Harrods Parking space for Sale

[KennyR]

It should be taken from them for being greedy and turned into a disabled person parking space. I have more respect for a cripple trying to prise himself out of a Reliant into a wheelchair than any high-society money leech who lives off the hard work of the common people.

[KennyR]

Mikeymike wrote:
What if the cripple inherited millions of pounds and is using that disabled parking space for free, pulling up in their modified limited edition Jag...?

Then they better not come running to me for sympathy.

[KennyR]

Sumner, did you see the joke there?

[KennyR]

@Fade

Or we could just let a few rich people have everything and not bother trying to have any kind of justice at all. That's the American Way, right?

[KennyR]

Fade wrote:
KennyR, you always assume that anyone that is rich, got that way by stealing from the poor. That's the Socialist Way, isn't it?

No, I assume that anyone who would pay £10,000 for a parking space behind Harrods got that way from stealing from the poor! And I would probably be right.

One of these days, you will have more assets than you do today. What will you say then?

I'd still say anyone who'd pay for a £10,000 parking space behind Harrods is a high-society leech.

[KennyR]

Fade wrote:
KennyR, don't you have multiple computers? Those without a computer might consider you greedy and probably stole those extra ones from the poor.

If a computer cost half a year of the average working man's wage, then I would expect them to.

[KennyR]

Wage bands in the UK:

< £10,000/y: on the breadline. People here are are usually unemployed, immigrants, the disabled, struggling single mothers, etc. Called the lower classes by conservatives. Actually its very difficult to be really poor with our strong welfare state and minimum wage levels (yay).

£10,000-20,000: Average workers, about 90% of the population. These people work hard and are taxed hard, and actually generate most of the wealth and most of the taxes the country has. Usually called the working class.

£20,000-40,000: "Professional" workers. Skilled craftsmen, managers, doctors, etc. Whatever skills, experience or knowledge they have is enough to get them high wages. Upper-working class. Work hard but are taxed like crazy and always were, especially on retirement.

£40-000-80,000: Here's where it gets kinda strange. People up here can sometimes have legitimate reasons for such high incomes: stressed executives, high-profile lawyers, MPs, scientists. But most don't. You will find most of the people in this band living comfortably, with a villa in Spain and a yacht, working smaller shifts than the "lower classes". This is the middle class, and upper-middle class, Thatcher's darlings. The higher up here you go, the more your family and connections mean more than your skills. Strangely, these people don't really suffer much of a tax burden.

£80,000+: Well, there isn't much work you can do to earn you this kind of money. People who get this much are usually people who get to dictate their own wages: chief executive fatcats who lower their workers wages but give themselves massive pay rises and absolutely huge pensions, landowners, etc. I wish it was a socialist delusion but its not. These people are often the direct descendents of the landowners William the Conquerer put here when he stole the land from the Saxons. They don't do much work, often have most of their savings in a tax-free haven, and don't contribute much to society. They are the upper-classes, and the people who would pay £10,000 for a parking space at Harrods.

[KennyR]

People who fall into this category are TV Presenters, Actors and other famous people. Explains an awful lot, doesn't it?

It doesn't

It does. Don't think about the actors themselves, think about the people who pay them.

It's like football clubs. People might see footballers being paid obscene amounts of money, but the shareholders are usually much, much wealthier.

[KennyR]

T_Bone wrote:
It can't even really get stuck.

If you take a significant chunk out of the flow, it devalues, freeing it up by making the flowing money worth more in comparison.

That's not really the problem. It's when you start helping the elite to get into power to stimulate the economy (such as Thatcher did) by cutting down working men's wages, you begin to find that those 90% of hard working people really do generate all the wealth, all the productivity, and are even the greatest market for what they produce. All you do then is to overheat the economy because nobody can pay for what they're producing, *bang* - instant crash. Isn't monetarism wonderful?

[KennyR]

It's not so much the space they want, just the prestige. Stupid money grabbing socialite peacocks.

[KennyR]

T_Bone wrote:
 You stimulate the economy by letting the workers bring home a larger paycheck, by lowering taxes for example, not by cutting wages. She should have been more like Reagan.

She was like Reagan - an enemy to the working person.

She kept inflation down by making three million working people unemployed so they wouldn't be able to buy anything, then used taxes from the rest to pay their benefits. To make up the rest of the shortfall in taxes, she sold off all our public companies and turned them into profiteering cowboy outfits owned by the likes of Robert Maxwell. It was never going to last and she knew it. How such people can sleep at night I don't know.

[KennyR]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
No, it's fake economy.

Exactly.

[KennyR]

T_Bone wrote:
You should check out what happened when Reagan lowered taxes... the economy thrived so well that the government was taking in astronomical ammounts of taxes, even though the tax rate was lower.

But effectively, the output came from borrowing. Taxes weren't being generated - just taken from digging a huge deficit that still lasts to this day, and that Bush is happy to make deeper.

A country thrives on its working class. There's no getting around that. The rest just live off them.

[KennyR]

Fade wrote:
At what point does a person get to spend their own money the way they want to, without someone else thinking they're greedy?

Spending your own money is not the issue, having so much you can spend so much so frivolously when most people can work hard 9-5, 7 days a week for 6 months to earn as much. Can't you see that?

Don't you see the injustice of it? I guess not, or by now you'd have got the point. I guess thats the result of living in a country where it's long been acceptable for people to get stinking rich on a lucky break and then raise themselves above the rest of humanity.

[KennyR]

T_Bone wrote:
That carrot that you call "getting lucky" is what provided the incentive to build most of the world we have today. Without that carrot you'd have to make do with a stick.

The carrot's a better incentive.

It's not much of a carrot if we all know we're never going to get it!

What would be have to do to earn so much? Working would never do it. Robbing a bank would probably not even cover it. Winning the lottery might, if you like those 14 million to one odds.

No T_Bone, this isn't bright shining capitalism - its basic class-division greed shown by Britain's self-declared upper class twat plutocracy who have been sucking the life out of us for far too long. And they whine about welfare and immigrants!

@Fade

Make sense, for once. Making nebulous statements isn't really doing much for your credibility. I'm hardly going to put my foot in my mouth falling into logical traps that don't have any logic!