No one ever thinks they are not middle class no matter what they earn. Middle class money wise for me is anyone on between 25-40k imo. Anyone on 90 grand a year is well above middle class levels though they'll never admit that.

 

And the point that 'all these people work hard for their money' is a very grey point as well as wealth accumulates in capitalist societies so that the bulk is kept in families that are previously wealthy - I know so many mates who are were they are because of the fortune of having rich parents.

 

Well it all depends on wealth etc. - all of the people I know on 80k certainly have not inherited any wealth. All done through hard work, long hours and specialist skills.. Moot point anyway as the Tories will just take it all away if they need social care!!

 

The whole world is 'not what you know but who you know'. Unfortunately it happens, but it's not always connected to wealth. I know plenty of people who have had great opportunities just down to the people they know.

No one ever thinks they are not middle class no matter what they earn. Middle class money wise for me is anyone on between 25-40k imo. Anyone on 90 grand a year is well above middle class levels though they'll never admit that.

 

And the point that 'all these people work hard for their money' is a very grey point as well as wealth accumulates in capitalist societies so that the bulk is kept in families that are previously wealthy - I know so many mates who are were they are because of the fortune of having rich parents.

 

Here, here!!

 

Also, they are taxed the same on all thr momey they earn BEFORE the 80k - so their first 25k is taxed the same as anyone else'sx etc. They will NOT be hard done by with more tax aftee 80k. It is only right to rebalance wealth.

Well it all depends on wealth etc. - all of the people I know on 80k certainly have not inherited any wealth. All done through hard work, long hours and specialist skills.. Moot point anyway as the Tories will just take it all away if they need social care!!

 

The whole world is 'not what you know but who you know'. Unfortunately it happens, but it's not always connected to wealth. I know plenty of people who have had great opportunities just down to the people they know.

 

I've known people have great opportunities due to them being good looking too :o

I most certainly DO want a pacifist pm, as did most others before the press told them otherwise. Scrap nukes. They have never been used, should never be used and are a pointless wastw of resources.

 

Tory vote is stable due to press propaganda and HUGE money from the Elite.

 

No-one *wants* nuclear weapons to be used, but they stopped the cold war from becoming hot, and remain a deterrent.

 

No, the Tory vote is stable because there are more people who'd lose out from a higher taxation regime, than would gain from extra spending.

 

Give me strength it's like talking to a brick wall!!

 

That's exactly how I feel trying to persuade this forum that, for once, the Tories are the lesser of two evils. I've lived through a left-wing Labour gov't, so I know the risks.

 

Can you believe there are actually people suggesting the the GE should be postponed in the light of the latest terrorist attack? :wacko:

 

Don't they realise that that would be admitting that the terrorists had won?!

People who earn 80-100k are middle class. I know plenty of people who earn that amount of money and they are as middle class as you can come. You don't rebalance wealth by taxing those people, just like raising stamp duty on second properties is not going to stop the housing market inflation. All these people work hard for their money, none of them had anything handed anything to them. They ones Labour (and other parties )should be going after are earners over 150k.

Yes, I would consider someone on £80-100K as middle class. However, using phrases like "going after the middle classes" is a deliberate distortion designed to make people think "Oh, I'm middle class. They must be going after me". It's just an extension of the Daily Mail's tactic of calling people on thet sort of salary _middle income earners".

I would expect campaigning to cease today at the very least. The Nicolopter will be retired early.

 

I don't think postponing the GE is letting them win at all. If there is a persistent and real threat that polling places and people queuing to vote could be targeted then the government has a responsibility to postpone in the interest of public safety

I've known people have great opportunities due to them being good looking too :o

 

Certainly. It's all part of unconscious bias. You make your judgement on someone within 1/10th of a second of meeting them. All you can do is educate people about this, but unfortunately it will happen.

 

Yes, I would consider someone on £80-100K as middle class. However, using phrases like "going after the middle classes" is a deliberate distortion designed to make people think "Oh, I'm middle class. They must be going after me". It's just an extension of the Daily Mail's tactic of calling people on thet sort of salary _middle income earners".

 

Yes I do agree. It is a group fear tactic, but while someone earning 80-100k is a high figure often these are just ordinary people, no inherited wealth etc. The middle class bracket is quite large, but often a lot of people determine themselves socially rather than economically.

 

As daft as it sounds I would quite like there to be some sort of voluntary tax system for all earners. Not sure how the system would work or what the incentive would be to pay in to it (and it would be an administrative nightmare through PAYE :lol:) but one of my many ideas :D

I would expect campaigning to cease today at the very least. The Nicolopter will be retired early.

 

I don't think postponing the GE is letting them win at all. If there is a persistent and real threat that polling places and people queuing to vote could be targeted then the government has a responsibility to postpone in the interest of public safety

 

Polling stations are unlikely targets, except in high profile areas (which could be identified & specifically defended) - there are thousands of them, and there are rarely more than a few people in them at once.

Polling stations are unlikely targets, except in high profile areas (which could be identified & specifically defended) - there are thousands of them, and there are rarely more than a few people in them at once.

That is true of polling stations, but not the counts. Clearly there will be tight security at those involving senior figures, but that still leaves hundreds of others.

No-one *wants* nuclear weapons to be used, but they stopped the cold war from becoming hot, and remain a deterrent.

 

No, the Tory vote is stable because there are more people who'd lose out from a higher taxation regime, than would gain from extra spending.

That's exactly how I feel trying to persuade this forum that, for once, the Tories are the lesser of two evils. I've lived through a left-wing Labour gov't, so I know the risks.

 

Give me STRENGTH

 

JESUS

 

So our few weapons on two subs that have to MOVE INTO RANGE through Russian sonar stopped a nuclear war. Right. Except they didn't. Russia threatened to nuke us over the Sues Canal crisis and the UK pulled out, knowing its arzenal eas no match for Russia's.

 

These weapons are outdated. They do NOT keep us safe, no matter what the DM tells you. Do NOT use the Cold War as justidication for them when an entire generation lived in fear of annihilation and practised nuke alarms hiding under wooden desks. Remember when Russia came SOOOO close to using its nukes in the Cuba crisis? Generals had given orders to its nuke sub to fire if America tried to force it to the surface using depth charged. Guess what? The hesitation of ONE of the three commanders on board that sub stopped nuclear war. WHAT about a relatively recent glitch on a russian system which falsely detected a US nuke flying towards them? The general's intelligence, thinking who would start a nuclear war with one missile, was all that stopped a nuclear war from actually happening. These things should not be happening. Tell me, does this make you feel safe? What a deterrent!! Also,, NO ONE had appetite for major war following WW2. Nukes did not change this - they just upped thestakes even more. All it takes is one accident, one time, somewhere. If you hear about the mental health of some of the US nuke officers and depilation of infrastructure in both countries reported a while ago, then you would be VERY worried.

 

Wrong. We all lose out from lower taxes on the rich and not investing in society. Even those who would be getting taxed more on their earnings OVER 80k have said this.

Give me STRENGTH

 

JESUS

 

So our few weapons on two subs that have to MOVE INTO RANGE through Russian sonar stopped a nuclear war. Right. Except they didn't. Russia threatened to nuke us over the Sues Canal crisis and the UK pulled out, knowing its arzenal eas no match for Russia's.

 

These weapons are outdated. They do NOT keep us safe, no matter what the DM tells you. Do NOT use the Cold War as justidication for them when an entire generation lived in fear of annihilation and practised nuke alarms hiding under wooden desks. Remember when Russia came SOOOO close to using its nukes in the Cuba crisis? Generals had given orders to its nuke sub to fire if America tried to force it to the surface using depth charged. Guess what? The hesitation of ONE of the three commanders on board that sub stopped nuclear war. WHAT about a relatively recent glitch on a russian system which falsely detected a US nuke flying towards them? The general's intelligence, thinking who would start a nuclear war with one missile, was all that stopped a nuclear war from actually happening. These things should not be happening. Tell me, does this make you feel safe? What a deterrent!! Also,, NO ONE had appetite for major war following WW2. Nukes did not change this - they just upped thestakes even more. All it takes is one accident, one time, somewhere. If you hear about the mental health of some of the US nuke officers and depilation of infrastructure in both countries reported a while ago, then you would be VERY worried.

 

Wrong. We all lose out from lower taxes on the rich and not investing in society. Even those who would be getting taxed more on their earnings OVER 80k have said this.

At the time of the Cold War there were a number of occasions when US systems gave a false warning of incoming nuclear missiles. Thankfully, they were recognised as false alarms in time. It is safe to assume that the same thing happened with Soviet systems but they managed to keep it quiet.

Of course!

 

Let's face it: the only reason why these UKIPERs and Tories want nukes is because it guarantees a world place for the UK when it really does not deserve one with voting for isolation, economy tanking, rise of bigger countries, independence of Scotland, and conventional forces down to some of their lowest ever modern levels. It reminds them of hegemony and Empire.

Of course!

 

Let's face it: the only reason why these UKIPERs and Tories want nukes is because it guarantees a world place for the UK when it really does not deserve one with voting for isolation, economy tanking, rise of bigger countries, independence of Scotland, and conventional forces down to some of their lowest ever modern levels. It reminds them of hegemony and Empire.

 

IMO nukes are like an insurance policy - you hope never to have to claim on it, but you are reassured to know that it's there...

 

Read above.

 

They are not even an independent asset.

 

Retaliating in the event of a strike would not benefit the country in any way. Get rid.

Read above.

 

They are not even an independent asset.

 

Retaliating in the event of a strike would not benefit the country in any way. Get rid.

 

It's a different kind of strike that would be far more common under Corbyn...

No. It would give power back to workers. Right now you need to have a larger percentage to strike, 2 3rda, than Mad May needed to drag us out the EU!!

People who earn 80-100k are middle class. I know plenty of people who earn that amount of money and they are as middle class as you can come. You don't rebalance wealth by taxing those people, just like raising stamp duty on second properties is not going to stop the housing market inflation. All these people work hard for their money, none of them had anything handed anything to them. They ones Labour (and other parties )should be going after are earners over 150k.

 

No offence, but...we all work hard for our money. Those on less than average wages like me are just as much (if not more so) stressed and overworked on take home £1500 a month. 80k is an unthinkable fortune to me, I could buy a house in 5 years instead of living and caring for my parents. We can quibble about when higher rates of tax should cut in, but 80k is VERY comfortable. If I earned 80k I would be deliriously happy to donate 40% to the state to help pay for those who are stuck in a poverty trap.

 

Bear in mind every millionaire also thinks they deserve every penny and work hard for it...

 

Voluntary tax relies on human nature, and human nature default position is selfishness. You only have to look around the world to see that everywhere throughout the whole of human history. Making proposals like that is the same as saying "the poor should rely on charity not the state" which is the American Republican Party who are quite happy to allow millions of people to die from lack of finance to medical insurance. People are very very good at coming up with "moral" reasons why they shouldn't support the needy - lazy, terrorist supporters, too stupid, dont agree with religion, race, bigotry, bitterness, resentment, or just plain don't give a shit about other people.

 

Think about it next time you walk past a homeless person, as we all now do in most town centres - never used to be this way. Everyone has the opportunity to "volunteer" assistance, but most don't.

 

 

No-one *wants* nuclear weapons to be used, but they stopped the cold war from becoming hot, and remain a deterrent.

 

No, the Tory vote is stable because there are more people who'd lose out from a higher taxation regime, than would gain from extra spending.

That's exactly how I feel trying to persuade this forum that, for once, the Tories are the lesser of two evils. I've lived through a left-wing Labour gov't, so I know the risks.

 

You have a very convenient memory.

 

 

I think you'll find that The Cuban Missile Crisis was hours away from potential Armageddon. That was about as hot as it gets.

 

I can also remember left-ish Labour Governments - and Right-wing Tory ones. The current lot are the most extreme and dangerous of all, because they are busy changing all sorts of regulations behind the scenes to support their rich cronies, so that they dont get investigated for tax evasion (coincidentally all are Tory donators), reduce rights and support, dismantling the welfare state chunk by chunk, everything they do is for the benefit of the rich and anyone who thinks they will do anything significant for poor people is self-deluded. The vast majority of social advance and progress has not been thanks to Tories.

 

You have a very convenient memory.

I think you'll find that The Cuban Missile Crisis was hours away from potential Armageddon. That was about as hot as it gets.

 

I can hardly remember something that happened before I was even born!

 

I can also remember left-ish Labour Governments - and Right-wing Tory ones. The current lot are the most extreme and dangerous of all, because they are busy changing all sorts of regulations behind the scenes to support their rich cronies, so that they dont get investigated for tax evasion (coincidentally all are Tory donators), reduce rights and support, dismantling the welfare state chunk by chunk, everything they do is for the benefit of the rich and anyone who thinks they will do anything significant for poor people is self-deluded. The vast majority of social advance and progress has not been thanks to Tories.

 

In a way, that's even more damning of Corbyn, in that, despite all of the above, the Tories are still ahead in the polls.

 

Also, the 45%-ish that've expressed support for the Tories in the polls, are no more all 'fat-cats' than everyone who voted for Brexit were 'racists'.

 

Every one of them is an individual making a choice that they believe will be best for themselves, their family, and the country (though not necessarily in that order). We can disagree with their choices, but without telepathy, we cannot tell how much or why any particular factor influenced their decision.

 

That's why it's wrong to criticise people's judgements without understanding the factors behind them.