THE NEW WORLD ORDER…
By ATWadmin On March 31st, 2009It’s a shame I won’t be here to fully enjoy the travelling circus that is the G20 show. I was entertained to read that Prudence Brown has told bankers that theymust follow the basic notions of right and wrong that they would teach their own children.
Good idea Gordon- how about politicians embracing this concept as well – or does your vision of the new world order of right and wrong not quite extend to your ilk?
Gordon adds that “They must return “honesty and fairness” to the financial industries and not put greed and short-term gratification before long-term benefit…”
Interesting. Anyone been following the scandal of the VAST expenses claims that Gordon and his colleagues have been indulging in for years? Also, anyone reflected on the huge pension provision that Gordon is to gifted when he is booted out of power whilst at the same time he has destroyed pensions rights or millions of others?
Let’s face it – this gross hypocrite Brown makes bankers seem like beacons on integrity!
Theres quite a few protests on the same day so it should be fun.
Let’s face it – this gross hypocrite Brown makes bankers seem like beacons on integrity!
Standing beside Pol Pot wouldnt even provide these bankers with integrity. Claiming that diddling expenses is as bad as looting public treasuries of tens of billions is beyond ridiculous.
Who needs a lecture from the likes of them?
… looting public treasuries of tens of billions is beyond ridiculous.
And how did it get there?!
Tell that to Snouter Smith, Fingers McNulty and Shagger Griffiths!
Let’s back the bus up here ….
Gordon adds that "They must return "honesty and fairness" to the financial industries and not put greed and short-term gratification before long-term benefit…"
Oh aye?
So let’s not use a blip on the long-term growth line to destroy public finances?
Let’s not put our children into deep debt before even some are born?
Let’s not gouge the taxpayer yet further to pay for the government’s army of voters?
Sounds about right to me, or is the PM advocating honesty and fair dealing by others but not himself?
And how did it get there?
Through the legal gathering of taxes. Sure, we can disagree with certain taxes but there is no use you pretending that taxation, in some form, is going to disappear. Its rather sad grandstanding.
Ofcourse there is a solution, but it involves the state so you probably wont be interested.
Before I started to think things through I used to be in favour of high taxation for the super rich as there was so much good that needed doing with it.
Now I realise that even if I though that the public sector was capable of doing what needed to be done, I realise that taxing the riscj too much kills the goose that is laying the golden eggs.
If the rich were content to be taxed to the hilt and continue to create the wealth needed, I still don’t trust the public sector to deliver value for money.
My business contacts in London ( near Liverpool St ) are not looking forward to the protests, and may not be able to get into the office depending on how things go.
Through the legal gathering of taxes.
Theft is theft no matter the veneer.
Give unto Ceasar, Pete
There will always be taxes and there always should be taxes
The only question is what the right amount is and what it should be spent on.
Allow me to suggest ‘zero’ and ‘sod all’.
Allow me also to quibble with this lazy assumption toward universal and inescapable taxation.
Throughout the 19th Century and into the first decade of the 20th, when Great Britons were at their greatest and freest, most Britons never paid a penny in taxes.
That we are far less free now has everything to do with the monstrous growth of government in the century since.
If taxes are zero, how do you propose to fund
police?
military and coast guard?
public roads?
public schools?
agricultural inspection / consumer protection / public health
This question came up a while back with someone and I never got an answer
Because there is no answer!
Phantom:
"Because there is no answer!"
Can’t we borrow from the Chinese?
Actually the earliest year in which a majority of the English paid tax was 1377.
It’s arguable that the private sector could deliver almost all of the services which we call "public" (Police/military?…perhaps not. But all the others, certainly). Those who wish to use them would have to pay the subscriptions, and those who didn’t, wouldn’t.
Ater all, what is a "public" service, when you think about it? Is it something that everyone is absolutely obliged to use? No, usually it merely means ‘a service that most people do use’. Indeed, there are some services which pretty much everyone is going to be obliged to use sooner or later (such as funeral directors) – so, should that be nationalised? What about broadband? Probably 95% of households have a bb connection by now, yet that doesn’t make it a "public service". Clean drinking water is an essential for survival, yet our water supplies come via private companies (NI excepted?), and if you don’t pay your bill, you get cut off, and rightly so.
On the other hand, not all of us are definitely going to require hospital treatment during our lives, so why should we all be forced to pay for the NHS?