Quote:
Originally Posted by macafee2
Hang on and in case you are not joking, on another thread you want the rich to subsidise the poor. Here you want to give the "rich" those with a job and perhaps in the top 5% free public transport and the poor, those without a job? have to pay. You also want to keep the rich oap's at home so they dont go anywhere and spend their money and so the poor and may be rich alike lose their jobs? 
macafee2 |
yes of course, the top 5, and those with a job, need to get to work, so they must be prioritised, cannot get more prioritised than get preferential free transport. The top 5 are so important, they get more preference. Perhaps a bus stop place closer to their homes, you cannot have them wasting time walking to a bus stop ...........
I think you missed the point about the rich OAPs. They should give up their homes. They bought them cheap enough, and are now currently not paying for them, its only fair they should give them up to the younger working generation. Especially those top 5 working near the city. Why should those important folk in the top 5 have to waste yet more of their time travelling into the city, when they could live in a house close to the city that has gone from 3 and 6 in 1969 to 5 million. I mean no one wants to spend that kind of money on a two up two down terrace.
Mine and MSS posts were meant to be cynical, ridiculously humourous (well mine were, I reckon, secretly he was genuinely hopeful he could use it as a sounding board for his manifesto to run for prime minister before abolishing the monarchy, reestablishing it just before installing himself as king. But he wont be laughing when he realises he has to heat that slightly bigger bloomin palace than he already has
)