Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
No shit Sherlock. But some are and I think circa half your earnings in tax is enough.You're not handing over 47% of everything you earn.
No shit Sherlock. But some are and I think circa half your earnings in tax is enough.You're not handing over 47% of everything you earn.
What's Tory policy going to do for intelligent children with thick unengaged parents? I assume you have no interest in such kids but what's Tory policy? Give your answer with reference to the concept of meritocracy.
Yep - that is what is clearly missed in the need to rubbish all things not hard-leftthere are some very clever and good left wing posters on this thread and I enjoy reading their contribution unfortunately anybody who isn’t fully on the Corbyn bus is badged as a right wing racist. God forbid if you voted brexit as well - nazi !
I expect people think I am a right wing poster but I used to be a card carrying , door knocking member of the Labour Party, always voted labour , last time I voted it was Lib Dem’s and never voted last time ( no way could I vote for Theresa May or Corbyn ) and never ever voted Tory in my life but this time I am considering it ( even though I dislike Johnson)
It's irrelevant to the thread, I agree so will drop it. To be clear this was only raised because someone questioned why kids from a privileged background such as Eton and Oxford are disproportionately represented in certain sections of society. I provided a host of reasons.This is incorrect. Engaged parents can produce more successful children. Environment and levels of parental or extra tutorial engagement will be the key factors. The parental level of intelligence has no direct link to the intelligence level of their children. Poorer immigrant families often place a higher emphasis on education and academic success. Their level of intelligence plays no part in this. Their ability to instill a work ethic does.
For what it’s worth I would avoid the eugenics argument and I would also drop ‘rich equals successful’ reasoning given one can be successful without being rich.
I did not say they were not - you really should not stoop to the habit of others of twisting the words of posters to distract from inconvenient truths
I said:
"Corbyn and McDonnell are the biggest threat to the future of the UK" - a view held by many millions
It's irrelevant to the thread, I agree so will drop it. To be clear this was only raised because someone questioned why kids from a privileged background such as Eton and Oxford are disproportionate represented in certain sections of society. I provided a host of reasons.
Why do you assume my defence of "the rich" is about me? It isn't.What tax bracket are you in that means you're handing over 47%
In terms of seats won, I think she's almost bound to be the most successful Lib Dem (/SDP/Liberal etc) leader in decades, and will be treated as a hero by her party. And she will very possibly weald a lot of power in the next parliament. I'd be staggered if this proves not to be the case.
Because you're absolutely obsessed with tax policies to do with the rich?Why do you assume my defence of "the rich" is about me? It isn't.
Yep - that is what is clearly missed in the need to rubbish all things not hard-left
I come from Manchester - I consider myself a naturally Labour voting person - I think that Johnson is an utter buffoon and have little time for him
But the attitudes of some on here make me think that I should be wearing some kind of emblem or ringing a bell - that is how intolerant the forum is towards what are in reality normal and balanced people that just happen to not share the same doctrine