The Percentage of Greed per Century
There has been a lot of talk in the last weeks about the MPs’ salaries and their second home entitlements etc.
However it is clear that no one is worried about these ‘brains’ leaving the country for good, which would not be an option anyway, as they know exactly their every move will be spied on by the politicians of their ‘host’ country.
And if they have a few square centimetres of brain they would hear and read their own privately expressed words on the media, and they will have to cut their personality into pieces – and occasionally themselves – when meeting family and friends and eventually even when they are alone with the media.
It is only in this way that they will be able to cope with being in the wrong place – displaced, displaced - and they will realise that to die is a blessing and will pray for the release from such torture. They will realise how incredibly worse the world is compared to what they thought before their experience of mass cruelty. After all Hitler was elected, people in Israel are voting for war, and in UK of today a person can be kept in police custody for a long period of their time on the basis of suspicion only, and this seems to worry very few people indeed.
Time is given more value for some and none for others.
You could of course argue that this can only happen if an immigrant presents a danger as having revolutionary ideas. And if there is a spiritual dimension to their thoughts as well, then those sections of the society that are influential in one way or another will tend to pick and choose aspects of that person in order to own it and will join the game of dishonesty with others, so that they collectively keep other sections of the society in the dark.
It’s a joke really that in today’s society even those who might take a person for messiah should think that it is quite justified to spy on messiah.
Well perhaps that explains why these people have been awaiting messiah: They feel guilty for their spying temptations and the inability to refrain from it; they feel guilty because they are guilty.
Any sensitive person of Abrahamian faith who knows that Satan was thrown out of heaven because he did not trust the human race (in today’s terms wouldn’t being made in the image of god be called a god’s clone?) and said so, must be by now convinced – as is god - that Satan had really a point and was perhaps more psychic than the others in that particular gathering, and that he really was punished too harshly by monotheists.
What if in the meantime god has decided that, as the good people are in the dark and bad people are in the know and pretending, the world is not worth saving at all?
That is the day that judgment can be very general and easy to make:
The good standing in the dark and the bad projected upon with the light.
But this also means that in order to get rid of hell – here or thereafter - we need to get Satan back to heaven as the angel Lucifer that he once was. And only heaven knows how much they have been missing such a controversial and farsighted angel as Lucifer. And who knows maybe I’m here to facilitate this return: The return of complexity to simplicity. The latter of course doesn’t mean the same as becoming simple.
Whatever your attitude towards god and devil, one thing we now can be sure of is that by now they both are quite sceptical about the human race.
And yes an element of megalomania is built in as part of the human psyche in order to feel watched constantly by any of the two. No wonder that atheists tend to feel lonelier when alone and rejoice more on the prospect of meeting unusual people than a theist could possibly do.
In fact I would go as far as saying that it is the theist that would dread meeting messiah or imam zamaan (the imam of time) because they have more difficulty adjusting with change in times.
Time is given more value for some and none for others.
And this is where percentage comes in:
It was about five years ago that I eventually borrowed a very infrequently read book (well, we will see) by Anthony Trollope from the public library. I didn’t know anything about him but judged it by its cover that it would be interesting historically.
I can’t remember the title and you wouldn’t know either, as that library was at the time more busy rejecting me as a qualified librarian as well as ignoring my modest later job applications for part time assistant or even Saturday assistant, than to communicate with the Spy Politico-commercial Community to let them know what I was borrowing.
Although it remains to be proved that I actually do read or watch what I borrow, which is an assumed ‘normal’ behaviour. But doesn’t SPC spy on me because they think I am not the norm? Hmmm.
Anyway, some of you engaged with SPC already know which DVDs I have been borrowing, but you won’t know which book of Trollope I first read. Unless perhaps if you are well read in 19th century English literature and I tell you that something I really learned from that book was the fact that at the time the members of parliament were not paid salaries at all.
The book was about an Irish/English guy who wanted to become an MP to represent the part of Ireland he was coming from, and the difficulties he had to go through in order to earn a living and also get sponsored so that he could become a member of the parliament, which meant some future advantages, but was not a paid job
Now you could say that this is a lot of percentage increase per century from nil income to much above average income plus all expenses paid, couldn’t you?
I don’t know when they actually started to pay MPs.*
Perhaps it was even in fact this very book by Trollope that highlighted the problem and ‘inspired’ them to start paying themselves (sorry I’m not interested enough to find out when. It’s not my priority. Ask them, they must know the history of their job I presume.).
I really don’t think MPs should waste so much time of parliament for issues concerning themselves. By all means be sweet in your own constituencies but when in parliament you are there to represent others.
As for allowances for 2nd homes, to be honest every time I happen to see or hear MPs speaking in parliament it looks and sounds like some kind of union in a boarding school.
For this reason I really think a dormitory would do, and for those who prefer sleeping bags and happen to feel quite young should use one in that beautiful hall on the left side just after the entrance and check up section.
True I remember a kind of tomb being there, but I don’t think the one resting there would mind sleepers on the floor.
This scene in particular would prove dedication and spirit of brotherhood which has been lost for a long time, let alone neighbourhood.
Of course there would be MPs who would end up protesting in front of the parliament, but that is thank to themselves against the law these days isn’t it?
But I can assure you that I personally don’t mind at all if they marched in Mildmay carrying banners like: ‘Free MPs’, ‘I was guilty until I proved to be innocent’, ‘Stop questioning MPs!’, ‘How to be IDed as a card’, ‘This is a free country, especially for me’, ‘I thought the nation loved me unconditionally, now I feel betrayed’ and ‘long love politics’ and ‘politics bullocks’ etc.
As for food expenses many years ago it was decided that self-employed and freelance workers could no longer count their food expenses towards their business expenditure. I don’t see why this should be different for MPs?
The other thing is that at last I have understood why some MPs fall asleep on their chairs in the House.
It must be because they dream about what other furniture they could treat themselves to. And those who don’t fall asleep but are absent minded must be also dreaming of the soon to be purchased furniture, but obviously rather day dreaming, which explains the occasional unreasonable smiles at the wrong moments of another MP’s speech.
In general we could say that one of the main reasons for the ever more widening of a gap between the rich and the poor during the 20th century has been this unjustified percentage nonsense based on silly maths which has been applied to incomes.
It has the function of creating the illusion that everyone has been treated justly as long as the number of the percentage is the same, as if it was some kind of body part like Gulliver’s finger against a small person’s finger, measure by measure.
This pretentious and unacceptable kind of ‘fairness’ in form of ‘equal’ increase of income by percentages only, should now be discarded and proper plans made to fill in the vale created between the rich and the poor.
If however the percentage injustice cannot be discarded instantly, then there should be a higher percentage increase for lower incomes, and reaching a certain level on the average income, stopped altogether at higher incomes or determined only in relation to the changes in basic costs of living.
There has been a lot of worry by some media about the ‘escape of brains’ from UK to other European countries due to the increase in tax.
Beside the fact that I think people should have a say and also know where their tax is spent**, there are mainly 2 kinds of rich folks today: One that worked hard and has become rich and those who don’t and won’t work hard and are born rich.
The first group called usually entrepreneurs may have brains of gamblers which is also the cause of the country being in such mess at present.
The second group either manages to keep the magazines selling or they bring those kinds of papers to bankrupt as well. If they are ‘brainy’ as their daddies they might play on the capitalist principle that ‘money brings money’ –which is by the way now almost passé - otherwise they just spend the families’ riches, or get free VIP treatment wherever they go and lead an idle life.
The point is that those who think they work harder than others, and therefore deserve to earn much more than others, must either enjoy their work or work less.
If they really enjoy work they should change their attitude and not see money as the only incentive in order to feel rewarded.
They can start seeing their work as a meaningful contribution they are making towards the development of the society.
This will be of course much easier for individuals to do, if they could see and have a say about where their taxes are spent, or they could be a part of managerial committee of the organisations where their contributions are spent on.
In fact I could argue that the taxing system is so outworn, out of date, uninteresting and unrelated to individuals that even those who make decisions about its spending find it cumbersome and try to dodge it wherever possible.
Rules or no rules, it is what we as individuals are convinced of, that gives us the ability to judge our situation and act accordingly.
In Islamic ghesas (punishment law) for instance, although the punishment for theft is too harsh, stealing bread for a broke and hungry person is not counted as theft, hence they cannot be punished. This means that even in 7th Century it was clear that it is up to the society to make sure no one is pushed that far.
In general rules should be made only to serve people, but if people have to end up serving rules then there will be fascism.
MPs should refrain from passing rules and regulations that they cannot prove as really necessary for everyone, except for those who are the actual financial beneficiaries?
For instance in regards to ID cards, I haven’t met anyone yet who thinks that it ensures ‘security’ for everyone.
No more fooling of the nation!
When you intend to introduce laws with huge expenses, it must be totally transparent, so that people know what companies and shareholders will benefit from this kind of grand project for the sake of the project?
If regretfully nowadays suspects are guilty unless proven innocent, then the same rule should apply to government and MPs as well.
For instance prove that MPs who are for ID cards are not also the shareholders for this potentially lucrative business!
And if you can’t prove to be innocent, then let go of the idea and invest that money in a new environmentally sane project creating jobs for the 2 ¼ million unemployed that need meaningful jobs and not ID cards in order to be reminded on a daily basis who they are rather than who they could be.
____________________________________________________
* Later following the expenses revelations scandals:
Last night I heard Tony Benn mentioning his father not getting paid as MP.
By the way if there is anyone in London with whom I would like to have a regular monthly coffee/tea session, it has to be Mr Benn. Not because I am in total agreement with him - as that wouldn’t make a fruitful conversation - but because I imagine potentially great conversations with him. A conversationalist needs to meet his/her match, as otherwise they are forced to perform monologues. It’s just not fair.
** E.g. if a country spends 80% of the incoming tax on weapons and wars, individuals should have a say for their part spent on this shouldn’t they?