Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35550001)

but you know full well some wont :)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35550004)

and i was simply pointing out that "rich" people have a lot more to lose and are far less financially secure than "poor" people

---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:47 ----------



I do ,there is no helping some people ;)

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35550054)

The rich will always be protected by the Tories, its where they get donations from.
.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35550165)

Harassment is against the sites T&C and by God Arthur gets Harassed every time he is on the site

Originally Posted by Rob (Post 35549932)

For all those who seem to claim the poor are being hit hardest at the expense of the rich perhaps you should check this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21740450 That graph is quite striking. Yes those on low incomes are being hit, mostly due to the welfare system changes, but it's clear those on big incomes are taking a major share. Only problem is those on big incomes, compared to the the numbers on welfare is quite disproportionate so raising money from the rich alone won't cut it (and perhaps some are good at avoidance schemes)

Blaming the previous government is par for the course. Labour undoubtedly went on a spending spree, most of that covered by borrowing. The effects of the repayments of that borrowing take a while to come through so now we see borrowing to pay off repayments, i.e. the money can't fund anything new, just old cost. It's why spending for the sake of it doesn't work other than in the short term.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35550168)

no he does not ,he gets corrected or disagreed with the same as anyone else.
What is really frustrating is that he spouts a load of waffle and refuses to back any of his claims up with facts or even a sensible argument ,it's like debating with a dinosaur in the local working mans club

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35550172)

The thing is that if a rich person loses 8% of their income, it will be annoying, yes, but nothing more. If a poor person (whether on benefits or not) loses 5% of their income it might mean the difference between them buying new clothes or not, and in extreme conditions can mean the difference between the poor having food and heating.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35550145)

Arthur seriously some of the points you think your making are absolutely stupid it was a labour chancellor that exalted the city of London, it was a labour government that laid the foundation for the crash to hit us as hard because they relaxed regulatory powers so much in the financial sector. Also to say no rich person donates to labour honestly have you totally forgotten the term "champagne socialist" trust me Arthur i know some think we do but it isn't claimants that drink champagne it's .... people, go on arthur i know saying it in the context of labour will be hard but you can do it.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35550060)

The rich don't get protected as such they are valued and encouraged because they provide all the work for you and me to do so we can buy stuff



So do i ,i take every legal means at my disposal to pay less tax as do you and every other worker in the country



OK then ,how about these

: Dr Chai Patel, founder of Priory Clinics, who was nominated for a peerage which was blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, lent £1.5 million;

Sir David Garrard, a property developer, who lent £2.3 million. Both Sir David's and Mr Townsley's nominations for seats in the House of Lords were also blocked by the commission;

Andrew Rosenfeld, who was a partner of Sir David in London property group Minerva, lent Labour £1 million;

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35550180)

I hope you're not expecting Arthur to change his own unique view of reality... :D