It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Nero actually helped with trying to put the fires out.
On March 19, 1945 Hitler issued a general order that all military, industrial, transportation and communication installations as well as all stores in Germany must be destroyed in order to prevent them from falling intact into the hands of the enemy. The measures were to be carried out by the military with the help of the Nazi gauleiters and "commissars for defense." "All directives opposing this," the order concluded, "are invalid."
Germany was to be made one vast wasteland. Nothing was to be left with which the German people might somehow survive their defeat.
Hitler told Albert Speer, the Minister for Armament and War Production:
If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis for which the people will need to continue a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation [Russia]. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have been killed.
This "scorched earth" directive was followed the next day, on March 23 by an equally monstrous order by Martin Bormann, the Fuehrer's secretary.
originally posted by: surfer_soul
originally posted by: supermouse
originally posted by: Revolution9
stop doing anything for them until they agree to look after us better
Or you could look after yourselves...
I've noticed the opposite problem. There has been no austerity and public largesse continues to increase.
For example, the poor have doubled the proportion of London housing they occupy over the last decades. Forcing the rich to spend up to four hours a day traveling in to work, plus all the environmental problems this causes. If the poor could somehow be persuaded to watch daytime TV in the provinces the world would be a better place.
Tax rates have been rising too. If you're in the 60+ percent tax bracket plus paying two lots of VAT at 20 percent each, you can be the same or worse off than someone on minimum wage who works a few hours while scamming for tax credits.
I'm kind of a philanthropist, but often shocked at how ungrateful the "poor" seem to be.
I also subsidise the ultra wealthy, billionaires get huge handouts to look after their racehorses, millionaire landlords live almost entirely on housing benefits, housebuilders are getting rich on help to sell.
Really, what we need is to try to stand on our own two feet rather than suckling on the teat of the poor taxpayer.
Probably do more for your self-respect as well.
Really? The poor have doubled the amount of housing they occupy in London forcing the rich to commute up to 4hrs. Any evidence? What's really happened is the property value in London has gone up so astronomically that even some of the rich can't afford it. The rich of course aren't entitled to social housing which is for the poor.
Until robots and AI take over the jobs the poor do in London, there will still be a need to house the poor in London.
As for VAT, business's required to pay VAT pass on this tax to their customers when selling their goods and or services. They can also claim VAT back in terms of their costs. So it's not really a tax on business but on the consumer.
Unless you are living way beyond your means there is no way a person in the 60 percent plus tax bracket is financially the same or worse off than someone earning minimum wage.
Try working a zero hours contract job, then you might understand why the poor get pissed off. The tax payers by the way, are barely able to pay the interest on the countries national debt, so in effect, we aren't paying for anything.
originally posted by: supermouse
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: supermouse
That article doesn't say that the poor are getting more houses. It says that more households are poor. Major difference.
Isn't that the same thing?
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot
Ask yourself if the benevolent bureaucrats who are administering the benefits the poorest in your nation receive are counted among them or somewhat higher up on the income bracket. Then ask yourself where the top bureaucrats are counted. Sure they aren't super wealthy, but if you are operating off the presumption of equality, I think you will find your own bureaucrats are skimming quite a bit off the top to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor you feel so badly about.