|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 28, 2023 8:54:13 GMT
Jesus wept it's 2023 FFS, yet we act like we're still locked into the final throes of Empire, no wonder the rest of the world are disgusted by us! "But Mr Mitsotakis's appearance on the the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme had irritated Mr Sunak. A senior Conservative source said: "It became impossible for this meeting to go ahead following commentary regarding the Elgin Marbles prior to it. "Our position is clear - the Elgin Marbles are part of the permanent collection of the British Museum and belong here. It is reckless for any British politician to suggest that this is subject to negotiation." Couldn’t a simple solution to these problems be that museums (and govts) around the world get together to do rotation collections of artifacts? Yes, you may have to start charging a little or more aggressively pushing for donations but at least the World’s history would then belong to the World. The simplest solution, would be for us to return them to their rightful owners.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 28, 2023 9:44:52 GMT
Couldn’t a simple solution to these problems be that museums (and govts) around the world get together to do rotation collections of artifacts? Yes, you may have to start charging a little or more aggressively pushing for donations but at least the World’s history would then belong to the World. The simplest solution, would be for us to return them to their rightful owners. If some Greek nobleman wandering through London during the chaos of the Blitz half-inched the Crown Jewels (bits of which were nicked from India anyway) and then took them back to Athens and put the on display - calling them the 'Spiros Sparklers' - I'm sure we'd never bother asking for them back.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 28, 2023 9:52:28 GMT
The simplest solution, would be for us to return them to their rightful owners. If some Greek nobleman wandering through London during the chaos of the Blitz half-inched the Crown Jewels (bits of which were nicked from India anyway) and then took them back to Athens and put the on display - calling them the 'Spiros Sparklers' - I'm sure we'd never bother asking for them back. Indeed and I'm pretty sure we'd do a lot more than simply *ask*.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 28, 2023 10:52:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2023 11:35:20 GMT
Couldn’t a simple solution to these problems be that museums (and govts) around the world get together to do rotation collections of artifacts? Yes, you may have to start charging a little or more aggressively pushing for donations but at least the World’s history would then belong to the World. The simplest solution, would be for us to return them to their rightful owners. It’s not one that will ever happen though and it is one that will damage the UK’s museums. It also raises questions about the rights of the UK to hold onto items that were found by its archaeologists as I can’t imagine that any contracts from earlier periods remain. I’d much rather us spend time trying to collaborate rather than compete.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 28, 2023 11:56:37 GMT
The simplest solution, would be for us to return them to their rightful owners. It’s not one that will ever happen though and it is one that will damage the UK’s museums. It also raises questions about the rights of the UK to hold onto items that were found by its archaeologists as I can’t imagine that any contracts from earlier periods remain. I’d much rather us spend time trying to collaborate rather than compete. We don't need to compete, we can give them back. Damn right it will raise questions about other stuff that we've, shall we say, *appropriated* and we can give that stuff back as well.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2023 12:05:43 GMT
It’s not one that will ever happen though and it is one that will damage the UK’s museums. It also raises questions about the rights of the UK to hold onto items that were found by its archaeologists as I can’t imagine that any contracts from earlier periods remain. I’d much rather us spend time trying to collaborate rather than compete. We don't need to compete, we can give them it back. Damn right it will raise questions about other stuff that we've, shall we say, *appropriated* and we can give that stuff back as well. Perhaps. I’d rather see a traveling museum though.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 28, 2023 12:07:11 GMT
The simplest solution, would be for us to return them to their rightful owners. It’s not one that will ever happen though and it is one that will damage the UK’s museums. It also raises questions about the rights of the UK to hold onto items that were found by its archaeologists as I can’t imagine that any contracts from earlier periods remain. I’d much rather us spend time trying to collaborate rather than compete. I wouldn't be to sure In the last year the Vatican and a Museum in Palermo returned fragments of the Parthenon Sculptures which they held Further fragments are held in Paris, Copenhagen, Munich, Vienna and Wür. Advanced talks are being held with Austria for the return of the fragments they hold It is entirely obvious other than to the Taliban that Cultural Antiquities should be preserved, in tact and in their original setting. If Countries follow the lead of others the the British position becomes untenable.... although we do like to play the role of the Lone Ranger sometimes
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 28, 2023 12:16:22 GMT
We don't need to compete, we can give them it back. Damn right it will raise questions about other stuff that we've, shall we say, *appropriated* and we can give that stuff back as well. Perhaps. I’d rather see a traveling museum though. A lot of those Culturally Important Artefacts to the Countries from which they were stolen were taken in Victorian times to demonstrate the backwardness of the Countries from which they were stolen and show the superiority of the British Empire They competed alongside other exhibits like The Elephant Man and the Bearded Lady We have no such need today
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2023 12:21:52 GMT
Perhaps. I’d rather see a traveling museum though. A lot of those Culturally Important Artefacts to the Countries from which they were stolen were taken in Victorian times to demonstrate the backwardness of the Countries from which they were stolen and show the superiority of the British Empire They competed alongside other exhibits like The Elephant Man and the Bearded Lady We have no such need today Apart from simply admiring the history and cultures of other countries and inspiring a generation of would-be historians.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 28, 2023 12:37:46 GMT
A lot of those Culturally Important Artefacts to the Countries from which they were stolen were taken in Victorian times to demonstrate the backwardness of the Countries from which they were stolen and show the superiority of the British Empire They competed alongside other exhibits like The Elephant Man and the Bearded Lady We have no such need today Apart from simply admiring the history and cultures of other countries and inspiring a generation of would-be historians. Don't the Greeks deserve the oppurtunity to be inspired by their own history and culture? Or must they travel to London to view a looters swag in order to do so?
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 28, 2023 12:46:15 GMT
www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/nov/27/uk-spends-more-financing-inequality-in-favour-of-rich-than-rest-of-europe-report-finds“When compared with the top five most equal countries, however, inequality costs the UK £128.4bn a year in damage to the economy, communities and individuals.” “The report found that the richest 1% in the UK are the most expensive top 1% group in Europe, paying the lowest taxes of such a group in any large European country. ” “Many of Britain’s deep-seated problems – a broken economy, hollowed-out public services, static and falling living standards, the doubling of child poverty since the late 1970s, and the fall in social resilience – can be traced to the way the economy has been turned into a cash cow for the already rich,” Yet some on here raise doubt in the need to focus tax increases on the most wealthy in the UK on here. I guess they would prefer the “have nots” keep subsiding the “haves”. Tax the rich people more. Improve public services for everyone. Reduce inequality. Reduce poverty. www.resolutionfoundation.org/comment/last-year-saw-living-standards-stagnate-and-poverty-rise/The statement in the link you posted that "Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries" and your comment of poverty increasing since the 1970s, prompts me to post the above link. This article was written before the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the consequential impacts of inflation, energy crisis and economic slowdown, which all cloud the current debate about something that has been deteriorating for decades. As I have repeatedly posted in the past, UK inequality fell for most of the 20th century but things went seriously wrong in the 1970s. (See Figure 1 in reference 1.) My link above shows that a sharp increase in the various measures of poverty and inequality took place in the the Thatcher years, but at least there was a sharp upturn in economic growth, which eventually "trickled down" to the poor when things "levelled out" (excluding housing costs which continued to rise) in the 1990s. The Blair years saw an improving trend initially, but the economy was feeding on a huge increase in personal debt and the poverty trend took an adverse reversal in 2005, well before the banking crisis upset the apple cart in 2008. The lesson is: to fund increased equality, it is essential to genuinely increase the wealth of the nation sufficiently fast. Since 2008 austerity was the order of the day up to the time of the report in the above link, with the nations finances severely impacted by an ever increasing trade deficit from the turn of the century. (Ref.2) This was driven by an even greater growing trade deficit with the EU (Ref. 3) I disagree with your last line summary that the solution is as simple as "Tax the rich people more."
Simply taxing more would only result in a capital flight and talent leaving the country. There are 100,000 of French people working in London to avoid France's taxes. Reaganomics showed that reducing taxes boosts a country's wealth, not that I'm suggesting another bash at "Trussonomics"! What I'm saying is you have to take the wealthy with you by redistributing increased wealth in favour of the poor. Poverty and inequality will not be returned to the 1960s levels without: 1. Re-establishing consistent economic growth rate, such as the 3.68% GDP per head growth from 1955 to 1973 (Ref. 4 & 5) ) 2. Getting back to a trade balance so we "pay our way" in the world, and stop devaluing our currency. 3. Taking direct legislative and budgetary/fiscal action to redistribute the extra wealth created. References 1. www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2020/12/The-UKs-wealth-distribution.pdf2. researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8261/CBP-8261.pdf3. www.statista.com/statistics/284750/united-kingdom-uk-total-eu-trade-in-goods-by-trade-value/#:~:text=As%20of%20the%20third%20quarter,of%20around%2031.6%20billion%20pounds 4. www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy5. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihxw/pn2
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2023 12:52:25 GMT
Apart from simply admiring the history and cultures of other countries and inspiring a generation of would-be historians. Don't the Greeks deserve the oppurtunity to be inspired by their own history and culture? Or must they travel to London to view a looters swag in order to do so? Like I’ve said, arrangements that rotating artifacts across the World would be my ideal situation. This would achieve what you suggest. There are so many artifacts that simply sit in storage, inspiring no one. I honestly don’t care about any one particular piece but I do believe that museums should have a diverse exhibit that highlights other cultures. History doesn’t just start and stop on these shores and teaching kids that doesn’t seem like a wise idea to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2023 13:01:23 GMT
www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/nov/27/uk-spends-more-financing-inequality-in-favour-of-rich-than-rest-of-europe-report-finds“When compared with the top five most equal countries, however, inequality costs the UK £128.4bn a year in damage to the economy, communities and individuals.” “The report found that the richest 1% in the UK are the most expensive top 1% group in Europe, paying the lowest taxes of such a group in any large European country. ” “Many of Britain’s deep-seated problems – a broken economy, hollowed-out public services, static and falling living standards, the doubling of child poverty since the late 1970s, and the fall in social resilience – can be traced to the way the economy has been turned into a cash cow for the already rich,” Yet some on here raise doubt in the need to focus tax increases on the most wealthy in the UK on here. I guess they would prefer the “have nots” keep subsiding the “haves”. Tax the rich people more. Improve public services for everyone. Reduce inequality. Reduce poverty. www.resolutionfoundation.org/comment/last-year-saw-living-standards-stagnate-and-poverty-rise/The statement in the link you posted that "Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries" and your comment of poverty increasing since the 1970s, prompts me to post the above link. This article was written before the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the consequential impacts of inflation, energy crisis and economic slowdown, which all cloud the current debate about something that has been deteriorating for decades. As I have repeatedly posted in the past, UK inequality fell for most of the 20th century but things went seriously wrong in the 1970s. (See Figure 1 in reference 1.) My link above shows that a sharp increase in the various measures of poverty and inequality took place in the the Thatcher years, but at least there was a sharp upturn in economic growth, which eventually "trickled down" to the poor when things "levelled out" (excluding housing costs which continued to rise) in the 1990s. The Blair years saw an improving trend initially, but the economy was feeding on a huge increase in personal debt and the poverty trend took an adverse reversal in 2005, well before the banking crisis upset the apple cart in 2008. The lesson is: to fund increased equality, it is essential to genuinely increase the wealth of the nation sufficiently fast. Since 2008 austerity was the order of the day up to the time of the report in the above link, with the nations finances severely impacted by an ever increasing trade deficit from the turn of the century. (Ref.2) This was driven by an even greater growing trade deficit with the EU (Ref. 3) I disagree with your last line summary that the solution is as simple as "Tax the rich people more."
Simply taxing more would only result in a capital flight and talent leaving the country. There are 100,000 of French people working in London to avoid France's taxes. Reaganomics showed that reducing taxes boosts a country's wealth, not that I'm suggesting another bash at "Trussonomics"! What I'm saying is you have to take the wealthy with you by redistributing increased wealth in favour of the poor. Poverty and inequality will not be returned to the 1960s levels without: 1. Re-establishing consistent economic growth rate, such as the 3.68% GDP per head growth from 1955 to 1973 (Ref. 4 & 5) ) 2. Getting back to a trade balance so we "pay our way" in the world, and stop devaluing our currency. 3. Taking direct legislative and budgetary/fiscal action to redistribute the extra wealth created. References 1. www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2020/12/The-UKs-wealth-distribution.pdf2. researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8261/CBP-8261.pdf3. www.statista.com/statistics/284750/united-kingdom-uk-total-eu-trade-in-goods-by-trade-value/#:~:text=As%20of%20the%20third%20quarter,of%20around%2031.6%20billion%20pounds 4. www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy5. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihxw/pn2“Reaganomics showed that reducing taxes boosts a country's wealth” Boosting it by tripling national debt? Boosting it by ramping up inequality while leaving with the same number of poor in office as he started with? When will their trickle down occur? Wealthy businessman thanked Reagan for his tax breaks, donated more to Republican campaigns and media outlets then still sodded off to China. There is around 200k Brits living in France despite the tax increases.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 28, 2023 13:02:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 28, 2023 13:05:04 GMT
www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/nov/27/uk-spends-more-financing-inequality-in-favour-of-rich-than-rest-of-europe-report-finds“When compared with the top five most equal countries, however, inequality costs the UK £128.4bn a year in damage to the economy, communities and individuals.” “The report found that the richest 1% in the UK are the most expensive top 1% group in Europe, paying the lowest taxes of such a group in any large European country. ” “Many of Britain’s deep-seated problems – a broken economy, hollowed-out public services, static and falling living standards, the doubling of child poverty since the late 1970s, and the fall in social resilience – can be traced to the way the economy has been turned into a cash cow for the already rich,” Yet some on here raise doubt in the need to focus tax increases on the most wealthy in the UK on here. I guess they would prefer the “have nots” keep subsiding the “haves”. Tax the rich people more. Improve public services for everyone. Reduce inequality. Reduce poverty. www.resolutionfoundation.org/comment/last-year-saw-living-standards-stagnate-and-poverty-rise/The statement in the link you posted that "Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries" and your comment of poverty increasing since the 1970s, prompts me to post the above link. This article was written before the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the consequential impacts of inflation, energy crisis and economic slowdown, which all cloud the current debate about something that has been deteriorating for decades. As I have repeatedly posted in the past, UK inequality fell for most of the 20th century but things went seriously wrong in the 1970s. (See Figure 1 in reference 1.) My link above shows that a sharp increase in the various measures of poverty and inequality took place in the the Thatcher years, but at least there was a sharp upturn in economic growth, which eventually "trickled down" to the poor when things "levelled out" (excluding housing costs which continued to rise) in the 1990s. The Blair years saw an improving trend initially, but the economy was feeding on a huge increase in personal debt and the poverty trend took an adverse reversal in 2005, well before the banking crisis upset the apple cart in 2008. The lesson is: to fund increased equality, it is essential to genuinely increase the wealth of the nation sufficiently fast. Since 2008 austerity was the order of the day up to the time of the report in the above link, with the nations finances severely impacted by an ever increasing trade deficit from the turn of the century. (Ref.2) This was driven by an even greater growing trade deficit with the EU (Ref. 3) I disagree with your last line summary that the solution is as simple as "Tax the rich people more."
Simply taxing more would only result in a capital flight and talent leaving the country. There are 100,000 of French people working in London to avoid France's taxes. Reaganomics showed that reducing taxes boosts a country's wealth, not that I'm suggesting another bash at "Trussonomics"! What I'm saying is you have to take the wealthy with you by redistributing increased wealth in favour of the poor. Poverty and inequality will not be returned to the 1960s levels without: 1. Re-establishing consistent economic growth rate, such as the 3.68% GDP per head growth from 1955 to 1973 (Ref. 4 & 5) ) 2. Getting back to a trade balance so we "pay our way" in the world, and stop devaluing our currency. 3. Taking direct legislative and budgetary/fiscal action to redistribute the extra wealth created. References 1. www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2020/12/The-UKs-wealth-distribution.pdf2. researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8261/CBP-8261.pdf3. www.statista.com/statistics/284750/united-kingdom-uk-total-eu-trade-in-goods-by-trade-value/#:~:text=As%20of%20the%20third%20quarter,of%20around%2031.6%20billion%20pounds 4. www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy5. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihxw/pn2You missed this part: “ “The report found that the richest 1% in the UK are the most expensive top 1% group in Europe, paying the lowest taxes of such a group in any large European country. ” So it is utter rubbish to say if we tax the rich more they will flee. Where will they go? To another European nation which taxes them more? We tax the rich less than in France or Germany. Does that mean there are no rich people in France and germany as they have all come here? Why aren’t all rich people in tax free regimes if they just move to where they pay no tax? Do you really think if the Coates family and their businesses had to pay a bit more tax they would leave the country? It is also utter rubbish to say reducing tax increases revenue. Obviously if that were true there would be no taxation whatsoever and the highest revenue as a result. You need a balance. Currently the rich here pay very little tax proportionally compared to everyone else. I am against that model of society as it leads to what we have now: high taxation for most people but rubbish public services and the majority of people really struggling to make ends meet. I would prefer to shift more of the burden on the rich. Make them pay as much proportionally as the rest of us. I am not saying tax the rest of us less. We sadly cannot afford that.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 28, 2023 13:06:57 GMT
Don't the Greeks deserve the oppurtunity to be inspired by their own history and culture? Or must they travel to London to view a looters swag in order to do so? Like I’ve said, arrangements that rotating artifacts across the World would be my ideal situation. This would achieve what you suggest. There are so many artifacts that simply sit in storage, inspiring no one. I honestly don’t care about any one particular piece but I do believe that museums should have a diverse exhibit that highlights other cultures. History doesn’t just start and stop on these shores and teaching kids that doesn’t seem like a wise idea to me. My point and I think Seymour's is that ownership of Cultural Artefacts should be in the gift of that Culture how and where they are displayed I'm all for those Countries to Exhibit them in other Countries in the sensitive way they would want. It would be a tremendous boost to the Exhibiting Country A good example would be the Terracotta Soldiers which have been displayed in UK on at least too occasions
|
|
|
Post by Billy the kid on Nov 28, 2023 13:07:54 GMT
How did we end up with such a man child as PM? I don't care if Sunak doesn't agree with the Greek PM it's still a childish thing to do simply ignoring the conversation doesn't solve anything. In my opinion all artifacts should be returned, in a digital age, there is simply no need to hoard artifacts that don't belong to us.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 28, 2023 13:08:32 GMT
Jesus wept it's 2023 FFS, yet we act like we're still locked into the final throes of Empire, no wonder the rest of the world are disgusted by us! "But Mr Mitsotakis's appearance on the the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme had irritated Mr Sunak. A senior Conservative source said: "It became impossible for this meeting to go ahead following commentary regarding the Elgin Marbles prior to it. "Our position is clear - the Elgin Marbles are part of the permanent collection of the British Museum and belong here. It is reckless for any British politician to suggest that this is subject to negotiation." Another dead cat culture war issue. Starmer met the Greek leader to talk like adults. Sunak stood him up and wants to make labour somehow look weak for doing what a statesman should be doing. Anything to deflect from the self made immigration crisis in the tory party I saw him on Laura Kuenssberg and he seemed a thoroughly decent chap. He spoke knowledgeably about how the Greeks have cut their immigration to almost nothing. To then spurn a head of state who has travelled here to meet you 24h before a meeting is pathetic. With two major foreign wars a shitty EU relationship we cancel based on a colonial robbery over 190 years ago. You look a fool Rishi.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2023 13:16:44 GMT
Like I’ve said, arrangements that rotating artifacts across the World would be my ideal situation. This would achieve what you suggest. There are so many artifacts that simply sit in storage, inspiring no one. I honestly don’t care about any one particular piece but I do believe that museums should have a diverse exhibit that highlights other cultures. History doesn’t just start and stop on these shores and teaching kids that doesn’t seem like a wise idea to me. My point and I think Seymour's is that ownership of Cultural Artefacts should be in the gift of that Culture how and where they are displayed I'm all for those Countries to Exhibit them in other Countries in the sensitive way they would want. It would be a tremendous boost to the Exhibiting Country A good example would be the Terracotta Soldiers which have been displayed in UK on at least too occasions I’d be more than happy with that if formal, long lasting agreements were made, which Sunak should have been trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 28, 2023 13:20:42 GMT
Don't the Greeks deserve the oppurtunity to be inspired by their own history and culture? Or must they travel to London to view a looters swag in order to do so? Like I’ve said, arrangements that rotating artifacts across the World would be my ideal situation. This would achieve what you suggest. There are so many artifacts that simply sit in storage, inspiring no one. I honestly don’t care about any one particular piece but I do believe that museums should have a diverse exhibit that highlights other cultures. History doesn’t just start and stop on these shores and teaching kids that doesn’t seem like a wise idea to me. There is every opportunity for artefacts and paintings to be seen around the world in exhibitions providing it is at the gift of the cultural owner. In fact that is what hapoens now. The Parthenon Marbles however were largely derived from chisling off an integral part of the structure - removing friezes and metopes - and therefore diminishes the original by their removal (many would say theft). It's the equivalent of us now saying we should all get to have a look at the Taj Mahal by knocking lumps off it and sticking them on display around the world. The only thing that would teach is "How to be a Philistine".
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 28, 2023 13:23:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 28, 2023 13:56:57 GMT
www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/nov/27/uk-spends-more-financing-inequality-in-favour-of-rich-than-rest-of-europe-report-finds“When compared with the top five most equal countries, however, inequality costs the UK £128.4bn a year in damage to the economy, communities and individuals.” “The report found that the richest 1% in the UK are the most expensive top 1% group in Europe, paying the lowest taxes of such a group in any large European country. ” “Many of Britain’s deep-seated problems – a broken economy, hollowed-out public services, static and falling living standards, the doubling of child poverty since the late 1970s, and the fall in social resilience – can be traced to the way the economy has been turned into a cash cow for the already rich,” Yet some on here raise doubt in the need to focus tax increases on the most wealthy in the UK on here. I guess they would prefer the “have nots” keep subsiding the “haves”. Tax the rich people more. Improve public services for everyone. Reduce inequality. Reduce poverty. www.resolutionfoundation.org/comment/last-year-saw-living-standards-stagnate-and-poverty-rise/The statement in the link you posted that "Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries" and your comment of poverty increasing since the 1970s, prompts me to post the above link. This article was written before the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the consequential impacts of inflation, energy crisis and economic slowdown, which all cloud the current debate about something that has been deteriorating for decades. As I have repeatedly posted in the past, UK inequality fell for most of the 20th century but things went seriously wrong in the 1970s. (See Figure 1 in reference 1.) My link above shows that a sharp increase in the various measures of poverty and inequality took place in the the Thatcher years, but at least there was a sharp upturn in economic growth, which eventually "trickled down" to the poor when things "levelled out" (excluding housing costs which continued to rise) in the 1990s. The Blair years saw an improving trend initially, but the economy was feeding on a huge increase in personal debt and the poverty trend took an adverse reversal in 2005, well before the banking crisis upset the apple cart in 2008. The lesson is: to fund increased equality, it is essential to genuinely increase the wealth of the nation sufficiently fast. Since 2008 austerity was the order of the day up to the time of the report in the above link, with the nations finances severely impacted by an ever increasing trade deficit from the turn of the century. (Ref.2) This was driven by an even greater growing trade deficit with the EU (Ref. 3) I disagree with your last line summary that the solution is as simple as "Tax the rich people more."
Simply taxing more would only result in a capital flight and talent leaving the country. There are 100,000 of French people working in London to avoid France's taxes. Reaganomics showed that reducing taxes boosts a country's wealth, not that I'm suggesting another bash at "Trussonomics"! What I'm saying is you have to take the wealthy with you by redistributing increased wealth in favour of the poor. Poverty and inequality will not be returned to the 1960s levels without: 1. Re-establishing consistent economic growth rate, such as the 3.68% GDP per head growth from 1955 to 1973 (Ref. 4 & 5) ) 2. Getting back to a trade balance so we "pay our way" in the world, and stop devaluing our currency. 3. Taking direct legislative and budgetary/fiscal action to redistribute the extra wealth created. References 1. www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2020/12/The-UKs-wealth-distribution.pdf2. researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8261/CBP-8261.pdf3. www.statista.com/statistics/284750/united-kingdom-uk-total-eu-trade-in-goods-by-trade-value/#:~:text=As%20of%20the%20third%20quarter,of%20around%2031.6%20billion%20pounds 4. www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy5. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihxw/pn2Your Screed is factually incorrect From 1900s to the 1970s the amount of Wealth owned by the top 10% fell steadily to the benefit of the Middle 40% However the Wealth share of the top 10% has grown steadily by more than 50% since 1970 at the expense of the squeezed Middle The bottom 50%'s Share of Wealth of about 20% has hardly altered since 1900 to today I would therefore say Oggy is entirely correct equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2023 14:38:13 GMT
www.resolutionfoundation.org/comment/last-year-saw-living-standards-stagnate-and-poverty-rise/The statement in the link you posted that "Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries" and your comment of poverty increasing since the 1970s, prompts me to post the above link. This article was written before the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the consequential impacts of inflation, energy crisis and economic slowdown, which all cloud the current debate about something that has been deteriorating for decades. As I have repeatedly posted in the past, UK inequality fell for most of the 20th century but things went seriously wrong in the 1970s. (See Figure 1 in reference 1.) My link above shows that a sharp increase in the various measures of poverty and inequality took place in the the Thatcher years, but at least there was a sharp upturn in economic growth, which eventually "trickled down" to the poor when things "levelled out" (excluding housing costs which continued to rise) in the 1990s. The Blair years saw an improving trend initially, but the economy was feeding on a huge increase in personal debt and the poverty trend took an adverse reversal in 2005, well before the banking crisis upset the apple cart in 2008. The lesson is: to fund increased equality, it is essential to genuinely increase the wealth of the nation sufficiently fast. Since 2008 austerity was the order of the day up to the time of the report in the above link, with the nations finances severely impacted by an ever increasing trade deficit from the turn of the century. (Ref.2) This was driven by an even greater growing trade deficit with the EU (Ref. 3) I disagree with your last line summary that the solution is as simple as "Tax the rich people more."
Simply taxing more would only result in a capital flight and talent leaving the country. There are 100,000 of French people working in London to avoid France's taxes. Reaganomics showed that reducing taxes boosts a country's wealth, not that I'm suggesting another bash at "Trussonomics"! What I'm saying is you have to take the wealthy with you by redistributing increased wealth in favour of the poor. Poverty and inequality will not be returned to the 1960s levels without: 1. Re-establishing consistent economic growth rate, such as the 3.68% GDP per head growth from 1955 to 1973 (Ref. 4 & 5) ) 2. Getting back to a trade balance so we "pay our way" in the world, and stop devaluing our currency. 3. Taking direct legislative and budgetary/fiscal action to redistribute the extra wealth created. References 1. www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2020/12/The-UKs-wealth-distribution.pdf2. researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8261/CBP-8261.pdf3. www.statista.com/statistics/284750/united-kingdom-uk-total-eu-trade-in-goods-by-trade-value/#:~:text=As%20of%20the%20third%20quarter,of%20around%2031.6%20billion%20pounds 4. www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy5. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihxw/pn2 Your Screed is factually incorrect From 1900s to the 1970s the amount of Wealth owned by the top 10% fell steadily to the benefit of the Middle 40% However the Wealth share of the top 10% has grown steadily by more than 50% since 1970 at the expense of the squeezed Middle The bottom 50%'s Share of Wealth of about 20% has hardly altered since 1900 to today I would therefore say Oggy is entirely correct View Attachmentequalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-ukIt’s something that is the same the world over: “In 2021, the ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker compensation was 399-to-1 under the realized measure of CEO pay; that is up from 366-to-1 in 2020 and a big increase from 20-to-1 in 1965 and 59-to-1 in 1989”. www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20ratio%20of,%2Dto%2D1%20in%201989. Instead of creating strong “middle classes” that own local businesses and serve as points of pride in communities, the general world economy has moved to massive business oligarchies that provide lesser quality products at generally cheaper prices.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 28, 2023 14:47:29 GMT
Your Screed is factually incorrect From 1900s to the 1970s the amount of Wealth owned by the top 10% fell steadily to the benefit of the Middle 40% However the Wealth share of the top 10% has grown steadily by more than 50% since 1970 at the expense of the squeezed Middle The bottom 50%'s Share of Wealth of about 20% has hardly altered since 1900 to today I would therefore say Oggy is entirely correct View Attachmentequalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-ukIt’s something that is the same the world over: “In 2021, the ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker compensation was 399-to-1 under the realized measure of CEO pay; that is up from 366-to-1 in 2020 and a big increase from 20-to-1 in 1965 and 59-to-1 in 1989”. www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20ratio%20of,%2Dto%2D1%20in%201989. Instead of creating strong “middle classes” that own local businesses and serve as points of pride in communities, the general world economy has moved to massive business oligarchies that provide lesser quality products at generally cheaper prices. It is why regulations on big business are essential (as well as fair taxation of shareholders and wealth holders). Consumer rights, employee rights, health and safety regulations and product standards are critical. Otherwise the big businesses just do whatever they want and we have a race to the bottom of standards and conditions as they hold all the power and smaller businesses cannot compete. It is one of the reasons leaving the EU was such a grave error as nowhere else on earth regulates big business like within the EU. It doesn’t go far enough but there is no way our government will go further by themselves.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 28, 2023 15:02:07 GMT
Mr Coke is a secret millionaire.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 28, 2023 15:05:38 GMT
It’s something that is the same the world over: “In 2021, the ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker compensation was 399-to-1 under the realized measure of CEO pay; that is up from 366-to-1 in 2020 and a big increase from 20-to-1 in 1965 and 59-to-1 in 1989”. www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20ratio%20of,%2Dto%2D1%20in%201989. Instead of creating strong “middle classes” that own local businesses and serve as points of pride in communities, the general world economy has moved to massive business oligarchies that provide lesser quality products at generally cheaper prices. It is why regulations on big business are essential (as well as fair taxation of shareholders and wealth holders). Consumer rights, employee rights, health and safety regulations and product standards are critical. Otherwise the big businesses just do whatever they want and we have a race to the bottom of standards and conditions as they hold all the power and smaller businesses cannot compete. It is one of the reasons leaving the EU was such a grave error as nowhere else on earth regulates big business like within the EU. It doesn’t go far enough but there is no way our government will go further by themselves. Mistake to mention the EU where poverty and inequality is on the increase. www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/03/20/phai-m20.htmlAs any true socialist knows the EU is in the grip of capitalism with 10,000s of corporate lobbyists in Brussels. www.alter-eu.org/corporate-capture-in-europe-when-big-business-dominates-policy-making-and-threatens-our-right
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 28, 2023 15:09:27 GMT
Mr Coke is a secret millionaire. As I say when I'm asked whether I want a receipt: " Yes please, I always check every penny; that's how I made my first million."
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 28, 2023 15:14:35 GMT
It is why regulations on big business are essential (as well as fair taxation of shareholders and wealth holders). Consumer rights, employee rights, health and safety regulations and product standards are critical. Otherwise the big businesses just do whatever they want and we have a race to the bottom of standards and conditions as they hold all the power and smaller businesses cannot compete. It is one of the reasons leaving the EU was such a grave error as nowhere else on earth regulates big business like within the EU. It doesn’t go far enough but there is no way our government will go further by themselves. Mistake to mention the EU where poverty and inequality is on the increase. www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/03/20/phai-m20.htmlAs any true socialist knows the EU is in the grip of capitalism with 10,000s of corporate lobbyists in Brussels. www.alter-eu.org/corporate-capture-in-europe-when-big-business-dominates-policy-making-and-threatens-our-rightAnd yet businesses have stricter regulations on what they must do for their employees than anywhere else. There are stricter product standard rules in the EU than anywhere else. Consumers have more rights to enforce against businesses in the EU than anywhere else. Why do you think there are so many lobbyists? You don’t need to lobby the Chinese, Russians, Middle Eastern countries etc because businesses get to do whatever they want. Explain why businesses are regulated more for the benefit of consumers and employees in the EU than anywhere else. Tell me how that makes the EU more capitalist than elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 28, 2023 15:17:08 GMT
Mr Coke is a secret millionaire. I'm a
|
|