OpinionIt's hard to agree with any ideas David Cameron has because he is a multi-millionaire.
      – Thelevellers, 2011-02-06 at 09:11:14   (19 comments)

On 2011-02-06 at 09:17:29, Thelevellers wrote...
This was highlighted for me watching a debate recently, where the audience largely agreed that some form of 'big society' (Prime minister David Cameron's big idea to fix 'broken Britain') is potentially a good idea, but they don't trust it coming from Cameron because he is too rich. I am totally in agreement with that! I just instinctively distrust someone who stands there saying 'We're all in this together' when he could live a perfectly comfortable lifestyle off his fortune with no other income for a few years, while someone like me couldn't make a month without a pay-check.
On 2011-02-06 at 18:38:40, Baslisks wrote...
How is his money made? family or self work?
On 2011-02-06 at 20:17:37, Thelevellers wrote...
Family. Possibly some of his own work as well, but he comes from a rich background...
On 2011-02-07 at 14:41:05, DigitalBoss wrote...
"someone like me couldn't make a month without a pay-check." Sounds like a personal problem. He must be making some good decisions to be wealthy, and to be able to keep it. Especially in the high tax environment in which he lives.
On 2011-02-07 at 17:31:58, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: So what if it's a personal problem? It's one I share with millions of other people, and one that Mr. Cameron has NEVER had. No, he doesn't have to be making good decisions to stay wealthy, when the wealth came from his parents. It's not hard to think 'maybe I shouldn't spend it all without having a decent income', that's not good decision making. Plus, my point is more to do with how he can have any idea what will work 'on the ground' when he has had such a radically different life to the overwhelmingly VAST majority of people in the country. Especially when he is so plainly in bed with corporations, who are very likely to benefit from most of his plans, while we all suffer from the usual inefficient services provided by the private sector.
On 2011-02-07 at 17:50:20, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: Sounds like wealth envy to me. I really don't care how much money he has, or where it came from, more power to him. It also takes good decisions to keep money. Remember the old saying, "A fool and his money are soon parted"? Don't like him, don't vote for him. Corporations deserve to be represented by their government also. If fact, they probably have much more at stake than you do.
On 2011-02-07 at 22:25:16, DigitalBoss wrote...
Seems to me that people should be more worried about what they have earned than what other people have earned. What do you care how much money he has?
On 2011-02-08 at 17:53:15, Thelevellers wrote...
I care because he keeps playing the 'I know how you feel' card to win public acceptance, when he can plainly have no idea AT ALL about how it is to be on the breadline. I'm not rich, but I'm by no means on the breadline, but I have a damn better idea of the issues at the kinda level than he and his cabinet do. It isn't wealth envy, as I don't want to be that rich. I just wish he would quit pretending to be like me.
On 2011-02-08 at 17:56:13, Thelevellers wrote...
Maybe they should be represented, and I would be fine with that, if it weren't for the fact that corporations can afford to PAY for a bigger say. If they just had an allocation of votes at each election, that wouldn't be too bad, but it's ridiculous and stupid to let them buy their way to the policies they want (not need, WANT.) Oh, and it may be that and FOOL is easily parted from his money, but there's a long way between being a fool and being smart, and it's easy to keep money in the 'inbetween' area.
On 2011-02-08 at 17:58:18, Thelevellers wrote...
Oh, and here's a fine example of what Cameron and his cronies are doing to us (though I'm sure you'll love it, DB): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century Oh, and obviously I didn't vote for him, and neither did the majority of the nation. The worst things that are coming up are the actions (like the one above) that weren't included in the manifesto, and people may well have changed their vote if they had been.
On 2011-02-10 at 02:51:46, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: Taxes=bad
On 2011-02-10 at 02:55:27, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: "greatest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle to the ultra-rich". That doesn't make ANY sense. How do you transfer money from people that don't have any? Isn't that the definition of poor, lack of money?
On 2011-02-10 at 02:59:48, DigitalBoss wrote...
From the linked article, "But under the new proposals, companies will pay nothing at all in this country on money made by their foreign branches." Why would you want corporations to pay a higher tax? They just pass the tax on to you in the form of higher prices. So you are paying twice, when you earn it, and when you spend it. You would have to be an idiot to not understand that. Only people can pay taxes, corporations just pass them on to the consumer. It is estimated that in the US, 22% of the price paid for consumer goods and services is embedded corporate income taxes. So you pay out the ass when you earn money and you pay out the ass when you spend your money.
On 2011-02-17 at 17:53:18, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Taxes (when applied correctly/effectively) = Good.
On 2011-02-17 at 17:55:48, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I can see your point, but I at least know what he means, even if the phrasing isn't great. What he means, is that the changes being implemented are going to dramatically DECREASE the average wealth of poorer people, whilst INCREASING the wealth of the rich. While the transfer may not be direct, and so the phrasing is sloppy and flawed, the basic concept is true.
On 2011-02-17 at 17:59:11, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I'm unconvinced about the corporation tax point. Surely it is levied on the PROFITS of a company, thus making it hard to transfer down? We pay twice over here anyway, for some stuff - VAT is added to applicable sales (not 'essential' foods, kids clothes, and certain items like that). But we have a basic disagreement on tax in general, so I'm not sure it's really worth our while debating the finer points... :/
On 2011-02-19 at 15:01:01, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: The investors of a corporation, be them private, or be them public, expect to see a decent return on their investment. If not, their money would be better-off somewhere else. If the profits or dividends are cut by higher taxes, they will insist the difference be made-up, hence higher prices to you and me. Competition can make a difference, but generally they all pay the same taxes unless having a special deal. The only entities that can pay taxes are people, corporations just pass them on as higher prices for goods and services. Whether you like it, or you don't, that is the way it is. I have no idea what you mean by "transfer down".
On 2011-02-19 at 15:18:04, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: 'Transfer down' obviously means 'pass them on'... I disagree that it will always mean higher prices. People simply wont buy stuff if it's too much, so it can only get so high in price before it starts losing money. Also, if all the corporations are paying the same taxes, then there isn't anywhere else for investors to put their money!
On 2011-02-26 at 00:39:12, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: You are really bent.