Ken Loach

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

I think we’ll all agree to disagree. Corbyn’s brand of Marxist socialism has never worked anywhere at any time in history - latest example, the aforementioned Venezuela, and when we have one of his cronies declaring that ‘Britain should not have any billionaires’ you know you’re in the politics-of-envy territory - big time. It’s not what I would ever want for this country and it’s certainly not what I’d ever want to experience, especially at my time of life. And I doubt any of you would either.
The top 1% of earners in this country pay roughly 28% of our taxes. Are they going to stick around if Madman McDonnell moves into no. 11? This country is one of the best in the world to live in, even with all our problems, that’s why people risk and lose their lives to get here to live and work. Corby and co would destroy it. They won’t get the chance, if the polls are correct, and I hope to God they are.

Of course it's fair enough if you want to vote for whichever party but it's the wilful sensationalism and outrage that feeds your thinking that doesn't do anyone any good. If you don't think Corbyn's numbers add up then fine, but what "Marxist socialist" policy is going to drag us under?

I'm not envious of someone with a billion pounds; I just find it baffling - why would anyone need that kind of cash? It's like having a three foot old boy - kind of impressive in a way but it's just for show and not much use to anyone else. Job creation? Most of them horde it and it's not good to give just the few that responsibility. (Besides, consumers create jobs).

Your whole post seems panicky, but why wouldn't it when we see our own PM using his old employer (the Telegraph) to compare Labour's tax rise for the rich as the equivalent of Stalin. But he comes up with this bullshit cos it works.

[trampie09]

Of course it's fair enough if you want to vote for whichever party but it's the wilful sensationalism and outrage that feeds your thinking that doesn't do anyone any good. If you don't think Corbyn's numbers add up then fine, but what "Marxist socialist" policy is going to drag us under?

I'm not envious of someone with a billion pounds; I just find it baffling - why would anyone need that kind of cash? It's like having a three foot old boy - kind of impressive in a way but it's just for show and not much use to anyone else. Job creation? Most of them horde it and it's not good to give just the few that responsibility. (Besides, consumers create jobs).

Your whole post seems panicky, but why wouldn't it when we see our own PM using his old employer (the Telegraph) to compare Labour's tax rise for the rich as the equivalent of Stalin. But he comes up with this bullshit cos it works.

Good post

[jon1959]

Of course it's fair enough if you want to vote for whichever party but it's the wilful sensationalism and outrage that feeds your thinking that doesn't do anyone any good. If you don't think Corbyn's numbers add up then fine, but what "Marxist socialist" policy is going to drag us under?

I'm not envious of someone with a billion pounds; I just find it baffling - why would anyone need that kind of cash? It's like having a three foot old boy - kind of impressive in a way but it's just for show and not much use to anyone else. Job creation? Most of them horde it and it's not good to give just the few that responsibility. (Besides, consumers create jobs).

Your whole post seems panicky, but why wouldn't it when we see our own PM using his old employer (the Telegraph) to compare Labour's tax rise for the rich as the equivalent of Stalin. But he comes up with this bullshit cos it works.

[lisvaneblue]

Of course it's fair enough if you want to vote for whichever party but it's the wilful sensationalism and outrage that feeds your thinking that doesn't do anyone any good. If you don't think Corbyn's numbers add up then fine, but what "Marxist socialist" policy is going to drag us under?

I'm not envious of someone with a billion pounds; I just find it baffling - why would anyone need that kind of cash? It's like having a three foot old boy - kind of impressive in a way but it's just for show and not much use to anyone else. Job creation? Most of them horde it and it's not good to give just the few that responsibility. (Besides, consumers create jobs).

Your whole post seems panicky, but why wouldn't it when we see our own PM using his old employer (the Telegraph) to compare Labour's tax rise for the rich as the equivalent of Stalin. But he comes up with this bullshit cos it works.

There is good and bad in both parties. Im concerned that Corbyn's view of life is on the extreme left and will take us back to the 1970s should he get into power. The fact that a moderate like Tom Watson has resigned adds to that thought.
Johnson, to his credit has at least tried to get the Brexit situation sorted in the way we all voted ie to leave, and labour have done their best to delay that.
Both parties are promising more cash everywhere and I honestly think tipping more cash into things like the NHS will be wasted until the whole thing is restructured. I read yesterday that it can take doctors 15 minutes to log on to their laptops because they run on Windows 7...unbelievable.
As for a labour government.....we have one in Wales and over the last 20 years they have done very little in my opinion. We are still dependant on EU handouts and business is not exactly booming in Wales.

As for why people need billions....ask Gareth Bale, he might give you some insight

[Croesy Blue]

As for why people need billions....ask Gareth Bale, he might give you some insight

There is zero chance Bale is a billionaire

[delmbox]

There is zero chance Bale is a billionaire

I don't think a lot of people quite realise just how much money a billion is. Here's a couple of examples I saw, if it helps

-If you earned $45,000 a year and stashed it all under your mattress, you’d have one million dollars at the end of 22 years. To accumulate one billion dollars at that same rate, it would take 22,000 years

-One million seconds from now is about 11 and a half days away. One billion seconds from now is about 31 and a half years in the future

Like you said, there is absolutely zero chance that Gareth Bale is anywhere near being a billionaire, and the fact that people like lisvaneblue think that he is one explains a little ordinary working people seem so defensive of the insanely super rich when it comes to the statement that no one needs a billion pounds.

[David Vincent]

I don't think a lot of people quite realise just how much money a billion is. Here's a couple of examples I saw, if it helps

-If you earned $45,000 a year and stashed it all under your mattress, you’d have one million dollars at the end of 22 years. To accumulate one billion dollars at that same rate, it would take 22,000 years

-One million seconds from now is about 11 and a half days away. One billion seconds from now is about 31 and a half years in the future

Like you said, there is absolutely zero chance that Gareth Bale is anywhere near being a billionaire, and the fact that people like lisvaneblue think that he is one explains a little ordinary working people seem so defensive of the insanely super rich when it comes to the statement that no one needs a billion pounds.

But they don't stuff it under mattresses. Theoretically you can make a billion in a lifetime if you earn £45,000 a year. Let's assume 10% compound interest (very unlikely) and you don't spend anything then you will end up with a billion in about 80 years.

[delmbox]

But they don't stuff it under mattresses. Theoretically you can make a billion in a lifetime if you earn £45,000 a year. Let's assume 10% compound interest (very unlikely) and you don't spend anything then you will end up with a billion in about 80 years.

I'm 99% sure this is wrong but not good enough at maths to say why

[David Vincent]

I'm 99% sure this is wrong but not good enough at maths to say why

The fact that you try to measure how certain your beliefs are impresses me. I try to do the same thing. I think that's why I no longer believe many of the things I have been told. For example, everyone believes that Jimmy Savile was one of the UKs worst sex cases and I was probably about 90% in agreement with them. But when I started thinking about it and looking at the evidence or lack of it this this certainty went down very quickly. I now believe he is probably innocent.

You don't need any maths to see that I am right. You can do it with a spreadsheet quite easily. Use one column for the new total each year and the other for the principal plus the interest plus the annual payment. But if you doubt me then just put these figures into the input boxes at this site : 0,45000,10,Annual,81

https://www.mortgagecalculator.org/c...d-interest.php

If after doing that you have found that a 99% certainly about a belief is wrong then ask yourself what other beliefs might be wrong?

[Croesy Blue]

But they don't stuff it under mattresses. Theoretically you can make a billion in a lifetime if you earn £45,000 a year. Let's assume 10% compound interest (very unlikely) and you don't spend anything then you will end up with a billion in about 80 years.

What bank are you keeping your money in pal?

That's a base of 3,600,000. Do you know how much a billion is?

Bale has a net worth of about £12om, you'd need some compound interest to get a billion.

[lardy]

But they don't stuff it under mattresses. Theoretically you can make a billion in a lifetime if you earn £45,000 a year. Let's assume 10% compound interest (very unlikely) and you don't spend anything then you will end up with a billion in about 80 years.

An 80 year working life seems a little unlikely too.

[lardy]

There is zero chance Bale is a billionaire

He definitely isn't.

Let's assume he's worth $100m now (which he isn't). If he had gone to China and signed for $1m a week, he would have to be on that until the age of 47 to become a billionaire (unrealistically assuming zero spending and zero interest and investment). But even earning an unimaginable amount of money, it takes a long time to make it to a billion.

You can't become a billionaire on hard work and luck - as you said in another post, you need to take advantage and exploit people too.

[lardy]

He definitely isn't.

Let's assume he's worth $100m now (which he isn't). If he had gone to China and signed for $1m a week, he would have to be on that until the age of 47 to become a billionaire (unrealistically assuming zero spending and zero interest and investment). But even earning an unimaginable amount of money, it takes a long time to make it to a billion.

You can't become a billionaire on hard work and luck - as you said in another post, you need to take advantage and exploit people too.

I've done some googling and maybe he is worth more than $100m so I take it back. Nice work Gareth.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Johnson, to his credit has at least tried to get the Brexit situation sorted in the way we all voted ie to leave, and labour have done their best to delay that.

Michael Gove said "The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want". Parliament hasn't been able to choose that path. Labour have voted against every deal as there have been no safeguards for workers' rights, jobs etc. I believe they are right to do this. Whether we stay or leave, ultimately we should be doing our utmost to ensure people don't lose jobs, livelihoods. This has to be a bigger priority than Brexit. Sadly there are too many pricks out there who are happy for people to lose their jobs if it means Brexit being delivered.

As for Labour delaying Brexit, on March 12th, a majority of 149 voted no to Theresa May's deal. 75 Tory MPs voted against May, presumably most of them no-deal seekers. Had they backed their leader, we would now be out of the EU. If a party has a majority in Government yet fails to deliver because around a quarter of its MPs don't support a particular bill, they can hardly blame anyone else.

[lisvaneblue]

Michael Gove said "The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want". Parliament hasn't been able to choose that path. Labour have voted against every deal as there have been no safeguards for workers' rights, jobs etc. I believe they are right to do this. Whether we stay or leave, ultimately we should be doing our utmost to ensure people don't lose jobs, livelihoods. This has to be a bigger priority than Brexit. Sadly there are too many pricks out there who are happy for people to lose their jobs if it means Brexit being delivered.

As for Labour delaying Brexit, on March 12th, a majority of 149 voted no to Theresa May's deal. 75 Tory MPs voted against May, presumably most of them no-deal seekers. Had they backed their leader, we would now be out of the EU. If a party has a majority in Government yet fails to deliver because around a quarter of its MPs don't support a particular bill, they can hardly blame anyone else.

My understanding is that EU law has helped in 3 main respects for workers...1. 28 days paid leave and a limit of 48 hrs iWork per week. 2. Guaranteed maternity leave of 14 weeks. 3. Prt time workers having same rights as full time. After Brexit its for the UK to decide which ir=f any of these to keep. But...Uk legislation already allows for 5 weeks plus 3 days annual paid leave a year ( inc public holidays), and 52 week maternity leave a year..both of which are much better than the EU....so why is Corbyn making such an issue about it when UK law seems OK

[Croesy Blue]

My understanding is that EU law has helped in 3 main respects for workers...1. 28 days paid leave and a limit of 48 hrs iWork per week. 2. Guaranteed maternity leave of 14 weeks. 3. Prt time workers having same rights as full time. After Brexit its for the UK to decide which ir=f any of these to keep. But...Uk legislation already allows for 5 weeks plus 3 days annual paid leave a year ( inc public holidays), and 52 week maternity leave a year..both of which are much better than the EU....so why is Corbyn making such an issue about it when UK law seems OK

I'd say there is a good chance some of that could change.

[Tuerto]

I'd say there is a good chance some of that could change.

Certainly under the Tories. I'm no fan of the EU, they're pro business, although so are the Tories, and they don't like the Working class either. I voted to remain although the EU has a fair bit of form on shafting workers. Alot of the Workers rights in this country have been implemented by Workers struggle and the Unions, not the EU.

[Croesy Blue]

Certainly under the Tories. I'm no fan of the EU, they're pro business, although so are the Tories, and they don't like the Working class either. I voted to remain although the EU has a fair bit of form on shafting workers. Alot of the Workers rights in this country have been implemented by Workers struggle and the Unions, not the EU.

Couldn't agree more, but I'd feel safer under the EU than the tories with regards to protecting those rights.

[Heisenberg]

My understanding is that EU law has helped in 3 main respects for workers...1. 28 days paid leave and a limit of 48 hrs iWork per week. 2. Guaranteed maternity leave of 14 weeks. 3. Prt time workers having same rights as full time. After Brexit its for the UK to decide which ir=f any of these to keep. But...Uk legislation already allows for 5 weeks plus 3 days annual paid leave a year ( inc public holidays), and 52 week maternity leave a year..both of which are much better than the EU....so why is Corbyn making such an issue about it when UK law seems OK

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 14 weeks maternity leave in the EU v 52 weeks leave in the UK you've spoken about is missing some key points (I think).

I had a daughter not too long ago and I seem to remember that you're entitled to 14 weeks paid maternity leave in the UK (which was brought in by the EU) - the 52 weeks leave in the UK is based on the employer's discretion to how much paid leave you get (after the 14 weeks mandatory leave). In my experience, my partner had 9 months maternity leave, 14 weeks on full pay and the rest was on half her salary - as per her contract.

With that in mind, I hope you can see the confusion.

[lisvaneblue]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 14 weeks maternity leave in the EU v 52 weeks leave in the UK you've spoken about is missing some key points (I think).

I had a daughter not too long ago and I seem to remember that you're entitled to 14 weeks paid maternity leave in the UK (which was brought in by the EU) - the 52 weeks leave in the UK is based on the employer's discretion to how much paid leave you get (after the 14 weeks mandatory leave). In my experience, my partner had 9 months maternity leave, 14 weeks on full pay and the rest was on half her salary - as per her contract.

With that in mind, I hope you can see the confusion.

Good point. With that in mind I had a look at eU regulations and the rules state14 weeks of which 2 weeks is mandatory. This suggests that the other 12 weeks are optional, so I looked at a country by country listing and that does seem to be the case.

It seems that despite people going on about it the EU rules are pretty flexible and amongst individual countries the UK is one of the better ones.

[Croesy Blue]

Of course it's fair enough if you want to vote for whichever party but it's the wilful sensationalism and outrage that feeds your thinking that doesn't do anyone any good. If you don't think Corbyn's numbers add up then fine, but what "Marxist socialist" policy is going to drag us under?

I'm not envious of someone with a billion pounds; I just find it baffling - why would anyone need that kind of cash? It's like having a three foot old boy - kind of impressive in a way but it's just for show and not much use to anyone else. Job creation? Most of them horde it and it's not good to give just the few that responsibility. (Besides, consumers create jobs).

Your whole post seems panicky, but why wouldn't it when we see our own PM using his old employer (the Telegraph) to compare Labour's tax rise for the rich as the equivalent of Stalin. But he comes up with this bullshit cos it works.

I don't mind people being millionaires but to be a billionaire you basically have to be a complete bastard shitting on anyone who works for you to get there and breaking numerous labour laws and making unethical decisions. Then why does anyone need to hoard a billion quid in the bank? Basically it's just removing all that money from the economy.

[Croesy Blue]

Also the top 1% may pay "28% of our tax" but how much of it should they really be paying? The answer is a lot more than 28%.

Edit and that is obviously just income tax it isn't 28% of the UK's tax budget

In her column discussing the budget (9 March), Zoe Williams asserted that “the top 1% of British earners pay 27% of the United Kingdom’s tax”. No – this is wrong. The top 1% of earners pay 27% of income tax, but income tax raises just 27% of the UK’s total tax revenue. This is less than is raised by VAT and other indirect taxes (29%) and not much more than is raised by national insurance (19%).

[lisvaneblue]

I don't mind people being millionaires but to be a billionaire you basically have to be a complete bastard shitting on anyone who works for you to get there and breaking numerous labour laws and making unethical decisions. Then why does anyone need to hoard a billion quid in the bank? Basically it's just removing all that money from the economy.

Richard Branson is worth £2.8 billion, founder of Virgin, a good businessman?...or as you say....a bastard shitting on anyone who works for him and breaking numerous labour laws and making unethical decisions

Don't fall for the politics of envy.

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Richard Branson is worth £2.8 billion, founder of Virgin, a good businessman?...or as you say....a bastard shitting on anyone who works for him and breaking numerous labour laws and making unethical decisions

Don't fall for the politics of envy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-rail-profits

Bill Gates was talking about being taxed yesterday. He has a fortune of 106 billion so if he was asked to give away 100 billion that would be about 94% (and he'd still be very rich). It seems that kind of number is too much for a lot of people, even those without that kind of money, but it's been done before in the US. And of course, he'd probably find a way of giving away less than that.

[delmbox]

Richard Branson is worth £2.8 billion, founder of Virgin, a good businessman?...or as you say....a bastard shitting on anyone who works for him and breaking numerous labour laws and making unethical decisions

Don't fall for the politics of envy.

Picking someone who sued the NHS isn't the cleverest move when trying to stick up for the mega rich

https://www.rt.com/uk/430468-branson-virgin-sues-nhs/