• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Plight of Farmers.

Have you been studying at the Wisbech School of Discussion? I haven't seen his posts for months now thank goodness, but that was one of his favourite patronising put-downs.
Finding the truth offensive when it touches a a personal sore spot seems to be a common reaction among the right wing cohort here who then decide to ignore it.

An inability to handle criticism isn’t healthy.
 
You want a list of tax funded things that don’t all do together? You ask for one example - how about the £8 million we send to China in foreign-aid (down from £80 million in 2019).
What I said, and you want to deny, is that all tax is spent on our behalf, as a consequence of the way democracy works. Not necessarily that it is all spent directly on us. Defence spending is not directly spent on us. Our foreign policy, including our aid, is just another example. Targeted assistance is very much in all our interests.
 
Where did I compare myself to Robert Mugabe? [Steeleye is a great fan of his by the way]
Responding to a post drawing attention to your childish name calling in that way seemed to suggest you were.

Mugabe was intolerant, argumentative and advocated policies often regarded as racist. You can see why a comparison could be made.
 
Responding to a post drawing attention to your childish name calling in that way seemed to suggest you were.

Mugabe was intolerant, argumentative and advocated policies often regarded as racist. You can see why a comparison could be made.
Pretty harsh comparing someone posting on a website to a dictator responsible for at least 20,000 deaths.
 
Responding to a post drawing attention to your childish name calling in that way seemed to suggest you were.

Mugabe was intolerant, argumentative and advocated policies often regarded as racist. You can see why a comparison could be made.
How on earth could any rational person come to that conclusion from what I posted.
 
What I said, and you want to deny, is that all tax is spent on our behalf, as a consequence of the way democracy works. Not necessarily that it is all spent directly on us. Defence spending is not directly spent on us. Our foreign policy, including our aid, is just another example. Targeted assistance is very much in all our interests.
Of course it isn't. Spending on our own defence is in our interests, giving money to powers that are likely to be the very people we need to defend against is not.
 
How on earth could any rational person come to that conclusion from what I posted.
I suppose, unusually, that’s a reasonable comment. Looking back you must have intended it to apply not to the actual subject of the comment you responded to but just to the sentence you highlighted. Easy mistake to make though, given to whom I was responding.
 
Of course it isn't. Spending on our own defence is in our interests, giving money to powers that are likely to be the very people we need to defend against is not.
We target the spending in ways that are intended to influence behaviour in our favour.

You are entitled to regard that as unwise. What you cannot do is challenge the fact that our elected government do spend that money in that way in the belief it’s in our best interests.
 
I suppose, unusually, that’s a reasonable comment. Looking back you must have intended it to apply not to the actual subject of the comment you responded to but just to the sentence you highlighted. Easy mistake to make though, given to whom I was responding.
I accept your magnanimous, grovelling apology!
 
We target the spending in ways that are intended to influence behaviour in our favour.

You are entitled to regard that as unwise. What you cannot do is challenge the fact that our elected government do spend that money in that way in the belief it’s in our best interests.
I do challenge it. Many of the decisions of all parties are in pursuit of a set of ideological ideas rather than acting in our best interests.
 
Collectivisation in the Soviet Union. Reducing the power of the kulaks (prosperous peasants). Sound familiar? Some posters on here want this.

 
Collectivisation in the Soviet Union. Reducing the power of the kulaks (prosperous peasants). Sound familiar? Some posters on here want this.

Wow. That’s scary. Who here wants that? Certainly not seen anyone post that. I have seen many that decry the collectivisation of farming through big business takeover though, driven by market distortion caused by an unwise tax incentive to non-farmers.
 
Wow. That’s scary. Who here wants that? Certainly not seen anyone post that. I have seen many that decry the collectivisation of farming through big business takeover though, driven by market distortion caused by an unwise tax incentive to non-farmers.
Certainly, some on here favour increasing intervention in more and more areas of our lives and the taking of assets in taxation from those who happen to have more than others; all in the name of 'progress' and 'fairness' and improvements for poorer people, whereas the consequences of their policies will have the opposite effect to those aims.
 
The title of this thread is very misleading, taxing millionaires is preferable to taxing people with nothing.I find it hard to shed tears on behalf of millionaires hiding their money by being a farmer.Plight my aunt fanny.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top