is it capitalism and the way some turn the other cheek to the excesses of the rich and defend low taxes and "competitiveness"
The wholesale destruction of rights, housing, welfare and healthcare hard won by our grand parents after the horrors of WW2.
No really....
capitalism
Without this there would be no welfare nor an NHS. Without Capitalism JY you would have no job. The non-for-profit sector can only exist as Capitalism supports it.
tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the low waged and unwaged.
Some examples ? The tax breaks I am familiar with benefit the country as a whole and thus in particular the lower paid. The top 1% pay 30% of the taxes. You only have to watch a programme like Victorian Slums to see how much better off the poor are today. As a minimum they have full access to the NHS. Taxes on the "rich" are substantially higher than they where in 2006
Some examples ? The tax breaks I am familiar with benefit the country as a whole and thus in particular the lower paid. The top 1% pay 30% of the taxes. You only have to watch a programme like Victorian Slums to see how much better off the poor are today. As a minimum they have full access to the NHS. Taxes on the "rich" are sunstantially hogher than they where in 2006
You would hardly expect people on minimum wage to pay most of the taxes would you?
The point is that the poor pay more in tax as an overall % (not helped by blanket VAT) and they are the least able to afford it.
Who cares if they are better off than 100 years ago, are they supposed to thank anyone for that?
The only impact to the richest paying a high % of tax means they end up with a Bentley instead of that Rolls they really wanted
Is a couple of years old but worth you reading this [url= https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/16/british-public-wrong-rich-poor-tax-research ]https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/16/british-public-wrong-rich-poor-tax-research[/url]
Without this there would be no welfare nor an NHS. Without Capitalism JY you would have no job. The non-for-profit sector can only exist as Capitalism supports it.
The Soviet Union had universal healthcare, welfare and full employment. Evidently these things are not dependent on a capitalist system.
Philanthropy existed before the guilty rich found it to be the perfect salve for their consciences or an oft bragged about example of their largesse.
Equating it with capitalism makes about as much sense as the idiots who claim moral and ethical standards are a direct consequence of religious belief.
The Soviet Union had universal healthcare, welfare and full employment. Evidently these things are not dependent on a capitalist system.
Please can you provide an update of how this progressing?
The Soviet Union also needed watchtowers with machine guns to keep its population from escaping and everyone* was much poorer than they would otherwise have been.
Not really a great example for us to follow now, is it ?
* except of course for those party members who crawled to the top.
The top 1% pay 30% of the taxes.
Given they also own 24% of the assets, and the constant barrage of statistics about how inequality has never been higher, I don't see a problem with that at all...
.Without this there would be no welfare nor an NHS
Dont confuse the fruits of hard work and a progressive society with capitalism. Capatilsim will dismantle the NHS.
Cuba has a good health system.
you would hardly expect people on minimum wage to pay most of the taxes would you?
The point is that the poor pay more in tax as an overall % (not helped by blanket VAT) and they are the least able to afford it.
Who cares if they are better off than 100 years ago, are they supposed to thank anyone for that?
You are correct. Too much is said about taxation as opposed to wages as a bench mark of a successful economy.
Not really a great example for us to follow now, is it ?
It was said you can't have the NHS without capitalism. Lots of countries have other issues besides.
The non-for-profit sector can only exist as Capitalism supports it.
You're conflating all sorts of things. Not for profit can exist in all sorts of economic environments. It's never capitalism that's supports it, just hard work.
As a minimum they have full access to the NHS.
... for now. Come back in twelve months.
and the article refers to a period covering three main parties in power in one form or another - which one is to blame do you reckon?
worth a second attempt - any answers?
so income inequality over past decade - under which administration did it rise the most, stay the same and/or fall - Labour, the Tory/Lib-dem coalition, Tories?
.You only have to watch a programme like Victorian Slums to see how much better off the poor are today
The point is that sort of benchmark is hardly indicative of where we should be. The thing that existed in Victorian times that still exists today is the concentration of wealth and control over the poor, and the mindset that bottom rung deserve all they get.
We ought to be way way ahead how we treat each other.
FFS not this again we live in a mixed economy capitalism needs healthy people who are well educated with roads to get them to work and police and prisons to keep them safe etc so without the state neither would you.Without Capitalism JY you would have no job
Its a symbiotic relationship within a mixed economy to claim only the private sector helps makes money is fatuous BS as they work together
Capitalism requires me as much as I require it whilst I live under the yoke of capitalism
Anyway you were meant to be convincing me it distributed resources adequately and evenly between all people to end hunger and want...try that approach will you rather than - as its is you its hard to tell if it was deliberate- completely miss the point i made.
the reality is some folk dont GAS about the needy and the hungry and are comfortable with a vast disparity in wealth that capitalism creates they dont mind a massive yacht or multiple billionaires as long as it others paying the cost by having to live in poverty unable to heat their homes or feed their kids. Lucky for us its not our kids.
We cannot all care about the less fortunate as you have demonstrated numerous times
Again I dont GAS about capitalism- though clearly it does produce great inequities if unregulated- i only care about ending suffering keep capitalism just spread the money around fairly as it stops people dying from things we could end
WHy do you not want to stop children dying from poverty Jamby?
The point is that sort of benchmark is hardly indicative of where we should be. The thing that existed in Victorian times that still exists today is the concentration of wealth and control over the poor, and the mindset that bottom rung deserve all they get.
Not true. Income inequality is still below the norms of the 19C and early 20C. It fell in early 20C (no shit Sherlock) and then rose steadily and then faster under she-wh-cannot-be mentioned. It is not high under long term standards - it is better.
Income inequality is still below the norms of the 19C and early 20C
Why are we still struggling then? Apart from the fact that our toilets are inside.
I wasn't using inequality in this example, more the make-up of society.
In general we are not. In some case we are. Overall life is much, much better, but that isn't such a good narrative for a rant is it? Have we done foodbanks recently?
. Overall life is much, much better
But do you think we could be way ahead in terms of looking after our poor and needy, or is there always going to be disparity?
All these brains and technology and we still live in effectively an antiquated society, with the haves and have-nots. The standards may have improved but the game is the same.
We can always do better = otherwise there would be no progress. Society is by definition modern or contemporary not antiquated. How many penny farthings do you see at BPW?
No one has suggested it is as bad as it has been what they have said it is it is not as good as it could be and it is still vastly unequal
Are you venturing into post truth politics now THM or do you fancy arguing that its all fairly distributed and we have ended [ or frankly even tried] to end want and suffering?
When presented with indisputable facts what one should do is play the man with "rant" claimst isn't such a good narrative for a rant is it?
No one is ranting here I am not even sure we a re disagreeing that much
Essentially do you want the world to be a fiarer place yes or no?
Do you want to stop people dying form hunger
yes or no
How many centuries of capitalism that gave us slavery, dark satanic mines and food banks 😉 do you need before you reconsider ?
Rone - we do have clear and very contemporary evidence 😉 that we could do [b]much better[/b] at educating people. But much better if all governments keep out that.
depends where you look we still have an outdated view of how the world came into being- can I call a 2000 year old + account antiquated ?- and worshipping gods in some quartersSociety is by definition modern or contemporary not antiquated
We can be both modern and antiquated depending on where you look
Agreed the real question is whether capitalism [or what we are doing now] is the vehicle to achieve thisWe can always do better
Inequitable distribution of wealth and income is clearly a flawed way to achieve less of it and its clearly an intrinsic outcome of capitalism that there must be millions of losers for every winner
Its ends up in the hands of the few not the many
How many penny farthings do you see at BPW?
If your measure of how well consumerism has done is a measure of how far we've come then you have inadvertently justified how poor we've done as society.
(I am by no means excluded in this process of enjoying my toys but I also realise material gain doesn't really fix an whole lot.)
If your measure of how well consumerism has done is a measure of how far we've come
sorry no idea what this means
then you have inadvertently justified how poor we've done as society.
are you still riding a 70s MTB by any chance?
I am just drinking a nice hot cup of ginger pubes tea. Twenty years ago it was PG or Tetley. Now the ginger pubes even makes into food parcels!
Your examples of progress are all based around products or material stuff rather than well-being.
As for 70s bike, see previous response.
do we have to go outside to have a crap with the scraps of paper to wipe our backsides
do we live longer
are we able to find out facts within a few seconds without having 20 copies of the encyclopaedia brittanica
do kids still suffer from polio
etc - the list is endless.
Given they also own 24% of the assets, and the constant barrage of statistics about how inequality has never been higher, I don't see a problem with that at all...
"Statistics" come from campaign groups with an axe to grind. Rich are materially poorer in terms of real assets than they where 100 years ago. For example instead of owning a whole house in Belgravia now they have a small flat. Also these campaign groups gloss over the value of universal health care and welfare payments. They value a flat in London or a house in SE at today's market value and then look at a renter in say NE and so look at the wealth disparity ?
If you asked a poor person today to go back and be poor 200, 100 or 50 years ago they would take their life today all day long.
I was going to post this in the Corbyn thread but our resident Comrade-in-chief has been praising Castro for his work on schools and the health service and glossing over the torture of opponents, Christians and homosexuals. This to be added to the economic catastrophe he oversaw in particular after Russia withdrew it's support. Cubans who's relatives have suffered at this hands have been celebrating his death in Miami. Communism in practice.
Red Ken has been putting his oar in too of course, a "beacon of light" - see notes on torture above
Ohhh, i'm bloody angry, the naked unashamed inequality in this country, tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the low waged and unwaged.
The crass ignorance of the "i'm ok, pull the ladder up" set
The "been there, but it doesn't effect me now" complacency
The constant attacks and demonisation of the poor and unwaged by the UK mainstream media and political classes
The cronyism in politics
The wholesale destruction of rights, housing, welfare and healthcare hard won by our grand parents after the horrors of WW2.
I'm angry, but i dont let it consume my life 24/7 - until ignorance or complacency is displayed in regards to the state that this country is in, despite being the 5th or 6th strongest economy in the world
That tends to spark me up a bit
Just dipped into this thread.
Having some close personal experience with pip in my family and a friend with MS the system said to help them is doing totally the opposite.
It is shameful and immoral. It disgusts me.
Not trying to convince anyone. It's just that reading the above comment and other similar ones reinstates my faith in humanity. There are others out there that see the hidden tragedy unfolding just as I and some others do.
That's all I wanted to say.
Having some close personal experience with pip in my family ... the system said to help them is doing totally the opposite.It is shameful and immoral. It disgusts me.
Right there with you on that one.
CMD banging on about how they've reduced the number of benefits claimants, whilst neatly glossing over the point that they've done so by implementing a system inherently designed for people deserving of help to fail. ****.
All of the advances in society Thm mentions, were all won at the risk of offending him AGAIN, after the War.
Up until 1979 where we have seen reversal of these advances via Chicago School of Economics ideology. This ideology was used by the big 3 parties as rightly pointed out previously, even New Labour. But what we have seen since 2010 appears to be a last hurrah of dying Neoliberalists, raiding the piggybank as much as humanly possible in the limited time available. I don't think in 2015 that Conservative couldn't believe their luck in Labour being so unelectable after constantly climbing in to bed with Tory policy, attacks on unemployed or disabled, or just as bad, abstention. Rachel Reeves, Frank Field, Liam Byrne and above all, David Freud make me vomitous.
So can we be clear, up until Corbyn, the political establishment were different cheeks of the same arse.
Weather Corbyn can change this, and offer a real form of opposition remains to be seen
But what we have seen since 2010 appears to be a last hurrah of dying Neoliberalists, raiding the piggybank as much as humanly possible in the limited time available.
In what way has the piggy bank been raided? Ok, the BoE has been stealing money off savers but that is not the Tories fault. Can you explain?
I don't think in 2015 that Conservative couldn't believe their luck in Labour being so unelectable
True.
If you asked a poor person today to go back and be poor 200, 100 or 50 years ago they would take their life today all day long.
Totally irrelevant. We are talking about the situation today not 200 years ago.
Thm, the NHS firesale, royal mail sold under market value to crony mates and best men at weddings, outsourcing of government bodies to pic's,-atos, Capita and so forth, Pfi, selling of public bought and owned royal bank of Scotland but only the profitable part of the bank, and again sold below market value, selling of profitable public owned railway infrastructure...
jambalaya - Member
Rich are materially poorer in terms of real assets than they where 100 years ago. For example instead of owning a whole house in Belgravia now they have a small flat
😆 brilliant
Do we really want to return to the condions that Robert Tressel waxed so lyrically about in The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist?
Because for some sections of society it's certainly looking that way
Sorry missed the firesale and RM share price pretty much where is started. Does your argument get better or should I just stop there?
Please can you provide an update of how this progressing?
I don't have to. The things Jamba said were dependent on capitalism were sustained for decades under the soviet system and were not the cause of it's collapse.
And this reductionist 'poor people are better off today' rubbish, the comparison to make is not against standards from the past, but against those who sit at the top of society today. The gap has grown massively in modern times to the detriment of not just the poor, but to society at large. There is perhaps a valid comparison to make between the poor here and those in other parts of the world, but again the difference between western poor people and developing world poor people is on a much lower scale than western poor vs western rich.
The gap has grown massively in modern times to the detriment of not just the poor, but to society at large
No it hasn't, it's narrowed but don't let that stop you.
And this reductionist 'poor people are better off today' rubbish, the comparison to make is not against standards from the past, but against those who sit at the top of society today. The gap has grown massively in modern times to the detriment of not just the poor, but to society at large.
That's nonsense. Nutrition, health-care, education (to name just a few) are closer today than they have ever been. Stop obsessing about shiny crap nobody actually needs and you might see how good everyone has it.
don't let that stop you.
Doesn't stop the other side talking bollox. Post-truth n all that. 😉
So the growing admissions to hospitals of malnutrition, and diseases associated with poverty are nothing to be concerned about, 5thelephant
Concening true, but whose to blame - worth asking a third time?
