The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

ItsRobsLife

You just showed your total ignorance of the UK system.

Have you been reading the Daily Mail?

British style Socialism? The whole political spectrum is so far to the right that any concession to the middle range tax payers, that bear the burden of tax, at the expense of the upper range and corporate tax payer, that have evidently had it so good for years, is screamed down as socialism.

This whole 'spread the wealth' issue is being scaremongered by the right as more benefits for those that add nothing to society, when the real recipients will be the hard working low to middle income earners, that will surely need help in the coming years.

The naked greed and bigotry that this issue has brought out in people is symptomatic of a desensitised and selfish world.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thormaturge

^
British style socialism is much further to the left than anything the USA is familiar with, although it seems Obama is about to redress this.

The greater burden of tax in the UK falls on the middle class, first in the form of VAT and then in the form of income tax. It is those earning the average wage who pay, proportionally, the greater amount of tax. Necessities such as food do not bear VAT.

This money then gets redistributed to those "in need". The problem here is that the current benefits system can provide some of those who do not work with a higher living standard than some of those who are paying taxes and not working becomes an option.

You do understand that the National Insurance Contribution paid by the employee and employer on the "average" salary exceeds 20% ? That money doesn't go to provide luxury lifestyles for the wealthy, they can afford private healthcare anyway. What you seem to advocate is taking money from the wealthy, and from corporations, to support the middle-class. The middle class receive salaries already, and the problem is not how much they are paid but how much social security they have deducted. Having excessive social security deducted doesn't benefit the corporations or the wealthy - the social security money heads downhill. If anything, excessive deductions place upward pressure on wages.

I recall working hard, paying my National Insurance, and then finding the doctor's surgery so busy with "regulars" on the rare occasions I needed a doctor that
I had to make an appointment several days away. I ended up taking out private healthcare simply to get medical treatment that would enable me to continue working. This is the reality facing middle-class America today. You will only have free healthcare when doctors , nurses and orderlies work for free and the drug companies donate their products to the free government hospitals. Otherwise somebody will have to pay, and that will be the ones who are paying the taxes.

I am not getting into an argument over the rights and wrongs of providing free healthcare, food and housing for those who have no employment. I do find it absurd that people talk of "free" healthcare though. It is only free at the point of use. I sit and watch in disbelief as middle class America lines up to be sheered by Barak the Barber.

attaboy

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

__________________
As a kid I always thought my nickname was "attaboy" until I realized they were rooting for the dog: "Attaboy, get 'em! Get 'em!".

Jet Gorgon

Agree with your other points, Thorm, but I wouldn't consider us "lucky". Worked hard to get where I am. Luck only came into the equaton because I worked for it.

HungryHeart

Blah Blah Blah .

What type of great success do you think you are ?

I'm retired here at 37 with a monthly income of around 200,000 baht give or take exchange rates.


And I fully support what Obama is proposing, McCain will simply be supporting his Bush cronies with absurd corporate tax breaks.

Thormaturge

^
The problem, I think, is that neither candidate is going to help the middle-class working American. Let alone the sitting-duck pensioner. If I were American I simply wouldn't vote this time around. It just encourages them.

Corporate America already has the tax breaks and won't be losing them in my lifetime because it can relocate and can even take the jobs away from America entirely, as it has done. There are those who think the likes of GM and Microsoft are going to hand over millions of additional tax Dollars without emitting a squeak, when there is scope for even more of their production to be shifted overseas.

What I hear from Obama is how he intends to provide for the poor and needy. Anyone who thinks he is getting that money from Bill Gates and Donald Trump needs a reality check.

I don't consider people who study and work hard to be "lucky" either, but I lived in the UK with socialist governments who regarded anyone with an income as "lucky" and saw my business as a store to be raided in order to provide, not just for the incapable, but the lazy. This is where the UK is today and I am glad to be out of it.

ItsRobsLife

When was that then?

Thormaturge

^
Wilson
Callaghan
Kinnock
Blair

ItsRobsLife

Wilson, PM 1964 to 1970, and again from 1974 to 1976.

Callaghan, PM from 1976 to 1979

That's 30 years ago.

Kinnock, was leader of the opposition 1983 to 1992 and never led a government.

Blair a socialist? Well only a die hard Tory could really believe that was the case.

Thanks anyway.

AntRobertson

What's the point of redding a post in a thread without addressing it in the thread itself? That spells lack of intellect to me.

Thormaturge

^^

By American standards Margaret Thatcher was socialist.

Until now the Democrat party has been somewhere to the right of the UK Conservatives.

panama hat

You will see that Jet's world is neatly divided into two worlds and there is no gray area.
very similar to Bush's view of 'us and them'. Not a criticism, wouldn't dare, merely a representation of past posts.

Luck (if it exists) ,or being at the right place at the right time has a lot to do with where or what we are, in terms of profession and place in society. Hard work comes into the equation but seldom leads us to the top . . .

You retired at 37? Jet is only two years behind you, she retired at 39.

panama hat

You really believe this? The US as a welfare state? Ever been there or is this another of your many gaffes;

Just a few:
The Canadian $2 note is not legal tender
Thai tax rates stand at 5%
The US is a welfare state

You seem to be so out of touch with reality it is amazing that you are so wealthy as to be able to retire at 39 . . .

Mate, oddly enough she is Canadian . . . and wishes she were American so she could join the Montana Militia or burn crosses on the week-ends

GooMaiRoo

yes
no

Little Chuchok

Eat the rich....

Milkman

But it never ends up this way. (I'm not saying it should.)

The whole "Joe the Plumber" gimmick is pretty pathetic by the McCain campaign.

He said "Joe" over 25 times during the debate. McCain is claiming he's a defender of the small business owners and the middle class, but he supported the bailout, and has been in the the Senate long enough to be a part of the most influential club in the US.

The "100 club."

The question of "Joe the Plumber" and McCain misleading use of his tax plan vs. Obama's is whether:

it will work for McCain. Will it translate to enough votes?

At this point I don't think so.

__________________
Military men are dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns for foreign policy

AntRobertson

"Joe the Plumber"; "Joe Sixpack" etc.

It all strikes me as being rather nauseatingly patronising.

Little Chuchok

^How about "Joe the proctologist"..has a nice ring to it.....

attaboy

^ Right up Ant's alley.

attaboy

Because you were being absurd. Put another way, it was a stupid statement on your part. It wasn't worthy of anymore than an expression of disappointment in your lapse.