What’s your most controversial opinion? **Read OP** **Mod Note in Post #3372**

Yip, if they sat on the road and stopped people, including women (see video of irate mum prevented from picking kids up from school) from travelling to important appointments.

But these people are not protesting about anything as important as women’s rights. My guess is they all didn’t walk from their homes to those streets/roads where they protest, some probably have cars, central heating, kids in schools where they rely on some form of heating apart from solar/wind. So if they play silly games, eventually one of them is going to win a silly prize.

There has been many threads on boards, and articles in the media related to the problems with absorbing the North into the South, not least replacing the subsidy received from the UK government, the fact that something like 1 in 5 of all employees in the North work for the State, the cost of replacing the NHS, increases in benefits etc that would be necessary. You want us to pay for all that, plus kick out the MNCs, and leave the EU?

You don’t want us to be part of the EU, but you would be ok with what would need to be an enormous reliance on the UK to give us money to take the North?

We are not Switzerland, be happy you are there, but every now and then get some fresh air.

Yes, but their is birth mother and genetic mother.

'Would you have said the same about the suffragettes? Would you have preferred if women never got the right to vote?'

Do you think the cause justifies 'any means necessary'? If so, do you extend the same license to the IRA and if not, why not?

Good controversial opinion.

About time we had one.

The proof is in the pudding.

There are very few well run states in the African continent.

Now obviously the 21st century argument is that it's our fault as Europeans because we colonized them and the effects are still felt, but that can't wash forever.

Plus it's more nuanced than that, many African tribes collaborated with Europeans in the slave trade, the stripping of resources etc

At some stage the native people have to take responsibility.

And from what we have seen since the 1960s very few are able to establish what we would regard as functioning democracies.

These antics aren’t aimed at raising awareness. They are nothing but self-centred displays of collective narcissism.

I fail to see what my opinion on Putin has to do with this bunch of morons, but then I usually struggle to follow your thoughts.

There's approximately 7.8 Billion people on planet Earth and it can't support every one on it now

In a decade or so it will be 10 billion ie another 2.2 billion, how will the planet cope with the extra 2.2 billion...it won't!!

Climate change is being driven by humans(?)

We haven't a cat in hells chance of halting it unless we do something about world population growth

All the measures and carbon taxes that the "Experts" spout at us but I never hear one of them mention population

Well, you asked for " controversial"

Well for a start if you inherited 100k tomorrow from your parents you would keep 100% of that. You could inherit over 3 times that and still keep it all.

By abolishing inheritance tax you are only going to punishing average working man, who now has to support a wealthy class with their general taxation as the millionaires/billionaires pass down their money in perpetuity, through several generations who never have to work

I really don't understand the opposition to inheritance tax - it won't affect 90% of people and the people it affects most are those who were born mega wealthy through no fault of their own

Well done, good point, I'm convinced.

Let's let dead people decide what the living do. Because generational wealth and feudalism have never caused any problems.

By putting in a 100% inheritance tax you are not incentivizing people to go out to work and say save or buy property - there would be no point as it would go back to the state afterwards. This is the issue with people on long term benefits and living in council accommodation - they have no incentive to work and know that everything they have will be handed back to the government afterwards.

If it worked in a manner similar to Germany where nobody owned property and rents were low and on long term basis then it could be a solution but it certainly wouldn't be fair on people who go out, work their whole lives (while paying tax), contribute positively to society and then are not able to pass that on to their children after death.

Thanks for the calculation, I have amended my post.

12%

Is the answer to your question, according to the public service jobs site there are 300k public servants, and recent CSO data showed just over 2.55m in employment.