Our future

[Mark]

It is only right that everyone gets a vote.

What is wrong, is that there are more takers than creators and when the creators breed less, because they are too busy creating wealth, the gap gets larger, as the takers breed with wild abandon.
Only now are we seeing this at the tipping point. Too few making it, with too many sucking it up like a sponge.

I can't imagine a realistic alternative though, other than the creators all piss off and form a new society in Greenland and leave the sponges to die off, at which point we can all return.

 

[Keith]

Oh bugger, Mark. Colour me a sponge. What shall I do? Even the doctors are now starting to look at me askance and surreptitiously punch in numbers onto their iPads when they come and see me. And the sharp (and involuntary) intake of breath when I ask (nay beg) for a prescription? It's there; it's always there these days.

I think the wheels on your Utopian wagon are already rolling my friend and it was Bliar that removed the chocks....:lipsrsealed:

I will add that I was hoping to save the one property I live in for a legacy for my daughters. It's the only domestic property I managed to retain having lost 4 fairly substantial piles to the ravaging savages of the 'Family Courts' (it's a warm, fuzzy and comforting name - if you are a woman). I have now been informed that as I live alone, it is likely that it will be seized by the Local Authority to fund my care if (when) I have to have full time professional nursing care.

I dunno. Is that fair after 50 years hard labour? I am undecided....

 

[Howard Jones]

Fix?

1. You are not a citizen unless you are born to a citizen. Mom or Dad. Waved only AFTER completed approved requirements for application of citizenship

2. Flat income tax at about 18%. No other taxes. ALL income is taxable.

3. NO corporate income tax or capital gains tax.

4. No inheritance tax

5. NO wire offs NONE!

6. Requirement to prove ID to vote.

7. Prison sentence for illegal entry into country.

8. Seizure of property for hiring illegals.

9. Return nearly all administration of federal lands to the states. Exceptions would ne DC, military bases, federal parks (not wilderness areas etc.) and federal buildings.

10. Open most areas of US to energy production. Exception with 3/4 vote of Congress.

11. Term limit, house to 12 years and Senate to 2 terms. President to 6 years. Maybe 5 and one term only.

12. Balanced budget amendment to US constitution, with exception for extreme national emergency. War, massive national disaster.


Pete, you are going to need to make me Emperor for awhile to get these done I'm afraid.

 

[Larry L.]

...having lost 4 fairly substantial piles to the ravaging savages of the 'Family Courts' (it's a warm, fuzzy and comforting name - if you are a woman)...I was hoping to save the one property I live in for a legacy for my daughters...I have now been informed that as I live alone, it is likely that it will be seized by the Local Authority to fund my care if (when) I have to have full time professional nursing care.

I don't know what the goofy laws are in the U.K., but, were you over here I would strongly recommend you see a tax/probate/estate lawyer and "gift" the house to your daughters now...if they can be trusted to let you stay there until God calls, that is. If it can't be gifted, then arrange to sell it to 'em for a song. But, you'd have to involve a SAVVY lawyer to make darned sure the govt couldn't bulldoze the arrangement upon your passing.

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Larry most people in the UK that own a decent port folio of property keep the title deeds registered in the name of an offshore ltd company which keeps their wealth hidden away from investigative revenue bandits. They will not disclose who the directors of the companies are which is why 80% of all commercially owned property in the UK is registered offshore. If everybody did this they would probably move the goalposts.

Bob

 

[Doc Kaler]

Howard,

As Emperor, would you get rid of the Electoral College as well?

 

[Larry L.]

Larry most people in the UK that own a decent port folio of property keep the title deeds registered in the name of an offshore ltd company which keeps their wealth hidden away from investigative revenue bandits. They will not disclose who the directors of the companies are which is why 80% of all commercially owned property in the UK is registered offshore. If everybody did this they would probably move the goalposts.

Bob

Judging from what Keith said, I gather he isn't 'qualified' to do that, nor has he done so.

How the devil it's possible for anyone who owns property physically located in country 'A' to register it in country 'B' for tax purposes is totally beyond me!

 

[Keith]

I don't know what the goofy laws are in the U.K., but, were you over here I would strongly recommend you see a tax/probate/estate lawyer and "gift" the house to your daughters now...if they can be trusted to let you stay there until God calls, that is. If it can't be gifted, then arrange to sell it to 'em for a song. But, you'd have to involve a SAVVY lawyer to make darned sure the govt couldn't bulldoze the arrangement upon your passing.

That loophole was firmly closed Larry. I can gift away until I'm blue in the face but I would have to live another 7 years for that particular shelter to work I'm afraid. Before that they could still seize the asset and it's the same for inheritance tax avoidance. 7 years is the magic number. Yes, of course, in hindsight I should have done this years ago, and I'm sure many have done and are still owing so, but it didn't cross my mind that I would need it.

Dunno why I'm worried though, it'll be all over soon enough and then it won't matter will it? Many people are against 'inheritance' anyway.

 

[Nick]

would strongly recommend you see a tax/probate/estate lawyer and "gift" the house to your daughters now...if they can be trusted to let you stay there until God calls, that is. If it can't be gifted, then arrange to sell it to 'em for a song.

Maybe if you are on any sort of Government assistance you can't vote?
Maybe we go back to only those who own property are allowed to vote?

Devastated families are facing being evicted after the inherited estate of Britain’s richest MP bought a stake in their homes.

Tory Richard Benyon’s £110million family firm is part of a consortium that snapped up the housing estate and announced plans for a massive rent hike.

Up to 90 households in East London fear the Benyons’ plan to charge “market rents” will treble their bills.

The New Era Estate, in Hoxton, has a long history of providing affordable housing and has been home to some people for 70 years.

Soaring house prices have driven o*rdinary families out of vast swathes of the UK – particularly the capital where the average price of a home rocketed by 18.5% last year.

Britain’s housing crisis is worsened by weak legal protection for private tenants, who can be forced out of homes they have lived in for years at a few weeks’ notice.

Since she moved in, the Benyon Estate has raised Lindsay’s rent from £668 a month to £796.

The average cost of a similar two-bedroom flat on Rightmove.com is nearly £2,000 a month.

Other residents include Ruth Jacobs, 84, who has lived on the estate for 70 years.

She said: “It is terrible. I got a letter two weeks ago. I don’t know what’s going to happen next.”

Gaye Studman, 56, who lives with Malcolm Ryan, 58, and her daughter Angel Studman, 10, said: “They just want people with money in here.

"We’ve been told we have to be evicted by a bailiff together with our children before the council will help us.”


A Mirror investigation with the GMB union earlier this year revealed Benyon’s £110million estate has received hundreds of thousands of pounds of housing benefit – despite the MP attacking the “something for nothing” welfare state.


On top of Mr Benyon’s haul from tenants and the taxpayer, his family farms received more than £2million in EU subsidies since 2000.

 

[Keith]

Ah, the 'unacceptable face of Capitalism' at its best Nick.

Who coined that phrase? Anyone remember?

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Judging from what Keith said, I gather he isn't 'qualified' to do that, nor has he done so.

How the devil it's possible for anyone who owns property physically located in country 'A' to register it in country 'B' for tax purposes is totally beyond me!

They are still registered in a legal name here but that name has total anonymity from investigation.

Its country wide not just london , our government believes its foreign investment but its really UK folk moving money in from offshore accounts and loans. I wonder why consecutive governments have been reluctant to properly shut the door on this .:lipsrsealed: I suppose all it takes to tranfer ownership of the property at a later date to your siblings is a straight forward change of directors and you then circumnavigate the inheritance taxes as well.

How secret offshore firms feed London's property boom | UK news | The Guardian

Bob

 

[Larry L.]

I can gift away until I'm blue in the face but I would have to live another 7 years for that particular shelter to work I'm afraid. Before that they could still seize the asset and it's the same for inheritance tax avoidance.

Then don't "GIFT" the place - sell it to the girls for a cheap sum...or would the govt say that was a 'fire sale' sale in anticipation of death and still take it?

 

[Larry L.]

They are still registered in a legal name here but that name has total anonymity from investigation.

Its country wide not just london , our government believes its foreign investment but its really UK folk moving money in from offshore accounts and loans. I wonder why consecutive governments have been reluctant to properly shut the door on this .:lipsrsealed: I suppose all it takes to tranfer ownership of the property at a later date to your siblings is a straight forward change of directors and you then circumnavigate the inheritance taxes as well.

How secret offshore firms feed London's property boom | UK news | The Guardian

Bob

'Still seems ridiculous to me...

 

[Doug S.]

But with my spoken english understanding habilities, what I heard from the 2 first vids posted was somehow VERY biased.And some kind of pissed me...

It looks like here in ole'france, at least our journalists are a bit more discrets about their OPINIONS.

Olivier, I can assure you that the type of person whom you saw in those videos is every bit as "unusual" as are the ultra-conservative individuals who have embraced this thread. Both are "Lunatic Fringe", to use the title of an old Rock'n'Roll song...very much outside the mainstream of the average resident of the United States. With perhaps one or two exceptions I can say that everyone I know is just down to earth, hard working, trying to make ends meet at the end of the month without having to ask anyone for anything. Those videos are most likely the handy-work of our BELOVED (???) Fox News Network you mentioned...and, yes, most of our news organizations are primarily unbiased, but we do have our conservative and our liberal leaning news sources. Fox is just the most egregious of the offensive...they have appointed themselves the opposition of the current administration...which I might add we as a country elected with a majority vote...and while they MAY (I say "May" because I have never seen it, but others claim they do this) present an opposing viewpoint at some time during each calendar year, whether they want to or not, there presentation are mostly laughable to those of us who are politically sentient, or at least discriminating. They truly are the laughing stock of the United States news organizations (with the possible exception of some of the "tongue-in-cheek" news organizations whose obvious orientation is humorous or satirical...and they are easy to spot). I wish that we did have more unbiased reporting, but in all truth in the U.S. we have gotten to the point that to attract a viewing audience you really need to distinguish yourselves from the competition. Fox has chosen to do that in a very distasteful (IMHO) way.

Don't judge all Americans by what these "Bozos" (a term from my childhood--"Bozo the Clown" was a real mess and always trying to cause trouble or just finding himself saying something very embarrassing) will attempt to lead you to believe.

The bottom line is that everyone should practice some "cynicism" regarding what we see on the TV...:idea:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Nick]

Ah, the 'unacceptable face of Capitalism' at its best Nick.

Who coined that phrase? Anyone remember?

Sorry Keith had to google it, did come across this gem doing so though. Think I'll email it off to Barack may give him some hope.

Robin Day: How low does your personal popularity have to go before you consider yourself a liability to the party you lead?

Edward Heath: Popularity isn't everything.

Edward Heath Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from June 1970 to February 1974 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 1965 to 1975

 

[Doug S.]

Howard,

As Emperor, would you get rid of the Electoral College as well?

Doc, I'm not Howard...and if I were Emperor I would certainly not allow ANY opposing votes...but regarding the political status of our country right now I SURE would! I believe it was a good idea in its time when there was not the technology we have today. I also believe that with our current technology we could REALLY be a Democracy, not a Republic as our political system is structured now.

If we really believe that Bill Gates' vote is no more or less important than the homeless man I see playing guitar on the streets of Houston, we ought to put our money where our mouths are and take the plunge toward a real democracy...and the Electoral College MOST ASSUREDLY cannot be called democratic...look at what happened when Gee-Dub lost the popular vote but was elected by the Electoral College (and, here it comes...gotta do this for our erstwhile Larry....:shocked all because his brother could jerry-rig the election with trash-talk about "hanging chads".

What a sad day that was for our country....:embarassed:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

Doug, you just exposed your total ignorance regarding WHY The Founders set up the 'college and what it does.

Here's the NO SPIN, NO B.S., NO FABRICATION reason the 'college exists: WITHOUT IT, JUST A FEW STATES WITH LARGE POPULATIONS COULD, in effect, RULE THE WHOLE COUNTRY. They could dictate who was elected pres, what the national policies should be, what fed. laws/regs would be passed - the whole 9 yards. In effect, they COULD make the vast majority of the nation a voiceless, "fly over" area. That, sir, IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT.

The Founders wanted to make sure that would never be the case...'that smaller states would have a 'say' in things, and the 'college is the way they ensured it.

RESEARCH the 'college and its 'hows and whys' w/o your liberal blinders on. You will be amazed at The Founders' wisdom.

 

[Mark]

Keith, you posts following mine are very saddening to hear my friend. I am not against a fair and caring society and believe that social justice and a reliable form of welfare should be available for everyone.

The situation you describe, re your property, is very unpleasant. The sad truth is however, that because you earns something, through your own endeavours, then you have less right to access welfare support, than the wasters who did nothing.

That is what I hate about the system. That is why people without jobs know that they don't need jobs. That is why they can have seven children, knowing all their needs will be catered for by you. Then when you need something, the answer is, "fuck off you rich twat' and sell your house to pay for it! We need the money more than you do"

Makes me sick!

 

[Steve]

Doug, you just exposed your total ignorance regarding WHY The Founders set up the 'college and what it does.

Here's the NO SPIN, NO B.S., NO FABRICATION reason the 'college exists: WITHOUT IT, JUST A FEW STATES WITH LARGE POPULATIONS COULD, in effect, RULE THE WHOLE COUNTRY. They could dictate who was elected pres, what the national policies should be, what fed. laws/regs would be passed - the whole 9 yards. In effect, they COULD make the vast majority of the nation a voiceless, "fly over" area. That, sir, IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT.

The Founders wanted to make sure that would never be the case...'that smaller states would have a 'say' in things, and the 'college is the way they ensured it.

RESEARCH the 'college and its 'hows and whys' w/o your liberal blinders on. You will be amazed at The Founders' wisdom.

Exactly. Very unbiased analysis of the electoral college. And Bush wasn't the first to lose the popular vote and win the electoral college. If you think Gore was robbed, A. Jackson won both the popular vote and the electoral college but didn't have a majority so it goes to the House to decide and they voted for John Quincy Adams.

We also have 2 senators from each state in the "upper" house to allow equal representation from small states and large states for much the same reason.

Our republic was ingeniously designed with many checks and balances. Individuals have often tried to game the system but the pendulum seems to pull them back (which is a good thing). Not sure a "true democracy" is a good thing. It assumes the majority always knows best.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

For those that don't know the difference between a republic and a democracy.

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic