Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Charlotte W - I object to my comments being referred to as "witticisms" !


I was not trying to be funny at all. My points were serious - as serious as they could possibly be, given what you'd written.


You were proposing that people who've made a Billion should be despised.

But with no other reason given than they have more money than you.

So half a Billion and they're in the clear from our hatred ? If they just get HALF a Billion do we, you know, sort of half-hate them ?


Your premise seems weak and unjust. Perhaps like a 15yr old's idealistic view.


Most Billionaires I'm sure have worked at it.


Mainly you get what you work for.


If you're peeved that you're not richer, there may still be time for you to climb the ladder and make something of yourself. Then you can give it all away as you've suggested you would.


But, I was NOT being "witty" !

LOZ

I thought ?money/assets? your words, were wealth which is why I used the word in my response to your original post. If we can send men to the moon, put up satellites to spy on people and build the internet, I don't think it is beyond our ability to find a way to divide up the world's wealth. Unlike you I don't believe that if the world's wealth was distributed equally things would be in 10 years? time roughly the same as they are now. The reason is that many people who suddenly come into a fortune one of the first things they do is buy a home. They may then proceed to buy a car, go on holiday or go travelling, pay for a higher education etc. If everyone received ?30,000 that would give most people the opportunity to buy their own home and what is wrong with that? While ?30,000 may be a considerable sum it is not going to last a lifetime so people would still have to work.



So how would you define wealth then, if not money/assets?


So you think that it is quite possible for someone to think up a way to divide the world's assets evenly, but have no real ideas on how to do it yourself? Nor any thought about the problems such an approach would hit?


You've not really thought this one through, have you?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The Sky article says the manager has apologised. Apparently, according to the article the person who said they'd apply on Rachel and her husband behalf left and didn't hand the job on. Here's the article https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-reeves-rent-mistake-labour-starmer-asylum-budget-tax-farage-reform-12593360?postid=10440668#liveblog-body
    • Or another thing journalists could do if they wanted to is unearth how many reform or Tory MPs are landlords with similar or worse errors   
    • I'm utterly baffled as to why anybody thinks this is newsworthy, let alone worth a front page. The economy has barely grown for 20 years and the housing crisis has been worsening for a similar time period. Note to any journalists on the forum: maybe focus your headlines on important issues.
    • Two wrongs might not make a right. But the two wrongs could at least be of equal value before we get too judgey    paying an estate agent to deal with all of the admin on my to have the estate agent not point out all of the admin  vs Deliberately hacking into an MPs email. And boasting about it (Badenoch)    as for throwing a local estate agent under the bus, when did local estate agents become the good guys?   doesn’t sound like estate agents are being thrown under a bus - they are fessing up. And Reeves doesn’t look to have done anything wrong  yet people will still believe the worst anyway    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/30/rachel-reeves-row-standards-adviser-looking-at-new-infomation?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...