Current Affairs The General Election

Voting Intentions

  • Labour

    Votes: 209 61.1%
  • Tories

    Votes: 30 8.8%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 20 5.8%
  • Brexit Gubbins

    Votes: 8 2.3%
  • Greens

    Votes: 8 2.3%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Change UK, if that's their current moniker

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • SNP

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • DUP

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 9 2.6%
  • Alliance

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • SDLP

    Votes: 2 0.6%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • Some fringe party with a catchy name

    Votes: 7 2.0%
  • A plague on all your houses

    Votes: 32 9.4%

  • Total voters
    342
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s very simple guys, if we have a load of nationalised companies and just give stuff away then the state has to pay. The state gets money from tax and borrowings, which have to be paid back via more tax. The government can spend its money on lots of things, Health , military, roads etc etc, and they all compete for funding.

If BT becomes nationalised, it joins the queue for funding, which is the way many of us on here remember. Investment money dries up and we end up with the previous ‘BT’ which meant a six month wait for a phone and a party line.

The kids on here don’t even know what a party line is, it meant that two households shared a line, a button had to be pressed, and as long as the other house was not using the line you could make a phone call.

Now I accept that technology has moved on, I helped design a lot of it, but the financials have changed, investment comes from people putting their money into companies, which drives development and growth. Public borrowing to pay for ‘free’ stuff just loads debt upon our kids......welcome to the 1960’s.....
 
It’s very simple guys, if we have a load of nationalised companies and just give stuff away then the state has to pay. The state gets money from tax and borrowings, which have to be paid back via more tax. The government can spend its money on lots of things, Health , military, roads etc etc, and they all compete for funding.

If BT becomes nationalised, it joins the queue for funding, which is the way many of us on here remember. Investment money dries up and we end up with the previous ‘BT’ which meant a six month wait for a phone and a party line.

The kids on here don’t even know what a party line is, it meant that two households shared a line, a button had to be pressed, and as long as the other house was not using the line you could make a phone call.

Now I accept that technology has moved on, I helped design a lot of it, but the financials have changed, investment comes from people putting their money into companies, which drives development and growth. Public borrowing to pay for ‘free’ stuff just loads debt upon our kids......welcome to the 1960’s.....
I did this...i did that...Me me Me me...better than the austerity visited on my kids now and in the future .....I'm alright lads feck off the rest of you.
 
It’s very simple guys, if we have a load of nationalised companies and just give stuff away then the state has to pay. The state gets money from tax and borrowings, which have to be paid back via more tax. The government can spend its money on lots of things, Health , military, roads etc etc, and they all compete for funding.

If BT becomes nationalised, it joins the queue for funding, which is the way many of us on here remember. Investment money dries up and we end up with the previous ‘BT’ which meant a six month wait for a phone and a party line.

The kids on here don’t even know what a party line is, it meant that two households shared a line, a button had to be pressed, and as long as the other house was not using the line you could make a phone call.

Now I accept that technology has moved on, I helped design a lot of it, but the financials have changed, investment comes from people putting their money into companies, which drives development and growth. Public borrowing to pay for ‘free’ stuff just loads debt upon our kids......welcome to the 1960’s.....
Mad how much confidence you have in your very limited knowledge
 
Nationalisation of a country's broadband is not something anyone should support.

Not to mention the delusional economics behind the whole idea or the disaster it could be for some unfortunate pension holders.

Why would taxing the likes of Google, Amazon or Philip Green be delusional? Investments can go up or down, if the pension holders aren't happy with how their money is invested they should take that up with the people investing it. If they lose money.....tough, that's Capitalism for you.
 
I did this...i did that...Me me Me me...better than the austerity visited on my kids now and in the future .....I'm alright lads feck off the rest of you.

Look, I can’t help what I’ve done, it’s just a matter of history. Nor can I help if you have not done the same. I can pretend that I have not done so if you wish, but I’ve always tried to put an experienced viewpoint on things. If you prefer a dumbed down viewpoint then don’t read my posts.......
 
Condescending, patronising twunt you are....lets meet up and swap stadium jackets....;););)

I can admit that with you I may seen condescending, and even patronising, but I’m not a twunt. I just happen to be someone who started with nothing, worked for 45 years across a huge range of countries and products and did oK.....if you do not like my views, I believe there is an ignore button....
 
Look, I can’t help what I’ve done, it’s just a matter of history. Nor can I help if you have not done the same. I can pretend that I have not done so if you wish, but I’ve always tried to put an experienced viewpoint on things. If you prefer a dumbed down viewpoint then don’t read my posts.......
I am in my late 60s and obviously missed the pill which turns you into a self centered right wing piss artist...dont fecking patronise me about "dumbed down" crap. you actually can 'help what you have done"...its called tolerance and care for others worse off than you.
 
Why would taxing the likes of Google, Amazon or Philip Green be delusional? Investments can go up or down, if the pension holders aren't happy with how their money is invested they should take that up with the people investing it. If they lose money.....tough, that's Capitalism for you.

1) Taxing multinationals more is fine. But it doesn't raise hundreds of billions required for mass nationalisation.

2) Companies are taxed on profits, not turnover. Frighteningly some politicians ive heard recently don't seem to understand this basic fundamental point. Just because a corporate is huge doesn't mean they are profitable. Or maybe they are profitable, but they have losses which can legitimately be used.

3) The largest companies employ the most people. Targeting them disproportionately can risk people's jobs.

4) Nationalised industries tend to give poorer services than would be given in the private sector. A lack of competition can be very bad for the consumer. I'd argue the broadband sector needs some government aid of course, but more competition, not less.

5) Governments should never be reckless with people's hard earned retirement savings. Especially since most people pay into auto enrolment schemes, which are encouraged by government.

You can't seriously be arguing people's futures are irrelevant as long as we get some more free stuff. Nationalising industries and curtailing enterprise isn't part of my understanding of Capitalism either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top