"Problem is the living on benefits as a career move was promoted by Nu Labor"
Wrong. It was the Tories who shutdown the coal and shipbuilding industry. Thus promoting benefits as a career move.
"They actually want a poor subclass with little or no education to use as cannon fodder while living in multi million pound mansions."
'They' being capitalists (Tories). Nothing to do with Labour party.
Huge cash movement from less well off to rich
-
cockneygeezer2009
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Huge cash movement from less well off to rich
The harder you cum. The more you enjoy it.
Re: Huge cash movement from less well off to rich
Gentleman wrote:
> Due to our "democracy" where the rich directly fund the parties
> and our ever growing have nots/working poor who understandably
> don't vote as they have nothing to loose and certainly nothing
> to gain unlike the rich who the parties have to keep onside as
> that's where the cash and votes come from.
>
> All parties use wealth redistribution except this usually
> spoken of as rich to poor (and is evil according to the right)
> but in reality is poor to rich.
It is not evil, just doesn't work. You don't make the poor rich by making the rich poor. Look at the swingeing death duties applied to big estates after the First World War. Have they helped eradicate poverty? Did they make one poor person rich? It's just the politics of greed.
>
> I wonder if things would be better if parties where state
> funded and voting compulsory rather than only having to please
> a minority.
Parties are already state funded ? who do you think pays Ed Miliband's salary as "Leader of HM Loyal Opposition"? It's called Short Money, paid out since 1975. In 2009, Nick Clegg?s party got ?1,749,385 a year and the Tories (in Opposition) nearly ?5 million. Labour is now receiving more than ?6.5 million a year. From who? You, the taxpayer.
I have voted at every election since 18 but why should I be forced to vote when I disagree with all the major parties?
> Due to our "democracy" where the rich directly fund the parties
> and our ever growing have nots/working poor who understandably
> don't vote as they have nothing to loose and certainly nothing
> to gain unlike the rich who the parties have to keep onside as
> that's where the cash and votes come from.
>
> All parties use wealth redistribution except this usually
> spoken of as rich to poor (and is evil according to the right)
> but in reality is poor to rich.
It is not evil, just doesn't work. You don't make the poor rich by making the rich poor. Look at the swingeing death duties applied to big estates after the First World War. Have they helped eradicate poverty? Did they make one poor person rich? It's just the politics of greed.
>
> I wonder if things would be better if parties where state
> funded and voting compulsory rather than only having to please
> a minority.
Parties are already state funded ? who do you think pays Ed Miliband's salary as "Leader of HM Loyal Opposition"? It's called Short Money, paid out since 1975. In 2009, Nick Clegg?s party got ?1,749,385 a year and the Tories (in Opposition) nearly ?5 million. Labour is now receiving more than ?6.5 million a year. From who? You, the taxpayer.
I have voted at every election since 18 but why should I be forced to vote when I disagree with all the major parties?