Politics & Stuff

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

The rich in the UK avoid paying £25 000 000 000 in tax each year. That amount would have fixed the recession

It's not just the UK. http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super-rich-hide-21-trillion-offshore-study-says/ . The worst of it, is that a lot of it is legal or semi-legal. There are all sorts of loopholes and deductions that the rich have (not to mention the better accountants they can afford). The US is even worse. Mitt Romney who makes millions of dollars a year from doing nothing, pays about 14% tax. That's just insanity.

[Blue-in-me-Veins 4,067]

It's not just the UK. http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super-rich-hide-21-trillion-offshore-study-says/ . The worst of it, is that a lot of it is legal or semi-legal. There are all sorts of loopholes and deductions that the rich have (not to mention the better accountants they can afford). The US is even worse. Mitt Romney who makes millions of dollars a year from doing nothing, pays about 14% tax. That's just insanity.

warren buffet pays less taxes than his secretary...........thats all that needs to be said.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

warren buffet pays less taxes than his secretary...........thats all that needs to be said.

And he wants to change things. It's something I've never got. If I had like a billion dollars, sure, I'd buy my houses and live a very comfortable life, but I'd also really want to make a difference. You look at a lot of super rich people and they are really big into philanthropy. There was the "giving pledge" where the super rich pledged to give away at least half their fortune. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge. It's not only the moral thing to do, it makes sense. You literally don't need that money. It's impossible to spend it all. On the other hand, you have people like the Waltons (owners of Walmart) who are worth $93 billion and interested only in ensuring that their employees never earn a livable wage. Great piece here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-13/wal-mart-heiress-s-museum-a-moral-blight-commentary-by-jeffrey-goldberg.html. Even worse are the Koch brothers. Their companies have ANNUAL revenues of $100 billion. How do they spend their money? Giving it to reactionary politicians who want to crush unions and lower taxes so that the Kochs' can keep every dollar they can get their hands on. It's the height of immorality. You have everything and most people have nothing and it's still not good enough for you.

[Kieran. 6,317]

After someone makes more than like $20,000 a month, tax them 100% after that.

Your quality of life doesn't improve if you make more than $20,000/month, ffs.

[Blue-in-me-Veins 4,067]

And he wants to change things. It's something I've never got. If I had like a billion dollars, sure, I'd buy my houses and live a very comfortable life, but I'd also really want to make a difference. You look at a lot of super rich people and they are really big into philanthropy. There was the "giving pledge" where the super rich pledged to give away at least half their fortune. http://en.wikipedia....e_Giving_Pledge. It's not only the moral thing to do, it makes sense. You literally don't need that money. It's impossible to spend it all. On the other hand, you have people like the Waltons (owners of Walmart) who are worth $93 billion and interested only in ensuring that their employees never earn a livable wage. Great piece here http://www.bloomberg...y-goldberg.html. Even worse are the Koch brothers. Their companies have ANNUAL revenues of $100 billion. How do they spend their money? Giving it to reactionary politicians who want to crush unions and lower taxes so that the Kochs' can keep every dollar they can get their hands on. It's the height of immorality. You have everything and most people have nothing and it's still not good enough for you.

amen. The waltons are by far and away the most disgusting people i've ever read about. and you know what they arrive in China like fucking PMs being bowed to and all because they buy the most goods from China than any other company.

After someone makes more than like $20,000 a month, tax them 100% after that.

Your quality of life doesn't improve if you make more than $20,000/month, ffs.

do you know the CEO compared to the average worker would get around 40x more pay around a 40 years ago.

now the average CEO gets 400x more pay. http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.htm and the compensation on wall street is in the tens of millions often 100s of millions and this is rewarded to you after you fuck up the company and are fired by your "board" who are really just your friends you appointed to those positions. people like Ballmer-of Microsoft, Jamie Dimon-Chase should be fired but of course they aren't and they continue to screw over their companies to this day.the other problem is that the r1% of america control 42% of the distrubution of wealth.

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

im learning business right now in school prob gona get an MBA later in college but the more i read into business fields the morals i would have to give up are shocking. i could never, ever take a job that values workers over customers.

all i can do is just shake my head in shame.....

[Blue-in-me-Veins 4,067]

here is a great great video form the man ED.

[Blue-in-me-Veins 4,067]

my God, Obama got fucking clobbered........

first off Obama looked so sluggish and bored, he didnt engage in any atacks TO Mitt Romney but decided he should talk to the American People. you do that on the campaign trail not in debates.

I gota hand it to Romney (as much as i dont want to) for how he was able to come right out and put behind the 47% comment, but that only happened due to the fact Obama was too dumb to jump on top of that comment and attack Mitt on his record at Bain Capital.

I expect a more rejuvanated Obama because this was absolutely horrific.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

my God, Obama got fucking clobbered........

first off Obama looked so sluggish and bored, he didnt engage in any atacks TO Mitt Romney but decided he should talk to the American People. you do that on the campaign trail not in debates.

I gota hand it to Romney (as much as i dont want to) for how he was able to come right out and put behind the 47% comment, but that only happened due to the fact Obama was too dumb to jump on top of that comment and attack Mitt on his record at Bain Capital.

I expect a more rejuvanated Obama because this was absolutely horrific.

It was very disappointing BUT Romney has a massive advantage. He just promises everything. "I will lower taxes, increase spending on the military, and somehow also balance the budget" and people want to believe the impossible. Obama definitely needs to attack more though and call him on his B.S.

[Xisco 8]

Maybe it's just an impression, but I think that Obama has cared only about his image, in this political campaign.

Don't know how his politic has been correct throughout the last 4 years(even if I've found correct and courageuos, in example, his approach about sanity, although I don't know how is practicable in the USA), but it seems that he has lost his empathy with people. Hope I am wrong...republicans mustn't win!

[Beirut_Blues 306]

Lebanon used to do some fine hashish but not seen any for years lol

you can see it...its available.

[Spike 12,049]

We get to choose between a Welsh Bitch and an English Cunt as our National Leader.

No wonder most Australians hate them just from sight, they are freaking poms.

[Tricky 301]

In fairness, I think even Hitler would score on the left in that test. Left principles are very perfect in theory but lack a lot of practicality imo.

That's the man talking.... Corporations and powerful interests love to throw that explanation out in defence of capitalism and right wing ideology. ?

[Tricky 301]

Could someone pardon my ignorance of UK politics and bother to tell me in a few words what the hell happened to the Labour after the 80s?

This looks more like a different party which holds the same name rather than one which had any sort of possible enlightenment.

Anyone here think Thatcher is responsible for a fundamental shift in British politics? Or is is the near permenant economic growth period experienced by the baby boomers; who are now protecting their interests at the expense of the next generation?

[Ankit 3,176]

Allright, now that American elections are nearing, can someone please give me a low down on who's who? I know who Obama is. i am asking for something which is not really covered extensively by foriegn media. So Romney looking good to be the next president? Or will Obama work hi charm again? Here in India, there is not extensive coverage about any of them. Will you call Obama's term successfull? What different is Romney offering? And who is looking better? Thanks.

[Blue-in-me-Veins 4,067]

Allright, now that American elections are nearing, can someone please give me a low down on who's who? I know who Obama is. i am asking for something which is not really covered extensively by foriegn media. So Romney looking good to be the next president? Or will Obama work hi charm again? Here in India, there is not extensive coverage about any of them. Will you call Obama's term successfull? What different is Romney offering? And who is looking better? Thanks.

Ok, about Romney here's his story-- Romney the person is almost a mirror Obama, if you look at his record in Massachuesetts and the health-care plan he used its an exactt copy of what Obama used for the nation. However,, Romney being the "Republican" (notice the quotes) had to be more radical in his thinking than he normally is in order to appeal to the Republican base and get their nomination. Is he looking good to be president? no. just because he had one good debate you would think he was president already. Why is it not looking good? Because of his 47% comments in which he trashed half of America because they need help from the government, but tell me who woudnt in these bad economic times? not to mention that part of the 47% were republicans themselves! but also another reason he wont be president is because he gives no details, at all, on his policies. he says he'll lower taxes ok fine but then he gives no details on what government programs he will cut. The government cant finace medicare, medi-caid and obamacare if their lowering taxes, the math doesnt add up! And being the "republican" he cant raise taxes on corporations, thats totally against their fundamental values. Romney will promise anything to anybody to get elected, and you'll hear that alot. he wants to cut taxes but when u ask what programs he will cut he doesnt and most importantly cannot state them because he would lose the nomination. (if he mentions medi-care or medi-caid) he's lost all senior voters, end of discussion campagin over obama is re-eleceted.

will obama work his charm? well he hasnt had to do anything and i mean anything because Romney has been shooting imself in the foot time and time again. with th 47% coments and his Vice-President Paul Ryan making bad comment after coment. I will call Obama's first term mediocre. (and im a Democrat) Obama was too weak when he first got into office when he had the majority. He didnt include the public option (which in my mnd was a complete failure from the president) in his Obamacare health care plan and tried to get bi-partisan support when he didnt need to. he failed to get anything major accomplished in-part because of the Republicans stopping everything and anything he tried to do. Everything he did was getting fill-a-bustered or voted "no" against. He was able to kill Osama-Bin-Laden and th economy is on the rise as evident to the 7.8% unemployment rate but in his next term (which i think he will get) he will ofrce things down the throat and implement his own policies to grat effect.

hipefully this helps.