One for for Genghis Khan

[HarryPearce]

Dear Dodgy Agent, Sir

Would you like to comment on which party you intend voting for after this piece appeared in the First Post http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index....y&storyID=8968

I have always supported the Conservative party and this article describes the values that I believe true Conservatives should hold dear as against the neo-Cons who appear to be out and out wealth generators.

It begins ....

The Tory plan to tax non-doms is welcome - and should be just the start, says phillip blond


True conservatism is incompatible with capitalism. Conservatism means a tendency to preserve institutions, traditions and particular ways of life - and when and where has capitalism ever conserved anything?

Despite claims to the contrary, capitalism in its current form doesn't deliver affluence for all. Instead it has produced at the top of society a huge concentration of wealth. We now live in a world of oligarchs, a class who pay no tax but own most of the assets and extract a hugely disproportionate share of the wealth as a result.

In the US and Britain, the top one per cent have seen their share of national income rise by around 75 per cent, while in both countries some two-thirds of the workforce have seen real wages stagnate or fall over the same period. Little wonder that former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan


Family life is eroded by the fact that now it takes two parents working full-time to pay the bills


Greenspan has been worrying aloud that capitalism might lose its popularity unless more people share in its benefits.

For instance, in Britain half of the population hold about six per cent of the wealth. And it is increasingly difficult for ordinary people to make ends meet. Clearly we are very far from the dream of a shared economy and a people's capitalism.

Socially, contemporary capitalism is damaging in the extreme. High culture, family life, tradition and human association - things that real conservatives safeguard and hold dear - are all eroded by the fact that now it takes both parents working full-time to have any chance of paying the bills of a normal household.

[wendigo100]

I dunno about all that, but I agree with this bit:

"Family life is eroded by the fact that now it takes two parents working full-time to pay the bills"

[DBA_bloke]

I dunno about all that, but I agree with this bit:

"Family life is eroded by the fact that now it takes two parents working full-time to pay the bills"

Send the kids out to work, while you and the missus stay at home. Solved.

[wendigo100]

Send the kids out to work, while you and the missus stay at home. Solved.

No, they are going to live off the inheritance.

I suppose we start worrying when it takes three parents working full time to pay the bills.

[gingerjedi]

No, they are going to live off the inheritance.

I suppose we start worrying when it takes three parents working full time to pay the bills.

It often does, I know families who rely on their own parents to take it in turns to look after their kids whilst they work as childcare is too expensive to do it any other way.

When you look back and start to pick apart what society has become these days it makes me wonder how we allowed it to happen? …Just pawns in a rich mans game.

[DodgyAgent]

There is alot of good stuff in that article, but I am not sure that the conservatives see taxing rich offshoreigarchs as anything more than a vote winning stunt. I am all for capitalism but questions need to be asked as to where is it going and what happens to those who do not earn much money.

The idea of tax is to enable the less well off in society to enjoy basic benefits that are so important to living a fulfilling life without the need to earn lots of money. Mainly these areas are health, education, security and to an extent housing. Tax should therefore be spent on providing high levels of services in these areas for everyone.

The scandal is that tax is not spent on delivering high quality public services. It is instead spent on feathering the nests of those in power and those who deliver the public services.

As a result many of us duplicate our payments in order to not have to depend upon the public services. For example not only do we pay taxes towards schooling our children but we then pay school fees to have them taught privately because the local state schools are tulipe.

Because the public services are so poor they now cause a great many of societies problems such as sustaining an underclass who are given a lousy education, lousy housing and depend upon the state for welfare, and therefore have nothing to offer society. This creates crime for which we have to pay extra for insurance and security (alarms on cars).


If the public sector were to run as efficiently as say a top private enterprise then there would little need for us to earn vast amounts of money, there would be less crime and in alllikelihood we would lead healthier lives. Those who want money can be free to earn it and use it to buy luxuries that no one needs rather than essentials.

[DBA_bloke]

Dodgy, you are Arthur Scargill's and Barabara Castle's lovechild, and I claim my crisp fiver.

[Zippy]

I kind of agree with Dodgy about the public sector. The question is - is it cheaper to have them pretending to work for e.g. Social Services or pay for them to be on the dole (a fair number would be unemployable outside the public sector)? I have a sneaking suspicion that would cost me even more tax. Plus the cost of counselling for 'low self-esteem' issues. Or some such bollox.

And we should be coming down like a ton of bricks on the tax-dodging, super-rich, parasitic scum. The rest of us pay up (grudgingly, but we do) so why shouldn't they?

[HarryPearce]

Outside now!

I kind of agree with Dodgy about the public sector.
The question is - is it cheaper to have them pretending to work for e.g. Social Services or pay for them to be on the dole (a fair number would be unemployable outside the public sector)? I have a sneaking suspicion that would cost me even more tax. Plus the cost of counselling for 'low self-esteem' issues. Or some such bollox.

Both I and my wife are civil servants[yes I used to be a connie as well but I have my reasons], I have a moderately well paid position but my wife who has only recently gone back to work is on the bottom pay scale. If you'd like to stand outside I'm sure we'd both like to discuss your virulent fascist remarks.

Having worked both sides of the fence I can tell you that there are bad eggs in both baskets if you'll forgive the metaphor mismatch. But I'll tell you one thing no-one outside of public service daily has to risk life and limb as do the Police, Fire, Ambulance and Armed Services or to care for those who cannot care for themselves as do many in the Social Services, Teaching, Nursing etc.

As for taking care of the public purse, not half! We're not allowed a Christmas party or other team building event because we have to be accountable to the public scrutiny and it might be viewed as wasteful. Compare that to the financial sector, for example, who take such wonderful care of our savings, investments and pensions. Northern Rock, Barings all come to mind!

[DBA_bloke]

Is there any reliable guide to how much the said parasitic super-rich scum are robbing us of?

I'd bet it's peanuts compared to the wastages associated with Public Sector spending. Top-flight managers only work for top-flight fees, and I bet that's why we have incompetent bumholes running the important stuff.