5% majority over the government.
38% voted Tory or Reform, 33% vote Labour.
Yes but they will become so.[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑27 Jan 2025, 2:15pmNo we wouldn't.pete75 wrote: ↑27 Jan 2025, 1:42pmBut they are. I'm retired now, produce nothing and am just a cost to those who do. Finance rules these days, and financially my life is worthless as is that of every other retired person. The country would be a lot better off if they did away with all us old codgers.
We absolutely wouldn't - the value of a person to society is not measured purely financially - don't rate something as important solely because it is easy to measure.
Otherwise we should also get rid of all children and babies as well - they're no financial use at all!
But they are. I'm retired now, produce nothing and am just a cost to those who do. Finance rules these days, and financially my life is worthless as is that of every other retired person. The country would be a lot better off if they did away with all us old codgers.
Paulatic wrote: ↑27 Jan 2025, 12:58pmYet the sign says it is a C&CC 5 van certificated site.Slowroad wrote: ↑26 Jan 2025, 8:43pmLooks nice! Just in case anyone gets confused, it's not a Camping and Caravanning Club site, despite the name...https://bedalecampingandcaravanningpark.com/
A lovely site with excellent showers, indoor eating area, etc and very friendly folk running it. Five minute stroll to the town centre shops and pubs.
Are they lying?
I’ve cycled past it a couple of times in recent years. It is used for club rallies too so can be busy.
Yes I said Britain was avery egalitarian country in 1975, though I'm sure the 20:1 ratio you quote is correct. In the firm I worked for the chairmain and MD, father and son, both lived in semi-stately homes, both owned racehorses, owned aholiday vill on Cap Ferat etc. They'd have been on a lot more than £80,000 a year to run to the that lot. I don't think they were untypical at the time.Stevek76 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2025, 2:44pmI was talking about typical company ratios. Superstar musicians is a pretty niche exception. The gulf between director pay and lowest earners has widened drastically since that time and that is in part down to huge tax cuts for those earners.pete75 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 4:37pmWell yes, they obviously have a much greater ability to make money, if what you say is correct.Stevek76 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 1:20pm
Yes it is, because generally those who are wealthier/higher income are doing so/have become so on the basis of the labour of those who are less well paid. Government intervention to correct distorted markets is generally a good thing for the overall country and massive wealth/income inequality as we currently have is such a distortion. Or do you think today's high wealth/earners have an order of magnitude better ability than those from half a century ago when top to bottom earnings ratios were more like 20:1 at most.
20:1 at most? In 1975 I earned about 75 quid a week winding stators on piece work, call it £4,000 a year. Someone towards the top of the income scale , say Paul Mcartney was probably earning a thousand times that or more -
The current levels aren't healthy for a country and we can see that from the voter reaction.
Not complaining, merely stating that it's happening. Seems there's been a long term project since the 1979 election to make it happen.[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑25 Jan 2025, 10:56amBecause you're simultaneously suggesting reducing tax on the ultra wealthy, increasing tax on the poor, and complaining that we're getting less egalitarian.
And yes it does come off as a complaint, particularly with the Warren Buffet quote.
It also *should* be a complaint - the current hoarding of wealth at the top of the economy is massively unhealthy.
A less insane cap would be at a billion dolllars everything more goes to the government; you get a dog park named after you and a plaque reading "I won capitalism".
In what way? I said Britian is becoming a less egalitarian society, an dit's going to get worse. No comment on that being a good or bad thing. It's certainly bad for those made worse off by it, but good for those who profit from it.[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 4:56pmThis post seems to directly contradict your post of capping income tax...pete75 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 4:37pmWell yes, they obviously have a much greater ability to make money, if what you say is correct.Stevek76 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 1:20pm
Yes it is, because generally those who are wealthier/higher income are doing so/have become so on the basis of the labour of those who are less well paid. Government intervention to correct distorted markets is generally a good thing for the overall country and massive wealth/income inequality as we currently have is such a distortion. Or do you think today's high wealth/earners have an order of magnitude better ability than those from half a century ago when top to bottom earnings ratios were more like 20:1 at most.
20:1 at most? In 1975 I earned about 75 quid a week winding stators on piece work, call it £4,000 a year. Someone towards the top of the income scale , say Paul Mcartney was probably earning a thousand times that or more - and at a time when Britain was about the most egalitarian country in the developed world. It ain't now and it's going to get even less so.
As the economy declines further it won't be the better off who suffer. Why do you think right of centre parties are turning to populist politics, if not to give those at the bottom the illusion someone is listening to their concerns and will address them. It'll work too.
As Warren Buffet said “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Well yes, they obviously have a much greater ability to make money, if what you say is correct.Stevek76 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 1:20pmYes it is, because generally those who are wealthier/higher income are doing so/have become so on the basis of the labour of those who are less well paid. Government intervention to correct distorted markets is generally a good thing for the overall country and massive wealth/income inequality as we currently have is such a distortion. Or do you think today's high wealth/earners have an order of magnitude better ability than those from half a century ago when top to bottom earnings ratios were more like 20:1 at most.
You can buy a bluetooth OBD2 connector and an Android app to analyse and reset fault codes on most cars for not much money. By law Service interval lights aree user resetable without any special tools - might involve pressing a lot of different buttons - sort of alt, ctrl, del for cars.mjr wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 1:26pmMy dad was a mechanic for a time so he did, but I think maintaining one's own car is now done only by a very small minority and many without much money can't afford the necessary tools, let alone risk breaking the expensive car if they mess up. Even 30 years ago, the engine control computers were starting to need special bits which weren't cheap and that's only got more necessary for more car models. You even need to talk to the computer to reset the service interval and associated warning light.pete75 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 11:13am IME people without much money tend to service their cars themselves and do most repairs themselves often with scrapyard sourced parts, especially on something as basic as a Ford which probably still use points and coil ingnition and carburettors, except on the sporty models. Kept vehicles running for years like that when I was skintish.
You mena for the people not allowed to drive? No idea.
Is it fair to charge soem more than others for the same thing? Perhaps there should be a limit -£100k tax in a year and a thnakyou letter, youve done your bit mate and we won't take any more off you until next year.[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 10:11amNo, because if you only receive the benefit from society that you pay for then you aren't engaging in society - you want a capitalist anarchy.
A high earner will pay way more into the system than they take out, and that is beneficial to society - that's how it get's funded. There are those who can pay nothing into the system, and they obviously take more out than they pay in, and that is also beneficial to society. It is of benefit to the wealthy that people less fortunate are helped.
Paying your fair share doesn't mean paying for what you take out, but paying according to your means.
Yep but they only come in left hand drive plus you can Merc EQS for the same money.djnotts wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 9:34amYeah, the green tag signals look at me, I CARE. And top Tesla 100 grand, so not too demeaning!
For an enemy of the over intrusive state, Musk does pretty well out of it:
"bottom line is that carbon credits and EV rebates (both provided for by the federal government) are responsible for over 100% of Teslas' net income.
The US taxpayers are the ones keeping Elon Musk in the black. There is no other single person in American history who has received more financial benefit from Washington DC handouts than Elon Musk and Tesla. He is certainly the king of socialist handouts." (Source unverified but there are many other similar comments on th'internet.)
Will Trump be so obliging with mate's rates? Probably.
Sounds like you need to buy a Brompton to use in conjunction with public transport.gbnz wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 10:55am+ 1. Had to get to hospital back in September, couldn't risk the bicycle, so had a 25 mile walk to make the Sunday appointment. And it's always a nuisance, if on the bus stopping 11-12 miles away (Nb. Most stop just a 8 mile round walk away, so they're fairly convenient)
It's just a pity on renewing a bus pass in December, that a valid passport with 7 months left on, wasn't acceptable as ID, so had to replace the passport early, but , passport photographs taken professionally just 6 weeks back and declared acceptable and put on the new passport, aren't acceptable for a bus pass renewal, 2024 letter stating I'm on the electoral roll etc, etc, etc, isn't accepted as evidence of ID and or address, to renew a disabled bus pass,
Been without the pass since December, am hoping that I may have one before end of February / March, as can't always risk the bicycle (Nb. 44 mile round ride to the gym, far better than a bus ride c/w a disabled pass; bicycles far quicker, more reliable, one isn't left with a minimal 4 mile walk, 12 miles if the bus stops early (Nb. A1 dual carriageway will be far too windy today, a good 1.5 miles on a raised embankment. But if partially disabled, one has to travel (Nb. Was blocked from public sector gyms 2019 for being partially disabled, is a nuisance as that was just 0.75 mile a way, never mind, the 44 mile round ride to the private gym is pleasant, for anyone with a disability blocked from travelling in the UK. NB. Have finally stopped recycling orange juice containers, obviously was blocked from recycling such in the part of England I live in, for being partially disabled, 75 miles the most I was prepared to go, 90 miles or whatever, to Scotland, to recycle ? They now get binned)
IME people without much money tend to service their cars themselves and do most repairs themselves often with scrapyard sourced parts, especially on something as basic as a Ford which probably still use points and coil ingnition and carburettors, except on the sporty models. Kept vehicles running for years like that when I was skintish.mjr wrote: ↑24 Jan 2025, 10:46amThe above is not true where I live.[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑23 Jan 2025, 12:01pmDepends what car you're trying to pay for, and whether you already own it.
If you're just buying third party insurance, and VED, on a monthly basis - then there is the annual hit of an MOT (and the fear of any repair costs), but it's just fuel.
And that combination is often cheaper than public transport (which should be to the utter shame of government).
Insurance £20/month (third party on a 10 year old Ford Mondeo in an ex-council estate postcode near me), VED £19/month (band F, paid monthly), MOT £54.85/year so a bit under £5/month, servicing £250 with frequency depending on use so put £20/month by to try to cover this plus repairs which are probably a few hundred each hit, at random but more frequent as the vehicle ages.
So about £65/month plus fuel. And then there's any parking fees, depreciation, and much more.
An all-lines Lynx Bus adult pass is £83/month which would probably be cheaper, but in practice you'd probably buy a season ticket for your most-used line and occasionally area day passes as needed, which would be cheaper.
The problem with public transport is usually coverage and journey time, not cost. Too many lines start late, finish early and don't serve key destinations well. The bus operators know they're pricing against cars and are pretty sharp at competing on cost. A simple return to town is £1 more than the cheapest central parking, that will get blown away if you get sat in a jam burning fuel, and many would pay £1 for an extra 20 minutes each way not working on driving.
In a place with better transport such as Cambridge, passes cost more, but you'd also pay more for insurance, mechanics, fuel and parking. I expect London and Manchester and some others have big cost benefits to public transport if it serves your usual journeys.
