Ignore the hysterical reaction to the tax on Cypriots’ bank deposits. This is a practical, fair solution to a complex problem.
Yes, well, thieves would say that, wouldn’t they?
There are several principles at stake in the row over Cyprus and its bailout. But one we should ignore is the hysterical reaction to a tax on bank deposits. It is a wealth tax – and about time too.
No, it is theft. Taking someone’s money – because you can and because it is convenient to you – is still theft no matter how you dress it up. And, are all of those depositors in Cypriot banks “rich”? Or are they, like most depositors in banks worldwide, just ordinary folk depositing their savings – savings that have already been taxed at source.
Ah, but, because the politicians and the banks between them have fucked up the economy and run out of the readies they so desperately need to prop themselves up in the manner to which they have become accustomed, they want to steal money from the hardworking small investor and get their lackeys in the Guardian to call it a wealth tax.
No. It is not a wealth tax. Let’s be plain and call it what it really is; theft, stealing, embezzlement, larceny and purloining. Whatever it is, it is not legitimate and if I had money in a Cypriot bank, I’d be down the cashpoint taking it all out pronto, too.
As for the fucking evil little shits in the Guardian cheerleading this behaviour on, they are scum, utter utter scum.
I agree entirely, well said
A “wealth tax” that comes to a screeching halt at anything over 100 grand. 🙄
As an ordinary working English pleb, The government steals half of everything that I earn so what’s new? Having said that, I agree absolutely with this post. I think that the difference between this situation and mine is that here the theft is just so open, in broad daylight so to speak. The bandstands just have no shame.
Oddly I am now reminded of the UK MPs expenses scandal. It seems that a couple of the worst offenders were thrown under the bus in order to satisfy the justified anger of the baying mob and then it was back to business as usual.
I agree too.
PS. Why I was some 2-3 days ago in the black list here? Like a spammer or smth., I did not get in (I only want to read, long time ago left a comment).
So I’m not sure I ever get here back, just that you know.
Your blog is still (and will be) in my other text-based blog (not Panda’s blog but lauapealne07) blogroll – for my readers.
“The Evil of the Guardianista”, eh? Because all readers of the Guardian would automatically agree with confiscating funds from savers accounts. You don’t half post some shite sometimes.
I think it’s pretty clear to anyone with a brain that the ‘Guardianista’ referred to is the columnist.
Though it should be noted that there’s a fair few commenters who agree.
Your penchant for the strawman never ceases to amaze and entertain. Please do point out precisely where I stated that “…all readers of the Guardian would automatically agree with confiscating funds from savers accounts”.
Take your time…
I’ve got all day…
Ironically, this time, we CAN ‘blame the bankers’…
Yeah, those evil Guardian shits. They just hate people with money, the bastards. They won’t print any alternative views in COMMENT IS FREE section because they are bastards, the bastards.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/18/cyprus-savings-raid-bank-robbery
Oh! 🙄
My, oh my, another stupid strawman. Please point out where I said, precisely, that they do not print alternative viewpoints.
Take your time…
I’ve got all day…
“The Evil of the Guardianista”
“….get their lackeys in the Guardian to call it a wealth tax.”
“…the fucking evil little shits in the Guardian cheerleading this behaviour on, they are scum, utter utter scum.”
No. It. Does. Not.
Those statements say what they say. Nothing more, nothing less. They do not – absolutely do not – say what you would like them to say no matter how much you try.
Given that you clearly cannot respond sensibly to my question – because the answer is as plain as the nose on your face; I have not said what you are claiming that I said, I’m not wasting any more time on fucking puerile logical fallacies.
As a general note – any more strawmen on this or any other thread will be summarily binned.
I think your complaint should be with that particular commentator’s opinion and not the publication.
My point is that it is not ‘the evil’ of the ‘Guardianista’ (or the ‘fucking evil little shits in the Guardian’ if you prefer) but you chose a part of a single piece from section of the Guardian website that is available for contributions from commentators that specifically exists to allow people to make their views pubic.
While CiF is edited it is hard to see that it is as biased as you seem to imagine, especially when the very piece you cite has a link to an entirely contrary view on the same page!
My complaint was with the author. However, if I wanted to see cheerleading for this theft, the Groan would be the first place I would expect to see it and sure enough, I was not disappointed.
Nowhere have I suggested, stated or implied that there are not contrary views published. The bias, however, is obvious to even the most cursory of glances. This article is entirely typical of what we can expect from the Guardian.
How is it a wealth tax when someone with savings of just E100 would lose E6.75 of it? (Can’t be bothered remembering the Euro shortcut)