Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit"

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:05 pm

I listened to the first minute or so, and he makes some good points about rent and low pay. However, I don't think the answer is to chuck money at people in the form of benefits - that's just papering over the cracks.

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:15 pm

Quite right Ragga

and the way to stop papering over the cracks is to provide jobs...sufficient good quality, full time and well paid jobs such as to ensure full employment.

only the rich dont want that...they WANT high unemployment to depress wages and thus increase their bloated fat profits....

the answer is to firstly make the b'stards pay the taxes DUE

and THEN make the rich pay their fair share

aS IN FROM THOSE WHO HAVE TO THOSE WHO NEED......

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:20 pm

Well you can't force people to provide jobs - it's not the job of anyone to provide jobs for others.

It wouldn't matter how little people got paid if things were cheaper - like rent, etc. I don't think building more council houses is really the answer either - I think there needs to be some kind of aggressive lowering of house prices and rent, but that of course would impinge on people's freedom to sell their house for as much as they want, or as much as someone will pay.

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:23 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Well you can't force people to provide jobs - it's not the job of anyone to provide jobs for others.

It si the job of the government...under ist unspoken contract with the people to "protect and provide"

It wouldn't matter how little people got paid if things were cheaper - like rent, etc. I don't think building more council houses is really the answer either - I think there needs to be some kind of aggressive lowering of house prices and rent, but that of course would impinge on people's freedom to sell their house for as much as they want, or as much as someone will pay.

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:32 pm

It certainly is, and John McDonnell was bloody fantastic.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:02 pm

The Government can't pull jobs out of a hat, they rely on people with drive, ambition, and skill to start companies which will provide jobs, so they can't crack down too much on those people. Those people will not provide jobs unless it benefits them to do so.

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:08 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:The Government can't pull jobs out of a hat, they rely on people with drive, ambition, and skill to start companies which will provide jobs, so they can't crack down too much on those people. Those people will not provide jobs unless it benefits them to do so.

dont talk out your backside, the govt CAN make jobs

they can build factories and provide the equipment...it's known as investment

and the result is a "nationalised industry"

its a win win

building the factories provides employment...in which people earn and then pay taxes and BUY things
making the machiery.equipmnet like wise

then the industry goes on to provide jobs and people work. earn money pay taxes and buy things.....

(and then dont need "benefits")

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:11 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:The Government can't pull jobs out of a hat, they rely on people with drive, ambition, and skill to start companies which will provide jobs, so they can't crack down too much on those people. Those people will not provide jobs unless it benefits them to do so.

dont talk out your backside, the govt CAN make jobs

they can build factories and provide the equipment...it's known as investment

and the result is a "nationalised industry"

its a win win

building the factories provides employment...in which people earn and then pay taxes and BUY things
making the machiery.equipmnet like wise

then the industry goes on to provide jobs and people work. earn money pay taxes and buy things.....

(and then dont need "benefits")

And who provides the training and the skill? Who provides the knowledge? The Government?

Should the Government also invent new products and start shops or other businesses? No - individuals do that - entrepreneurs. You hammer them, and they'll take their ambition elsewhere.

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:14 pm

It's what they are there to do, use our taxes for the good of the people, not for the good of their mates.

Osborne has said today he is going to take ANOTHER £20Billion from the public sector. That's fireman, policeman etc etc, and yet over the last few years he has given away £93BILLION in Corporate handouts.

Fuck him, I hope he dies a slow and lingering death from cocaine addiction.

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

dont talk out your backside, the govt CAN make jobs

they can build factories and provide the equipment...it's known as investment

and the result is a "nationalised industry"

its a win win

building the factories provides employment...in which people earn and then pay taxes and BUY things
making the machiery.equipmnet like wise

then the industry goes on to provide jobs and people work. earn money pay taxes and buy things.....

(and then dont need "benefits")

And who provides the training and the skill? Who provides the knowledge? The Government?

Should the Government also invent new products and start shops or other businesses? No - individuals do that - entrepreneurs. You hammer them, and they'll take their ambition elsewhere.

Hammer them? We give them money hand over fist.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:16 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

And who provides the training and the skill? Who provides the knowledge? The Government?

Should the Government also invent new products and start shops or other businesses? No - individuals do that - entrepreneurs. You hammer them, and they'll take their ambition elsewhere.

Hammer them? We give them money hand over fist.

You'd like them to be hammered though, wouldn't you?

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:17 pm

Direct aid, subsidies, tax breaks – the hidden welfare budget we don’t debate

Vast sums are handed out in corporate welfare and official silence is skewing the debate, so the public don’t know where billions of their own taxes are going

In 2013, just days before laying out his autumn statement, George Osborne told the BBC: “The cost of welfare is one of the things that makes the public finances unsustainable. We need an affordable state.” The government had to cut the bloated welfare state because it was sucking up too much money.

Yet in the financial year ending March 2013, the Guardian can reveal, Britons handed £93bn in welfare to corporations. That is enough to wipe out at a stroke this year’s budget deficit – and it was given to companies in direct aid, subsidies and tax breaks.

The term “corporate welfare” may sound unfamiliar to some. In the Westminster thesaurus, welfare appears alongside benefits and social security as a term for public spending targeted at individuals and households. But corporations rely on public funds, too.

When Richard Branson’s Virgin Atlantic took £28m from the Welsh government in 2011 to set up a call centre in Swansea, that was a form of welfare. The German, French and Dutch companies that now run our train services are subsidised by the British public to the tune of hundreds of millions. The £45bn taken by firms in corporate tax benefits is a form of welfare. So is the ultra-low cost insurance scheme the government runs for exporters such as BAE Systems.

None of these are labelled corporate welfare, but that’s precisely what they are: direct public spending aimed at protecting and supporting businesses.

In many cases, the basic facts about this spending are almost impossible to find. Some of the information making up the calculations published by the Guardian – fundamental stuff such as which arm of the British state gave how much cash to which firm – is so hard to collate that even experts are forced to admit defeat.

Discussions about corporate welfare take place at the twilight checkpoint between economics and democracy. Researchers and civil servants know a lot about the individuals who claim hundreds in, say, employment support allowance: every last cough, spit and missed appointment at the jobcentre. Yet of the big companies that rake off millions in direct grants, taxpayers often hear very little. The result is that the public do not know where billions of their own taxes are going.

Yet were they to be widely known, the facts about corporate welfare would electrify our debates about public spending and the role of the state. On Wednesday, Osborne will set about chopping into our social security budget. Among the measures he is believed to be considering is taxing disability benefits. That will raise about £900m, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. That is about the same sum as the state gives every year to managers who buy shares in, say, their dotcom startup and see them soar in value, without having to pay much tax on the gain, thanks to a scheme called Enterprise Management Incentives.

Revealing how far taxpayers fund the private sector is not the same thing as saying the private sector should not receive any public subsidy at all. All rich countries do it, although there is evidence from the OECD thinktank and others that when it comes to corporate tax benefits or public-sector outsourcing, Britain is more indulgent to businesses than many other nations. But many might back public funding for green technology startups, say, or struggling social enterprises in deprived areas. The fundamental point, surely, is to allow public debate over where public funds go.

Full disclosure of the size of the corporate welfare state might also have improved economic debate over the past half-decade. When Cameron and Osborne launched their austerity programme in 2010, they argued that the public sector was “crowding out” the private sector. To enable the economy to grow, government needed to retreat and allow businesses to fill the void. That powerful argument was disproved over the next few years, as Britain stuttered and stumbled through the weakest economic recovery in its modern history. But it would have been undermined from the start had ministers been confronted with £93bn of proof that the relationship between public and private sector is far more complicated.

This research on corporate welfare takes you to the heart of one of the biggest arguments in British capitalism. For decades, the UK has operated on the basis that it is in an international dogfight to attract investment. It was summed up by Michael Heseltine in his 2013 report on industrial policy: “Unless we make it worthwhile for footloose capital to come here, it won’t.”

This orthodoxy has been swallowed by all the main political parties. It has led to the slashing of corporation tax rates, so that Britain has a lower corporation tax rate than the US, Japan or Germany. It has encouraged devolved administrations in Holyrood and Cardiff to disburse millions to big companies, without demanding much in return. The result has been fiscally disastrous. As this research shows, of the 44 companies that received more than £1m in government grants between 2005 and 2011, 13 paid no corporation tax at all; a further 17 did not pay any corporation tax either the year before or the year that they received public money.

Such a state of affairs reflects a severe imbalance of power between the public and private sectors. As Philip Baker QC, a European tax expert and Treasury adviser on the Google tax, remarked last month: “I don’t think in the last 20 years or so one can say that governments have driven corporation tax policy. It’s the large companies that have driven the direction of corporate tax policy.”

The result is a stratum of businesses that is not beholden to the same social settlement as previous generations. Modern big business has got so used to tax breaks, handouts and easy ways of making cash (such as squeezing staff pay and conditions) that it no longer researches or innovates.

Meanwhile, politicians and officials tout for investment, no matter how fly-by-night. But even the savviest operators get caught out. AstraZeneca was assisted by a local MP to get a £5m government grant to develop its research and development centre at Alderley Park, Cheshire. Five months later, in 2013, it announced it was closing the plant and shedding 2,100 jobs. Absent from the public record is what it told its local MP. He was, of course, the chancellor, George Osborne.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/direct-aid-subsidies-tax-breaks-the-hidden-welfare-budget-we-dont-debate

Says it all!

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

dont talk out your backside, the govt CAN make jobs

they can build factories and provide the equipment...it's known as investment

and the result is a "nationalised industry"

its a win win

building the factories provides employment...in which people earn and then pay taxes and BUY things
making the machiery.equipmnet like wise

then the industry goes on to provide jobs and people work. earn money pay taxes and buy things.....

(and then dont need "benefits")

And who provides the training and the skill? Who provides the knowledge? The Government?

Should the Government also invent new products and start shops or other businesses? No - individuals do that - entrepreneurs. You hammer them, and they'll take their ambition elsewhere.

self defeatist conservatism at its best.

very very few "new products" come from your precious entrepreneurs. They comne from those EMPLOYED by entrepreneurs, who promptly benefit mightyly from someone elses work.

i.e getting fat on the back of the working people....

they guy that invents gets a couple of grand rise

say £5,000 over a working life IF he can stay with that company and the rise isnt absorbed over the years....
the "entrepreneur gets millions...for doing nothing.......

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

Hammer them? We give them money hand over fist.

You'd like them to be hammered though, wouldn't you?

You really don't have a bloody clue how government and business works do you?

Why would anyone want them to be hammered if they are providing jobs. However, they should not be allowed to get away with not paying taxes, or taking money from the public purse and then closing factories etc etc etc.

I've been a finance director, I know how it works.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:21 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

And who provides the training and the skill? Who provides the knowledge? The Government?

Should the Government also invent new products and start shops or other businesses? No - individuals do that - entrepreneurs. You hammer them, and they'll take their ambition elsewhere.

self defeatist conservatism at its best.

very very few "new products" come from your precious entrepreneurs. They comne from those EMPLOYED by entrepreneurs, who promptly benefit mightyly from someone elses work.

i.e getting fat on the back of the working people....

they guy that invents gets a couple of grand rise

say £5,000 over a working life IF he can stay with that company and the rise isnt absorbed over the years....
the "entrepreneur gets millions...for doing nothing.......

Well who gives those people jobs in the first place? The entrepreneurs of course. You want jobs to be created, and then you complain about the people creating the jobs.

There's nothing stopping those employees from setting up their own businesses, but a lot of people don't have the stomach for that - or they don't want the hassle.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:22 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You'd like them to be hammered though, wouldn't you?

You really don't have a bloody clue how government and business works do you?

Why would anyone want them to be hammered if they are providing jobs. However, they should not be allowed to get away with not paying taxes, or taking money from the public purse and then closing factories etc etc etc.

I've been a finance director, I know how it works.

Sassy, nearly all your posts have one theme - hammer the people who are providing the jobs, and give all the money to those who don't have jobs.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:23 pm

sassy wrote:It's what they are there to do, use our taxes for the good of the people, not for the good of their mates.

Osborne has said today he is going to take ANOTHER £20Billion from the public sector. That's fireman, policeman etc etc, and yet over the last few years he has given away £93BILLION in Corporate handouts.

Fuck him, I hope he dies a slow and lingering death from cocaine addiction.

Empathy failure?

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:It's what they are there to do, use our taxes for the good of the people, not for the good of their mates.

Osborne has said today he is going to take ANOTHER £20Billion from the public sector. That's fireman, policeman etc etc, and yet over the last few years he has given away £93BILLION in Corporate handouts.

Fuck him, I hope he dies a slow and lingering death from cocaine addiction.

Empathy failure?

On the part of George Osbone for the people he is going to make miserable - definitely.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:26 pm

What about the living wage thingy? That was part of this bill wasn't it?

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:What about the living wage thingy? That was part of this bill wasn't it?

No it wasn't. It was part of the Financial Bill done the other day. It's it's not a 'Living Wage', its a rebranding of the basic wage and won't make people any better off, in fact because of the cuts, most will be worse off.

Ikea is already paying the 'Living Wage', and it's over £9 ALREADY in London, and nearly £8 in the rest of the country. Ministry of Double Speak.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:29 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:What about the living wage thingy? That was part of this bill wasn't it?

No it wasn't. It was part of the Financial Bill done the other day. It's it's not a 'Living Wage', its a rebranding of the basic wage and won't make people any better off, in fact because of the cuts, most will be worse off.

Ikea is already paying the 'Living Wage', and it's over £9 ALREADY in London, and nearly £8 in the rest of the country. Ministry of Double Speak.

It will make those who don't get benefits better off.

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

No it wasn't. It was part of the Financial Bill done the other day. It's it's not a 'Living Wage', its a rebranding of the basic wage and won't make people any better off, in fact because of the cuts, most will be worse off.

Ikea is already paying the 'Living Wage', and it's over £9 ALREADY in London, and nearly £8 in the rest of the country. Ministry of Double Speak.

It will make those who don't get benefits better off.

Sometimes Rags, you are so stupid it is beyond belief. At the moment people on basic wage get tax credits. The limit for claiming tax credits is to come down drastically next year, it was slipped in undercover in an announcement in the House of Lords to avoid uproar in the House of Commons, yet another sneaky underhand move.

Budget 2015: tax credit claimants will be up to £1,000 a year worse off, says IFS

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/09/living-wage-will-leave-tax-credit-claimants-1000-worse-off-says-ifs

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:37 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It will make those who don't get benefits better off.

Sometimes Rags, you are so stupid it is beyond belief. At the moment people on basic wage get tax credits. The limit for claiming tax credits is to come down drastically next year, it was slipped in undercover in an announcement in the House of Lords to avoid uproar in the House of Commons, yet another sneaky underhand move.

Budget 2015: tax credit claimants will be up to £1,000 a year worse off, says IFS

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/09/living-wage-will-leave-tax-credit-claimants-1000-worse-off-says-ifs

I see you're getting riled up.

Jolly good. Laughing

Not everyone gets tax credits you know. I knew about the tax credits coming down, so it wasn't exactly a secret.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:38 pm

The more you pay people in benefits on top of their wages, the more rent and house prices will increase ...

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:43 pm

or conversely if you dont, the poorer they will become as rent and house prices continue to rise anyway....

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:44 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

Sometimes Rags, you are so stupid it is beyond belief. At the moment people on basic wage get tax credits. The limit for claiming tax credits is to come down drastically next year, it was slipped in undercover in an announcement in the House of Lords to avoid uproar in the House of Commons, yet another sneaky underhand move.

Budget 2015: tax credit claimants will be up to £1,000 a year worse off, says IFS

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/09/living-wage-will-leave-tax-credit-claimants-1000-worse-off-says-ifs

I see you're getting riled up.

Riled up - no

Exasperated that anyone who has had a decent education can end up that stupid - yes.

Jolly good.

Not everyone gets tax credits you know. I knew about the tax credits coming down, so it wasn't exactly a secret.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:46 pm

Poor Sassy - her empathy seems to have deserted her. Laughing

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:00 pm

You see, you have just proved again you don't understand what empathy is.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:01 pm

sassy wrote:You see, you have just proved again you don't understand what empathy is.

Neither do you - you can't put yourself in the shoes of anyone you disagree with. Razz

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:04 pm

You are doing it again. You are confusing empathy with sympathy. You can put yourself in someone's shoes, see where they are coming from, and think they are wrong to be on that track.

You can empathise with your enemy, see why he is your enemy and his reasons, but still think you have reasons for disliking him.

It's a difficult concept I know, and I can empathise with how hard you are finding it to get your head round it.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:04 pm

The benefit cap in general is good though isn't it? Did it go far enough though?

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:05 pm

sassy wrote:You are doing it again. You are confusing empathy with sympathy. You can put yourself in someone's shoes, see where they are coming from, and think they are wrong to be on that track.

You can empathise with your enemy, see why he is your enemy and his reasons, but still think you have reasons for disliking him.

It's a difficult concept I know, and I can empathise with how hard you are finding it to get your head round it.

Why do you keep trying to use it as an insult against me? You say I lack empathy as though that's a bad thing ...

Laughing

by Ben Reilly Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:The Government can't pull jobs out of a hat, they rely on people with drive, ambition, and skill to start companies which will provide jobs, so they can't crack down too much on those people. Those people will not provide jobs unless it benefits them to do so.

It's attitudes like this one that cause so many problems. People love to talk about how much society relies upon the "people with drive, ambition and skill" but they never mention that it's a two-way street -- people who start companies are equally dependent upon society, if not more so.

Take a pub owner with 200 regulars. He or she needs those regulars a hell of a lot more than they need the pub.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:21 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:The Government can't pull jobs out of a hat, they rely on people with drive, ambition, and skill to start companies which will provide jobs, so they can't crack down too much on those people. Those people will not provide jobs unless it benefits them to do so.

It's attitudes like this one that cause so many problems. People love to talk about how much society relies upon the "people with drive, ambition and skill" but they never mention that it's a two-way street -- people who start companies are equally dependent upon society, if not more so.

Take a pub owner with 200 regulars. He or she needs those regulars a hell of a lot more than they need the pub.

You're talking about customers rather than employees. What does a pub landlord do in order to get customers? He doesn't make them pay more, that's for sure. You say he needs the customers more than they need him. Well he can go elsewhere and own a pub. If that pub closes, who loses out most? The customers.

The point is that in order to create jobs, that requires businesses, yes? Not everyone is willing or able to start a business - maybe they lack the drive, knowledge, or money. Most people want others to provide a job for them rather than start a business themselves. Without the people who are willing to take a risk in the first place, there would be no jobs in the private sector.

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:25 pm

it went too far, and in the wrong direction

as for gaining extra national income

All "texts to be taxed at 5p per text ...whether or not you provide gives "free texts"

All smart phones and "tablet phones" to be taxed at 50% of their real value i.e what they would cost if bought out side of a contract as a one off

NO smart phone is a necessity (i'd accept that a simple mobile phone may well be given the decline of public phones)

few (if any) texts are strictly necessary and the vast majority are drivel in any case....

triple VED on all private vehicles over 2.5 litres

95% tax on "designer labels"

oh I could think of a lot more, that would rake in billions
and might just make those less well of THINK where they spend their money....
along with rent controls linked to the weighted median wage....NOT average wage, but the wage the largest number of people in an area are on

by veya_victaous Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:22 am

VIVA LA REVOLUTION
we act like drive and ambition mean everything they don't they are a dime a dozen you NEED wealth to make anything from it.

I personally know people with more drive and more capacity for risk than 99% of business people today (they are actually drug dealers) but they were not born with anything, a legal life would have meant starting in 10's of 1000's in debt (like myself) and the first person to give them an opportunity to make anything was a bigger drug dealer.

Today MOST bosses are bosses because their parents had money, they are not rich and powerful because of any sort of personal skill, drive, ambition or effort they were born with more money than most people will earn in a life time.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:22 am

veya_victaous wrote:VIVA LA REVOLUTION
we act like drive and ambition mean everything they don't they are a dime a dozen you NEED wealth to make anything from it.

I personally know people with more drive and more capacity for risk than 99% of business people today (they are actually drug dealers) but they were not born with anything, a legal life would have meant starting in 10's of 1000's in debt (like myself) and the first person to give them an opportunity to make anything was a bigger drug dealer.

Today MOST bosses are bosses because their parents had money, they are not rich and powerful because of any sort of personal skill, drive, ambition or effort they were born with more money than most people will earn in a life time.

Good morning Veya.

I'm sure a lot of people think they have drive and ambition, but they don't actually carry it through to the extent that they have the self-discipline to start small, reinvest their profits, take responsibility for employees, and take the risks that building up a business requires.

However, I did mention money as being one of the things that people lack, but then again, if someone does have money and starts a business which provides jobs, you lefties still complain because they had an "advantage". Would you rather they just squandered their money on cars, boats, champagne, and loads of houses? They could easily do that instead. Having money does not necessarily provide someone with the necessary attributes I just mentioned.

by veya_victaous Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:00 pm

Raggs it is not theirs unless society says it is, the very notion of ownership is artificial Aboriginals simply didn't have it which cause a lot of the early problems
They have more because they make society function IF they cease to make society function properly then they DESERVE the same fate a Marie Antoinette.
French royal thought they could just squandered their money on Horses, boats, champagne, and loads of houses... they were wrong
Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" Guillotine

Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" Guillotine

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:09 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Raggs it is not theirs unless society says it is, the very notion of ownership is artificial Aboriginals simply didn't have it which cause a lot of the early problems
They have more because they make society function IF they cease to make society function properly then they DESERVE the same fate a Marie Antoinette.
French royal thought they could just squandered their money on Horses, boats, champagne, and loads of houses... they were wrong

What's not theirs Veya?

I don't think anyone in the UK who has money is going to be executed for spending it the way they want to - well not legally anyway.

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:21 am

yes until a revolution.
periodic every few hundred years we are due for another one.

And none of it is theirs BY what right is it theirs because some old queen decided. literally ALL ownership goes back to some guy in a suit or Armour with a sword telling people it is his or he is going to kill them. sure some has changed hands by the dubious concept of profit (as much theft as copying is theft) that supposedly legitimizes someone taking more resources than others.

The Whole thing only exist because people agree to it, French Royal, Russian Tzars Manchurian emperors are all examples of when the people stopped agreeing to it.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:24 am

veya_victaous wrote:yes until a revolution.
periodic every few hundred years we are due for another one.

And none of it is theirs BY what right is it theirs because some old queen decided. literally ALL ownership goes back to some guy in a suit or Armour with a sword telling people it is his or he is going to kill them. sure some has changed hands by the dubious concept of profit (as much theft as copying is theft) that supposedly legitimizes someone taking more resources than others.

The Whole thing only exist because people agree to it, French Royal, Russian Tzars Manchurian emperors are all examples of when the people stopped agreeing to it.

Not necessarily. Someone could have inherited money that was made by building up a successful business from very little.

Are you a bit of a commie Veya? Laughing

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:39 am

I would design a new socioeconomic policy. it would be closer to communism than capitalism.

inherited money by building up a successful business from very little. How very old world thinking Raggs the game of monopoly has pasted that point decades ago Rolling Eyes

now we wait to someone wins (world dictator although corporate oligarchy is more likely) or the enough of the players (regular people) get sick of it and FLIP THE BOARD
Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" Daniel-Craig-Knocking-Over-Monopoly-Board-SNL

Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" Daniel-Craig-Knocking-Over-Monopoly-Board-SNL

by Raggamuffin Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:59 am

veya_victaous wrote:I would design a new socioeconomic policy. it would be closer to communism than capitalism.

inherited money by building up a successful business from very little. How very old world thinking Raggs the game of monopoly has pasted that point decades ago now we wait to someone wins (world dictator although corporate oligarchy is more likely) or the enough of the players (regular people) get sick of it and FLIP THE BOARD

Why do you sneer at the idea that someone could build up a business from very little, and make a heap of money which they then pass on? Do you think it never happens?

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:48 pm

not any more, get millions maybe but that's not really the rich and powerful, today billions is the entry to that club.

Even the stories like zuckerburg etc, was full fee paying student at Harvard i.e Born Rich. the amount of money needed to get started today (rising education costs only making it worse) is more than most people on the planet will ever have.

Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" Wealthdisparity

Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" Wealthdisparity

and see how it gets worse
2004
Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" Wealth-distribution

2009

and people are not happy about it so it is only a matter of time
Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" Inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend

Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" Inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend

by Ben Reilly Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:57 pm

Yeah, people love rags-to-riches stories but they're very rare -- and often exaggerated. Bill Gates is sometimes cited as one of these; he did gain a lot of wealth but he grew up in a wealthy area of Seattle, was the son of a well-known and successful lawyer, attended private school and got into Harvard. He was privileged.

This is just for the U.S. but I think it makes a good example:

Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" Mobility

Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" Mobility

83 percent of Americans will die in the same economic circumstances under which they were born.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:17 pm

Thank you both. I'm not ignoring your posts, it's just that graphs make my eyes go a bit funny. Laughing

I'll look tomorrow.

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:21 pm

Adding to bens
and that is part of the problem the west is forcing a global economy yet 99% of Americans are still better of than 99% of the world

Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" 6571_7120622913

Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" 6571_7120622913

Welfare reform and work bill: "I would swim through vomit" World-inequality

by Raggamuffin Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:24 pm

Just think - if someone won millions on the lottery, we could make them use the money to provide jobs. I reckon I'd buy some houses and then rent them out really cheaply. I'm not sure I'd be up to building a factory though. Laughing

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:33 pm

@raggs
you do realize just having shares provides jobs? Even if you don't think you can run a successful business You can invest your assets behind someone that does.

Rich people are fine if they are working towards society even if it is just investing in 'good/ethical' companies. The issue is today more are interested in the maximum return in the minimum time, largely at the expense of the rest of society and Using their wealth and power to change the laws to favor them even more.

by Sponsored content