bunfight
-
Posts
135 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by bunfight
-
-
4 minutes ago, MilkyJoe said:
Genius!
Yes. It was when Richard madeley first said it as well.
-
1 minute ago, russycarps said:
but what is patronising about it?
do you know what patronising means?
Are you Richard Madeley?
-
2 minutes ago, russycarps said:
No, but even if it was, who funds the council?
A rich man feeling patronised on behalf of poor people receiving subsidies. You couldnt make it up.
I don't speak on behalf of anyone. Doesn't stop you really suggestion being obviously patronising. This is a direct subsidy in effect: person A camps next to person B having paid £100 of his ticket price because his income is higher. And that doesn't even begin to deal with the issue that income is only a part of someone's wealth. You can live in a castle and have no income or live in a slum on a million a year. Or you can sponge off your parents. What about drug dealers? Their P60 might say their income was tuppence ha'penny but they might roll up in a 100k motor home for the week having had their ticket subsidised by a junior doctor. I'm not disagreeing that we should look out for each other, just that your suggestion is absolute nonsense.
-
1 minute ago, russycarps said:
Who do you think is subsidising the cut price theatre tickets for the unemployed?
The council usually.
-
1 minute ago, SteveTLizard said:
By that argument, is it not patronising that the more well off in society pay more for shared services, such as the NHS, than the less well off?
Of course not. Your relationship with the taxman is personal and in effect the same for everybody. This 'idea' (good grief) means that Glastonbury festival needs to means test its guests. Using the DWP would be a better example. We will examine your circumstances and then see if we can give you some money.
-
6 minutes ago, russycarps said:
"I find the patronising of the poor frustrating. "
Your model, whereby the less well off attend the festival at a £100 subsidy, directly provided by a fellow attender who is more well off is patronising beyond belief.
-
8 minutes ago, russycarps said:
idiotic? why use a word like that?
Why are you so angry and aggressive about this? It's really odd.
I find the patronising of the poor frustrating.
-
2 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:
In fact the statement 'do you people never pay lots of money for things you get no immediate enjoyment from' speaks volumes.
You seem to be surprised that some people would never have had lots of money to spend on things for future enjoyment.
I spent two years unemployed in the 80's. I lived semi-rough for about a year. I know very well what it's like to have nothing. I also know that a scheme for making higher earners subsidise a festival ticket for the poor is idiotic and patronising.
-
1 minute ago, Scruffylovemonster said:
Yes. I too have a pension. I also put money aside for things to do in the future. I do however know that I am hugely lucky being able to do that and would never use either as a reason to play down my 'wealth'
Big houses, good pensions, buying kids good clothes, activities etc are all signs of wealth. Not things to be crossed off actual wages to say 'look I can't afford things either so I'm not rich' if you earn 50k then unless your partner doesn't work then you are rich. You are not part of the super wealthy or the 1% but you are rich.
And you think I should pay an extra £100 for my ticket to pay for someone who doesn't earn as much? Cos that's the debate, not whether I count myself as 'hugely lucky' in comparison to many others or not. Which I do, obviously.
-
10 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:
See I really don't wanna go all russy about this but when people are listing 7% pension contributions to pay towards a comfortable retirement as a necessary expense as opposed to a luxury when millions can't afford to pay any per cent and will have to rely on what will no doubt be a practically non existent state pension and have to die in squalor it's hard not to side with him.
I'm not denying your right to that cushty pension at all but you can't go using that as to why people on that money aren't rich.
It's like saying I'm not rich I have a 500k mortgage to pay for! (for context I'm in Yorkshire so 500k would be a massive house not the bedsit it'd buy in London)
7% pension means I don't die in poverty. Again, I am not rich. I struggle at times but I won't compromise on my pension. Seriously - have you people actually entered the world of having to pay lots of money for things that you get no immediate enjoyment from?
-
9 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:
People on 50k don't pay 40% on all of it, only on about 7k or whatever the higher limit is these days - I think it's about 43k.
50k, assuming say 7% pension contribution should be about 33k per annum pick up. It is not footballer wages. It certainly shouldn't require a family living on it to subsidise someone else's Glastonbury party.
-
1 minute ago, russycarps said:
Rich enough to afford an extra £100 on a glastonbury ticket, I'm sure.
No not really. I've just totted up - I pay 165 per month on activities (sport, cultural etc) for my kids. That's just on 2 grand a year. Add the petrol for running them round to them and it's closer to £3k. I make that choice cos I want the best for them, but I know I have to take a big hit. And it's about 8% of my income. And then I have to put a decent roof over their heads, pay the bills, feed them etc. Take it from me - I know the value of the money I earn and I make choices every day on how I spend it. 'Either/ Or' is something everyone bar the top 1% has to face constantly.?
-
6 minutes ago, russycarps said:
£50k is rich in the UK, I dont know about ireland.
And yes, most people are in the middle of rich and poor, but there are people at both ends of the spectrum. Why wouldnt anyone support a scheme where those at the nice end help out those at the nasty end? Makes no sense to me.
Do you people not give money to homeless people if they ask for a cup of tea? A baffling attitude.
£50k is not 'rich' in the U.K. If you have a family and commitments. Far from it.
-
1 minute ago, CaledonianGonzo said:
This is pretty noticable when you watch interview footage recorded at older festivals - very few working class voices emerge from a plethora of quite posh sounding folk. It often looks like the pastime of the privileged, with actual working class people too busy toiling away in shitty jobs trying to make ends meet to play at being a hippy in the countryside.
I dunno if being a new age traveller is such a 'widespread' lifestyle choice any more. Superfence aside, are declining numbers at the festival indicative of just lower numbers generally?
One of the great things about the festival for me is the number of Liverpool accents I hear. It's like a home from home at times. Liverpool loves its music and it loves the counter culture of Glastonbury. It's also not particularly famous for the wealth of its citizens, but plenty of them make the effort to go and have done for years.
-
3 minutes ago, russycarps said:
Income.
£50k for a single person with few commitments probably makes them relatively wealthy. For many others with families it really isn't over the top. I earn just short of it and my wife works part time and earns much less. We have three youngish kids who still rely on us and we have financial pressures at times. We are not wealthy.
-
Just now, russycarps said:
I don't know anything about those events, but if you want to campaign for low income people to get cheap tickets subsidised by the rich paying more then I'll support you 100%.
The reason I am talking about Glastonbury specifically is because this is a Glastonbury forum.
That's a cop out with respect. This is about the idea of a divisive charging policy for an event that is relatively cheap and distributes profits to causes that all attending should be happy to support. I apologise for the name calling earlier - I get what you are saying broadly- but the idea of two tier admission is not a comfortable one for me.
-
1 minute ago, ShakeyCrash said:
Because Glastonbury is seen as left wing; left wing is about the redistribution of wealth.
Football is not, Adele is certainly not, the Opera... you may have a point
Glastonbury keeps costs down, doesn't impose high spending on site by allowing ale to be brought in and distributes profits to the sort of causes that the people attending (yes, on the left) will approve of. Doing more might be bordering on patronising and more importantly divisive.
-
3 minutes ago, russycarps said:
Yep. It's not about replacing the middle class with the working class. It's about all classes having the same opportunity to go. Upper, middle and working class. All should have exactly the same chance of going.
Money should not be a restriction on attending a festival like Glastonbury.
But why Glastonbury specifically? That's the problem most of us have. Why not FA Cup finals? Why not Adele concerts? Why not the Edinburgh festival? What about opera at Covent Garden? My grandad was a docker and that was what he dreamt of doing, but never did. Every person on a low income has an interest that they can't really afford.
-
12 minutes ago, Smeble said:
Why does the attending clientele need to represent the cultural diversity of the nation? What has the colour of people's skin got to do with anything?
If something takes place whereby 150,000 attend from all over the nation, and they are predominantly (almost exclusively?) white when many of the performers aren't, then isn't there the potential that ethnic minority communities might feel excluded? I'm not saying I know it is, but there is a possibility and that should be investigated.
-
Just now, ShakeyCrash said:
Difficult to keep up; in short there is some validity in the point that forcing people to give something is actually counter-intuitive and potentially divisive. Still think that something can be done, maybe an optional payment at full balance payment time,
What does strike me as odd is from a topic that does seem to have at it's heart a desire to do good, has resulted in some people taking exception, and feeling the need to defend the fact they have money and pay taxes. For me, the point has been lost as we veer down the slippery slopes of describing the shortcomings of your average football fan.
No - russycarps wants a better atmosphere by replacing the middle classes with common folk. He's wrong. It's a problem that doesn't need fixing. I don't think anyone is arguing against him cos they have money. They are arguing cos he is being illogical and to an extent selfish. I think Glastonbury could do more about encouraging more customers from ethnic communities. I don't know the answer, but it's a discussion that could and should happen.
-
Just now, OBface said:
I understand how complex this would be to implement but as a principle I personally would.
I know people on little money and they get there every year. Cos they want to, it's important to them. Forcing a 'solution' through charging some attendees more is divisive though; it would not make for an improved 'atmosphere' surely?
-
3 minutes ago, OBface said:
I'm with Russy in thinking that the lack access those on low incomes have to music and the arts in general is a really bad thing. For them and for wider culture.
Not sure what the answer is mind. So many different factors at play - touts driving ticket prices up, cuts to arts funding in education meaning no more music/dance lessons for children who wouldn't otherwise have them, the fact most people would need a small loan to take their family to the theatre... It's all just really shit.
I would happily contribute to any scheme that in some way reversed this. And this includes ensuring a certain number of Glastonbury tickets are ringfenced for those who might otherwise not be able to attend. I like the suggestion of allocations for schools/colleges in deprived areas etc.
And those earning over £50k a year pay a premium on their attendance for these tickets, yes?
-
1 minute ago, russycarps said:
Yes, racism and extreme violence are a real problem at Glastonbury.
No it isn't. Happens, but it's not a real problem.
-
Just now, russycarps said:
Why am I not surprised to find that a quick Google search shows there was extreme football violence and racist chanting at a football match less than one week ago.
Every week is the same.
There were probably close to 3/4 million people watching football at the weekend. Some are not good people, most are. Bit like Glastonbury.
Ticket balance deadline announced
in Chat
Posted
More Punch.