It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If we, the uneducated, thick, replaceable rabble hadn't allowed the bail out's then what would have happened to these superior people?
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
What you see from Infinite and I is a backlash against the equality-driven agenda of the current government.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Infinite and I are the only two people in this thread who have grown up for the majority of their lives under a Labour government.
Originally posted by infinite
Restricting the vote allows the right individuals to gain power, not the most popular. Criminals, homeless and those who seek to influence politics via money (extremely rich) should be denied the vote.
Originally posted by Freeborn
I agree with some of what both you and Infinite say...but it is wrapped up in smug, arrogant superiority.
Originally posted by Freeborn
You stated that all those on benefits should be ineligible to vote, regardless of circumstance
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I have nothing more to say to a moron like you.
If you really believe that scientists and doctors benefit from banking bailouts then you need your head examined. A doctor who goes to medical school for 6 years, then specialises for another 7 years most definitely deserves a salary of over 100k a year, and doesn't deserve to have a massive portion of that taken away.
Originally posted by infinite
Anyway, the 50% Tax Rate might not even come into force - the government have misinterpreted public mood and the majority are frustrated Darling has played politics with the budget.
Originally posted by pieman
yeah, i'm sure the people will take to the streets over it. people are frustrated with the fact that rich, privileged idiots who wouldn't know the breadline if the tripped over it are whining about being asked to pay their way for a change.
Originally posted by pieman
i am responding to a statement that a significant number of the richest members in the UK made their own money, without figures this is a meaningless statement, is 2% significant, 10%, 90%? am i to assume that the figure is significant because i'm told it is?
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Everything you said is subjective opinion, tainted by your bias towards workers rather than owners.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Workers are entirely replaceable in the grand scheme of things. A person who starts up a mill is far harder to find than one who works in a mill...
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
and that's why the market rewards the owner a higher share of profits- because he is rarer to find than a labourer, and he takes the risk of ownership.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I'm not the one playing games of class here. The market is a faceless, classless, raceless system. If a person is good enough to elevate from one class to another, they can do so. If you think otherwise, then how do you explain the concept of "nouveau riche"?
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
The problem with the majority of the lower class is that they allow themselves to think that their position was determined by birth and that they cannot rise up in stature. After all, claiming that their position was fixed by their birth is an easy route (defeatism).
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Life is the test of success. Those who failed, failed. Simple as that. What you may ascribe to misfortune or theft, I may ascribe to a lack of acumen.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I take your point though. You characterise most rich men as lucky bastards who inherited their wealth while I characterise most rich men as hard working business owners who made their fortunes for themselves.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I characterise the working class as devoid of aspiration, mundane and replaceable, while you characterise them as hard working and given a raw deal.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I'm sorry if you feel that I have been intentionally contorting your words, I certainly never intended to.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
As for the rest, I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what we believe is possible. For your "council estate Stephen Hawking", I believe he would naturally rise up as he would be inclined towards academia anyway. Perhaps I'm just being naive...
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I characterise the lower classes who complain against the upper classes as defeatist for a reason. You mentioned your story of rising up the class system- were you lucky? From your story it sounds like you rose up because of your intrinsic ability being higher than your working class peers.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I have never been able to accept this argument that there are diamonds in the rough who need special care and attention because their parents cannot afford them the same privileges as rich parents can. I admit on the face of it that does seem to be the case, yet any policy directed to address this will fail. I believe that those who are capable of climbing classes will do so, regardless of their surroundings.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
You spoke of having no new school shoes- would new shoes have helped you climb classes?
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I respect what you have achieved, and that is why I don't believe that the lower classes need special attention. I know what is possible... I have family members who were born in houses in the third world without running water or electricity, and yet today they are millionaires. I know what is possible from the darkest depths of the economic well, and by comparison the challenges faced by the lower class in the developed world seem easy.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
What examples are there of an exceptionally gifted member of the lower class being derailed purely by bad luck?
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I could have failed, and I can fail at any point in my life. I accept that and I am ready for it if and when it comes. My response will be fundamentally different to the dejection of certain members of the lower class though... I will aim for the top again.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
You made a very important point about changing social context. I will indubitably have to go and study the trends involved. However would you not agree that presently in the UK, major class movement is almost over?
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
By that I mean that those who are presently lower class and in their middle age must not be as skilled as those who are middle or upper class? Didn't enough class mobility exist for them to move up through their life? I don't characterise children in any form- they have yet to face the test of life... I speak of the present middle aged lower class.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
You climbed classes. How can you not recognise that you must be intrinsically better than your former working class peers? Unless you won the lottery or barring some other massive stroke of luck, I presume you worked hard to get where you are. Why didn't your former peers do the same?