Originally Posted by Neo2012

Super-rich become wealthier again, Sunday Times says

I never have understood this, as I see it, no matter how 'we' may paint it, jealousy of the 'haves' by the 'have nots'. It's silly and counterproductive to continue to blame those who have for 'our' lack. Perhaps 'we' need to look at ourselves a bit closer instead of always pointing fingers and blaming 'them'.

A new era has been entered. NEO has made a thread not directly involving the BNP! Think about what that means!

Generally speaking it would seem to me that efforts to reduce relative poverty seem to hamper general trend of falling numbers of people suffering from absolute poverty.

Originally Posted by Neo2012

Super-rich become wealthier again, Sunday Times says

Perhaps a compensatory rise for the similar drop in the preceding year or so. I also wonder how many jobs those super-rich have created for lesser mortals like you.

This is not surprising, or particularly deceitful or greedy on their parts. Money increase exponentially when properly invested.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Perhaps a compensatory rise for the similar drop in the preceding year or so. I also wonder how many jobs those super-rich have created for lesser mortals like you.

Quite! Far too many people conveniently forget that it's the 'super rich' and just the plain wealthy who are the driving force behind the country's economy as it's they who who invest their wealth into productive businesses which not only create the majority of everyday jobs there are, but both directly and indirectly contribute a very significant percentage of the country's tax revenues, those same taxes which then get handed out by way of benefits to the people who make most of the noise in complaining about how hard done by they are and how unfair it is that the 'super-rich' get richer.

Historically, times of recession have always presented good opportunities for investment for those people who've been prudent enough to amass spare capital, but there's always the need to think outside of the box and to take a risk. But it's taking those very risks which assure most investors a higher rate of return and ultimately starts off those businesses which in turn offer the most employment, again something most people who moan about the wealthy conveniently forget.

I can speak with some personal experience about the good investment opportunities there have been around over the last few years, as this recession has enabled me to grow my investment portfolio at an average of close on 30% a year by careful trading in a mixture of (mainly) precious metals and forex. I see no reason in the world why I, or anyone else in my position, should be subject to criticism for making the most of the opportunities presented.

You make me sick Midas, you sycophant.
"Oh super rich man, thank you SO much for my job! Thank you so much for a difficult week of work while you lounge around on a beach being served cocktails priced at my weekly wage! Thankyou thankyou thankyou! And thank you for providing such a shining example of compassion and decency whilst people sleep on Britain's streets and children drown in poverty! Its comforting that I can look to you and see how a person should be- noble, enterprising and with more money than some countries! And the investment! Some cynics claim you do it for your own gain but I know better! All those nurses and carers and teachers and factory hands have never done a real days work until they've sat over a $40,000 laptop and bought shares before a dip in one's pool!"

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

You make me sick Midas, you sycophant.
"Oh super rich man, thank you SO much for my job! Thank you so much for a difficult week of work while you lounge around on a beach being served cocktails priced at my weekly wage! Thankyou thankyou thankyou! And thank you for providing such a shining example of compassion and decency whilst people sleep on Britain's streets and children drown in poverty! Its comforting that I can look to you and see how a person should be- noble, enterprising and with more money than some countries! And the investment! Some cynics claim you do it for your own gain but I know better! All those nurses and carers and teachers and factory hands have never done a real days work until they've sat over a $40,000 laptop and bought shares before a dip in one's pool!"

A good example of the type of moaning I was referring to! Thanks CS.

Do tell us exactly where you'd be if someone hadn't invested hard earned cash into industry and commence to provide you and everyone else outside the public sector with their jobs? Even the public sector jobs are dependant on government revenues generated by businesses started off by either the already wealthy or those with enough get up and go to take a very significant financial risk in return for an above average reward - which doesn't always materialise of course.

Have you for a moment ever looked at how much your despised 'super rich' give to charities to help the sick and the homeless and the helpless? I can tell you that there'd be many more desperate and dying people around if it wasn't the case.

Do also tell me why, after 25 years of providing employment to well over 1,000 people, well paid and skilled employment at that, I shouldn't take it easy and enjoy the rewards that working (yes, working) sometimes 100 hour weeks in order to ensure the success of my business, has brought? What is it to you and exactly how does it affect you if I choose to invest those rewards carefully and earn better than average returns from them - unless you're angling for a free hand-out of course?

You have a very narrow, very blinkered and very cynical view of life, and I'd suggest you get out a bit more and learn what the real world is like and how everyone is dependent on everyone else - we've seen from all those failed communist and socialist states what happens to the ordinary working man when the wealthy have been driven out; they end up in poverty, often in conditions you wouldn't keep animals in. Think about it and learn from it.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Perhaps a compensatory rise for the similar drop in the preceding year or so. I also wonder how many jobs those super-rich have created for lesser mortals like you.

Lesser mortals? Why Major that almost sounds like snobbery!

Originally Posted by DTE

Lesser mortals? Why Major that almost sounds like snobbery!

Heavy with irony rather than snobbery. Although I have to confess there are a few on here which drive one to the point of doing a 'Gordon'.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

I also wonder how many jobs those super-rich have created for lesser mortals like you.

How selfless of them!

Originally Posted by Midas

Have you for a moment ever looked at how much your despised 'super rich' give to charities to help the sick and the homeless and the helpless? I can tell you that there'd be many more desperate and dying people around if it wasn't the case.

I hate philanthropists. Well no, people who do it behind closed doors should be admired, but I find it sickening when people make a big spectacle out of it.

Do also tell me why, after 25 years of providing employment to well over 1,000 people, well paid and skilled employment at that,

You say 'providing', did you actually own the business? I thought you were just a director?

You have a very narrow, very blinkered and very cynical view of life,

ahem.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

How selfless of them!

I did not say they were altruistic, although a surprisingly high proportion are. You are perhaps unaware of this because they don't make a big spectacle of their altruism. Nevertheless in achieving their own goals it is valid to point out that they created opportunities for others, which would not have otherwise existed.

I did not achieve the levels of commercial success of the 'super-rich', but did manage to reach a level whereby I should never want for anything. Many might describe me as fortunate or lucky or privileged, but in my experience good fortune, luck and privilege invariably go hand in hand with hard work (100 hours plus per week in the early stages of my business), personal responsibility, personal risk, and a vision. Fortunately my business was a success, but in making it a success I also provided an average of 150 people with gainful well rewarded employment over a twenty year period, paid many millions in personal and corporate taxes and without a shadow of doubt contributed far more to society than I took from it, unlike so many envious, whinging under achievers who think that others owe them a living, for doing diddly squat.

I neither expect, warrant or want thanks; my reward is the lifestyle and security that my family and I now enjoy. But knowing what it took to build a successful business is one of the reasons why individuals such as Midas and myself take exception to the envious resentment of those such as CS.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

I neither expect, warrant or want thanks;

Which is more than can be said of a certain other forum member.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

Which is more than can be said of a certain other forum member.

I think that is a harsh judgment. I think Midas, as probably the most commercially successful member of this board, simply resents being vilified by individuals who have simply no idea of the commitment, hard work, self sacrifice, financial risk, self belief and focus that it takes to create even a moderately successful business. Such people are a million miles from those employed bankers who, along with those politicians forming the government at the time, so shamefully let us all down, yet many continue to display their ignorance by lumping all those leading the commerce of this country in the same unsavory category.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

I hate philanthropists. Well no, people who do it behind closed doors should be admired, but I find it sickening when people make a big spectacle out of it.

I'm in total agreement with you on this, although there is a difference between philanthropists who would like to remain private but get swarmed over by the media, and those who specifically set out to say "I'm so generous"!

You say 'providing', did you actually own the business? I thought you were just a director?

I was both a director and a 50% shareholder of the business I ran with my then business partner from the early 1980s until 1998. I was also a director and a shareholder, albeit a minor one (it was largely a family owned business), of the company I was with up until the end of 2009 - staving off the boredom of an early retirement

ahem.

Major Sinic has put his finger firmly on this one. There are far too many people around who have absolutely no appreciation or understanding of what goes into running a successful and profitable business. All they see is "the boss making money" and "the poor workers"; those concerned should try it sometime instead of just moaning, then perhaps they'd then have a very different view of what really goes on in commercial life!

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

I hate philanthropists. Well no, people who do it behind closed doors should be admired, but I find it sickening when people make a big spectacle out of it.

There was a time in my life when I felt the same way, not hate, but more of a disdain for those who made a show of their philanthropy. That changed when I had a conversation with some one, a fund raiser for a very large hospital, about it and it was pointed out to me that public displays of philanthropy often spur others to also donate. She, the fund raiser, encourages donors to be public about it. Look at the case of Bill & Melinda Gates, they are very public about the donations their trust makes. That publicity serves a useful purpose in getting their other super wealthy friends to donate, Warren Buffet for one. Just something to think about.

Originally Posted by Don

There was a time in my life when I felt the same way, not hate, but more of a disdain for those who made a show of their philanthropy. That changed when I had a conversation with some one, a fund raiser for a very large hospital, about it and it was pointed out to me that public displays of philanthropy often spur others to also donate. She, the fund raiser, encourages donors to be public about it. Look at the case of Bill & Melinda Gates, they are very public about the donations their trust makes. That publicity serves a useful purpose in getting their other super wealthy friends to donate, Warren Buffet for one. Just something to think about.

Hmm I hadn't thought about it that way before!

Originally Posted by Midas

Major Sinic has put his finger firmly on this one. There are far too many people around who have absolutely no appreciation or understanding of what goes into running a successful and profitable business. All they see is "the boss making money" and "the poor workers"; those concerned should try it sometime instead of just moaning, then perhaps they'd then have a very different view of what really goes on in commercial life!

There is, from those like Citizen Smith and others, an anti-intellectual theme that runs through all their arguments (rants?) when any discussion of wealth and/or capitalism comes up. There is that superior attitude they take on, that says they are somehow better human beings because they do some form of physical labor, that those who earn their money through exercising their minds, and creating those jobs are somehow inferior beings. I would argue that it is a form of snobbery. In truth, neither is better, or worse, than the other, and both are needed in a successful society. It's an argument I have never been able to wrap my mind around.

Originally Posted by Midas

Major Sinic has put his finger firmly on this one. There are far too many people around who have absolutely no appreciation or understanding of what goes into running a successful and profitable business. All they see is "the boss making money" and "the poor workers"; those concerned should try it sometime instead of just moaning, then perhaps they'd then have a very different view of what really goes on in commercial life!

Well- thats all you do do Midas. make a nice wad of $ for yourself. Maybe a few lucky, lucky people get a job from it I'm sue they should be very grateful that hey have had the chance to make you and your chums richer. Try commercial life? No thank you Midas, some people have principles that cant be bought- hough i'm sure thats very hard for you to understand.

You're completely wrong Don- I do't mind intellectuals, I love writing and using my mind, and respect anyone who takes that job. I object to people making big money off doing a useless job that exploits other people. Like our good tory friend Midas.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

You're completely wrong Don- I do't mind intellectuals, I love writing and using my mind, and respect anyone who takes that job. I object to people making big money off doing a useless job that exploits other people. Like our good tory friend Midas.

Umm, doesn't Midas partially run a company? And I don't know, but I would assume said company employs a number of people, who, without Midas, would not have jobs to begin with.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

You're completely wrong Don- I do't mind intellectuals, I love writing and using my mind, and respect anyone who takes that job. I object to people making big money off doing that exploits other people. Like our good tory friend Midas.

Ok, I could accept that and will take you at your word, however you also call those intellectual endeavors that develop, and are necessary to running, a business and provide jobs; "a useless job".

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

You're completely wrong Don- I do't mind intellectuals, I love writing and using my mind, and respect anyone who takes that job. I object to people . Like our good tory friend Midas.

Seeing as you have no idea what sort of business I ran for over 15 years, not do you have any idea what the company I was Chairman of for the last 5 years did, nor do you have any idea about the pay and working conditions at either, saying "...making big money off doing a useless job that exploits other people." is a pretty pathetic comment even by your standards! All it does is show up your ignorance and bitterness.

Originally Posted by Don

Ok, I could accept that and will take you at your word, however you also call those intellectual endeavors that develop, and are necessary to running, a business and provide jobs; "a useless job".

I wouldn't call running a business an intellectual endeavour. just a selfish one.

Originally Posted by Midas

Seeing as you have no idea what sort of business I ran for over 15 years, not do you have any idea what the company I was Chairman of for the last 5 years did, nor do you have any idea about the pay and working conditions at either, saying "...making big money off doing a useless job that exploits other people." is a pretty pathetic comment even by your standards! All it does is show up your ignorance and bitterness.

I don't need to hear all that.... think I know you enough by your various comments. Ignorant? Possibly. Bitter? Definitely, I hate with a passion anyone who wants to get involved with business.
Care to deny that you are in the job because it will make you a lot of money?

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

I don't need to hear all that.... think I know you enough by your various comments. Ignorant? Possibly. Bitter? Definitely, I hate with a passion anyone who wants to get involved with business.
Care to deny that you are in the job because it will make you a lot of money?

Frankly you come over as a rather stupid, ill-informed, poorly educated and very arrogant person. Since you 'hate with a passion' anyone involved in business or who creates wealth, especially if they are, in your view, exploiting others by employing them, perhaps you would provide a brief synopsis of the society you would prefer to live in, with particular emphasis on how exactly it would finance itself.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

I wouldn't call running a business an intellectual endeavour. just a selfish one.

So what would you call your boss (assuming he was the business owner) if he suddenly decided to agree with you and he shut the business down instead of remaining "selfish"? I'd call you out of a job, but what would you, and your fellow employees, call him?

I'd just presume he'd got bored of exploiting us all and gone to live a life in the Bahamas. So I'd say "Thank yo so much for the opportunity guvnor, mind if I kiss your $1000 shoes before i return to my empty life of dead ends?

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Frankly you come over as a rather stupid, ill-informed, poorly educated and very arrogant person. Since you 'hate with a passion' anyone involved in business or who creates wealth, especially if they are, in your view, exploiting others by employing them, perhaps you would provide a brief synopsis of the society you would prefer to live in, with particular emphasis on how exactly it would finance itself.

Gladly.
The state is the ONLY employer. It sets quotas for all necessary jobs, and people apply for the ones they want. The state has the labour of its citizens, and then i return provides them all with housing, food, and everything else that they need. (Including holidays.)

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Gladly.
The state is the ONLY employer. It sets quotas for all necessary jobs, and people apply for the ones they want. The state has the labour of its citizens, and then i return provides them all with housing, food, and everything else that they need. (Including holidays.)

So, the communist ideal which has never worked in practice. By definition it would need to be totalitarian, so you would ban democracy and open opposition. Once you banned open opposition, it would go underground so you would have need to punish it with varying negative consequences. How would these work? Punishment through unemployment, re-education, imprisonment, unpaid hard labour, withdrawal of state medicine, leisure, holidays?

Who would run the state, and the enterprises it has liberated from private ownership? How would you incentify such leaders? Do you really think that the same level of pay, housing, food as all the mindless proletariat receive, would be sufficient? Of course not! It never has been before. So they would receive bonuses, big cars, special state housing, exclusive state holidays and state stores, and all manner of other privileges. Sound familiar?

Instead of offering aspirations and an improving quality of life to all who strive for it, you would create a nation of despair, of reducing cultural, health, education, and material living standards. Worst of all you would steal the right of freedom of speech and expression.

In short you are a fascist.

I will leave it there, because every member of this forum who believes in democracy and the rights of the individual, whether politically right, centre or left wing should question your extreme position.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

I don't need to hear all that.... think I know you enough by your various comments. Ignorant? Possibly. Bitter? Definitely, I hate with a passion anyone who wants to get involved with business.
Care to deny that you are in the job because it will make you a lot of money?

You don't need to hear it...? You think you know...? Well, those are good foundations to base an intelligent discussion on!! Perhaps you read once that bosses make more money than their workers and should thus be condemned for ever - oh yes, Das Kapital wasn't it?

I've never denied that I went into business to make money, and I'm not ashamed to admit it in the slightest. 25+ years of hard work and a hell of a lot of responsibility have enabled me to now do pretty much whatever I like in life in a great deal of comfort, and whilst I'm still young enough to enjoy and appreciate it. Perhaps just as importantly it'll also ensure that my children and future grandchildren have money behind them to help them out as and when needed in an increasingly insecure world. You have a problem with that? Well, tough if you do!

Perhaps one of the days you'll learn that not everything that Karl Marx said was a/ true and b/ applicable to life in the 21st century.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Gladly.
The state is the ONLY employer. It sets quotas for all necessary jobs, and people apply for the ones they want. The state has the labour of its citizens, and then i return provides them all with housing, food, and everything else that they need. (Including holidays.)

And where's the money for this wonderful world of yours going to come from? Have you learnt nothing from history about how states which try to employ these techniques invariably fail? Silly question really, obviously you haven't.

I presume that both Midas and Major Sinic are from well educated backgrounds. As you both understood how to run successful buissnesses and work the stock market.

Personally I beleive that well of people should pay more tax (not to death) but execess income should go to support and improve education living standards and life chances to make an equal society where your (Midas and Major Sinic's) meritocratic values can be pracisted properly.

It is obviously not true that if you just work hard and creatively you'll get to the top, as there isn't room at the top of society for everyone.

Sweden ruleshttp://www.politic.co.uk/images/icons/icon10.gif

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

I'd just presume he'd got bored of exploiting us all and gone to live a life in the Bahamas. So I'd say "Thank yo so much for the opportunity guvnor, mind if I kiss your $1000 shoes before i return to my empty life of dead ends?

And what, go on the dole and let others support you? You gave me a non answer and you know it, now try for an honest answer, if you have one. Possibly comrade?

What Don?
Your question was an impossible one to answer- deliberately constructed to make it clear that you believe the employer is a great person, and giving me no way to contradict you in such a narrow question.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Who would run the state, and the enterprises it has liberated from private ownership? How would you incentify such leaders? Do you really think that the same level of pay, housing, food as all the mindless proletariat receive, would be sufficient? Of course not! It never has been before. So they would receive bonuses, big cars, special state housing, exclusive state holidays and state stores, and all manner of other privileges. Sound familiar?

.

People don't need capitalist incentives like shiny things and notes. thats a myth. yes, Communism means rate of pay.
As for your punishing opposition, why would that be necessary? Just give them a special platform, no need for elections, but they can talk all they like- no reason to go underground.
You and Don and Midas really have a low estimation of people- is it so hard to believe that Money isn't the be all and end all for everyone?

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

People don't need capitalist incentives like shiny things and notes. thats a myth. yes, Communism means rate of pay.
As for your punishing opposition, why would that be necessary? Just give them a special platform, no need for elections, but they can talk all they like- no reason to go underground.
You and Don and Midas really have a low estimation of people- is it so hard to believe that Money isn't the be all and end all for everyone?

Somebody once said that you can never win an argument with a stupid man. This response shows the veracity of that saying.

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

Personally I beleive that well of people should pay more tax (not to death) but execess income should go to support and improve education living standards and life chances to make an equal society where your (Midas and Major Sinic's) meritocratic values can be pracisted properly.

It is obviously not true that if you just work hard and creatively you'll get to the top, as there isn't room at the top of society for everyone.

You are absolutely right. You won't find me disagreeing with you. It is an economic system called a 'mixed economy' and we, in common with most of Europe, live within such a system. In principle the private sector, within parameters set by an elected state, create the nations wealth and pay taxes to the state, which the state spend for the benefit of all. You will not find the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or Labour disagreeing with the principle, but just the degree and emphases. How well the state fulfill their responsibilities is of course a different issue.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

You are absolutely right. You won't find me disagreeing with you. It is an economic system called a 'mixed economy' and we, in common with most of Europe, live within such a system. In principle the private sector, within parameters set by an elected state, create the nations wealth and pay taxes to the state, which the state spend for the benefit of all. You will not find the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or Labour disagreeing with the principle, but just the degree and emphases. How well the state fulfill their responsibilities is of course a different issue.

Isn't there a difference here in what people from either side of the political divide see and interpret as "more tax"? Ignoring higher rate tax bands for the moment, those with higher incomes already pay a significantly higher amount of tax and national insurance simply due to that higher income. I suspect what Robin was meaning wasn't so much that but was along the lines of having incrementally higher tax bands in the traditionally socialist manner, which, whilst it might look good to their supporters, simply disincentivises many people from earning more. For example the new 50% tax rate already looks like having failed due to the significant number of very high earners taking their business base out of the UK. I believe the Institute of Fiscal Studies are now saying that this increase from 40% to 50% will actually lose the exchequer money, very much in line with the predications of the Laffer Curve.

There's a very big difference between simply taking ever larger amounts of money from higher earners to improve education and social conditions in the way that various socialist governments have done (or should that be 'try to improve but have failed to'), to having a well thought out straight line tax with a high starting point which doesn't disincentivise anyone and relieves many more at the bottom end of the income scale from paying any tax at all, coupled with effective and efficient government management. This would have the same, or an even better, effect. I'd be quite happy to support the latter, but the former still reeks of soak the rich to give to the poor, or perhaps penalise the hard workers to subsidise the less so, with the government wasting billions in between the two.

Originally Posted by Midas

Isn't there a difference here in what people from either side of the political divide see and interpret as "more tax"? Ignoring higher rate tax bands for the moment, those with higher incomes already pay a significantly higher amount of tax and national insurance simply due to that higher income. I suspect what Robin was meaning wasn't so much that but was along the lines of having incrementally higher tax bands in the traditionally socialist manner, which, whilst it might look good to their supporters, simply disincentivises many people from earning more. For example the new 50% tax rate already looks like having failed due to the significant number of very high earners taking their business base out of the UK. I believe the Institute of Fiscal Studies are now saying that this increase from 40% to 50% will actually lose the exchequer money, very much in line with the predications of the Laffer Curve.

I was trying to provide a simple description of a mixed economy, and was attempting to show that whilst all three major parties advocated such a system, the differences between the parties came down to degree. I suspect you are right, that Robin is advocating higher tax rates for higher earners. I have to say that as a principle I don't disagree with this. Certainly when I was faced with a 60% income tax rate in the late 70s under Labour, I was delighted that I was earning enough to have to pay ithttp://www.politic.co.uk/images/icons/icon12.gif and it was in real terms a great deal less than today's £130,000 threshold. For instance I am wholly in favour of taking low earners out of the tax system (in the fullness of time rather higher than the £10000 proposed by the LibDems) , having a fair rate of tax paid by middle income earners, and a higher rate paid by higher earners. I do agree that to raise the latter level excessively runs the real danger of being counter productive. In reality the 50% tax rate will focus on the top end of PAYE payers, and not the truly wealthy who already have numerous tax mitigation 'tools' at their disposal, and are almost certainly able to limit their taxable income to whatever level makes economic sense, and utilise other more tax efficient structures to achieve their goals.

There's a very big difference between simply taking ever larger amounts of money from higher earners to improve education and social conditions in the way that various socialist governments have done (or should that be 'try to improve but have failed to'), to having a well thought out straight line tax with a high starting point which doesn't disincentivise anyone and relieves many more at the bottom end of the income scale from paying any tax at all, coupled with effective and efficient government management. This would have the same, or an even better, effect. I'd be quite happy to support the latter, but the former still reeks of soak the rich to give to the poor, or perhaps penalise the hard workers to subsidise the less so, with the government wasting billions in between the two.

I think we agree that the starting point for tax should be higher, although I don't agree with a single tax band from entry level to infinity. I think that would need to be set excessively high to produce the necessary returns, and this would be too onerous on the average wage earner. Personally I would like to see National Insurance combined with Income Tax, along with the introduction of other obvious and desirable simplifications which should result in greater efficiencies. My biggest gripe with the taxation system is its lack of efficiency and control, and the degree of waste of the taxes raised, not the tax rates themselves.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

What Don?
Your question was an impossible one to answer- deliberately constructed to make it clear that you believe the employer is a great person, and giving me no way to contradict you in such a narrow question.

Actually, you painted yourself into the corner, not me. You continuously rail against those you claim make profits at the expense of 'the people', and yet, at the same time; you depend on them for your living wage. Sounds like hypocrisy to me, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Don

You continuously rail against those you claim make profits at the expense of 'the people', and yet, at the same time; you depend on them for your living wage.

Would you say the same applies to pimps?

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

Would you say the same applies to pimps?

No. Most pimps it's been my unfortunate 'luck' to come in contact with have no aversion to a profit nor do their 'ladies'. Even if a pimp makes obscene profit from the effort of a hooker, and forces her to ply her wares; the analogy doesn't hold, as no one forces CS to continue working for his 'exploitative' employer. CS, in this case, isn't a hooker; he's merely a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Don

No. Most pimps it's been my unfortunate 'luck' to come in contact with have no aversion to a profit nor do their 'ladies'. Even if a pimp makes obscene profit from the effort of a hooker, and forces her to ply her wares; the analogy doesn't hold, as no one forces CS to continue working for his 'exploitative' employer. CS, in this case, isn't a hooker; he's merely a hypocrite.

Well CS has to work for somebody.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

Well CS has to work for somebody.

Is that some immutable rule that I missed along the way? He could try working for himself. He could try to set up a commune, he is a communist you know, with his like minded friends. No, he chooses to continue working for 'the man' and crying foul. Life is pretty much what we make it, and he has made his choice and needs to get on with it or change it, but stop crying about the 'injustice' he inflicts upon himself.

Originally Posted by Don

Is that some immutable rule that I missed along the way? He could try working for himself. He could try to set up a commune, he is a communist you know, with his like minded friends. No, he chooses to continue working for 'the man' and crying foul. Life is pretty much what we make it, and he has made his choice and needs to get on with it or change it, but stop crying about the 'injustice' he inflicts upon himself.

Well not everyone can be self-employed can they? It wouldn't really work would it.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

Well not everyone can be self-employed can they? It wouldn't really work would it.

Well, I'm not discussing 'everyone' now am I? I'm discussing CS, whom I like well enough, it's just the incessant whining hypocrisy, and failed ideology I object to. There's always the commune route, which requires effort and dedication, not whining.