1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

William Hague - What a Tosspot!!

Discussion in 'Serious' started by StingLikeABee, 12 Apr 2016.

  1. StingLikeABee

    StingLikeABee New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    23
    How many? Thousands, millions? Does that mean that many on low incomes are struggling because they are trying to live beyond their means?

    Edit: to be fair I do agree with you that there are people who could be more financially stable if they did live within their means. There are many more though who have to live within their means and still struggle immensely due to low income.
     
    Last edited: 13 Apr 2016
  2. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    12,901
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    They say it's the lowest form of wit, but hey, at least it's wit.

    Yes. Just like most that are "rich" has got there via unscrupulous means. Again with the generalisations.

    There are rich people, there are poor people - they're all in their respective scenarios through either "luck" or their life choices - but either having a complete lack of moral fibre or being a stand-up citizen knows no bounds in terms of class or wealth.
     
    Last edited: 13 Apr 2016
  3. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,702
    Likes Received:
    52
    I would say that many middle class folks are living beyond their means, I don't have any numbers at hand but my guess is that they're in there millions. Let's face it, we're all encouraged to consume and many people want stuff right this minute, they can't be bothered to save up for it.
     
  4. StingLikeABee

    StingLikeABee New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    23
    If you read my posts I never called into question the integrity of the rich. I did call into question the integrity of MPs who are in favour of welfare cuts but profit from offshore tax havens and tax dodges. I wouldn't dream of implying that all wealthy people have gained their wealth by nefarious deeds. I also agree that lack of moral fibre is prevelant with all classes and people of varying wealth.
     
  5. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    12,901
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    The "rich" aren't precluded from living beyond their means either - such is the modern world where he with the shiniest toys wins. Whether it's a new telly at one end of the scale or a new jet at the other.

    Fair point, you didn't - others did and it all got jumbled up in my head. Also note for future, if you want to encourage more serious discussion and less crap sarcasm, maybe leave out terms like "tosspot" in the thread title.

    Did Cameron actually dodge tax though? Yes he profited from an offshore fund, but then chances are anyone holding a pension in this country is profiting from an offshore fund, so how is that an issue - my perception was that the phrase "profit from an offshore fund" sounds nefarious for people who don't know any better, so that's what the media were going with. As far as I was aware the gains were declared?
     
    Last edited: 13 Apr 2016
  6. StingLikeABee

    StingLikeABee New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    23
    Talking about wealthy people, I remember watching some documentary a few years back, where it was claimed that quite a lot of the wealthy families here in the UK made their fortunes from the slave trade. Others made their fortunes from other unscrupulous deeds in the days of the British Empire. Quite a lot of evidence that old money is often dirty money. Irrelevant to that discussed here but interesting to me at least.
     
  7. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    12,901
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    I thought we were past implications and generalisations regarding the wealthy being unscrupulous?
     
  8. StingLikeABee

    StingLikeABee New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    23
    I don't mince my words, I felt and still do feel that tosspot was an appropriate estimation of the man and his statements.

    To me the most pressing issue is that of Cameron and his apparent stance on offshore tax havens. He promised to get tough on the issue, that he would make it harder etc. etc. Then it turns out both he and his family have used the same methods he told us was unfair. Hypocrisy and dishonesty in my opinion.
     
  9. StingLikeABee

    StingLikeABee New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    23
    There is plenty of evidence available on who profited from the slave trade. Again I did not imply that all wealthy were wealthy because of illicit dealings. The fact is that the slave trade made many people very wealthy and some of that wealth still exists today. Could you explain how that is a generalisation please because I'm at a loss.
     
  10. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    12,901
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    What's "unfair" though? If it was legal, where's the issue.

    "Getting tough on tax havens" means presumably closing loopholes with legislation, not just giving offending parties a guilt trip to get them to be more fair.

    Show me a person, regardless of personal wealth or social class, that wouldn't like to pay less tax within the bounds of the law?

    Is it a bit of a dick move to be benefitting from a loophole whilst berating those that do? Of course. But again, I didn't believe that Cameron actually benefitted from any loophole in this case, and I couldn't care less what his dad did or didn't do.

    Really?


    "Talking about wealthy people"
    "quite a lot of the wealthy families ... fortunes from the slave trade"
    "Others made their fortunes from other unscrupulous deeds"
    "Quite a lot of evidence that old money is often dirty money"


    Seems pretty generalised to me, and the entire statement seems to have been designed to demonise wealth, or at least "old money"

    Whats "a lot"? Are we talking 90%? 50%? Three families? What about the family that gained their wealth from legitimate businesses, who are these people?

    Kind of getting off topic here - clearly money from the slave trade is deplorable, but there was a time when the slave trade was a legitimate business and this money could be effectively "clean". How do you propose we penalise individuals who could be upstanding members of society today on the basis of their ancestors, even if they are enjoying wealth today because of it? It's nigh on impossible to navigate.

    It's like (science forbid) prohibition in the UK - sorry proprietors of off licences and wine merchants, give us all your money, because what you used to do is now considered illegal and immoral. I'm not sure I know what to think on the topic to be honest. But that's probably fine, because it's OT in the purpose of this thread anyway.
     
    Last edited: 13 Apr 2016
  11. StingLikeABee

    StingLikeABee New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    23
    To me, if I'm willing to embarrass people or to make them feel that what they are doing is morally wrong, then I have to be prepared to take the higher moral ground and NOT do exactly the same as those who I'm preaching to, otherwise it most certainly is unfair. Especially when I'm supposed to be preaching on behalf of those I am supposed to represent. It's unfair to those being preached to and those I would be representing.

    The guilt trip was just as important as closing the loopholes. If someone is doing something that is morally questionable, then they should be called out for it. However, as I said above, the person calling out had better make damned sure their own house is in order first.


    Yes really. As I said there is plenty of evidence to back up every statement that I made, so if you want to argue against that I'm happy to provide it. Your intrepretation of what I said is wrong and I did state several times now I am not inferring that all wealthy people are dodgy. You seem to be trying to prove I'm anti wealth or anti wealthy, I'm not. I am in favour of tougher tax controls and also that ALL wealthy people pay their fair share, not just those with a social and moral conscience.


    You've edited your post since I replied, with more meat to it. Let me catch up and respond.
     
    Last edited: 13 Apr 2016
  12. StingLikeABee

    StingLikeABee New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    23
    This is the write up from the Guardian of the documentary I watched.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/12/british-history-slavery-buried-scale-revealed

    An interesting point from that article was that one in five wealthy Victorians made their fortunes from slavery.

    An interesting article on the subject:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ven-huge-payouts-after-abolition-8508358.html

    From that article:

    I could go on and on but I suspect you already know that old money was often indeed dirty money. It wasn't just the slave trade either, look at how much money was generated from the theft of land and resources and often genocide of the indigenous peoples in the Americas, India etc. Definitely very much so dirty money.


    However, I don't hold those, such as David Cameon, whose families profited from slavery then accountable nor would I try to claim that their ancestors business affairs were a slur on their character.
     
    Last edited: 13 Apr 2016
  13. StingLikeABee

    StingLikeABee New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    23
    As for the slave trade being seen to be largely legitimate when it was being carried out, that is questionable too. There were people who were opposed to it from the outset because they recognised the fact that it was humanity at its very worst. The ones who sought legitimacy were the ones who were profiting from it. The same applies with the colonial efforts with those who amassed huge wealth from the colonies, it was pure greed that was the driving force behind those efforts, it was certainly not a philanthropically driven endeavour.
     
  14. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Didn't that start in the 80's though?

    I was lead to believe that we, as a society, were encouraged to live beyond our means when the government deregulated the financial markets, didn't they make it easier to take out credit, to get a mortgage, to take out a loan, it should come as no surprise that a generation later people view living beyond their means as normal.
     
  15. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    469
    A modicum of honesty and transparency from our MPs would go a long way, and definitely not the sort of pseudo-humility that we see from Cameron, who was effectively coerced into shoveling his own sh!t for all to see. I'd much rather the people holding the purse strings weren't also holding the silver spoon they were born with, but we can all dream, huh?

    The discussion about wealth and what brings wealth is besides the point, because the thing that causes so much upset in the UK is not wealth in and of itself but the attitudes to money that are prevalent among government ministers, most of whom have know wealth all their lives.

    FTR, nobody has said that the wealthy are unscrupulous, nor that they get wealthy by being naughty - those would be sweeping generalisations. What I said is that wealth can breed a particular mindset, the sort that we see in action within our own government.
     
  16. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Personally i would disagree that it's only through "luck" or their life choices, IMO it's more complicated than that, having more money gives you more of those life choices than someone with less money, whats the saying? Money makes Money.
     
  17. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    12,901
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    I'm not sure we're in disagreement here - I mean to say life choices figure as a fairly minor element in the equation, they can help, but what I mean here by "luck" is that just making the "right" choice all the time ins't enough - i.e. being born in a wealthy family in the first place, landing that big job/opportunity/pay rise, etc. Being a white male born into a middle class family in the UK gives one an enormous leg-up in the grand scheme of things compared to landing into the world in a hut in Western Sahara.

    It would, but it's basically never going to happen.
     
    Last edited: 13 Apr 2016
  18. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    That would be my fault :) I was thinking in an insular fashion and didn't consider the rest of the world.
     
  19. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    12,901
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    No, I think it's mine, sounds like a meant a lottery win or something of the sort.

    I feel like I should elaborate on this one. Never going to happen because human nature dictates that most of us want money or power, and more of it, at all times. I'm going to take a punt and theorise that a majority of political figures in place today all over the world are there because of this craving, as opposed to the desire to make the world a better place, and as long as a career in politics is a choice, this is going to a be the problem.

    I always thought an alternative reality where individuals were aptitude tested for being a good leader and assuming the role was mandatory for those scoring the highest would be an interesting one.
     
  20. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    11,885
    Likes Received:
    1,352
    I've got to ask.

    Why is anyone surprised?

    And more over, why does anyone care anymore? MP's are, of course, going to exploit the loopholes. Any one of you, in the same position, no doubt would too. You can act all noble now, but that's ********.

    If you were a multi-millionaire and your accountant said pay less tax you'd jump at it.

    The same mentality behind "I hate the rich, god they're just tax evaders" would instantly switch to "Everyone else does, why shouldn't I?"

    That said, I've no love for any politician. They're all liars, swindlers, and so detached from the world us regular folk live in they've no place making decisions on our behalf.
     

Share This Page