<shrugs> Well, arguably better than nitpicking over who ordered what, refusing to split the bill evenly because they didn't order a side or a starter, and who ordered the expensive wine, they didn't get to drink any of it so they're not paying for it, oh no, and why should we leave a tip, aren't these guys paid a wage, etc etc etc until they've sucessfully sucked all the joy and pleasure from the evening and left you feeling like life really isn't worth living any more because everything can be reduced to a price tag.
People really do that kind of crap on an evening meal out for pleasure?
We have bloody brillant parties in Big O - the last one 3 nights ago* - where people bring their best dishes &wine/whatever, and just enjoy one another's conversation & company...
*A slightly later Matariki/Solstice event
On Back Benches last night, Trevor Mallard mentioned Labour's new procurement policy. I didn't realise it was almost an official policy announcement. Now here is a policy I really approve of, as, for example, it would keep the railways workshops open and expanding, rather than closing . Needs a catchier name, though.
The comments on the tax anecdote have gone slightly tangental, Rich specifically said (probably flippantly, so that's why I said it was a cheap shot) that he wants those who pay the lions share of taxes to go away. So that tax story is 100% applicable to his comment.
Snopes.com calls bullshit.
My quick skim read of that site seemed to be they couldn't track down the original author of the story, rather than it actually calling bullshit on it?
The core problem with that 'story' is it reduces a social event to a financial transaction.
No doubt it's less challenging that way for Actoid fanbois, but the rest of us are somewhat more grownup about life.
I think the core problem is that you have a throwaway comment with an associated throwaway answer, but only one half of the ledger is being torn to shreds.
What Rich was alluding to, and your story completely missed the point of, was that the rich don't take their wages with them. Someone else gets paid to do the job they've left behind (in almost all cases - there are some highly paid very transferable industries cropping up, but we're not big players in them).
The rich guy stops turning up, another rich guy wanders in the door and sits down at the bar. And given they reduce all social interactions to financial transactions, the conversation isn't missed anyway.
What Rich was alluding to, and your story completely missed the point of, was that the rich don't take their wages with them.
Nonsense, at least not at the time he made his comment. His prior statements had been about capping salaries and working for the challenge rather than money to prevent there being uber rich ffs.
And as I said before, i believe his was just an exaggerated flippant remark really, so I sent him a cheap one right back. Or in other words, saying that people who pay the lions share of taxes should fuck off seriously misses the reality point too.
Andrew C: I thought the flippancy was not directed at people who pay the lions' share per se, but at the ones who threaten to leave if they are asked to any more.
Andrew C: I thought the flippancy was not directed at people who pay the lions’ share per se, but at the ones who threaten to leave if they are asked to any more.
Like the David Whitburns and Casey Plunkets of this world. They have a lot in common with the British Leyland unions and over-subsidised French farmers, than they'd have you believe.
And where would they go to, anyway?