Jedit posted:This is the kind of educational experience we want to see among the rich. He's basically saying "I work at my job and make more money than I'll ever really need, but these rich-by-birth bastards make me look like a pauper and they've done nothing to earn it". Now what he needs is the realisation that his employees who also work drat hard but don't earn salaries in the mid-sixes because they lack his opportunities feel the same way about him. That's one interpretation, but another one is what he needs is 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmwqEg-06Ww things were better back then
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:19
|
|
