Idly flipping through the global rich list, I see Bill Gates currently apparently has a fortune of 45.5 billion pounds.
An equally idle rough calculation tells me that (in of course a grossly over simplified world) if he were to stick it in the bank at 3% then he would earn just under 128 million pounds in interest.
By tomorrow.
That's the daily interest income.
Could someone please check I've not been flinging decimal points into the wrong places, and more interestingly - does the panel think there should be a cap on personal wealth, and if so, roughly where it ought to be? Or do you feel the sky is the limit and if he (and of course others almost as rich) can possess that kind of wealth it's a good thing?
|
>>>should be a cap on personal wealth
Absolutely not.
|
"Should be a cap on personal wealth"
Not if it means I have to go in Aldi ;-0
|
>>there should be a cap on personal wealth
No, I do not. Not under any circumstances, ever.
|
>>there should be a cap on personal wealth
Absolutely not. This suggestion is socialist, touchy feely, green, caring, sentimental, anti-progressive TOSH.
If I work hard (with maybe a pile of luck thrown in) I deserve everything I get. Then, I can choose to give it away at my discretion and not that of the blood sucking leeches in government.
Isn't Bill Gates funding the idea of elimination of malaria ?
|
No.
It has been pointed out before that these very rich people are actually, in modern times, pretty constrained in what they can do with their wealth, unlike the super rich of olden days.
Most of their wealth is not cash in the bank earning 3%, it's the paper value of investments in companies. If Gates suddenly sold up, the price wold crash, and it wouldn't be worth a fraction of the paper value. If he tried to use the wealth in a way that attracted public criticism, he would be risking the same thing. So in practice he is subject to quite a lot of pseudo "democratic" control over what he does with it.
Contrast with the rich of the 19th century. A private individual could buy an entire country. Leopold II of Belgium owned the Congo and ran it as a private slave estate. He could invent such laws as there were. American railway barons owned large chunks of America. They were as big as the state itself.
No modern individual can do that. No one can buy sovereignty of a country. However much land they own, they are not the state, and they do not own the other people who live there.
So the question has to be viewed in the context that the wealthier a person becomes, the more constraints he encounters. Finally, as Russian oligarchs sometimes find, they can be murdered with impunity by the state they are beginning to rival.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Tue 15 Apr 14 at 16:01
|
|
No, not aslong as it is earnt/aquired legally. If nothing else people with money are more than capable of moving country ( along with their wealth ) so you would need an international consensus to pin them down, good luck with that.
|
Perhaps you should look up just how much Bill Gates gives to charitable causes...:-)
He help to found what eventually proved a massive company and, like any such successful individual, deserves all the rewards gained over the years rather than be regarded with envy by those, more often than not, being incapable of being successful themselves.
|
A cap on personal wealth is impossible to monitor and control..
I can think of lots of ways of evading it..
After all, say you own 70% controlling interest in a company worth £100 million...but only 2% of the ordinary shares as the ones you own are the only ones with a vote. So is your fortune worth £70m or £2M..? And that is a simple example..
And how you value non quoted assets on an annual basis is so open to variations...
It would, however , keep an army of clerks in employment trying to value the wealth... about three years behind and always wrong..
Last edited by: madf on Tue 15 Apr 14 at 16:47
|
>>So is your fortune worth £70m or £2M..? And that is a simple example..
It's worth £70m for the purposes of OP's ridiculous proposed legislation. It's quite possible somebody else also owns £70m of the £100m - but on another measure. Quickly stops people playing silly games.
|
|
Why even ask the question?
|
>> Why even ask the question?
Perhaps I phrased it badly. I wasn't interested in legislation, nor in practicality. I was interested in teasing out whether people had a view on whether they think morality comes into it or whether, perhaps, the kind of society that can throw up such outliers is a good thing, or not.
I deliberately didn't state my own view on those matters.
I should have been clearer.
|
>> Idly flipping through the global rich list, I see Bill Gates currently apparently has a
>> fortune of 45.5 billion pounds.
>>
>> An equally idle rough calculation tells me that (in of course a grossly over simplified
>> world) if he were to stick it in the bank at 3% then he would
>> earn just under 128 million pounds in interest.
>>
>> By tomorrow.
>>
>> That's the daily interest income.
Bill Gates does not have 45.5 billion pounds in convertible wealth to stick in the bank.
|
|
You must have lost a number so where. 1% of 45bn is 450m. 3% is 1350m. Divide by 360 is a bit less than 4m a day in round numbers.
|
|
Yeah, no getting away from it. I completely blew the calculation didn't I. But it doesn't affect the question particularly.
|
|
What Bill Gates is worth is only a fraction of what he has generated for the economy. People who think there should be a limit on what money one person can earn do not understand economics, they wrongly believe the cake is a fixed size and more for one means less for others.
|
>> they wrongly believe the cake is a fixed size and more for one means less for others.
Neither is it infinite, however, and one way of increasing your slice is giving less to others.
|
>> >> they wrongly believe the cake is a fixed size and more for one means
>> less for others.
>>
>> Neither is it infinite, however, and one way of increasing your slice is giving less
>> to others.
But If you bake more cakes its only fair for the baker to take a bigger slice.
|
|
A bigger slice from each of the cakes, or the same size of slice from more cakes?
|
>> A bigger slice from each of the cakes, or the same size of slice from
>> more cakes?
Either way there are more cakes and more slices
|
I've not had a fresh cream slice for decades.
Just saying.
|
>> I've not had a fresh cream slice for decades.
>>
>> Just saying.
Start Baking.
|
>> You mean barking...
Not allowed to comment on matters canine.
|
That's ruff.
Think you're barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
Trust you to get your claws in - Bitch.
|
"I was interested in teasing out whether people had a view on whether they think morality comes into it or whether, perhaps, the kind of society that can throw up such outliers is a good thing, or not."
Unfortunately this is probably the wrong place to ask as I don't think contributors to the forum are in any way a random sample of citizenry.
But, for fear of causing offence, I won't risk suggesting what the typical profile of a C4P contributor might be.
Does anybody want to risk it ?
|
>> But, for fear of causing offence, I won't risk suggesting what the typical profile of
>> a C4P contributor might be.
>>
>> Does anybody want to risk it ?
>>
Go for it...we're not all feisty old retired Majors
|
|
No thanks - apparently upsetting people is one of my life skills.
|
I think there is a wide disparity of income amongst our members, but we do not fall into the "disadvantaged" chunk of society.
We have had a decent education and are literate.
There is a wide spread of political beliefs, but many of us are generally unhappy with politicians and the "establishment" in one way or another.
Some of us get upset and flounce off at internet bluntness - some of us don't care and keep on logging on.
We are awfully nice people, innit. :-)
|
|
I'm afraid I've lost track of who's who with all the name changes. Who or where is Roger now? I particularly enjoyed keeping up with the UKIP news.
|
|
I think you just replied to him...
|
No! *I'm* Spartacus Roger!
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 16 Apr 14 at 12:55
|
>> I'm afraid I've lost track of who's who with all the name changes. Who or
>> where is Roger now? I particularly enjoyed keeping up with the UKIP news.
Oink-Oink!
|
>> We are awfully nice people, innit. :-)
>>
But we only say "innit" if we are genuine cockneys and use it in the proper Lorraine Chase manner:
"Nice 'ere, innit "
|
I still kind of wish the Soviet system had worked. Minus the persecution and purges, of course.
Ah well.
|
It might have done, and might have been good, but it involved human beings and therefore failed.
For both good and bad reasons.
|
We have a system that uses markets and socialism to try to spread the wealth.
Without the socialism bit dead bodies would lie in the street til some rich geezer got sick of the stink and paid for them to be removed.
Without the markets there would be little innovation and we'd be clubbing each other and living in caves.
As for the 'personal wealth' stuff.. well you can't take it with you so it doesn't really matter in the end - either it gets redistributed, or so concentrated that the have-nots eventually rebel and take it back anyway (although that may take decades or centuries).
|
>> Without the socialism bit dead bodies would lie in the street til some rich geezer
>> got sick of the stink and paid for them to be removed.
Get on with you, there's plenty of philanthropic rich that counteract the hard nosed greedy.
>>
>> Without the markets there would be little innovation and we'd be clubbing each other and
>> living in caves.
True
|
>>there's plenty of philanthropic rich that counteract the hard nosed greedy
Yeah - those philanthropists made their dosh thru philanthropy?
Nope - by being harder of nose than the next guy.
|
|
Despite what you may think Lygonos before the advent of the NHS and socialised medicine there was effective health care in this country. Not perfect by any means but people weren't lying around in the streets dying.
|
>>Despite what you may think Lygonos before the advent of the NHS and socialised medicine there was effective health care in this country
Yes, socialism is a part of life.
It's not the only part, and where attempts have been made they have crashed and burned because people with power usually act in their own interests.
And I think if you go back to Victorian city streets you would find people dying.
|
>>Yes, socialism is a part of life.>>
...and more often than not an abject failure. It generally relies on capitalism to succeed and, even then, the Haves and the Have Nots are always miles apart.....
Capitalism and those who support it pay for both private and public sector interests in, for instance, the UK and the States, yet those in the public sector actually acknowledge that fact.
|
>>Yes, socialism is a part of life.
Is that socialism? Isn't it natural compassion. Charity. And that has nothing to do with socialism.
Wiki definition: "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system."
Capitalism is far more likely to give rise to a system where compassion and charity can be in action.
|
"Capitalism is far more likely to give rise to a system where compassion and charity can be in action."
Ah, this'll be Maggie's forecast of wealth cascading down from the rich to the peasantry. Tell me when to get the umbrella out ;-)
|
>>Ah, this'll be Maggie's forecast of wealth cascading down from the rich to the peasantry. Tell me when to get the umbrella out ;-)
Without capitalism, the peasants would still be peasants, would work seven days a week and would die at 40 if they were lucky. These days they have satellite TV. It cascades all right, it's just that people always want more.
Watch this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgAHNtPUVEw
A Thames Television programme from 1970 called "We Was All One". That's how the peasants lived in 1970. (Dog, watch all the parts; you'll enjoy it.)
|
|
Capitalism creates wealth, not governments. Governments don't have any money, only that raised in direct and indirect taxes, so those in the private sector pay twice - first their share and then the money to pay for civil servants, the NHS, police, fire, ambulance etc (and including a considerable sum to pay such public sector workers' pensions)..:-)
|
As Stuartli says, capitalism creates wealth - NOT capitalists. They just "accumulate the surplus" in Marxian language.
The job of government is to organise and redistribute. Not just socialist governments, all governments.
Left to its own devices, capitalism would keep workers on the breadline in the absence of a labour shortage.
The question of personal wealth limits is too narrow. But people with a lot of wealth should pay their dues, and not all do.
|
>>so those in the private sector pay twice
A common nonsense from the 'private' sector.
All workers/taxpayers pay these taxes.
What tax do you pay that I don't?
|
>> A common nonsense from the 'private' sector.
>>
>> All workers/taxpayers pay these taxes.
>>
>> What tax do you pay that I don't?
>>
Ah, but the public sector pay their taxes from the money they receive from other people's taxes. The private sector pay theirs from money they generate themselves.
Not saying that's wrong, of course. A public sector is essential to the economy, but it runs at a net financial loss.
|
>>Ah, but the public sector pay their taxes from the money they receive from other people's taxes. The private sector pay theirs from money they generate themselves.
Again a common (partial) nonsense.
Huge amounts of private sector wealth comes from contracts with government, ultimately paid by the tax payer. Or from banking services where it is 'created' by moving around other people's wealth.
As for Stuartli's "Governments don't have any money" - stupid ones don't. Enlightened ones own large chunks of businesses and assets which return as investments rather than taxation (eg soverign wealth funds, and partial privatisations)
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 17 Apr 14 at 21:24
|
>> Ah, but the public sector pay their taxes from the money they receive from other
>> people's taxes. The private sector pay theirs from money they generate themselves.
There are plenty public sector bodies that cover their costs from fees charged to users.
The MHRA (regulator of drugs etc) is self funding from charges on the drugs industry. Courts and Tribunals are partly paid for by charging fees to claimants/appellants.
And as Lygonos points out a huge amount of public spending buys in services from private sector suppliers/contractors. It is at least arguable that the recession was extended/deepened by cuts to sih contracts.
|
>>Ah, but the public sector pay their taxes from the money they receive from other people's taxes. The private sector pay theirs from money they generate themselves.
Not saying that's wrong, of course. A public sector is essential to the economy, but it runs at a net financial loss.>>
Spot on. It's an argument I have regularly with a friend who works in the public sector but who has, over time, conceded that I'm correct (much though such a thought causes considerable pain for that individual!)
|
>>The private sector pay theirs from money they generate themselves.
Noone generates money (well maybe goldpanners...)
Private or public, people are PAID depending upon the work they do.
If I didn't work in the NHS would I suddenly vanish?
No I'd still be getting paid through a different stream of cash, ultimately still from the same population that currently pay me.
|
Correct Lygonos. Public/private sector irrelevant for this purpose.
If you define say the NHS as running at a net loss, and the private sector as generating wealth, then have a think about what happens when you privatise it and you see what nonsense the distinction is.
|
>>If you define say the NHS as running at a net loss, and the private sector as generating wealth, then have a think about what happens when you privatise it and you see what nonsense the distinction is. >>
The NHS is a hugely valuable and necessary organisation, but has always proved a bottomless pit costs wise due to its sheer size. Privatising it would take years to cut out the waste and, often, less than adequate management and, with good fortune, make it efficiently and financially viable overall.
|
|
Yes of course but that wasn't the point, which was that even if all the processes remained unchanged, there would be no effect one way or the other on the economic value of the activities. To say that employees of a private firm who pay tax are genuine contributors but public employees are a net cost is idiotic or meaningless. I can't decide which.
|
>> The NHS is a hugely valuable and necessary organisation, but has always proved a bottomless
>> pit costs wise due to its sheer size. Privatising it would take years to cut
>> out the waste and, often, less than adequate management and, with good fortune, make it
>> efficiently and financially viable overall
You mean like the railways which now cost far more than they did in BR's latter days?
Or perhaps water and electricity. Owned by foreigners who pocket all the profits while failing to invest, then demand/get Govt subvention so that maybe the lights don't go out?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 10:31
|
. Privatising it would take years to cut
>> out the waste and, often, less than adequate management and, with good fortune, make it
>> efficiently and financially viable overall.
>>
I'm not sure it's financially viable now, more a matter of if we* are comfortable paying the amount of money out we are now to the NHS.
*The electorate.
|
>> Correct Lygonos. Public/private sector irrelevant for this purpose.
>>
>> If you define say the NHS as running at a net loss, and the private
>> sector as generating wealth, then have a think about what happens when you privatise it
>> and you see what nonsense the distinction is.
>>
I don't see it the same way.
It matters not if the NHS is private or public, it's there to administer the medical needs of the populace.
If it were to generate income e.g. selling its services to people abroad who paid for it..then that would be different, but as it generally doesn't, then it's a (more than necessary) financial loss, that other people in the country have to make up for by making a profit and paying their taxes.
Same for police, fire brigade, court system, etc.
My father in law, a hotelier, summed it up one Christmas when he had his two daughters and their husbands to stay..we were a cop/teacher and a GP/teacher... he told us he had to make a good profit to pay for all our services.
|
>>A Thames Television programme from 1970 called "We Was All One". That's how the peasants lived in 1970. (Dog, watch all the parts; you'll enjoy it.)
Thanks for that Mm, we did enjoy watching it but of course it brought make many memories for me :(
I'm a phoney really you know, for start I was growing up when "we'd never had it so good", I was the baby of the family (of 6) so a bit spoilt in many ways compared to my older sibs who were born before the war.
My ole mum used to drink in many of the pubs around that area, as did my brothers, I actually remember that chap selling his wares on the market stool in Tower Br. Rd., he used to get down East St (East Lane as we knew it)
My wife and I used to live in that 'new' council estate 'down the Elephant' - the Heygate Estate, we were lucky enough to get an 11th floor flat as part of a slum clearance in Manor Pl. Walworth.
All gorn now of course, even the Heygate Est. is coming down now according to my sister, crazy really being it was only built about 40 years ago.
All is not lost though, our 75 year old neighbour came in this afternoon and gave us 4 fresh Mackerel that a local chap had caught this morning, and her 6 year old granddaughter gave us some scones and half a Victoria sponge she had made (6!!) good ole Cornwall :)
|
"……. and gave us 4 fresh Mackerel "
Ah - maybe that's the wealth that's cascading down. Good, I like fish!
|
Socialism doesn't work and can't be forced to work for any length of time.
The real sticking point is agriculture. No one would be a farmer for wages. The work's too hard and relentless. People will only do it if they hope to gain something solid and permanent.
Even industry becomes old-fashioned and sclerotic when 'socialised' because without competition, and the possibility of rich rewards, there's no reason to develop better products and better production techniques.
I used to think I was a socialist but there's nothing like seeing it in practice to put you off it despite the well-meaning enthusiasm with which some groups promote it. I am thinking especially here of some engaging Brazilians I once came across in impoverished Mozambique.
|
|
This is kind of "Money is Man's Greatest Invention. Discuss".
|
>>Without the socialism bit dead bodies would lie in the street til some rich geezer got sick of
>>the stink and paid for them to be removed.
Capitalism in action, through taxation. That's not socialism.
|
>> The real sticking point is agriculture. No one would be a farmer for wages. The
>> work's too hard and relentless. People will only do it if they hope to gain
>> something solid and permanent"
Is that really true? I suppose you mean farm labourer rather than farmer and I guess that no one wants to be farm labourer in an un-mechanised economy but I guess driving a tractor is no worse and in some ways a lot better than driving a truck .
Wouldn't' mind being a farmer round here with a few thousand acres of prime arable. As they say in Norfolk " you never see a farmer on a bike"
|
>> in some ways a lot better than driving a truck . <<
Driving a truck, or as we call them, lorries, is one of the best jobs in the world.
You get to see the whole of the country, spend time alone and have very little interaction with 'people'.
Working unsociable hours, the road belongs to you and the wildlife.
The sunrises are amazing, as is the low lying mist on a summers morning.
There's a sense of pride in what you do and a continual sense of achievement when you manage to reverse into a space with inches to spare.
When you pull out of the yard you're the captain of the ship and make the decisions, without a boss breathing down your neck, and good ones don't even bother phoning you.
You get given brand new lorries and trailers valued at around £150,000 for the two of them and these are renewed every three years or so and you don't have to pay for them.
Best of all, you get to live/sleep/eat in them, in your own little world wherever you run out of time with just a friendly crow for company.
I could go on....but I would bore you.
I miss it so much.
Pat
|
|
I' m sure it's really great but then again some of that farm machinery looks like fun. Driving a Combine costing half a million pounds across a sea of barley with Classic FM on the stereo seems rather appealing but I guess someone with experience of the job will be along to tell me how terrible it is.
|
>> Is that really true? I suppose you mean farm labourer rather than farmer and I
>> guess that no one wants to be farm labourer in an un-mechanised economy but I
>> guess driving a tractor is no worse and in some ways a lot better than
>> driving a truck .
>>
>> Wouldn't' mind being a farmer round here with a few thousand acres of prime arable.
>> As they say in Norfolk " you never see a farmer on a bike"
I popped in and saw my cousin last week..he farms about 170 acres.
He owns it all, inc an impressive but exceptionally run down farmhouse in a prime location. He'd just done his yearly books and told me the figures.
It was a loss.
He just shrugged his shoulders and said 'I'm still here'.
Now, if he was to sell up, the figures would be impressive...but...his family has been there for over 100 years and he's got nothing else lined up.
Farming at the moment is damned hard work for not a lot of reward.
|
There is farming and farming. The arable farmers of Eastern England aren't doing that badly although of course none would admit to that. If there's one thing that farmers can do is moan about what a terrible time they are having but it doesn't stop them having a Range Rover in the drive and children at private school.
Running a small mixed farm with livestock is of course a different business
|
>> Is that really true? I suppose you mean farm labourer rather than farmer and I guess that no one wants to be farm labourer in an un-mechanised economy but I guess driving a tractor is no worse and in some ways a lot better than driving a truck .
Yes, it is true. And I mean farmer not farm labourer who is just a worker and wage slave. His life isn't what I would choose, but it's what he's used to and he isn't responsible for the whole shebang like the farmer.
Unless you've been close to it you can have no idea what it's like for farmers at lambing or calving time. Up all night with your hands up their jaxies and no rubber gloves... Then you have to find food for the bleating mooing brutes, and later on sell them on the hoof or get them topped and sell the carcases. It's fantastically hard, constant, physical and intellectual labour. You simply wouldn't do it for wages, only if you were improving the value of your land and livestock. Crops are just as bad given variable weather (which also affects livestock).
I wouldn't claim there was nothing in it for farmers. Of course there is, and if they own enough land they may be able to pay people to do all the gruelling stuff. But only if they can find trustworthy ones, geddit? No way is it simple bucolic joy and milkmaids in haystacks for amusement.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 16 Apr 14 at 19:17
|
>> I wouldn't claim there was nothing in it for farmers. Of course there is, and
>> if they own enough land they may be able to pay people to do all
>> the gruelling stuff. But only if they can find trustworthy ones, geddit? No way is
>> it simple bucolic joy and milkmaids in haystacks for amusement.
>>
>>
My uncle farmed 1500 acres with one trusty foreman and a labourer. He worked in exactly the conditions you describe, but seemed to make a lot of money from it.
I read the foremen's obituary recently, finding it quite by accident. He appeared to have enjoyed his life, and was proud to have spent almost his entire life working for one employer.
I don't suppose there are many like him no though.
|
>> sticking point is agriculture.
>> Even industry becomes old-fashioned and sclerotic when 'socialised'
And I completely forgot to mention the retail sector. Has anyone but Alanović tried shopping in a communist country? Nothing anyone might want to buy available, empty shelves and hostile assistants. If you want some normal product like soap or bog paper you have to go to special shops for capitalist foreigners, no locals allowed except important ones with special papers. How the natives tolerate this nightmare is beyond me.
I hope it's improved since my day.
|
>>Has anyone but Alanović tried shopping in a communist country?
Bulgaria in the early/mid 80s. Very not funny. As you describe but worse in real life.
|
>>
>> Bulgaria in the early/mid 80s. Very not funny. As you describe but worse in real
>> life.
>>
>>
>>
My father met a Bulgarian professor on a boat train in about 1970. He had a sack of apples, his only food, not being paid enough to afford western meals, but apples were cheap in Bulgaria.
He wanted to photograph the white cliffs of Dover on reaching freedom, and my father assured him it was permitted, no secret policeman would arrest him for possessing a camera.
|
Camera... you could get ten years in the Gulag for being in possession of a typewriter.
In 1980 I was advised not to wave a camera about on the sea side of Maputo the Mozambique capital. Apparently there were artillery pieces somewhere. I couldn't see them though.
|
Ex neighbour and still friend of ours moved to a small town in Bulgaria a few years ago. I assume because it's cheap. But what a dump.
I recently found out that the Streetview car had passed through....only a couple of main roads though. The whole place is virtually derelict, houses falling down, patched up with any old stuff. Roads muddy and crumbling. The two shops seem to be boarded up, heaven knows what they have for sale. I've never seen anything as bad in Britain......and yes, I have been to Salford !
|
>>no secret policeman would arrest him for possessing a camera.
In Bulgaria one could covertly barter camera film (135, was it?) for quite substantial amounts of stuff.
|
Have you ever read "Rates of Exchange' by Malcom Bradbury. A humorous novel set in the fictitious Eastern European city of Slaka before the fall of communism? Funny but not so far from real life.
"in the lobby of your Cosmoplot hotel; in the great government department store MUG of Vitz,vitsimutu, where they sell shortages as well as plenty, so that many people solemnly enter it in order not to shop; in the endless commerce on the quiet park benches where children play on the sunlit lanes; pensioners enjoy their well earned repose and briefcases open, to switch a pear for a cucumber, a pair of underpants for a bight pink bra; ........
|
Socialism in action.
No toilet rolls and political prisoners in the biggest oil producer on the continent...
tinyurl.com/pcag2fc
|
>> Have you ever read "Rates of Exchange' by Malcom Bradbury.
Is that the one where they change all the spellings by government decree, and he wakes up to the sound of innumerable signs and hoardings all being changed?
His female minder pretends that it has always been like that. But a few days later the policy is reversed.
|
Something like this?
EU Directive on Standardising Languages
The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.
As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".
In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.
Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.
Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.
By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".
During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensi bl riten styl.
Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.
Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.
|
Personal wealth limits? - Fenlander
