Freeloaders

[Flyboy]

5 hours ago, Goliath said:

No, if you can't see or understand  inequality then I don't see the point of     expanding  

It was in reference to MTB's comment on drawing straws, quite obvious to anyone. 

I'm no closet socialist. 

 And I'll ignore the rest of the dribble you wrote. 

 

To add, because you willprobably misunderstand. (Given your recent record) When I say I am no closet socialist, I mean I am open about being a socialist

What recent record would that be then ? Once again you come out with a rash statement but you don't qualify it.

[Flyboy]

4 hours ago, Goliath said:

I don't want their job, (if it is a job). 

I'm not envious, far from it. 

 

You wouldn't be considered for their job, as being an itinerant would not be part of the job description.

[MtB]

On 16/12/2017 at 17:52, Goliath said:

Well, they should at least have to perform at xmas pantomime, they have the costumes.   

And NO, again, I am NOT a CLOSET lefty. Just a lefty, a socialist, I like to see fairness, which may make me unrealistic to some. 

 

Yes inequality is a Bad Thing, or is it just inequality of opportunity that is bad? 

The thing that bothers me about your condemnation of the participants of the Royal Wedding is that there are victims of inequality at both ends of the scale. Do you blame the victims at the bottom end too?

I think blaming the system would be morally defensible, not the products of it.

Phew. Finally figured out why I found your OP somewhat distasteful.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman

[bizzard]

I  thought the Royle family were quite poor.

Edited December 16, 2017 by bizzard

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

9 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes inequality is a Bad Thing, or is it just inequality of opportunity that is bad? 

The thing that bothers me about your condemnation of the participants of the Royal Wedding is that there are victims of inequality at both ends of the scale. Do you blame the victims at the bottom end too?

I think blaming the system would be morally defensible, not the products of it.

 

13 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes inequality is a Bad Thing, or is it just inequality of opportunity that is bad? 

The thing that bothers me about your condemnation of the participants of the Royal Wedding is that there are victims of inequality at both ends of the scale. Do you blame the victims at the bottom end too?

I think blaming the system would be morally defensible, not the products of it.

If I could make sense of what you said, I might try to answer. (And I thought I talked  shyte.)

I put a smiley, for the mods, just to show it's meant with humour. 

[bizzard]

10 minutes ago, bizzard said:

I  thought the Royle family were quite poor.

They were, I think freeloaders though. Jim Royle just slobbed in his chair watching telly all the time, wearing RLWP's old striped T shirt.

[Flyboy]

9 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

If I could make sense of what you said, I might try to answer. (And I thought I talked  shyte.)

I put a smiley, for the mods, just to show it's meant with humour. 

At last, a correct statement from you.

[MtB]

On 16/12/2017 at 23:30, Goliath said:

 

If I could make sense of what you said, I might try to answer. (And I thought I talked  shyte.)

I put a smiley, for the mods, just to show it's meant with humour. 

 

Two points arise:

1) Everything I wrote still makes perfect sense to me and I've only had one bottle of Thatchers Vintage 7.4%.

2) Back in the summer DMR and I elected you a fully paid up member of the Talking Shyte Club we started, after three bottles of Thatchers Vintage 7.4% each. Did we forget to tell you?

3) A smiley back

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

At last, a correct statement from you.

Happy to oblige. Keep watching from the wings. 

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Two points arise:

1) Everything I wrote still makes perfect sense to me and I've only had one bottle of Thatchers Vintage 7.4%.

2) Back in the summer DMR and I elected you a fully paid up member of the Talking Shyte Club we started, after three bottles of Thatchers Vintage 7.4% each. Did we forget to tell you?

3) A smiley back

keep it up, you'll soon be known as MBE  

[bizzard]

17 minutes ago, bizzard said:

They were, I think freeloaders though. Jim Royle just slobbed in his chair watching telly all the time, wearing RLWP's old striped T shirt.

I think Dave went out to work though.

 

8 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Happy to oblige. Keep watching from the wings. 

keep it up, you'll soon be known as MBE  

 

[X Alan W]

14 hours ago, Athy said:

I reckon they should be made to serve in the armed forces, that would toughen the so-and-so's up.

 

In thought 3 of offspring  & grand offspring did. Andrew "Falklands" Willie RAF search & rescue & the guy in question Army " helicopters better than a #of Republican countries whose leading lights were draft dodgers

Edited December 17, 2017 by X Alan W

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, X Alan W said:

I thought 3 of offspring  & grand offspring did. Andrew "Falklands" Willie RAF search & rescue & the guy in question Army " helicopters better than a #of Republican countries whose leading lights were draft dodgers

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

[Chas78]

Illegal Immigrants

[Arthur Marshall]

I don't think the problem lies so much with the royals, waste of space & money though I personally consider them to be.  The real problem is the rather creepy fawning attitude of anyone who comes into contact with them, which contributes to the impression that they are better nor the rest of us simply by being born.

It's an attitude that trickles down to public school bods and people with sir or lord in their names, who because of this end up running stuff that they have no ability for - both companies and countries, which explains a lot.  You see it when there's a royal visit - I remember York painting the bridges she was likely to cross while the rest of the city crumbled.

And of course they're freeloaders - they live on state benefits same as them what's on the dole, except they don't seem to get them stopped for noncompliance very often, and they never seem to have to apply for jobs.  I'm afraid walking round, saying hello to people and shaking hands doesn't count - I do it all the time but no-one seems to want to pay me for it.

[KevMc]

25 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I don't think the problem lies so much with the royals, waste of space & money though I personally consider them to be.  The real problem is the rather creepy fawning attitude of anyone who comes into contact with them, which contributes to the impression that they are better nor the rest of us simply by being born.

It's an attitude that trickles down to public school bods and people with sir or lord in their names, who because of this end up running stuff that they have no ability for - both companies and countries, which explains a lot.  You see it when there's a royal visit - I remember York painting the bridges she was likely to cross while the rest of the city crumbled.

And of course they're freeloaders - they live on state benefits same as them what's on the dole, except they don't seem to get them stopped for noncompliance very often, and they never seem to have to apply for jobs.  I'm afraid walking round, saying hello to people and shaking hands doesn't count - I do it all the time but no-one seems to want to pay me for it.

This has been covered several time but bears repeating. The so called handout to the royal family is in fact a refund from the 100% tax rate applied to all income from the crown estates which goes straight to the treasury. About £320m from Crown Estates in 2016/17 as opposed to approx £43m paid to the Royal Family

[CV32]

Actually, they are exempt from tax but choose to make a 'contribution' of which we are not allowed to be informed - certainly says to me that if they were paying a fair share it would not be a secret !

The Crown has a legal tax-exempt status because certain acts of parliament do not apply to it. Crown bodies such as The Duchy of Lancaster are not subject to legislation concerning income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. Furthermore, the Sovereign has no legal liability to pay such taxes. The Duchy of Cornwall has a Crown exemption and the Prince of Wales is not legally liable to pay income tax on Duchy revenues.

A "Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation" was published on 5 February 1993 and amended in 1996, 2009 and 2013. It is intended that the arrangements in the memorandum will be followed by the next monarch. The memorandum describes the arrangements by which The Queen and The Prince of Wales make voluntary payments to the HM Revenue and Customs in lieu of tax to compensate for their tax exemption. The details of the payments are private. The Queen voluntarily pays a sum equivalent to income tax on her private income and income from the Privy Purse (which includes the Duchy of Lancaster) that is not used for official purposes. The Sovereign Grant is exempted. A sum equivalent to capital gains tax is voluntarily paid on any gains from the disposal of private assets made after 5 April 1993. Many of the Sovereign's assets were acquired earlier than this date but payment is only made on the gains made afterwards. Arrangements also exist for a sum in lieu of inheritance tax to be voluntarily paid on some of the Queen's private assets. Property passing from monarch to monarch is exempted, as is property passing from the consort of a former monarch to the current monarch.^[31]

[Sea Dog]

On 16/12/2017 at 17:13, Goliath said:

Do I need to explain I ain't a Royalist?  

No, lots of other folk aren't either, but I really don't really get why that means you need to pee in other people's cornflakes. The Royal Family isn't exactly reducing your net worth by anything so why not live and let live?  Socialism doesn't have to mean "equal misery for all" you know.

[pete.i]

What I don't understand is why you people, including a "moderator", insist on feeding an obvious troll. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

If you're referring to me, the OP, I wasn't trolling. 

I read here, there and everywhere, how folk are getting stuff for nothing and 'freeloaading'. So, I was readdressing the balance and  pointing towards the obvious. 

The obvious is that while lower classes are paying their way and are encouraged into austerity there's a privileged class smiling. 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

No, lots of other folk aren't either, but I really don't really get why that means you need to pee in other people's cornflakes. The Royal Family isn't exactly reducing your net worth by anything so why not live and let live?  Socialism doesn't have to mean "equal misery for all" you know.

I'm sorry if I've put a downer on your celebrations, it was never my intention. Please enjoy and wave a flag  

I do live and let live, probably more than most. More than a society that thinks it's ok to sweep the streets of down and outs in advance of a royal wedding. 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Have skim reread the thread and haven't found any support for the royal family. Any reason, (other than Dmr's), is either an appeal for sympathy for them being born privileged  or an attack on me being an itinerant. 

I can't offer an alernative to having a King or Queen as head of state, but... come on, should we forever be so humble ?

[Sea Dog]

54 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I'm sorry if I've put a downer on your celebrations, it was never my intention. Please enjoy and wave a flag  

I do live and let live, probably more than most. More than a society that thinks it's ok to sweep the streets of down and outs in advance of a royal wedding. 

 

You misunderstand me. I'm ambivalent about the wedding, so they don't really qualify as "my" celebrations and I won't be waving a flag.  Nevertheless, it will bring a day of joy to millions, probably a majority of the population, and I'm all for that.  I'm also all for days of joy for minorities or individuals as long as it doesn't impinge on the happiness and well-being of others. 

Your original post suggests that you believe it's OK to spoil things for others or to pour scorn on their joy in favour of your own personal dislikes and/or political ideals. I don't see that chiming well with a live and let live approach. 

Still, eh, we all like boats!

 

 

 

[Flyboy]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

Have skim reread the thread and haven't found any support for the royal family. Any reason, (other than Dmr's), is either an appeal for sympathy for them being born privileged  or an attack on me being an itinerant. 

I can't offer an alernative to having a King or Queen as head of state, but... come on, should we forever be so humble ?

You describe yourself as an itinerant ( = freeloader) and then you have the audacity to accuse the royals of being the same. If you really want a crusade against freeloaders I suggest you have a go at pop singers, footballers,  union leaders, politicians ( inc the left wing ones) and others that stash their money in far off lands and pay no tax. These are the real freeloaders. I personally think the royals are damn good value at 53p /week/ per head of population..

Edited February 19, 2018 by Flyboy

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

58 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

You describe yourself as an itinerant ( = freeloader) and then you have the audacity to accuse the royals of being the same. If you really want a crusade against freeloaders I suggest you have a go at pop singers, footballers,  union leaders, politicians ( inc the left wing ones) and others that stash their money in far off lands and pay no tax. These are the real freeloaders. I personally think the royals are damn good value at 53p /week/ per head of population..

I'll make my way and pay my tax as I travel.

Musicians and artists make a sack load of money for the country. 

Footballers make a sack full too. 

The Royal Family choose their rate of pay to the taxman. 

Flyboy: sorry if I've hit a nerve. 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Goliath
Trying to be polite.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Flyboy said:

You describe yourself as an itinerant ( = freeloader) and then you have the audacity to accuse the royals of being the same. If you really want a crusade against freeloaders I suggest you have a go at pop singers, footballers,  union leaders, politicians ( inc the left wing ones) and others that stash their money in far off lands and pay no tax. These are the real freeloaders. I personally think the royals are damn good value at 53p /week/ per head of population..

53p? Where do find that sum?

lets redistribute it?