Inequality

[Strontium]

If it was privatised and all profit removed, where does the £1000 a year per household come from to pay for the gas & elec?

 

If I was a betting man, I'd suggest the answer is going to inevitably be "making the rich pay their Fair Share™", as that is the answer to every problem.

[moof]

 

If I was a betting man, I'd suggest the answer is going to inevitably be "making the rich pay their Fair Share™", as that is the answer to every problem.

It would work, though. Wouldn't it?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It would work, though. Wouldn't it?

Don't feed the troll.

[Strontium]

Don't feed the troll.

 

It's a shame that it needs to be pointed out to you all the time that having a different opinion to you does not constitute trolling.

 

Though I accept that the inability to overturn any of my arguments is what leads you to hurl insults, I would suggest that if you haven't got anything worthwhile to say, you just say nothing.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It's a shame that it needs to be pointed out to you all the time that having a different opinion to you does not constitute trolling.

 

Though I accept that the inability to overturn any of my arguments is what leads you to hurl insults, I would suggest that if you haven't got anything worthwhile to say, you just say nothing.

You're funny.  I think we should keep you.

 

For the record, lots of people here have different opinions to me.  Not all of them are tedious cuntrarians who run around fighting strawmen, day in, day out.

 

If by "overturn your arguments" you mean "change your mind", I doubt anyone can do that, because you are too wilfully thick to be open to new ideas or even new facts.  I've recently discovered that you are unwilling to question the opinions you held when you were 10.  Nothing I can say or do will ever help anyone as stupid as that.   It's not for your sake that I correct the nonsense you post.

[Strontium]

Being accused of raising strawmen by someone who hasn't made a single political argument in his life without one. Brilliant.

The one thing I know I'm not is thick, and if you think that, then you're truly beyond help.

Facts don't stop being facts because 30 years have passed. Your quest to convince me that children who could barely write their name at 10 years of age were secret geniuses is doomed to failure, because it is contrary to reality.

 

Surely now it's time for you to make another big and clever post about how I deserve to be bullied for being smarter than the other kids I went to school with, or something.

[Jose Jones]

Privatisation has made things much worse for the customers and majority of the country in general. This is even after the far from perfect system of nationalisation. The reason for privatisation had nothing to do with improving efficiency or better customer service it was all about making money for a small group of companies/individuals while robbing the exchequer of badly needed funds. This has been duplicated many times over and has stolen billions that would have been used on public services which the turkeys who vote for christmas continue to complain about.

Privatisation was also mostly used by the Tories to smash industries and services that had highly unionised workforces.

Reagan was the same in the states. There was a bit of economic ideology behind it in some cases but in most they knew they were making things worse for the country but it was a price they were willing to pay to weaken blocks of Labour voters.

 

The profits of privatisation were the sweetener for the businessmen willing to help with the dirty work.

 

It's the same reason for the NHS. Ther were deliberately not enough university places for British trained nurses so foreign temporary staff could be brought in. And privatisation will break up large active professional groups who care about the service and vote.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Being accused of raising strawmen by someone who hasn't made a single political argument in his life without one. Brilliant.

 

The one thing I know I'm not is thick, and if you think that, then you're truly beyond help.

 

Facts don't stop being facts because 30 years have passed. Your quest to convince me that children who could barely write their name at 10 years of age were secret geniuses is doomed to failure, because it is contrary to reality.

 

Surely now it's time for you to make another big and clever post about how I deserve to be bullied for being smarter than the other kids I went to school with, or something.

You do amuse me.

 

Incidentally, did you see the post where I retracted the bit about deserving to be bullied?  (In any case, I never suggested it would have been for being smarter.)  

[Rico1304]

Interesting take on the recent numbers published by oxfam.

 

http://fusion.net/story/380433/oxfams-davos-wealth-inequality-wrong-misleading/

[setreal]

From that text:

 

 

 

Is it really true that the bottom 50% of the world’s population accounts for only 0.16% of the wealth on the planet? Well, not really. The bottom 50% comprises five different deciles. Of those deciles, the fourth has 0.17% of the world’s wealth, and the fifth has 0.32%. Those are both very small numbers—but they’re both bigger than 0.16%.

 

Well that's a relief!

[Section_31]

Genuine question. If the Bank of England invented money, gave it to banks to lend, but they didn't and kept it to shore up their finances and pay bonuses, why can't we also do that with the NHS? Shenanigans here. 

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

From that text:

 

 

Well that's a relief!

 

Hahaha. "It's alright guys, we can stop the protests. They've given us all an extra cup of rice a month."

[Jairzinho]

Really makes you think maybe they should stop fucking complaining.

[Strontium]

Interesting take on the recent numbers published by oxfam.

 

http://fusion.net/story/380433/oxfams-davos-wealth-inequality-wrong-misleading/

 

I am old enough to remember when Oxfam used to fight poverty, rather than being a cheerleader for populist scapegoating of the rich.

 

I'm not even sure what their point is supposed to be. Are they saying a peasant in Zambia would be richer if Mark Zuckerberg had never invented Facebook?

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

I am old enough to remember when Oxfam used to fight poverty, rather than being a cheerleader for populist scapegoating of the rich.

 

I'm not even sure what their point is supposed to be. Are they saying a peasant in Zambia would be richer if Mark Zuckerberg had never invented Facebook?

 

You've got it in one.

[Bobby Hundreds]

No problem with people being rich but the trajectory of more and more going into fewer and fewer hands cant be good in the long term. The joke is the golden rule, whoever has the gold makes the rules. If the super rich have so much influence over policy the rules are always going to be shaped in their favour, when it's becoming detrimental to the masses and the planet we need a rethink, it does feel like it's starting to regress, the social contracts being attacked in order to line certain pockets. A line has been crossed.

 

I don't think putting a limit on wealth is the answer but personally I think a much higher living wage so more people have cash to spend to keep business's running, the way it's going people will only be able to afford basic essentials soon if their lucky which will lead to more business closing and more unemployed and the system just eats itself. Education should be free with no future debt, money shouldn't buy a better class of education. The national curriculum is a fucking joke as are apprenticeships. Apprentices now are nothing more than cheap labour with no real skill of value at the end. Education and new skills will always be the best way to elevate people. The country needs to start thinking about the long term value of things rather than making the books look good short term to a thick electorate.

 

I think we are fucked though our politicians are either self serving or just too fucking mentally weak.

[Section_31]

I am old enough to remember when Oxfam used to fight poverty, rather than being a cheerleader for populist scapegoating of the rich.

 

I'm not even sure what their point is supposed to be. Are they saying a peasant in Zambia would be richer if Mark Zuckerberg had never invented Facebook?

 

A better example would be if he had less money and paid his staff more, enough to buy cars/houses/consumer goods and know their jobs were secure and they had pensions waiting for them. 

 

Right winger Eisenhower's America taxed the wealthy at 90% and is universally accepted to have been the State's golden age. Spreading wealth in a fairer way isn't communism (despite all the straw men thrown out there), and it works, it's been proven to work.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Oxfam's message to billionaires, on the eve of the Davos summit.

https://act.oxfam.org/great-britain/sign-a-letter-to-world-s-billionaires?pscid=ps_ggl_01-Brand-High+Vol_davos_sitelink&gclid=Cj0KEQiA-_HDBRD2lomhoufc1JkBEiQA0TVMmuBbYbnY9GQbfkXqqoY3pwrlEkovYpCTRyA7NdZBG20aAjD_8P8HAQ&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CNrPu52bx9ECFSqA7QodSe8A0Q

 

We're calling on you to ensure that you:

Don’t dodge taxes in your own countries, or in countries where you invest and operate, by using tax havens. Any companies you own or control should release detailed financial information about activities in all the countries they operate in – including tax havens – so that the public can judge whether your companies truly pay taxes where they do business. You should make public all the investments in companies and trusts for which you are the ultimate beneficial owner.

Demand a living wage in all the companies you own or control, and limit excessive executive pay.

Support increases in taxes on wealth and high incomes, to allow for the provision of universal healthcare education and social protection for citizens.

Do not use your economic wealth to seek political favours that undermine fair competition in the market and the democratic will of your fellow citizens.

Ensure your wealth is invested ethically and promotes a more progressive, equitable economy.

Challenge other economic elites to join you in these pledges.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I am old enough to remember when Oxfam used to fight poverty, rather than being a cheerleader for populist scapegoating of the rich.

 

I'm not even sure what their point is supposed to be. Are they saying a peasant in Zambia would be richer if Mark Zuckerberg had never invented Facebook?

It took me 10 seconds on Google to what their point is supposed to be.

[Hades]

From that text:

 

 

Well that's a relief!

 

Can't change human nachuh innit?

[Rico1304]

A better example would be if he had less money and paid his staff more, enough to buy cars/houses/consumer goods and know their jobs were secure and they had pensions waiting for them. 

 

Right winger Eisenhower's America taxed the wealthy at 90% and is universally accepted to have been the State's golden age. Spreading wealth in a fairer way isn't communism (despite all the straw men thrown out there), and it works, it's been proven to work.

 

I think the employees at FB are pretty happy to be honest. With interns earning up to $74k they should be!

[Neil G]

Genuine question. If the Bank of England invented money, gave it to banks to lend, but they didn't and kept it to shore up their finances and pay bonuses, why can't we also do that with the NHS? Shenanigans here.

 

We can. We're a sovereign country with our own central bank and our own currency. We can create money at will and spend it on anything we want.

[SasaS]

Yeah, there is nothing to it, Venezuela has been doing that for years.

[Neil G]

Yeah, there is nothing to it, Venezuela has been doing that for years.

Slight difference between the economies of Venezuela and Britain and the way they might respond to monetary expansion.

[SasaS]

The only thing monetary expansion creates is inflation and inflation is just a form of additional government tax on incomes and people's savings which depreciate in relation to the newly created money. Unless you are USA and can transfer some of that to other countries where people will be buying your currency.