saint si

Of course I wouldn't be happy to sell my house under market value. But we're not talking about me, we're talking about the state. And one of the functions of the state is to redistribute wealth from the more fortunate ("the rich") to the less fortunate ("the poor"). Nobody in any party really disagrees with this (no matter what people think about the Tories!) - the only questions that are really up for grabs are "how?", and "how much?". Is it also "stealing" that the government coerces with my employer to forcibly take thousands of pounds of my money from me annually and then just gives it away to other people who I have never even met?! What about the controlled rent on council houses? By your argument, asking for tenants to pay rent below the market rate is also short changing the tax payer. Regardless of the other rights and wrongs of right-to-buy (and there are some quite interesting arguments and points in this thread beneath all the mud slinging) selling state-owned property at a discounted rate to tenants (who are on average going to be some of society's less well-off) is LITERALLY a redistribution of wealth.

To help out a little ... http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/12/right-to-buy-housing-scandal http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25710150 http://tomcopley.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/From-Right-to-Buy-to-Buy-to-Let-Jan-2014.pdf Whether London is representative of UK at large on this, I've no idea.

Hmmm, replying on basis of simple word recognition instead of actually comprehending what's being said.... are you Siri?

I'm a bit surprised to see people characterising right-to-buy as stealing from the taxpayer, in order to give to those living in council houses. It's practically the very definition of wealth redistribution.

Try to relax and enjoy it from the very first corner. If you worry too much about crashing the extremely expensive hunk of metal/carbon fibre that you're piloting then you'll find your laps have finished before you really get warmed up.

Ok, so you've gone from defending guns (I don't agree, but I do at least understand the self defence argument... although not the point of the 2nd amendment) to now outright defending murder because the victim tried to run away from a cop. Mental.

Before the summer was probably best known in England for this match... In fact, both Koemans were playing. And also until today I had no idea that Van Gobbel also played in that match (last minute sub): http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-koeman-leaves-england-in-tatters-referee-condemned-as-ronald-koeman-escapes-red-card-to-break-brave-resistance-with-deft-freekick-1510736.html

Jay Rod to make his return from injury at the Etihad, coming off the bench to score the winning goal that secures 4th spot...

Running away - a crime punishable by death.

If you can't get what you want from the devs, then you should smash their stuff up.

Well one is a highly competitive marketplace for commodity products, with minimal barriers to switching (other than laziness, frankly). The other isn't ... fixed term franchise agreements (monopolies) with safeguards on prices controlled by a regulator. Still agree though that the regulator should be left to do its job.

Yes, riots exclusively happen under Conservative / coalition governments. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/1/newsid_2480000/2480215.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Oldham_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Birmingham_riots

Not the purpose of the nuclear deterrent as you well know

Can't be bothered to go and check every post, but i really don't think most posts are outright bashing the US. The focus of the argument is - in the main - on the specific reluctance to even consider a different approach to firearms... or that there is even a problem to address in the first place. Throwing news articles around is just a blunt instrument to demonstrate that there is an issue there.

The difference, of course, is that if you take away the anecdotes, then the statistics are clear and unequivocal. Which is of course where the thread started out. Anyway, how's this for responsible gun ownership: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/07/nine-year-old-shot-by-family-member-on-easter/

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-always-carries-gun-in-case-he-needs-to-escalat,38374/

In absolute terms, perhaps. As a percentage of GDP, the budget deficit is falling and the national debt is levelling off.

Nice ad hominem. No trap intended - but I am surprised to hear someone on "the left" say both that (1) higher rate tax payers are paying enough and (2) that it would be possible to reduce public spending in any significant/useful way. Actually quite refreshing and probably shows that the simplistic left vs right view is just skating over the surface of the more nuanced debate that is really required.

So you're in favour of cutting overall public spending?

Yep - adds an effective 20% (or 22.5% for the highest rate payers) to the marginal tax rate between £100k and £120k. So that £20k of income is actually being taxed at 60%.

http://newsthump.com/2015/03/31/john-barnes-urged-to-consider-the-possibility-hes-just-not-very-good-at-managing/

Ah I see what you're saying ... death by police shootings per sq km is a more useful metric than death by police shootings per capita? Glad that's cleared up.

Quite. Part of Labour's 1997 campaign was a pledge to re-nationalise the railways...

Small regional to "us"? Presumably you are referring to Canada, where you live, and which has a little over half the population of the UK? I won't bother to Google IPCC on your behalf.

Are they trying to entice Wayne Rooney or something?