|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 16, 2015 8:23:28 GMT
The richest 1% now own 50% of all the wealth. At what point are people going to wake-up & do something about it? I mean, I might be looking at this way too simplistically but those '1%', even they went on the spending-spree to end all spending-spree's, could never spend more than 1% of their wealth, so basically we have 49% of all the wealth on Earth just sitting there doing nothing. Meanwhile millions, billions of people continue to starve too death.
At what point are the people who shrug their shoulders & come out with all the "You're just jealous", "Go live in North Korea" shit, going to take notice? When they own 60%? 75%? 99%?
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 16, 2015 8:52:21 GMT
I wonder if they pay 50% of the worlds tax? I very much doubt it.
The wealth doesn't 'trickle down' that much we know, charity doesn't solve the problem so they have to be heavily taxed and their wealth redistributed. That is the only answer as the wealthy do not act in a responsible way.
|
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 16, 2015 8:56:13 GMT
Introduce a wealth tax and reduce income tax levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 16, 2015 8:56:34 GMT
The richest 1% now own 50% of all the wealth. At what point are people going to wake-up & do something about it? I mean, I might be looking at this way too simplistically but those '1%', even they went on the spending-spree to end all spending-spree's, could never spend more than 1% of their wealth, so basically we have 49% of all the wealth on Earth just sitting there doing nothing. Meanwhile millions, billions of people continue to starve too death. At what point are the people who shrug their shoulders & come out with all the "You're just jealous", "Go live in North Korea" shit, going to take notice? When they own 60%? 75%? 99%? DC Good point.At the moment those with the power to be able to do something are those with the wealth....so why do anything , as I realise that you already know. |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 16, 2015 9:01:09 GMT
It's where and how the taxing the rich that's the problem. When politicians talk about taxing "the rich", they talk about people that earn, say £100k a year. The rich being described here, view a £100k earner as a peasant. There's very little appetite for politicians to go after the properly rich, because their political careers can be destroyed by those with real power and influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 16, 2015 9:10:51 GMT
It's where and how the taxing the rich that's the problem. When politicians talk about taxing "the rich", they talk about people that earn, say £100k a year. The rich being described here, view a £100k earner as a peasant. There's very little appetite for politicians to go after the properly rich, because their political careers can be destroyed by those with real power and influence. The how is relatively straightforward but yeah the where is an issue. There will always be an offshore haven for the greedy, you just make sure and get as much agreement as you can to tax them to the hilt where you can. You can also heavily limit and regulate property speculation, casino banking and hedge funds. If you want to of course. |
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Oct 16, 2015 9:24:05 GMT
The richest 1% now own 50% of all the wealth. At what point are people going to wake-up & do something about it? I mean, I might be looking at this way too simplistically but those '1%', even they went on the spending-spree to end all spending-spree's, could never spend more than 1% of their wealth, so basically we have 49% of all the wealth on Earth just sitting there doing nothing. Meanwhile millions, billions of people continue to starve too death. At what point are the people who shrug their shoulders & come out with all the "You're just jealous", "Go live in North Korea" shit, going to take notice? When they own 60%? 75%? 99%? It's rotten . However , most people are too comfortable to give a shit and feel as if the situation is hopeless and therefore do not feel the need to worry about it hence the situation will never change |
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Oct 16, 2015 10:07:37 GMT
The richest 1% now own 50% of all the wealth. At what point are people going to wake-up & do something about it? I mean, I might be looking at this way too simplistically but those '1%', even they went on the spending-spree to end all spending-spree's, could never spend more than 1% of their wealth, so basically we have 49% of all the wealth on Earth just sitting there doing nothing. Meanwhile millions, billions of people continue to starve too death. At what point are the people who shrug their shoulders & come out with all the "You're just jealous", "Go live in North Korea" shit, going to take notice? When they own 60%? 75%? 99%? 49% of the world's wealth sitting there doing nothing? Sorry, but how do you think this works? Its not all sitting in piles of cash in a warehouse somewhere. There will always be the rich and there will always be the poor. Rather than focusing on bringing the rich down, we should concentrate on ways to push the poor up. You simply need a minimum acceptable standard of living for the poorest, and a mechanism for them to work their way up, and you dont get that by dragging everyone down to that level. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 16, 2015 10:13:20 GMT
The richest 1% now own 50% of all the wealth. At what point are people going to wake-up & do something about it? I mean, I might be looking at this way too simplistically but those '1%', even they went on the spending-spree to end all spending-spree's, could never spend more than 1% of their wealth, so basically we have 49% of all the wealth on Earth just sitting there doing nothing. Meanwhile millions, billions of people continue to starve too death. At what point are the people who shrug their shoulders & come out with all the "You're just jealous", "Go live in North Korea" shit, going to take notice? When they own 60%? 75%? 99%? There will always be the rich and there will always be the poor. Rather than focusing on bringing the rich down, we should concentrate on ways to push the poor up. Who pays for this noble aim? |
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Oct 16, 2015 10:18:31 GMT
There will always be the rich and there will always be the poor. Rather than focusing on bringing the rich down, we should concentrate on ways to push the poor up. Who pays for this noble aim? Its called work. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 16, 2015 10:20:11 GMT
Who pays for this noble aim? Its called work. Indeed it is. Wealth created from the sweat of the poor with ever decreasing workers rights. |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 16, 2015 10:21:01 GMT
Who pays for this noble aim? Its called work. I'm sure your advice will be well received in a Bangladeshi sweat shop. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 10:27:12 GMT
Who pays for this noble aim? Its called work. Yes but these rich people who have all this money they will never ever spend, are still taking massive wages out of their companies when it could be better distributed at the bottom. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 10:33:36 GMT
I'm sure your advice will be well received in a Bangladeshi sweat shop. So lets close down the Bangladesi sweat shops and instead let Nike,Addidas,New Balance, etc etc etc build a state of the art modern factory in Milton Keynes. Now, heres the problem, said companies still need to make a profit, and lets not get all gooey when we think a pair of trainers costs 2quid to make and they are selling for 50 quid, therefore making 48 quid, there are lots of non production costs involved, like R & D, Admin, Warehousing, Transport, Marketing campaigns, and so the list goes on, so, back to the Milton Keynes scenario, now the trainers cost 10 quid to make, you really think 50 quid will still be the price, nope, more like 80 quid, because again, all the non production costs have gone up, so yeah, lets close the Bangladeshi factory, lets move production to Milton Keynes, lets all pay a lot more for our goods, and lets create British Jobs, for British people, called Abduhl, and Joseff, and Sunita...Great idea... |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 16, 2015 10:34:39 GMT
Yes but these rich people who have all this money they will never ever spend, are still taking massive wages out of their companies when it could be better distributed at the bottom. I've seen this happen, first hand. The part time chairman of a company I worked for, did less than a month's work a year, took a six figure salary and company Jag plus chauffeur. The company eventually folded, and his other non executive directorships kept him and his yachts afloat. |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 16, 2015 10:36:11 GMT
I'm sure your advice will be well received in a Bangladeshi sweat shop. So lets close down the Bangladesi sweat shops and instead let Nike,Addidas,New Balance, etc etc etc build a state of the art modern factory in Milton Keynes. Now, heres the problem, said companies still need to make a profit, and lets not get all gooey when we think a pair of trainers costs 2quid to make and they are selling for 50 quid, therefore making 48 quid, there are lots of non production costs involved, like R & D, Admin, Warehousing, Transport, Marketing campaigns, and so the list goes on, so, back to the Milton Keynes scenario, now the trainers cost 10 quid to make, you really think 50 quid will still be the price, nope, more like 80 quid, because again, all the non production costs have gone up, so yeah, lets close the Bangladeshi factory, lets move production to Milton Keynes, lets all pay a lot more for our goods, and lets create British Jobs, for British people, called Abduhl, and Joseff, and Sunita...Great idea... Wow, that's some leap you made there! |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 16, 2015 10:42:26 GMT
I'm sure your advice will be well received in a Bangladeshi sweat shop. So lets close down the Bangladesi sweat shops and instead let Nike,Addidas,New Balance, etc etc etc build a state of the art modern factory in Milton Keynes. Now, heres the problem, said companies still need to make a profit, and lets not get all gooey when we think a pair of trainers costs 2quid to make and they are selling for 50 quid, therefore making 48 quid, there are lots of non production costs involved, like R & D, Admin, Warehousing, Transport, Marketing campaigns, and so the list goes on, so, back to the Milton Keynes scenario, now the trainers cost 10 quid to make, you really think 50 quid will still be the price, nope, more like 80 quid, because again, all the non production costs have gone up, so yeah, lets close the Bangladeshi factory, lets move production to Milton Keynes, lets all pay a lot more for our goods, and lets create British Jobs, for British people, called Abduhl, and Joseff, and Sunita...Great idea... There is no justification for sweatshops. The system you describe is as criminal as me walking out of the front door and hitting an old lady around the head with a bat and taking her purse but when it comes to share holders and profit there is a rather more 'clouded' moral outlook* *I write this moral outrage whilst wearing a pair of Adidas trainers and a New Balance sweat top. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 10:42:02 GMT
So lets close down the Bangladesi sweat shops and instead let Nike,Addidas,New Balance, etc etc etc build a state of the art modern factory in Milton Keynes. Now, heres the problem, said companies still need to make a profit, and lets not get all gooey when we think a pair of trainers costs 2quid to make and they are selling for 50 quid, therefore making 48 quid, there are lots of non production costs involved, like R & D, Admin, Warehousing, Transport, Marketing campaigns, and so the list goes on, so, back to the Milton Keynes scenario, now the trainers cost 10 quid to make, you really think 50 quid will still be the price, nope, more like 80 quid, because again, all the non production costs have gone up, so yeah, lets close the Bangladeshi factory, lets move production to Milton Keynes, lets all pay a lot more for our goods, and lets create British Jobs, for British people, called Abduhl, and Joseff, and Sunita...Great idea... Wow, that's some leap you made there! Thank you. Just saying what most people that have worked on a factory believe. If you suddenly create 100's of low skilled jobs the chances are you will get agency workers, and agency workers are in the main not called Dave or John or Tracy. That's not in any way a racist comment, it is a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 10:42:38 GMT
The richest 1% now own 50% of all the wealth. At what point are people going to wake-up & do something about it? I mean, I might be looking at this way too simplistically but those '1%', even they went on the spending-spree to end all spending-spree's, could never spend more than 1% of their wealth, so basically we have 49% of all the wealth on Earth just sitting there doing nothing. Meanwhile millions, billions of people continue to starve too death. At what point are the people who shrug their shoulders & come out with all the "You're just jealous", "Go live in North Korea" shit, going to take notice? When they own 60%? 75%? 99%? 49% of the world's wealth sitting there doing nothing? Sorry, but how do you think this works? Its not all sitting in piles of cash in a warehouse somewhere. There will always be the rich and there will always be the poor. Rather than focusing on bringing the rich down, we should concentrate on ways to push the poor up. You simply need a minimum acceptable standard of living for the poorest, and a mechanism for them to work their way up, and you dont get that by dragging everyone down to that level. I would argue this an overly simple and prescriptive analysis, as is the theory it derives from. The economic rationale behind right wing/free market values is often intuitive. This perhaps explains how people are prepared to buy into it who evidently do not benefit from it. There is a difference between means and ends however, and the ends often mean a series of serious negative consequences affecting a large chunk in society. I'd argue this is perhaps because the theory is overly prescriptive, and ignores that all the actors in an economy are subject to power relationships. By removing limitations and sanctions on the powerful under the guise that it benefits us all, you can persuade those that don't benefit that these seemingly intuitive measures are beneficial to them and wider society. See a seven day NHS for a good current example. Seven day NHS sounds good, but those bearing the brunt at the minute are junior doctors. Industrial action is deemed generally unpopular and they are painted as selfish. They end up losing out anyway, and people continue to endorse the free market values of the labour market. The public back increasingly stringent regulations on trade unions and subsequently diminish their own bargaining power in the labour market. The riposte to that is that people should train themselves to have better jobs. By return, the counter argument is the historical trend of wage degradation since the 1980s, which also exists in professional jobs, as well as the low paid. Notably too, the burden of training increasingly falls into the worker rather than business, which is clearly unsustainable. Trickle down demonstrably does not work, and benefits one side of the power relationship. I'd argue a Scandinavian model would be an appropriate remedy. An active policy of full employment being most desirable. The public I suspect will not be persuaded. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 10:46:39 GMT
So lets close down the Bangladesi sweat shops and instead let Nike,Addidas,New Balance, etc etc etc build a state of the art modern factory in Milton Keynes. Now, heres the problem, said companies still need to make a profit, and lets not get all gooey when we think a pair of trainers costs 2quid to make and they are selling for 50 quid, therefore making 48 quid, there are lots of non production costs involved, like R & D, Admin, Warehousing, Transport, Marketing campaigns, and so the list goes on, so, back to the Milton Keynes scenario, now the trainers cost 10 quid to make, you really think 50 quid will still be the price, nope, more like 80 quid, because again, all the non production costs have gone up, so yeah, lets close the Bangladeshi factory, lets move production to Milton Keynes, lets all pay a lot more for our goods, and lets create British Jobs, for British people, called Abduhl, and Joseff, and Sunita...Great idea... There is no justification for sweatshops. The system you describe is as criminal as me walking out of the front door and hitting an old lady around the head with a bat and taking her purse but when it comes to share holders and profit there is a rather more 'clouded' moral outlook* *I write this moral outrage whilst wearing a pair of Adidas trainers and a New Balance sweat top. Sadly though sweat shops are keeping communities in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand etc etc etc in work. Yeah, lets get all PC and close them down, errr, where shall we now send the food parcels, because these families will now starve. Here in Thailand the average shop worker earns just £160.00 a month, but as soon as a new shop opens they are inundated with applicants, sad as it is it is a reality, and these new jobs are the difference between starving and surviving. |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 16, 2015 10:55:19 GMT
Wow, that's some leap you made there! Thank you. Just saying what most people that have worked on a factory believe. If you suddenly create 100's of low skilled jobs the chances are you will get agency workers, and agency workers are in the main not called Dave or John or Tracy. That's not in any way a racist comment, it is a fact. My point was far more simplistic, in that I'm saying that hard work alone, does not necessarily have the ability to take people out of poverty. Systems are put in place to keep the workers in their place, and the wealthy in theirs. It's always been that way, and probably always will be. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 16, 2015 10:55:15 GMT
There is no justification for sweatshops. The system you describe is as criminal as me walking out of the front door and hitting an old lady around the head with a bat and taking her purse but when it comes to share holders and profit there is a rather more 'clouded' moral outlook* *I write this moral outrage whilst wearing a pair of Adidas trainers and a New Balance sweat top. Sadly though sweat shops are keeping communities in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand etc etc etc in work. Yeah, lets get all PC and close them down, errr, where shall we now send the food parcels, because these families will now starve. Here in Thailand the average shop worker earns just £160.00 a month, but as soon as a new shop opens they are inundated with applicants, sad as it is it is a reality, and these new jobs are the difference between starving and surviving. It's no excuse. Companies like Nike can build proper well paid communities in their supply chain if they want, this is slavery under another name and the problem is with flexible labour markets (spit) unions being battered and having to pay to go a tribunal the conditions experienced in Thailand are heading West and not vice versa. Still that 1% wont own 51% of the wealth this time next year if they look after the people on whose sweat they strive there will they? |
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Oct 17, 2015 4:53:57 GMT
Yes but these rich people who have all this money they will never ever spend, are still taking massive wages out of their companies when it could be better distributed at the bottom. They spend almost all of it. It is invested all over and put back into the economy, they just have first dibs on it effectively. Its not like a billionaire has it all sitting in cash somewhere. Noone 'rich' got that way through wages either. |
|
