SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Gwadien]

Ahh. As long as It’s nothing to do with mushrooms and spores infecting people, taking over their bodies (as in The last of us), I’m satisfied

So long as it's a physical illness not a mental one?

What a 19th century point of view on judging the creatures of the apocalypse.

 

[fettoken]

So long as it's a physical illness not a mental one?

What a 19th century point of view on judging the creatures of the apocalypse.

Have you seen those spores planting themselves on ants, bursting out an antenna and making them expose themselves, becoming easy prey. Scary shit.

 

[Gwadien]

Have you seen those spores planting themselves on ants, bursting out an antenna and making them expose themselves, becoming easy prey. Scary shit.

The tree alien things are the worst imo, i can't remember what they're called *googles*

Day of the Triffids

The Day of the Triffids - Wikipedia

 

[fettoken]

The tree alien things are the worst imo, i can't remember what they're called *googles*

Day of the Triffids

The Day of the Triffids - Wikipedia

There's actually a mini-series - will check that one out but hopes aren't high (5.6 on imdb)

 

[Rubber Bullets]

There's actually a mini-series - will check that one out but hopes aren't high (5.6 on imdb)

I never saw the 2009 one which I think your referring to, doesn't look very authentic. The BBC did one back in 1981 that I really loved at the time (I was 15). It probably looks very dated now, but does get a much more respectable 7.4 on imdb

 

[DaGaffer]

Beavers build dams

They all look the same to me.

 

[Moriath]

They all look the same to me.

Prefer to stroke a beaver. Fnar !

 

[Scouse]

We also have a large chattering middle class who like projecting their views onto others, and presume to speak for how the working class live, whilst simultaneously deriding them as idiots for voting the wrong way or wanting to have a discussion on immigration. In reality they are almost as detached as the "rich" that the mere mention of results in your keyboard being covered in spittle from how the Average Joe lives, not that that stops them having an opinion and telling them they are all wrong at every opportunity.

Interesting that I have to be rich to think that paying as little tax as possible, and keeping as much of my own money in my pocket as possible is a good thing. Even more interesting is the fact that you clearly agree, considering your own well covered tax arrangements. Otherwise you wouldn't have arranged your affairs to pay as little tax as possible (which I don't have an issue with in the slightest, and is something everyone should do), now would you?

I notice you've dropped the "earned" part of your wealth argument. Interesting, considering the discussion is of inheritance tax reform.

Indeed - we could (and should) keep lifetime taxes low and that would be a doddle if we clawed back all the stored wealth that gets passed on un-earned to people who don't have to lift a finger if they don't want to.

I think it's good that we can have ridiculously rich people. It would be much better for the entire planet if they were forced to earn it first (and thus contribute).

 

[old.user4556]

Prefer to stroke a beaver. Fnar !

I prefer the otter ones.

 

[Job]

I notice you've dropped the "earned" part of your wealth argument. Interesting, considering the discussion is of inheritance tax reform.

Indeed - we could (and should) keep lifetime taxes low and that would be a doddle if we clawed back all the stored wealth that gets passed on un-earned to people who don't have to lift a finger if they don't want to.

I think it's good that we can have ridiculously rich people. It would be much better for the entire planet if they were forced to earn it first (and thus contribute).

Rich people dont just sit on money, its invested all the time, we all make good use of it, the problem is that they just keep making more money from their money...capatalism is a endless unstoppable force towards a handfull of people having 90% of the money.

 

[Rubber Bullets]

View: https://youtu.be/wS3LWOTCW4A

 

[Wij]

looool.

Bring it!

Roy Moore to sue Sacha Baren Cohen

 

[Bodhi]

I notice you've dropped the "earned" part of your wealth argument. Interesting, considering the discussion is of inheritance tax reform.

Indeed - we could (and should) keep lifetime taxes low and that would be a doddle if we clawed back all the stored wealth that gets passed on un-earned to people who don't have to lift a finger if they don't want to.

I think it's good that we can have ridiculously rich people. It would be much better for the entire planet if they were forced to earn it first (and thus contribute).

Sadly this doesn't really bear scrutiny - if you look at the latest Sunday Time Rich List, apart from the heirs of Heineken, Tetra Pak and Hinduja, all were self made, and to suggest those 3 don't contribute would be a bit daft considering how many people those companies employ.

It's also interesting to compare this year's list with 2007's - only 5 out of the 12 appear on both, so to say making that amount of money is a closed shop doesn't really seem to be backed up by the numbers - investments can go up as well as down as we know.

So I'm struggling to see any motive for you wanting to confiscate everyone's wealth other than jealousy?

 

[Scouse]

Awww @Bodhi bless

You keep trying to argue something that's not being discussed. I'm *intensely relaxed* about the existence of rich people. Indeed - in the quote you used I said: "I think it's good that we can have ridiculously rich people".

This is about inheritance tax. It started with a post about inheritance reform, it continued with a point about un-earned wealth (inherited wealth) and it's distortive effects on democracy and the general wellbeing of society. And at every step of the way I've been very careful to bold/italicise and take great pains to point out that that is the context and frame of reference.

If you don't want to talk about that, then fair enough. But stop trying to have arguments where none exist. Weirdo.

 

[Gwadien]

Awww @Bodhi bless

You keep trying to argue something that's not being discussed. I'm *intensely relaxed* about the existence of rich people. Indeed - in the quote you used I said: "I think it's good that we can have ridiculously rich people".

This is about inheritance tax. It started with a post about inheritance reform, it continued with a point about un-earned wealth (inherited wealth) and it's distortive effects on democracy and the general wellbeing of society. And at every step of the way I've been very careful to bold/italicise and take great pains to point out that that is the context and frame of reference.

If you don't want to talk about that, then fair enough. But stop trying to have arguments where none exist. Weirdo.

Your views on having children and your views on inheritance tax line up pretty well.

I'm not sure who is being more selfish, you or @Bodhi

 

[Scouse]

Your views on having children and your views on inheritance tax line up pretty well.

I'm not sure who is being more selfish, you or @Bodhi

Selfish? You don't think well-funded schools and healthcare and non-subverted democracy are good ideals?

Or do you think the free ride you're going to get when you inherit your dad's business (despite it all being his work) is worth more than a proper functioning society?

People want personal gain. I get it. It's both natural and normal. But look where pandering to that base instinct has landed the planet, our democracies, the working, health and educational positions of the majority. Tackling obscene inherited wealth would go a long way to removing many of those distortions.

I don't see how holding that intellectual position makes me selfish. Remember, it applies to me too - when I die, the work I've done and any wealth I've generated would go towards the betterment of society as a whole, instead of creating structural inequalities.

 

[Gwadien]

Selfish? You don't think well-funded schools and healthcare and non-subverted democracy are good ideals?

Or do you think the free ride you're going to get when you inherit your dad's business (despite it all being his work) is worth more than a proper functioning society?

People want personal gain. I get it. It's both natural and normal. But look where pandering to that base instinct has landed the planet, our democracies, the working, health and educational positions of the majority. Tackling obscene inherited wealth would go a long way to removing many of those distortions.

I don't see how holding that intellectual position makes me selfish. Remember, it applies to me too - when I die, the work I've done and any wealth I've generated would go towards the betterment of society as a whole, instead of creating structural inequalities.

Nah man, I agree with @Bodhi on this one.

Inheritance is already at 40%, taking it any higher is pretty stupid.

Besides, it's always the same shit; you're targeting the rich right? They'll find ways around it anyway, so it'll probably just be an administrative cost.

Inheritance isn't a capitalist/democratic construct, it's -always- been a thing. I don't expect you to understand, but many people work for their children, so that they have a better life. I never buy the 'taxation causes businesses to fail' because if there's an opportunity someone will always take advantage.

What my concern is that you'll demotivate lots of people from achieving their pinnacle because what's the point? When they die all their money will go to the state - we aint no commies mate.

 

[Scouse]

Inheritance is already at 40%, taking it any higher is pretty stupid.

Besides, it's always the same shit; you're targeting the rich right? They'll find ways around it anyway, so it'll probably just be an administrative cost.

1) Why is it "stupid". 2) "Mwahhhh - we can't do anything about it - because the rich can find ways around it".

Well, duh. That's why you need wealth reform. The rich are distorting things for themselves.

Like - you don't pay inheritence tax on woodland or any tax on earned wealth from it - it can be passed down families for free. And guess who owns most of that shit?

And you don't want to reform that?

You're fucking bonkers.

 

[Hawkwind]

Or do you think the free ride you're going to get when you inherit your dad's business (despite it all being his work) is worth more than a proper functioning society?

It might dissuade people from putting their life into a business when you effectively give it away to proletariat. Who likely did not make the same sacrifices or effort you did. Some of us with Kids spend our lives making sure we give them the best start possible. Including education (incl. University fees), car and money for a house (deposit) to do just that.

I guess people would just end up keeping ownership at 100%, no shares and then sell the company distributing the cash over many years as gifts etc. for tax avoidance, or sell it for 1 GPB to your kids.

 

[Gwadien]

 

[Scouse]

Some of us with Kids spend our lives making sure we give them the best start possible. Including education (incl. University fees), car and money for a house (deposit) to do just that.

I wish people'd read the article. The suggestion isn't about that - of course it's natural to want to provide for your kids. But the line should be drawn by allowing them a life of freeloading - or, worse, a life where because of un-earned wealth a stack of power that they didn't accrue themselves.

It might dissuade people from putting their life into a business when you effectively give it away to proletariat. Who likely did not make the same sacrifices or effort you did

Yes. Yes it might. That's a possibility. Many might reassess their priorities - but it wouldn't force them down one path or another. There would still be freedom of choice. But the rest of us would be free from the distorting effects of massive inherited wealth - which impedes freedom of choice for the masses and gives that freedom to the un-earned wealthy.

Tim nice-but-dim inherits from daddy, with his wealth has massive power. Or Donald Trump. Corrupt, inherited wealth, most powerful man on the planet.

I guess people would just end up keeping ownership at 100%, no shares and then sell the company distributing the cash over many years as gifts etc. for tax avoidance, or sell it for 1 GPB to your kids.

This is under the current system. That's the point of reform. I think welby mentioned "lifetime gift allowance" - so you can gift a certain amount, but no more without large taxation.

The system as we currently have it is broken. What I find baffling and amusing in equal quantities is that the vast majority of people who stand to benefit hugely from reforms worry that they won't be able to pass on their fucking pittance to their kids, whilst ensuring that their grandkids will most likely remain ill-educated, with poor healthcare and their entire lives beholden to the whims of the already-rich-and-powerful.

But fuck no. Lets not reform that.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

I remember when this place used to be fun and not full of essays written by pseudo intellectual narcissists.

 

[Scouse]

Shoot them messengers Yuck. And close your ears to argument too. That helps.

 

[fettoken]

In the middle of recording a message on my voice-mail. Fuck me it sounds ridiculous initially, and a little less (but still sufficiently ridiculous) now.

 

[Bodhi]

Awww @Bodhi bless

You keep trying to argue something that's not being discussed. I'm *intensely relaxed* about the existence of rich people. Indeed - in the quote you used I said: "I think it's good that we can have ridiculously rich people".

This is about inheritance tax. It started with a post about inheritance reform, it continued with a point about un-earned wealth (inherited wealth) and it's distortive effects on democracy and the general wellbeing of society. And at every step of the way I've been very careful to bold/italicise and take great pains to point out that that is the context and frame of reference.

If you don't want to talk about that, then fair enough. But stop trying to have arguments where none exist. Weirdo.

Um, you're talking about the Rich hoarding all their wealth through inheritance, I'm pointing out that isn't the case.

That is exactly what is being discussed. You're just trying to change the subject to justify the green eyed monster which shapes most of your political opinions.

You focus on where people have come from. I focus on where they are going. If people want to work hard to give their kids the best start in life possible, then why should that be discouraged? If someone wants to hand down the family business for them to carry on after their passing, why is that a bad thing?

 

[Gwadien]

Um, you're talking about the Rich hoarding all their wealth through inheritance, I'm pointing out that isn't the case.

That is exactly what is being discussed. You're just trying to change the subject to justify the green eyed monster which shapes most of your political opinions.

You focus on where people have come from. I focus on where they are going. If people want to work hard to give their kids the best start in life possible, then why should that be discouraged? If someone wants to hand down the family business for them to carry on after their passing, why is that a bad thing?

Because he's received nothing/giving nothing.

 

[Bodhi]

Because he's received nothing/giving nothing.

I can just see the situation when Scouse comes to power.

"i'd like to buy a Japanese Sword, made by craftsmen who have handed their knowledge and business down through the generations"

"Sorry mate, we can't do that any more. But we don have one made by our Work Experience kid. He's stabbed 3 people so far, and cut off 4 of his fingers in the process, but it's really good quality work"

Sounds workable.

 

[Scouse]

Um, you're talking about the Rich hoarding all their wealth through inheritance, I'm pointing out that isn't the case.

The royal family? They *have* to work damn hard for their billions? And Trump? He's a financial genius, clearly. And definitely would have made president - the most powerful man in the world - if he'd had to work from the ground up. Because he's a fucking genius, right? It wasn't down to inheriting 300 million quid at all.

As I said:

Scrapping inheritance tax and putting in a lifetime gift tax eh? Sounds like a great way to claw back inherited wealth - which is fundamental to a functioning democracy.

Like I've been saying for years.

Because he's received nothing/giving *everything*.

Fixed.

 

[Bodhi]

The royal family? They *have* to work damn hard for their billions? And Trump? He's a financial genius, clearly. And definitely would have made president - the most powerful man in the world - if he'd had to work from the ground up. Because he's a fucking genius, right? It wasn't down to inheriting 300 million quid at all.

As I said:



Fixed.

Um, the Royal Family contribute £1.8 Billion to the economy every year? And whilst they may have a freeloader or two (what organisation doesn't?) , I'd suggest the ones still working in their 90's were pulling their weight.

 

[Scouse]

And Charlie isn't an affront to democracy, trying to assert his considerable influence on government decisions? Simply because he was born into that family?

Thanks for making my argument for me.