Brand v Paxman

FoxEye said:
There's also people who have their priorities completely backwards. Can't eat properly but have an iPad and a smart TV...

Also people who start families with little or no means to support them (a trait that is certainly shared with 3rd world countries, no doubt).

The rich may well take far more than their 'fair share', but it should be possible for most in this country to live comfortably, if they live according to their means.

OTOH we really do need to reign in the whole 'greed is good' mentality, because for the essential things in life that should not be the guiding principle. Ie, house prices, gas & electric, etc. Rents should be capped; we should stop unscrupulous landlords leeching off the working underclasses, taking 50% or more of their earnings - something they can do because people need homes to live in.
Click to expand...

I share a common view with you I think. I'm convinced that a cap on rents or just some sort of regulation in this area at all (e.g. a limit on the mickey taking that goes on with regards to referencing fees, checks etc) would have done a lot more good than help to buy will since you won't end up with people fighting to buy up all the housing stock, and buy-to-let won't be such an appealing prospect when you can't charge over the odds for your property, whilst simultaneously taking advantage of tenants because of the lack of regulation in the sector.

I don't personally have a massive desire to own my own home, but when mortgages are cheaper than rents and you want to do more than live year-to-year between contract renewals and the inevitable price rises that go with that then begrudgingly paying over the odds for something too small and badly built is the least worst option.

I can't really blame people for taking part in rampant consumerism though since the message shoved down people's throats is buy stuff = more happy. It's a bit of escapism from an otherwise crap situation.
 
Last edited:
He has some valid points but points that have been said a million times.

He is this generations Billy Bragg.
 
[TW]Fox;25177443 said:
As a direct result of taxation laws? Do you have any more specific examples?
Click to expand...

Maybe taxation law wasnt the words I was looking for? The specific example being a single women loosing her minimum wage job (which shes had for many years) because of ill health she asks the government for help, they give her a very basic allowance of stat sick pay which is barely enough to live off (I mean she struggles to buy food and fuel etc) at this point the bedroom tax kicks in and shes £15 a week worse off. As a result the can no longer afford to pay the gas bill so has no heating.
 
Russell Brand intelligent? lol

The guy is a colossal moron. I'll rant about a political system that doesn't work having never voted in it. Well done there fella.
 
It wasn't really a rant though. He could give reasons why he had never voted, and he gave reasons why he felt the way he did. He presented his case for not voting and why he doesn't think the current political system is fit for purpose and personally I think he did a good job at getting those points across.

Unless you gain some sort of enlightenment and insight into the current system by voting then the opinion of someone who hasn't and doesn't vote is no less valid than that of someone who has voted at every opportunity they've been given. It's not like he's passing judgement on McDonald's food having never eaten it.
 
I enjoyed the interview.

I think a lot of people have the same reason for abstaining in elections. When was the last time anyone seen a non-millionaire in power in the UK out of interest?

If any old Joe Bloggs came up with some ideas and wanted to run for office how much would they need to do it (excluding "marketing")?
 
Democracy is just a way for people to express their own totalitarian views on a "fair" platform. (Often in politics, making concessions looks "weak". I find this peculiar.)

Take for example, if we had a autocracy run very well (in terms of percentage of happiness and livings standards) would anyone actually care that it is what it is and would we dismiss the stigma that comes with it?

Look at the NHS, great idea IMO. Kinda socialist? Not many are really bothered by it as it helps raise all living standards in many ways.
 
Last edited:
danoliver1 said:
Thats a very blinkered view, I personally know people who cant afford gas and electricity and live off very basic food stuffs as a direct result of this governments taxation laws. For people below the poverty line it might as well be. The only saving grace in this country is the NHS and even thats under attack from this government.

There are many systems in place to keep the poor poor and the rich rich i mean if everyone was rich who would do the *&^% jobs?
Click to expand...

The rich will always be rich, and it doesn't bother me - though perhaps they should be a mandate which enforces them to contribute towards certain charities or some sort of socialist "fund" to draw from for those that have hit rock bottom for a bit. However I agree that pure greed i.e. just making millions and millions with no return to society is selfish, however, slapping all these entrepreneurs, business moguls and successful companies because they dared to take a risk and earn a fortune should be encouraged, rather than accepting mediocrity.

Taxation laws are nothing to do with it, if you cannot earn enough you're not raped on tax and you get many allowances (child allowance, tax credits etc...). So there is a system in place to help those at the bottom of the income bracket.

The problem is that people expect to be spoon fed - prioritising needless luxuries over food and similar things, having children when they cannot afford them - yes everyone should be able to reproduce, but not at the detriment of everyone else around either, it's selfish. Unfortunately if you're not in a position to have a massive family, well then I'm afraid that should be it. The number of low income families that have 3+ children is also increasing. So we're sort of digging our own hole a little.

There will always be a skew in society. Now I do agree that we should all be able to live with regular food, heating and so on. However, not expect to have everything everyone else has.

The system ensuring people receiving their hand outs work to at least get experience and get used to working is important. Too many people are too proud to work what they consider "bottom end" jobs - if you take pride in everything you do no matter what, the more you end up achieving the better you feel and the more likely you are to work your way out of the slump. There is no mechanism in place to motivate people to get out of the house - people are lazy (everyone at every level) if they can get away with it.

Mr Joshua said:
Can you please tell me when is the point that people should be complaining? Is it when people start building huts constructed from straw and cow dung and until then these are just first world problems?
Click to expand...

I'm not against people complaining, I think there's a lot that needs to be fixed, but we are not in a 3rd world. Having been to places that are actually 3rd world, I felt just wearing trousers and a tshirt was rubbing their faces in it. Okay I accept there are people that cannot afford rents, energy supplies and so on, but at the same time we need to understand how they got in that situation and what they're doing about it? OF course there are mitigating circumstances such as redundancies, life altering injuries and so on and there should be mechanisms in place to help such people.

I think though, people expect too much for nothing, that's my issue.

I don't believe in a redistribution of wealth, but I do agree that a shake up would help. How? What? I don't know, but the utopian goal is not feasible, humans just do not interact in that way - it's good to escape to utopia from time to time, but living in it, is too restrictive, and not all people are equal. Some people want more.

I guess a sliding scale system is needed, but either way it'll take decades to change the direction of a country (not to say it's not worth starting), oil tankers do turn around, but they need a lot of effort and everyone working together. Getting that to happen in such an advanced society is a challenge. I welcome the change, as long as it is not aggressive towards the majority who are contributing and working hard in their lives, but also cooperative to those that need help.

The NHS is an institution that should never be removed ,but also, look at it, it's in disrepair, it needs help, it's haemorrhaging money and not looking like it's going to dig itself out of it's problem, I don't think it should be privatised, but at the same time, it really needs help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom