It was in interest of the UK that this new tax wouldn't be forcibly imposed by the EU. If we wanted this law, surely we could have passed it through our own parliament and if it doesn't work for our particular country then we can equally as fast take away that law. - If it shows it effects our economy in a bad way. Since UK's economic interest in the banking sector is by far the largest in the European Union. It would effect us more than any other nation. There is a difference between regulating our banks and crippling them. Cameron and the Chancellor thought that this plan was not in the interest of the UK since it would cripple our banks as opposed to getting then on their feet again. Which they are already growing, there is no need to change something which is working, after new regulation. Adding more regulation might disturb the growth which is occurring again in the service sector.
Why? How can couple of thousands people getting higher bonus will effect the live of people in UK with exception of high end restaurant owners, hookers and luxury car dealers? Actually it doesn´t effect even them since they will make enough anyway to purchase all those things with or without the extra tax. Please don´t tell me with the tax all people in banking sector will move to other places like china, there is not a big market in the world for their half A*s qualification that bankrupted the whole banking sector.
I do "get" that you believe what you're saying. I think one difference between us, is that I believe abusing political office for unwarranted personal gain would be the exception, not the rule. The group in society (in the US) they represent, is often one of the two major parties -- Republican or Democrat. They don't always adhere completely to the party philosophy, but by and large, a Republican politician is going to do everything they can to keep Republican voters happy. Same with Democrats. Obviously, they have different ideas about what is in the best interest of our country. Still, they each represent a large percentage of our population. I don't think they do it for the money. If that were the case, being a CEO of a company would probably be way more lucrative.
And you live in USA? Can you please name couple of honest politicans in national level? LOL. LOL. When was the last time changing from Republican president to a Democrat changed anything? You didn´t answer my question, Iraq war made 500,000,000 dollars /day extra profit for oil companies and military complex made a huge cash pile, how is it going for you and majority of Americans, are you enjoying the high gas prices at the pump? How about your satisfaction with depression and your property becoming worthless? I am sure you will be extra happy when you reach 70 and won´t have any retirement and all because the politicans have your best interest at heart. He is not qualified and believe me what he makes later on is much more than a CEO will ever dream of.
It's not that I'm saying politicians are all so honest. It's that I disagree with your saying they're all committing criminal acts, basically lacking any positive intent for good, and only motivated by personal financial gain. There is a difference. I remember even Ron Paul making a factually incorrect claim. He had to know better, all I can assume was that it was a jab at the current administration. A bit dishonest at that, and unusual for Paul. I still respect many of his positions. It's not that I'm here to support Cameron, actually I don't follow UK politics that much. Although, I have watched some speeches by Nigel Farage. The bottom line is that the UK should decide what is best for the UK , not the EU. I think you missed the point. Here, you said: And, I said... So, my point was, even if a Republican or Democrat mainly focus on what is best for the party they represent, they are still representing the interests of a large portion of the population. But anyway, a few differences in views is regulation of business, size of government, social welfare programs, taxes... He? Are you talking any politician, or do you have a particular person in mind? Generally, I think someone that is a leader of a country would probably be qualified to be a leader of a company.
Nobody can open the eyes of the person who wants to keep them shut. It seems to me that you feel comfort in your naivety and cannot handle the truth that there is no more national governments who have the best interest of the country at heart. You refuse to answer my question because it shatters your pink glasses that you look at world with. It is going very well for the oil industry, military complex and bankers and they have all the time record profits, how is it going for majority of Americans? Are you enjoying high gas prices at pump, worthless properties, depression, high unemployment and no retirement when you reach 70?
I know you believe that, I don't. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. Fine. Whatever. As far as it going well for the oil industry, we get the largest amount of oil from Canada. I wish them well, but also dislike using sources of oil outside the US. But certainly, they deserve to make a profit. Anyway, gas prices are not actually that high. Currently, I pay $3.40 a gallon. Not a big deal. With the military, I think our budget for spending is somewhere around 6 billion a year. With the banks, I would estimate at least half of us supported the bailout. I didn't. Although they've paid most of it back. I'm not particularly angry at anyone, including banks. I believe in some regulation. My property isn't worthless. It's worth less, but it's my home, and I'm very happy I bought it. No depression. We do have higher unemployment. I think normally it's 5%, and now it's 10%. I have personal experience with this. I lost my job last April, and collected unemployment checks for 3 months (It was a bit scary, but still, enjoyable vacation) . I ended up finding a much higher paying job than I had. Who are you to say they'll be no retirement? You don't know that. Just another Gworld "fact." LOL. Now, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Close Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion Military Personnel $154.2 billion Procurement $140.1 billion Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion Military Construction $23.9 billion Family Housing $3.1 billion Total Spending 683.7 billion
It is ok, she is only wrong with the factor of 100. A quite expensive mercenary force that only serves few corporations while the bill is paid by the whole country.
That's why I prefaced that particular statement with "I think" rather than stating it as a fact. I had thought it was around 6 billion, but wasn't sure. I didn't feel like checking. Admittedly, I probably should have. I figured it would be a waste of time to answer your question in detail, knowing you would just try to find one word or one sentence out of the whole thing to respond to. I was right about that. As far as, "You refuse to answer my question because it shatters your pink glasses that you look at world with." I've answered the question. Pink glasses are still intact. You might want to look into getting a new prescription. And, I think you're kind of child-like in that you tend to over-simplify, and make these dramatic statements. You still haven't proven "there is no more national governments who have the best interest of the country at heart." To say the US military is a mercenary force existing just to serve a few corporations is ridiculous. You would be able to list some examples of corruption in the military, but again, I would say it's the exception rather than the rule. Anyway, I probably won't carry on with this, to much to do before the New Year.