THE FOURTH OF JULY

[Terry - Somerset]

In all societies some rise to the top and others find their way to the bottom - whether defined by status, money, respect, position etc. People are not born equal, nor able to achieve equally.

Children of financially secure parents, raised in a supportive home, provided with material comforts (food, clothing, housing etc) will averagely live longer, healthier and wealthier lives. Those less fortunate should not be denied opportunity, respect and support.

It is no surprise that those with advantage will seek to reinforce their position.

How the total income and wealth of the community should be divided between the individual and society as a whole is debateable. The UK currently spends 40%+ on public services - not dissimilar to most other major economies.

There are minority groups supporting a pure socialist agenda. Without looking deeply, the (largest?) Communist Party of GB in 2023 is reported to have less than 2000 members. Even if many supporters are not members, they are completely inconsequential.

UK democracy allows, at least every 5 years, all adults (bar very few) to vote for a change. That no party comes close to the Marxist ideal suggests support for a major shift is very limited. All the major parties propose tinkering at the margins, then selling the illusion of material change.

 

[Jacob]

In all societies some rise to the top and others find their way to the bottom - whether defined by status, money, respect, position etc. People are not born equal, nor able to achieve equally.

Children of financially secure parents, raised in a supportive home, provided with material comforts (food, clothing, housing etc) will averagely live longer, healthier and wealthier lives. Those less fortunate should not be denied opportunity, respect and support.

It is no surprise that those with advantage will seek to reinforce their position.

And its no suprise that there will be objections,even revolutions

How the total income and wealth of the community should be divided between the individual and society as a whole is debateable.

Yes an endless debate.

The UK currently spends 40%+ on public services - not dissimilar to most other major economies.

Britain scores lower than many

There are minority groups supporting a pure socialist agenda.

It's already here and inescapable. You said it yourself "The UK currently spends 40%+ on public services"

Without looking deeply, the (largest?) Communist Party of GB in 2023 is reported to have less than 2000 members. Even if many supporters are not members, they are completely inconsequential.

I agree. but its all part of politics

UK democracy allows, at least every 5 years, all adults (bar very few) to vote for a change. That no party comes close to the Marxist ideal suggests support for a major shift is very limited. All the major parties propose tinkering at the margins, then selling the illusion of material change.

True. We don't have any convincing leaders in the Labour party

 

[RobinBHM]

In all societies some rise to the top and others find their way to the bottom - whether defined by status, money, respect, position etc. People are not born equal, nor able to achieve equally.

Children of financially secure parents, raised in a supportive home, provided with material comforts (food, clothing, housing etc) will averagely live longer, healthier and wealthier lives. Those less fortunate should not be denied opportunity, respect and support.

It is no surprise that those with advantage will seek to reinforce their position.

How the total income and wealth of the community should be divided between the individual and society as a whole is debateable. The UK currently spends 40%+ on public services - not dissimilar to most other major economies.

There are minority groups supporting a pure socialist agenda. Without looking deeply, the (largest?) Communist Party of GB in 2023 is reported to have less than 2000 members. Even if many supporters are not members, they are completely inconsequential.

UK democracy allows, at least every 5 years, all adults (bar very few) to vote for a change. That no party comes close to the Marxist ideal suggests support for a major shift is very limited. All the major parties propose tinkering at the margins, then selling the illusion of material change.

U.K. society is way more unequal than most similar Western economies, the fundamental problem is the wealthy have increased their assets and thus capital growth whilst those at the lower end have seen shrinking assets.

UK govt has flogged loads of its public services and infrastructure so we are now in a position where services are at the mercy of sovereign wealth funds and shareholders……which is a transfer of assets from govt to the wealthy.

I agree that how income and wealth is distributed is debatable, but the fact the distribution has been steadily flowing to the top for decades…… does not seem right

 

[Spectric]

How does a society level up and share the wealth more fairly, is there were revolutions come in and we copy the french .

 

[Jameshow]

And its no suprise that there will be objections,even revolutions

Yes an endless debate.

Britain scores lower than many

It's already here and inescapable. You said it yourself "The UK currently spends 40%+ on public services"

I agree. but its all part of politics


True. We don't have any convincing leaders in the Labour party

Or in any party here or in the USA!

There is a revolution coming, I can see it in Bradford....

 

[RobinBHM]

How does a society level up and share the wealth more fairly, is there were revolutions come in and we copy the french .

U.K. has high levels of inequality and lower standard of living for the lower and middle incomes compared to lots of similar economies.

No need for a revolution we just need to end our weak parliamentary system and voting system.

It

 

[Scruples]

As long as there are human beings there will those who are well off and those who aren't, and a whole lot in the middle. Money goes to whoever is clever enough to chase it. Inherited wealth is not a bad thing and we'd all leave our kids well off if we could, wouldn't we?

Parliament is made up of an assortment of people who think they know it all, and bumble along, trying to keep the economy good enough to keep the workers and the wealthy happy.
Of course, criticising the wealthy is only half of the story. What about the career scroungers? Those who don't want to do anything towards society?

 

[Jacob]

As long as there are human beings there will those who are well off and those who aren't, and a whole lot in the middle.

And luckily there will always be those trying to make life better for all by spreading it about a bit.

 

[Keith Cocker]

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.

The thing is Domestic economics isnt at all the same a running a country. Especially a sovereign state like the UK that controls its own money. It’s a Tory fallacy designed to enable the enrichment of the already well off. Provided it’s done in ways that don’t undermine confidence there are options open to governments that households can’t think of.

 

[Keith Cocker]

Or in any party here or in the USA!

There is a revolution coming, their birthrate is massively different, I can see it in Bradford....

That was said of the Catholic population in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But of course they weren’t “brown”

 

[Jacob]

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.

In a normal domestic economy or even in larger groups like tribes or other small communities, things are shared very much along the lines of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
It's utterly normal. People do it without giving it a thought. It leads to a happier life for all.
What governments need to do is aim for these normal relationships, in bigger communities numbered in millions

 

[Spectric]

No need for a revolution we just need to end our weak parliamentary system and voting system.

But you cannot change the system without a revolution because we have so many fat cats who benefit from it who will resist change at all cost and then the un-elected house of lords that is really nothing more than some badly run care home for people past there best who have done someone else a favour.

 

[Jacob]

But you cannot change the system without a revolution because we have so many fat cats who benefit from it who will resist change at all cost and then the un-elected house of lords that is really nothing more than some badly run care home for people past there best who have done someone else a favour.

The system doesn't need changing it just needs adjusting - mainly changes in how things are taxed and how it's spent. Every government does it, all the time.
No revolution involved - but it could be arranged!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

In a normal domestic economy or even in larger groups like tribes or other small communities, things are shared very much along the lines of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
It's utterly normal. People do it without giving it a thought. It leads to a happier life for all.
What governments need to do is aim for these normal relationships, in bigger communities numbered in millions

In small, isolated, communities (up to 300 souls?) all are reliant on one another. Communities, in the absence of cheap transport and communications need to be almost wholly self reliant. Contact with other communities is limited to a few occasions each year for trade and barter.

The global tribe has billions of members. We have the ability to trade with those thousands of miles away - we will never see them nor where they live. Reliance on any one member (individual or country) no longer exists. Any emotional or personal connection has been completely severed.

Production of even simple products has become complex requiring different parts of the process undertaken by different companies often in different countries. This has driven down the cost of products, increased choice and improved living standards.

The socialist ideal (it is an ideal) will not be achieved by simple changes, nor even with major changes. We rightly enshrine in law obligations on the wealthy in their dealings with the less fortunate - eg: child labour, "fair trade" practices, H&S requirements, etc.

I am a pragmatist - there merit in pursuing that which can work. Expending effort on that which won't is a futile waste of time and energy.

If legislation and regulation become too burdensome there will be those who will ignore the law in pursuit of profit.

 

[Jacob]

In small, isolated, communities (up to 300 souls?) all are reliant on one another.

In large joined up communities too. Globally in fact.

.....

The socialist ideal (it is an ideal) will not be achieved by simple changes, nor even with major changes.

Too late. It's happened already. Not ideal of course but with us in principle. Hence public spending approaching 50% of GDP

......

I am a pragmatist - there merit in pursuing that which can work. Expending effort on that which won't is a futile waste of time and energy.

It's working all ready. NHS is the biggest business in UK. The country would be in dire straits without massive public spending.

If legislation and regulation become too burdensome there will be those who will ignore the law in pursuit of profit.

Yep. Just have to catch the boggers!
You can't run a country like a dis-functional family, where a few greedy twerps rule the roost, grab all the toys, won't let anybody else play with them, and come up with self righteous justifications for selfishness. It is also inefficient and a waste of resources.

 

[Scruples]

In large joined up communities too. Globally in fact.

Too late. It's happened already. Not ideal of course but with us in principle. Hence public spending approaching 50% of GDP

It's working all ready. NHS is the biggest business in UK. The country would be in dire straits without massive public spending.

Yep. Just have to catch the boggers!
You can't run a country like a dis-functional family, where a few greedy twerps rule the roost, grab all the toys, won't let anybody else play with them, and come up with self righteous justifications for selfishness. It is also inefficient and a waste of resources.

And you'd be quite happily take up the mantle at a drop of a hat...
Life is just passing the time as comfortably as possible between arrival and departure. Nothing else is really important.

 

[ey_tony]

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.

Do you think that if Marxism took hold and wealth was redistributed, that would be the answer?
My conclusion is that given the propensity of many people to squander their earnings or waste education opportunities is enormous and I'd argue that within 5 years due to lifestyle choices etc, you'd still have poverty and homelessness and joblessness just as before.
You only have to look at many lottery winners. Some are wise when it comes to spending their newly acquired fortune while others; simply fritter it away and are left penniless within a short time. Whose fault is that?

What is lacking is an education system that encourages and incentivises people to create their own wealth rather than expect someone else to pay or subsidise their fair share.
Poverty is not the fault of the wealthy or successful. If someone squandered their time in education and then came out of education with no qualifications then how is that the fault of the wealthy and successful? If they are unable to find the right kind of work and can only find menial poorly paid jobs due to their poor education results, then do something about it..
If you're in a poorly paid job, don't moan about it, do something to improve your prospects, that's what the successful would do!
I had no formal qualifications but I studied with the OU in my 30s and then went on to do a full time Batchelor's degree in Geophysics at a red brick university. I didn't need the degree by then but did it as due to poverty I'd skipped my earlier education in order to earn money and promised myself that one day I'd get the degree most people take after leaving school..
In life most people get out of it what they put in.

I did reasonably well in life and now I suppose live comfortably in retirement.
However as I mentioned I came from a poor background, far poorer than what is considered poor today. I left school at 14 with absolutely nothing but by the time I was 22 I'd earned enough to buy outright two adjoining derelict properties and over the next 5 years fully restored them.
In order to fund the restorations I had to do without many luxuries and even essential and can even remember once having to borrow the money for a loaf of bread in the 1970s so all this left wing nonsense about those who've been successful to me smacks of nothing more than envy end resentment.

It's not my fault if I have more in my retirement than others who drank, gambled and frittered their earnings away. If they suffer mental or physical health issues or fall on hard times through no fault of their own they I can sympathise and empathise with them but otherwise no as they had the same chances as me to use their time to build their future but chose to make different lifestyle choices instead.

 

[Jacob]

Do you think that if Marxism took hold and wealth was redistributed, that would be the answer?

No. It already is being re-distributed one way or another. Just not enough - e.g. we have a homeless problem and a declining NHS. Marx himself wasn't too sure about it- he said he wasn't a Marxist himself! It was more a work in progress than a solution to the world's problems.

Poverty is not the fault of the wealthy or successful.

No, but re-distribution is part of a solution - always has been, always will. The best form of re-distribution is to pay viable wages. Many parts of the country rent alone can be higher than a person earns. Business benefit enormously by having poor wages and high rents subsidised by the tax payer.

If someone squandered their time in education and then came out of education with no qualifications then how is that the fault of the wealthy and successful?

Nobody says it is.

If they are unable to find the right kind of work and can only find menial poorly paid jobs due to their poor education results, then do something about it..

They do in droves.

If you're in a poorly paid job, don't moan about it, do something to improve your prospects, that's what the successful would do!
I had no formal qualifications but I studied with the OU in my 30s and then went on to do a full time Batchelor's degree in Geophysics at a red brick university.

All largely paid for by the state, and a good thing too.

I didn't need the degree by then but did it as due to poverty I'd skipped my earlier education in order to earn money

So poverty does affect people's lives then? You think that's OK and it was all your own fault?

and promised myself that one day I'd get the degree most people take after leaving school..
In life most people get out of it what they put in.

True, but circumstances play a large part

I did reasonably well in life and now I suppose live comfortably in retirement.
However as I mentioned I came from a poor background, far poorer than what is considered poor today. I left school at 14 with absolutely nothing but by the time I was 22 I'd earned enough to buy outright two adjoining derelict properties and over the next 5 years fully restored them.
In order to fund the restorations I had to do without many luxuries and even essential and can even remember once having to borrow the money for a loaf of bread in the 1970s so all this left wing nonsense about those who've been successful to me smacks of nothing more than envy end resentment.

Not everybody has your talent and dynamism, which isn't to say they wouldn't be willing to work hard.
I did something similar - a derelict house for £3500 about 1975, and a few OU units over the years
Anyway it's not about success it's about where the wealth is, not how it got there - mostly inherited of course sometimes from right back to 1066

It's not my fault if I have more in my retirement than others who drank, gambled and frittered their earnings away. If they suffer mental or physical health issues or fall on hard times through no fault of their own they I can sympathise and empathise with them but otherwise no as they had the same chances as me to use their time to build their future but chose to make different lifestyle choices instead.

Of course it isn't your fault but it's not only drink and gambling which wrecks peoples lives.

 

[ey_tony]

No. It already is being re-distributed one way or another. Just not enough - e.g. we have a homeless problem and a declining NHS. Marx himself wasn't too sure about it- he said he wasn't a Marxist himself! It was more a work in progress than a solution to the world's problems.

No, but re-distribution is part of a solution - always has been, always will. The best form of re-distribution is to pay viable wages. Many parts of the country rent alone can be higher than a person earns. Business benefit enormously by having poor wages and high rents subsidised by the tax payer.

Nobody says it is.

They do in droves.

All largely paid for by the state, and a good thing too.

So poverty does affect people's lives then? You think that's OK and it was all your own fault?

True, but circumstances play a large part

Not everybody has your talent and dynamism, which isn't to say they wouldn't be willing to work hard.
I did something similar - a derelict house for £3500 about 1975, and a few OU units over the years
Anyway it's not about success it's about where the wealth is, not how it got there - mostly inherited of course sometimes from right back to 1066

Of course it isn't your fault but it's not only drink and gambling which wrecks peoples lives.

I chose to work rather than choosing education when I was younger. Poverty didn't hold me back and I've never resented anyone who has done better than me or who is better off!
How much money others have simply doesn't cross my mind. Life isn't fair, especially when we look at the money low IQ so called celebrities earn.

There's only so much you can blame on the successful before it becomes apparent that they are not responsible for poverty.
Millions are in low paying jobs simply because they are too lazy or have failed to do something about their circumstances and instead choose to blame others for they lifestyle choices.

If I was younger and in a low paid job I'd do something about it. Many successful people came from similar backgrounds to mine and did well and never resented others doing better. Life is what you make it.

 

[Jacob]

I chose to work rather than choosing education when I was younger. Poverty didn't hold me back and I've never resented anyone who has done better than me or who is better off!
How much money others have simply doesn't cross my mind. Life isn't fair, especially when we look at the money low IQ so called celebrities earn.

There's only so much you can blame on the successful

Nobody is blaming "the successful", in fact the more the better, we want more of them.
Nobody "resents" your's and others' successes.
It's about taxation "the price of civilisation" , making life better for the less successful, making success more possible for more people.
It has to be about wealth, however come by, well earned, inherited, whatever
You too will have had the benefit of public spending at many levels, one way or another.
I don't believe that 14.4 million people in Britain are just feckless ne'erdowells who should pull their fingers out.
They do exist, but at all levels of society, not just the less well off.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty-2024-the-essential-guide-to-understanding-poverty-in-the-uk
Interesting graph in the poverty report - shows how much poverty rose under `Thatcher.