THE FOURTH OF JULY

[ey_tony]

More or less always.
Workers don't choose long hours, low wages and high rents, they are thrust upon them, often by very well paid management who also pay themselves massive bonuses at the drop of a hat. Even when they are utterly incompetent like Paula Vennals, and an army of similar berks

How is low wages, long hours and high rents the fault of the successful?

 

[Jacob]

How is low wages, long hours and high rents the fault of the successful?

Good question!
The answer is very simple - its because they've got more money, wealth (including rental properties), power and they use it to their advantage.
Or you could blame the working class for not fighting hard enough and using union power, but they've always been at a disadvantage here as they tend to get starved back to work, often not having the resources to stay out on strike for long enough and risking losing their jobs altogether.
A rent strike would see you on the streets - the law is very much on the side of the wealthy.
Long hours is to try to earn enough with low wages. It was a long battle to reduce them by law.
It's an old and still on-going story worked out in different ways at different times.
Often violent, with martyrs of one sort or another. The fight for the vote was one such
"A People's History of England" is good place to start if you want to catch up on the topic.
Or "The making of the English Working Class" - a bit long and dense, but essential reading.

PS "successful" is a misleading term as most wealth is not due to effort or talent but is merely inherited.

 

[RobinBHM]

How is low wages, long hours and high rents the fault of the successful?

U.K. has serious wealth inequality

Our living standards are lower than many equivalent economies

It’s the fault of the wealthy because they give money to political parties to influence policy for their benefit

The problems in the U.K. are due to the wealthy accumulating more and more assets whilst workers lose assets.

capital is taxed less less wages, that’s a problem

 

[RobinBHM]

There is an increasing interest in tactical voting in this election.

It’s possible that combined with Reform, Conservatives could potentially end up not being the official opposition, which would be a historic end to 2 party system.

That could open the path to political reform, that would be interesting

 

[Jameshow]

U.K. has serious wealth inequality

Our living standards are lower than many equivalent economies

It’s the fault of the wealthy because they give money to political parties to influence policy for their benefit

The problems in the U.K. are due to the wealthy accumulating more and more assets whilst workers lose assets.

capital is taxed less less wages, that’s a problem

I don't think it's a simple as that,

Those in the property ladder get richer and those who aren't getting poorer,

If your on the ladder then it's in your interest that house prices keep rising so your happy...

The banks have pulled up the mortgage drawbridge after 2008 so it's hard to get a mortgage on a smaller salary. DAMHIK.

If your not you get poorer and your hard earned money goes to the landlord who gets richer even if they are simply middle class.

 

[Keith Cocker]

They destroyed final salary schemes

The majority of rental properties are owned by individuals, not corporations. Most landlords own one rental property and use it as an investment / pension.
The rental market is owned by ‘ordinary’ people not the super wealthy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...h-private-landlord-survey-2021-main-report--2

The biggest push for private individuals moving into the rental market was trying to find a solution to secure a pension that was worth anything after Labours smash and grab of the pensions affecting all of us. They destroyed final salary schemes and looted the money from all of us. That was Tony and his companion Gor

I'm by no means wealthy nor a Tory so here's how I see it. The government is clearly spending more than it's raising in tax revenue which means the country is living above and beyond it's means to pay which is patently obvious judging by the amount of borrowing the government has been doing just to fund the UK's day to day living.
If we want better services then they need to be paid for or existing services need cutting if the public is not willing to pay more in taxes to fund them.

The top 10% of UK earners already contribute over 60% to the tax burden with the bottom 10% contributing less than 1%.
The top 1% alone contribute getting on for 30% so exactly how much of other people's earnings do you believe you're entitled to take from them?

It's clear that many workers are just not paying sufficient in taxes to fund the services we all expect the government to provide so unless everyone pays THEIR fair share of taxes, then the country can never reduce its debt nor the government provide the quality of services the public expect..
Free doesn't actually mean free, someone has to pay for it!

I have a good idea, how about socialists like yourself and anyone else who believes that other people should contribute more, should themselves dip their hands into THEIR OWN pockets for a change and pay their own fair share of taxes instead of supporting punitive taxes on the successful?
It's not the wealthy who aren't contributing enough it's the vast majority of workers who aren't and that disparity needs addressing.

I'm not a Tory and certainly not a socialist, but I do hold the same views on socialism as those of the late Winston Churchill .."the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy " and as Friedrich Hayek (Nobel prizewinner economics) once said... "If socialists understood economics, then they wouldn't be socialists" which about sums it up.

Anyone who quotes Hayek approvingly is a Tory. You are a Tory.

 

[Keith Cocker]

Since when is Inequality or failing social policies the fault of the successful or the wealthy?

Almost always throughout history.

 

[Jacob]

I don't think it's a simple as that,

lots of factors, and they change over time

Those in the property ladder get richer and those who aren't getting poorer,

True of wealth in general - the more you have the more unearned income you can generate and you get steadily wealthier. The point is - they don't need it so they can save it and watch it grow. Even the stuff they buy is likely to increase in value, especially housing.
Vice versa - many people need every penny, have no savings at all and no unearned income, no house to increase in value etc. One weeks payday from bankruptcy, eviction, let alone the ability to live a happy and constructive life. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63517823

 

[RobinBHM]

I don't think it's a simple as that,

Those in the property ladder get richer and those who aren't getting poorer,

If your on the ladder then it's in your interest that house prices keep rising so your happy...

The banks have pulled up the mortgage drawbridge after 2008 so it's hard to get a mortgage on a smaller salary. DAMHIK.

If you’re not you get poorer and your hard earned money goes to the landlord who gets richer even if they are simply middle class.

Agreed

Home ownership rates are falling because affordability ratios have dropped so much.

More people get lock out of rent and that means the workers have less assets and the wealthy gain assets.

I know landlords don’t earn much from rentals but there renters pay rent forever while the landlords see their assets grow.

But this comes back to my point: wealthy house building firms donate to political parties to keep a system that ensures houses are investments.

Estate agents make loads of money from the system as it is



The housing crisis started when Thatcher flogged 1.5m council houses and prevented rebuilding, then deregulation under Blair then quantitative easing and now increases in mortgage rates

 

[Jacob]

The majority of rental properties are owned by individuals, not corporations. Most landlords own one rental property and use it as an investment / pension.
The rental market is owned by ‘ordinary’ people not the super wealthy.

I think of them as parasites living off their neighbours. One step away from being a mafia style local protection mob.

 

[Jacob]

I'm by no means wealthy nor a Tory so here's how I see it. The government is clearly spending more than it's raising in tax revenue which means the country is living above and beyond it's means

Easily remedied by raising taxes. Thats the elephant in the room. And the notion that taxation is a sort of economic failure, or "punitive". It isn't, it's the price of civilisation - the more the better.
What goes around comes around.

 

[niall Y]

This is the dilemma of all elected governments. they all need to raise taxes, but don't want to loose popularity by doing it.
To quote Jean-Claude Junker - " We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it. "

 

[Jacob]

This is the dilemma of all elected governments. they all need to raise taxes, but don't want to loose popularity by doing it.
To quote Jean-Claude Junker - " We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it. "

They need to display leadership and explain why painful things are necessary but may only be short term. An emergency - think of Churchill!
Or Corbyn for that matter - he always said exactly and honestly what he thought. You knew you could trust him even if you doubted his ability to pull things off. Unlike the present shower of feeble idiots; dishonest and incompetent.

 

[RobinBHM]

Most landlords own one rental property and use it as an investment / pension

That perpetuates a system where workers pass wages to landlords who turn it into capital.

The result is that all the wealth ends up in the hands of the few locking out workers from access to assets.


People who bought houses 20+ years ago haven’t earnt the increase in value, they have just been fortunate.

I am a home owner, I have no mortgage, so my outgoings are just maintenance.

A person in a similar property in Surrey Sussex border will be paying £1500 - £2000 a month in rent for similar and that’ll be forever. I feel so sorry for people trapped in a system where if they get sick they could be homeless within a couple of months

 

[Spectric]

Easily remedied by raising taxes. Thats the elephant in the room. And the notion that taxation is a sort of economic failure, or "punitive". It isn't, it's the price of civilisation - the more the better.

Always a problem but people just do not seem to associate domestic economics as being basically the same as running a country and think government money grows on trees and so should not pay much tax. Tax is needed but paid by all and fairly.

 

[sploo]

Would be interested in seeing a similar take on Starmer, but I can't believe it'd be anywhere near as excruciating...

 

[RobinBHM]

This is the dilemma of all elected governments. they all need to raise taxes, but don't want to loose popularity by doing it.
To quote Jean-Claude Junker - " We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it. "

What political parties do is offer lower taxes as a bribe to win power, then the raise taxes.

Or in case of current govt; Its put £80b of tax rises in place since 2019 and now in 2024 just before election lower NI and claim they are the party of low taxes. Sunak literally said “we will keep on lowering taxes”. In the leaders debate

It’s silly really how we all fall for it

 

[RobinBHM]

They need to display leadership and explain why painful things are necessary but may only be short term

If it was that easy we wouldn’t be in this mess

 

[Jacob]

That perpetuates a system where workers pass wages to landlords who turn it into capital.

The result is that all the wealth ends up in the hands of the few locking out workers from access to assets.

Best demonstrated if you play Monopoly (board game). It always ends with fewer people owning more and people dropping out with no money left. To get the game going again you have to share out the cash again - just like socialism!

People who bought houses 20+ years ago haven’t earnt the increase in value, they have just been fortunate.

People forget how cheap houses were. Friend of mine bought his for £50 about 1970. It was a bit of a dump, still is in fact!
PS probably worth £200k now. That's a 4000% increase , with no effort at all.

 

[TRITON]

U.K. has serious wealth inequality

This is why the royal family is so important to British society. It reinforces the haves and have nots system.