Jump to content

Trying to buy a Lamborghini for under ?250K in East Dulwich is near impossible


Recommended Posts

It's a scandal. All those Barclays bankers (choose your own rhyming slang) who want to spend last year's bonus on a nice car and not a Lamborghini showroom in sight in ED. Please do your best to persuade them not to leave the country to buy one for under ?250k - we need their skills so much.

No, it won't affect my finances.


And that's just the kind of special pleading used by the finance industry to justify ginormous bonuses. This led in due course to the crash of 2008 and the mess that the world is in today.


A bit more investment in industry than in the glorified gambling trade that is the finance industry would make a helluva difference

Don't bother Loz, people just don't get it London was knocked off the perch as the primary global financial centre earlier this year to New York, it's draining away. People seem to think we can lose all of this without any harm to the economy, tax revenues, public services, they have no grasp of the fundamentals of economics, at all. Depressing. Most of Gordon Brown's spending flourish post 2000 was on the back of City Taxation if we want to get rid of it fine they say ....but that means similar 'trims' to the Public Sector on top of the cuts already witnessed. Good luck with that....


And, no, for the millionth time I don't work in the City or FS or in a any related support area - Management consultancy, accountancy, Legal, high end restaurants, etc etc....

Rather than further massive benefit cuts, how about raising taxes, especially the top rate of tax, plus a property tax as we had until the 60s?


Q: Who was the PM who presided over a 60% top rate of tax for most of the 1980s.


A. Not Harold Wilson, not Jim Callaghan - but that famous socialist Margaret Thatcher.


If it was good enough for Thatcher (as was a nationalised British Rail), then true Tories should embrace this with open arms.


And good riddance to the RBS bankers. They wrecked the economy and it was the Government who had to bail them out. People who claim benefits are "scroungers" but banks who demand massive hand outs from the Government of course aren't. Or are they?


And I do know something about economics. However, unlike so many economists these days, I'm not a monetarist but more of a Keynesian, a philosophy which is coming back into fashion at long last.

Yup, higher top rate of tax is going really well for France. That's where you can look to for how well those policies work (and what ed Balls suggested)........even Ed Milliband keeps stum about France and his support for Hollande now.

France is not the only country with higher taxation. Scandinavian countries have had high taxation, and much better social services, for decades, without the massive inequalities of wealth than we have. But of course if we had followed the Norwegian example of investing our North Sea oil revenue in retooling industry rather than squandering it on enormous tax cuts, then we might be in a better position now.


It's not too late for us to become more like a Scandinavian country. It would however help if we stopped spending so much money on defence and stopped kidding ourselves that the British Empire still exists. This regrettably seems unlike whoever is in government after 2015.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> France is not the only country with higher

> taxation. Scandinavian countries have had high

> taxation, and much better social services, for

> decades, without the massive inequalities of

> wealth than we have. But of course if we had

> followed the Norwegian example of investing our

> North Sea oil revenue in retooling industry rather

> than squandering it on enormous tax cuts, then we

> might be in a better position now.

>

> It's not too late for us to become more like a

> Scandinavian country. It would however help if we

> stopped spending so much money on defence and

> stopped kidding ourselves that the British Empire

> still exists. This regrettably seems unlike

> whoever is in government after 2015.


And last time I checked, Oslo and Stockholm weren't financial centres either. Yet somehow they cope....



It gambles with its money, rips off its shareholders by paying excessive bonuses and provides lousy service to its customers. And if we are really unlucky, the government has to bale them out when they go bust.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy - Copenhagen is no more expensive than London for eating out.


Denmark has never been that bad, price-wise. Sweden and Norway, on the other hand, are eye-wateringly expensive.


All the Swedes head to Copenhagen for 'cheap' weekend benders. Thus the Danish joke, "What do you call a drunk person lying on the Str?get?"


"Swedish"

Was kind of a throwaway comment... cost of living is high in all those countries. But GDPPC also much higher. I'm not at all against higher tax if it results in a more equitable society, higher living standards, better public services, etc. But would question whether it's possible to emulate that style of economy within the EU.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> And, no, for the millionth time I don't work in

> the City or FS or in a any related support area -

> Management consultancy, accountancy, Legal, high

> end restaurants, etc etc....


Out of interest and because you seem to have a measured view on all this, what is your back ground ?

Economics is obviously a strong point. Though I'm not asking tooth and claw detail here, just a sketch


Just interested in how people form their views and opinions

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

    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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