You really believe this stuff - goodness me all of the downsides and no of the up sides!!

Are you putting the likes of Alan Stanford and Kenneth Lay in the same bracket as Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussain seriously?

Society has - sadly for you - thrown out the notion that we should be equal regardless of intellect, desire, work ethic, ability you see this is where your mantra is just hyperbole - sad very sad indeed.

You will never stop privilege you will never stop inequality. Even in a socialist regime the structure of power still exists. The bosses are still more equal than the rest. We are not all born the same - I assume you can't run like Bolt or are as intelligent as or have the business ability of Bill Gates? Of course in your world Gates is the enemy and should never have been allowed to use his talent, intellect and hard work to accumulate such a huge fortune. You need to find a way of encouraging/accommodating the benefits people like Gates bring within the confines of a workable society. You think how much tax his company has paid of the years and how that has been redistributed to those less fortunate than him. The money he has donated to challenging causes to the betterment of society. For every Abramovic there is a Bill Gates pity you are so blinkered you fail to acknowledge that the world isn't all run by greedy egomaniacs!!

LOL indeed and you can count the number of political conversations on the fingers of one foot!
It's just a nice handy label to chuck around to avoid answering questions.

If you think that you are an even bigger idiot than I had you down as. No one who works hard and earns their money is the enemy, as long as they pay their fair share of taxes while doing so then bloody good luck to them. I for one have a lifestyle I am happy with and am in no way jealous of anyone who earns more.

It's Sal: the thinking man's gift that simply keeps on giving

Bill Gates is at least the third straw man you've introduced into this debate so far.

I'm still wondering why you do it, apart from some compulsion to say "look over there" and not engage in debate at all

Ah, right - so you're still in your teens.





Strange, I don't remember ever mentioning "Pol Pot", "Idi Amin" or "Saddam Hussain". Obfuscation? I think so.

But whilst we're on the subject of such - where do you think certainly the latter two would be without the pipeline of bribes, materiel and training offered in exchange for resource rights?



LOL - don't feel sad on my part. Are you sure you're having this conversation with me - or some kind of fantasy me which exists solely in your own head? Who's mentioned anything about "enforced equality"?



See - there you go again. Who's mentioned anything about "stopping inequality"? The issue here is your assertion that anyone who takes umbrage with the manifold injustices of the corporate sector hasn't a leg to stand on and must only be "jealous". I take it that since you've been careful to avoid returning to that silly claim and have instead resorted to straw man weaving (as well as exposing your woody for capitalism) you'd rather not make an even bigger fool of yourself.

I see Iain Duncan Smith has successfully ended child poverty in the UK within a month of the new government coming into office

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33347511 Seems the Tories now want to end sickness benefit.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33347511 Seems the Tories now want to end sickness benefit.

The problem with welfare is that it creates a class of people that are dependent on the state. So, essentially it's the states way of bribing voters.
When the welfare state was set up, only people over the age of 70 were given a weekly payment. This made the welfare system very cheap, because the life expectancy in Britain at the time was 48.
However, although cutting benefits will decrease government spending it doesn't address the real issue of private debt (mortgage payments, credit cards, student loans, bank loans etc). If the public is paying down debt it's inevitable sovereign debt will increase as the government tries to circulate the money into the economy that isn't being circulated as the public is saving in order to pay their debt.

We're the most indebted nation in the developed world, our total debt is 900% of GDP, and most of that is private debt-not government debt. Debts that can't be repaid, won't be repaid, and either we have to default and go bankrupt, or a significant proportion of the debt will have to be written off.
IMO, the initial bailout that was given to the banks, should have gone to the public in order to pay down their own debt, thus giving the money to the banks in the form of debt repayments, and giving the public more disposable income, to save, or spend within the economy.
Unfortunately, because of the nature of our political system, no Politian is willing to stand up to the Ponzi scheme running-oligarchs in the financial sector. They're just happy to keep the bubble inflated long enough so the 5hit doesn't hit the fan while they're in office.

Edit:

Just to add, the UK's current (trade account) is also far more concerning than is portrayed by the government and the media. Our economy will never be able to recover if we don't start producing more than we consume, there needs to be a reindustrialisation of Britain.

I'd be thoroughly embarassed, as a government, to talk about more welfare cuts when the current situation has already led to a neccessity for foodbanks.

Shame on them.

They're more interested in getting dividends for shareholders, than sorting out the root cause of any social problems.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33376467Don't you even dare to criticise government policies, otherwise we'll withold funding[/url

The goal is the Thirdworldisation of the Britain with employees begging for jobs offering similar terms and conditions as you'd find in one of Russell Brand's sweatshops.

I'd laugh if it weren't so tragic. Sheeple meekly sitting by watching rights and benefits their forefathers literally gave their blood to win trickle away - forever lost. Do people seriously believe they'll see them return once we fight our way out of debt? But then if you're dumb enough to think debt is some kind of statistical irregularity in markets rather than an economic weapon there's no point in further discussion.

Until people stop watching TV, think for themselves and take forceful action they deserve everything they get.