Work so hard you cripple yourself

[RobinBHM]

relieve local authorities of an onerous responsibility

Do you believe in home ownership?

You know the benefits of having investment in land and the benefits of a growing asset

It’s hilarious how Tory supporters are massively supportive of property ownership but twist themselves inside out claiming that it’s a terrible thing for councils to own property.

 

[RobinBHM]

The proposed (anticipated) increase in NHS dues will likely go straight into the general tax income pot; rather than being ring fenced for the NHS only

But we don’t have any hypothecated taxes

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Public satisfaction is based on feelings. The feelings after the pandemic were low. No government was going to survive that strength of feeling

The number of rich people is pretty irrelevant. You're assuming that having more rich people means we have more poor people which is not the case. The rich people invest their wealth to get returns. The investments usually involve increasing profits for companies who employ more staff, who earn money, who pay taxes. The economy benefits.

Governments want the UK to thrive to boost the economy. Itr's how they choose to do that that counts. We know Labour will mess up the next 4 years and we know that the Tories, without or without a coalition, will return to power to remain for several decades until some other, third party event, changes the feelings of the people once more. History does rather repeat itself, politically-speaking.

I was modestly successful in lfe. I worked, was ambitious and ended up with a lot more than my parents ended their time with. Because of that, I can help my kids financially while I'm still around to see their development and will leave them my wealth when I'm gone. They will, I hope, use their inheritence to maintain and develop their lifestyles. I'm sure there are a lot of middle class families like mine.

When I look around and see those who can't afford homes, I see a lot of those who don't work yet crave the benefits of those that do, but without the effort.

I suppose I am using the house ownership, new cars and frequent family holidays as a benchmark of success, ambition and middle class wealth. But it's just an irrefutable fact of the modern age. Hard work brings its own rewards. Sitting around waiting fo rewards generally doesn't. It is the way of the world.

Wow, a post filled with mostly debunked fallacious tropes.

I think you misunderstood a part of the point entirely:
When I gave the factual figures of the increasing number of very, very wealthy in UK, I also provided the factual evidence of the decrease of the vast majority of the rest of society. Do you not understand that if the Very, Very wealthiest, which is a tiny, tiny minority of UK citizens, are increasing their wealth by double, triple or ten-fold, while at the same time, the rest of society is 8% worse off, this indicates a structural failure in the Economy which actually diminishes the Revenue returned in taxation?
People who earn very little always spend ALL of it, and in doing so they are taxed on ALL of their income both as earnings and then as spendings.
People who have more money than they know what to do with do not spend it. They also take advantage of the tax avoidance systems which, structurally, only the super wealthy can avail themselves of. So both their earnings and their spendings return less Revenue to the Economy. If you were to distribute that wealth more evenly over the population then no earning tax avoidance would be possible and the money would be spent, generating Economic Activity which benefits everyone.

You also fail to understand the observable reality that "trickle down" is clearly not a thing, despite your fallacious trope of "wealthy invest, create jobs and those jobs are taxed." This has been repeatedly debunked. Proof: when the median earnings of the mass of employees drops by 8%, at the same time as wealth being concentrated amongst the very few, then you know that "trickle down" is a complete fallacy. It's in your imagination. It's nonsense. Yet people still fall for the myth, despite the irrefutable evidence to the contrary which can be presented in black and white...


NHS satisfaction is not entirely "feelings based" at all - it has a lot to do with expectation versus treatment versus health outcomes.
Oh, and actually, the Pandemic provided a boost to the satisfaction ratings due to "clap on your doorstep" shenanigans.

Govts do want the Economy to thrive, and everyone should agree with that fundamental desire - but it is the aim of that thriving which separates different flavours of Govt. A govt that actively seeks to help concentrate the wealth generated from Economic Activity into the hands of a tiny minority is different from a Govt that seeks to redress that balance of Economic Activity to the benefit of the whole of society more evenly.


Forgive me also for poo-poing the concept that you "look around" and see benefit scroungers (which kinda contradicts the "I look around and I see nice cars and fancy holidays"). It isn't real and it isn't true. Again, it's in your imagination. Fact: Most people on benefits are in work. This is not an opinion, nor a personal anecdote of "looking around". It's just the facts.

 

[AJB Temple]

People who have more money than they know what to do with do not spend it. They also take advantage of the tax avoidance systems which, structurally, only the super wealthy can avail themselves of. So both their earnings and their spendings return less Revenue to the Economy. If you were to distribute that wealth more evenly over the population then no earning tax avoidance would be possible and the money would be spent, generating Economic Activity which benefits everyone.

This is dreamland. Who is going to do this even distribution? Are you going to take all the wealth off these people and distribute it? If so, how? It's pure idealism.

In the real world, some people are extremely good at making money. Oddly enough they are not keen on having it taken off them. If you introduce a policy which removes their wealth they will simply up sticks and generate their money in a more benign regime. Or not bring trade here in the first place.

People who don't have much money are always resentful of those that do. It's just a fact of life and every political system that has tried this equality for all stuff, still ends up with the elite at the top, complete with their mega yachts.

Life isn't fair. Best plan is not to start from here . If we want the UK economy to do well we need to encourage business. We need to encourage risk takers and people with business ideas to invest.

Starmer today decided to pre-empt the budget with a positively bizarre statement that the bus fare cap is being moved from £2 to £3. Various labour commentators popped up saying that £1 was affordable. It's a 50% increase, and mostly borne by the less well off. The "working people". You couldn't make it up the tone deaf nature of this lot.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

This is dreamland. Who is going to do this even distribution? Are you going to take all the wealth off these people and distribute it? If so, how? It's pure idealism.

In the real world, some people are extremely good at making money. Oddly enough they are not keen on having it taken off them. If you introduce a policy which removes their wealth they will simply up sticks and generate their money in a more benign regime. Or not bring trade here in the first place.

People who don't have much money are always resentful of those that do. It's just a fact of life and every political system that has tried this equality for all stuff, still ends up with the elite at the top, complete with their mega yachts.

Life isn't fair. Best plan is not to start from here . If we want the UK economy to do well we need to encourage business. We need to encourage risk takers and people with business ideas to invest.

Starmer today decided to pre-empt the budget with a positively bizarre statement that the bus fare cap is being moved from £2 to £3. Various labour commentators popped up saying that £1 was affordable. It's a 50% increase, and mostly borne by the less well off. The "working people". You couldn't make it up the tone deaf nature of this lot.

Mate - it was a thought experiment to illustrate the reality of concentrating wealth within a small minority while at the same time taking away an amount of earnings from the rest of society to do so. The tax take is reduced with concentrated minority super-wealth, it is not increased. And wealth is actively "trickling up" (not down) in order to concentrate that wealth into a minority holding.
I didn't ever say that we should "take away" wealth. So please try not to put words in my mouth.
I suppose you could interpret my words as a desire to decrease the rate at which wealth accumulates and concentrates into the hands of a tiny minority...

You may well be right that poor can be resentful of rich - but that is not the point of my post, nor is it my own feeling.

Is it your point that "oh well the poor are just resentful but we can't/shouldn't do anything because *insert some reason her*".

The fact that some might be resentful is just a side bar.
It is categorically not a reason to ignore concerns, or do nothing, or to not to talk about alternatives that would improve yours and my own life experiences.


I don't disagree that we need business for the Economy to thrive. However, the structure of the subsequent sharing of that "profit" does need to be scrutinised if the wealth is not to be continued to concentrate away from the vast majority of the population - because as I've shown, this categorically does not help the Economy and it certainly does not help the vast majority of those that contribute their work to the Economy for the creation of wealth if it just ends up being sucked upwards.

Unless you happen to be super-wealthy, I happen to be talking about you too. FOR you - and for everyone on this forum.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Do you believe in home ownership?

You know the benefits of having investment in land and the benefits of a growing asset

It’s hilarious how Tory supporters are massively supportive of property ownership but twist themselves inside out claiming that it’s a terrible thing for councils to own property.

I believe in the merits and benefits of home ownership. My natural inclination is centrist Tory but will acknowledge the failings of the previous government made re-election implausible.

Nor do I condemn councils (government) who should rightly step in to provide those unable buy with decent accommodation.

Home ownership and council housing is not mutually exclusive - they have an important complimentary role.

That you believe I somehow need to twist myself to make the above three statements perhaps says more about you than me.

 

[Noel]

I see one of the top tax barristers Robert Venables KC is being prosecuted by HMRC for............... tax evasion for the last nine years.

 

[Jacob]

This is dreamland. Who is going to do this even distribution? Are you going to take all the wealth off these people and distribute it? If so, how? It's pure idealism.

A common misrepresentation of the argument which deliberately muddles the issue.
It's not about equal distribution, it's about raising money to pay for public services etc. Easiest to take it from those who have it in excess.

In the real world, some people are extremely good at making money.

More of the mega rich simply inherit it.

Oddly enough they are not keen on having it taken off them. If you introduce a policy which removes their wealth they will simply up sticks and generate their money in a more benign regime. Or not bring trade here in the first place.

Let them ouef off. They can't take the land, property, businesses, workforce, clients, customers, etc or conduct all transactions secretly

People who don't have much money are always resentful of those that do. It's just a fact of life and every political system that has tried this equality for all stuff, still ends up with the elite at the top, complete with their mega yachts.

Higher taxes means smaller yachts etc

Life isn't fair. Best plan is not to start from here . If we want the UK economy to do well we need to encourage business. We need to encourage risk takers and people with business ideas to invest.

This 'risk taker" idea is just a myth. Most of what we need involves very little risk. An economy where there are higher wages and higher public spending is likely to be much more productive, as is obvious if you choose to look around. What goes around comes around.

Starmer today decided to pre-empt the budget with a positively bizarre statement that the bus fare cap is being moved from £2 to £3. Various labour commentators popped up saying that £1 was affordable. It's a 50% increase, and mostly borne by the less well off. The "working people". You couldn't make it up the tone deaf nature of this lot.

Starmer is a clumsy berk.

So many of these posts are about protecting the wealth of the mega rich, even coming from people who are dependent on the state and public services one way or another, i.e. about 99% of us. Ridiculous! Farcical! Get real!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_the_99%
PS this might help, have a flip through: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Debt/lliTBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA2&printsec=frontcover

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Mate - it was a thought experiment to illustrate the reality of concentrating wealth within a small minority while at the same time taking away an amount of earnings from the rest of society to do so. The tax take is reduced with concentrated minority super-wealth, it is not increased. And wealth is actively "trickling up" (not down) in order to concentrate that wealth into a minority holding.
I didn't ever say that we should "take away" wealth. So please try not to put words in my mouth.
I suppose you could interpret my words as a desire to decrease the rate at which wealth accumulates and concentrates into the hands of a tiny minority...

You may well be right that poor can be resentful of rich - but that is not the point of my post, nor is it my own feeling.

Is it your point that "oh well the poor are just resentful but we can't/shouldn't do anything because *insert some reason her*".

The fact that some might be resentful is just a side bar.
It is categorically not a reason to ignore concerns, or do nothing, or to not to talk about alternatives that would improve yours and my own life experiences.


I don't disagree that we need business for the Economy to thrive. However, the structure of the subsequent sharing of that "profit" does need to be scrutinised if the wealth is not to be continued to concentrate away from the vast majority of the population - because as I've shown, this categorically does not help the Economy and it certainly does not help the vast majority of those that contribute their work to the Economy for the creation of wealth if it just ends up being sucked upwards.

Unless you happen to be super-wealthy, I happen to be talking about you too. FOR you - and for everyone on this forum.

I cannot think of a single major civilisation in which wealth, power and influence did not end up concentrated in the hands of a few.

Small communities may have been more egalitarian - although leadership through experience and wisdom would also be concentrated amongst a few ( mainly the elders)

Wealth allows consumption of the best a society can offer and the acquisition of that which endows status. Today this may involve private jets, yachts, mansions, and "unnecessary" extravagance. In older societies it would be evidenced by being well fed, owning the best bow and arrow, etc.

Characteristics - ambition, health, appearance, intellect, parentage, etc etc are individual, not shared evenly or equally across populations. This inevitably impacts relationships within society.

That the cream rises to the top may be an inappropriate analogy. But a homogonous mix of gravel if vibrated ("social interaction") will also see the larger pieces rise to the top.

In a society, taxation, legislation or wealth redistribution will not stably or permanently redress social imbalances. A realistic long term goal is to optimise outcomes through compromise.

Seeking absolute solutions through dogma driven belief in "fairness" is futile. Intrinsically unstable structures will fail - often catastrophically. The blind pursuit of income and wealth under the pretence of fairness or "affordability" needs to be conditioned by realism.

Squeeze until the pips squeak is not a recipe for social harmony but its ultimate failure.

 

[selectortone]

Small communities may have been more egalitarian

Not really. There was always the Squire or the Lord of the Manor. Or the big chief or warlord or whatever. It's human nature, we have pecking order ingrained from our earliest days in the school playing ground. We're not very different from the other primates in that regard. I've always fancied being a bonobo; they are very chilled and spend most of their time having sex. Make love not war .

 

[Jacob]

I cannot think of a single major civilisation in which wealth, power and influence did not end up concentrated in the hands of a few.

An interesting thing to say!
Are you trying that old teacher trick of saying something utterly preposterous to see if anybody in the class is still awake?
Is there anybody nodding off at the back who can't see that the truth is almost exactly the opposite?
In fact civilisation has largely come about by a process of taking wealth and power away from where it was historically concentrated in the hands of the few - kings, emperors, land owning oligarchs, other tyrants, etc etc.
Start where you like, Magna Carta, The Charter of the Forest, the fight for the vote, the growth of the labour movement to improve conditions, various reform acts, strikes, revolutions....etc.
We have universal suffrage in UK but only since 1928, thanks to enormous struggles and self sacrifices, going back 400 and more years. Power to the people.
We've had battles from early days for better wages and condition and public services.. and so on.
Never straightforward - moving backwards since Thatcher/Reagan and free-market ideology and "financialisation" - making us all debt slaves. Back to the jungle, but hopefully just a blip.
Democracy and high taxation/redistribution are essential to civilisation itself

Small communities may have been more egalitarian - although leadership through experience and wisdom would also be concentrated amongst a few ( mainly the elders)

Wealth allows consumption of the best a society can offer and the acquisition of that which endows status. Today this may involve private jets, yachts, mansions, and "unnecessary" extravagance. In older societies it would be evidenced by being well fed, owning the best bow and arrow, etc.

Characteristics - ambition, health, appearance, intellect, parentage, etc etc are individual, not shared evenly or equally across populations. This inevitably impacts relationships within society.

Nobody is in pursuit of your sort of equality - it just gets trotted out as a right wing trope.

That the cream rises to the top may be an inappropriate analogy.

The greedy rise to the top - the scum floats to the surface etc......

But a homogonous mix of gravel if vibrated ("social interaction") will also see the larger pieces rise to the top.

Nobody proposes a "homogenous" mix - it's just that right-wing trope again, it makes no sense.

In a society, taxation, legislation or wealth redistribution will not stably or permanently redress social imbalances. A realistic long term goal is to optimise outcomes through compromise.

Neither stable, permanent or long term, but a continuous process of adjustment to get things working for everybody

Seeking absolute solutions through dogma driven belief in "fairness" is futile.

It is in you terms, but you are talking to yourself. Most dogma comes from the right, the left is just bothered about getting things done "for the many, not the few".

Intrinsically unstable structures will fail - often catastrophically. The blind pursuit of income and wealth under the pretence of fairness or "affordability" needs to be conditioned by realism.

Talking to yourself again!

PS absolutely non of the benefits of civilisation have come from the top, they have been fought for from the bottom, and still are being.

 

[Chris152]

Intrinsically unstable structures will fail - often catastrophically.

Few structures could be more unstable than the kind of economy we have. Capitalism, dependent on debt - it nearly brought our economy to its knees once already this century, and no sign of the instability abating.

https://www.ft.com/content/e23c6d04-659d-11de-8e34-00144feabdc0

Didn't work unless you have a sub - search FT

Debt is capitalism’s dirty little secret​

'Just why is there so much debt in the Anglo-Saxon world? Bankers and regulators know well that it is in nobody’s long-term interests to have allowed borrowing to escalate to a position where the US now owes far more, as a multiple of the economy, than at the start of the Great Depression.The answer is capitalism’s dirty little secret: excessive lending was the only way to maintain the living standards of the vast bulk of the population at a time when wealth was being concentrated in the hands of an elite.

Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the population. So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn’t earn it, you could borrow it. Cheap financing was made widely available. Financial innovations such as the asset-backed securities market aided this process, as did government-sponsored agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulators welcomed it all while perhaps taking insufficient account of the moral hazard problem it posed: that ever-increasing leverage meant the authorities had to keep interest rates low, otherwise the debt burden would cripple consumption. This prompted more leverage, which exacerbated the problem.'

And so on, a good article.

Of course, the great thing about debt is, once you're in it, they've got you over a barrel.

 

[Jacob]

Few structures could be more unstable than the kind of economy we have. Capitalism, dependent on debt - it nearly brought our economy to its knees once already this century, and no sign of the instability abating.

https://www.ft.com/content/e23c6d04-659d-11de-8e34-00144feabdc0

Didn't work unless you have a sub - search FT

Debt is capitalism’s dirty little secret​

'Just why is there so much debt in the Anglo-Saxon world? Bankers and regulators know well that it is in nobody’s long-term interests to have allowed borrowing to escalate to a position where the US now owes far more, as a multiple of the economy, than at the start of the Great Depression.The answer is capitalism’s dirty little secret: excessive lending was the only way to maintain the living standards of the vast bulk of the population at a time when wealth was being concentrated in the hands of an elite.

Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the population. So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn’t earn it, you could borrow it. Cheap financing was made widely available. Financial innovations such as the asset-backed securities market aided this process, as did government-sponsored agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulators welcomed it all while perhaps taking insufficient account of the moral hazard problem it posed: that ever-increasing leverage meant the authorities had to keep interest rates low, otherwise the debt burden would cripple consumption. This prompted more leverage, which exacerbated the problem.'

And so on, a good article.

Of course, the great thing about debt is, once you're in it, they've got you over a barrel.

Or read the book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5,000_Years
well dip into it, it's a big one!

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

An interesting thing to say!
Are you trying that old teacher trick of saying something utterly preposterous to see if anybody in the class is still awake?
Is there anybody nodding off at the back who can't see that the truth is almost exactly the opposite?
In fact civilisation has largely come about by a process of taking wealth and power away from where it was historically concentrated in the hands of the few - kings, emperors, land owning oligarchs, other tyrants, etc etc.
Start where you like, Magna Carta, The Charter of the Forest, the fight for the vote, the growth of the labour movement to improve conditions, various reform acts, strikes, revolutions....etc.
We have universal suffrage in UK but only since 1928, thanks to enormous struggles and self sacrifices, going back 400 and more years. Power to the people.
We've had battles from early days for better wages and condition and public services.. and so on.
Never straightforward - moving backwards since Thatcher/Reagan and free-market ideology and "financialisation" - making us all debt slaves. Back to the jungle, but hopefully just a blip.
High taxation/redistribution is key to civilisation itself

Nobody is in pursuit of your sort of equality - it just gets trotted out as a right wing trope.

The greedy rise to the top - the scum floats to the surface etc......

Nobody proposes a "homogenous" mix - it's just that right-wing trope again, it makes no sense.

Neither stable, permanent or long term, but a continuous process of adjustment to get things working for everybody

It is in you terms, but you are talking to yourself. Most dogma comes from the right, the left is just bothered about getting things done "for the many, not the few".

Talking to yourself again!

PS absolutely non of the benefits of civilisation have come from the top, they have been fought for from the bottom, and still are being.

Exactly this. Well said Jacob.

The clue is in the name. Society.

Society is not a group of disconnected individuals or a collection of individuals who are fighting to best each other.
Society is a group of individuals connected by a social order and a common goal.
Society is a binding together.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Few structures could be more unstable than the kind of economy we have. Capitalism, dependent on debt - it nearly brought our economy to its knees once already this century, and no sign of the instability abating.

https://www.ft.com/content/e23c6d04-659d-11de-8e34-00144feabdc0

Didn't work unless you have a sub - search FT

Debt is capitalism’s dirty little secret​

'Just why is there so much debt in the Anglo-Saxon world? Bankers and regulators know well that it is in nobody’s long-term interests to have allowed borrowing to escalate to a position where the US now owes far more, as a multiple of the economy, than at the start of the Great Depression.The answer is capitalism’s dirty little secret: excessive lending was the only way to maintain the living standards of the vast bulk of the population at a time when wealth was being concentrated in the hands of an elite.

Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the population. So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn’t earn it, you could borrow it. Cheap financing was made widely available. Financial innovations such as the asset-backed securities market aided this process, as did government-sponsored agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulators welcomed it all while perhaps taking insufficient account of the moral hazard problem it posed: that ever-increasing leverage meant the authorities had to keep interest rates low, otherwise the debt burden would cripple consumption. This prompted more leverage, which exacerbated the problem.'

And so on, a good article.

Of course, the great thing about debt is, once you're in it, they've got you over a barrel.

The UK right now has this curious position of having allowed a situation to occur which is detrimental to the greater good. Connected to debt, but far more insidious. We have allowed our publicly owned assets to be transferred to private equity, who take zero risk and extract guaranteed profit, all while deliberately managing the public services into decline and potential ruin.
Neatly summed up by the phrase "privatisation of profit, by creating publicly owned debt".
Public services are far too important to allow to fail, so when they get into trouble, the taxpayer bails them out.
A good example of this is private equity owner water companies. They deliberately took on massive debt, that was deliberately planned to be paid for by the public, while also extracting similar amounts of money to pay shareholder dividends, instead of funding investment in the water infrastructure. Profit extraction. Indebted public services. Failing infrastructure. It's a perfect storm for "us", but a well played deliberate capitalist ploy that risked absolutely nothing but other people's assets and money.
Same with Rail.
Same with NHS.
Same with banks in 2008.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Or read the book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5,000_Years
well dip into it, it's a big one!

It would be kind to describe David Graeber (sadly no longer with us) as an original thinker whose ideas are frequently at odds with conventional accepted analysis.

Apparently debt occurred before money, and money appeared before barter. He was an anarchist and a founder of the occupy Wall Street movement.

As such it may be an interesting read, stimulating and thought provoking. As evidence, worthy of use to the exclusion of all other, to prove a point it is probably bonkers!

 

[Jacob]

....

As such it may be an interesting read, stimulating and thought provoking.

It is

As evidence, worthy of use to the exclusion of all other, to prove a point it is probably bonkers!

What exclusive point do you think it is making?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Exactly this. Well said Jacob.

The clue is in the name. Society.

Society is not a group of disconnected individuals or a collection of individuals who are fighting to best each other.
Society is a group of individuals connected by a social order and a common goal.
Society is a binding together.

There is a fundamental difference between:

• how societies work. Individuals within society are largely reliant on one another, Ideally they should all be united in achieving common goals. Simple observation demonstrates we are far from that ideal. Individuals and sectors within society frequently pursue discordant goals.
• why some individuals dominate in wealth influence and power - the reason for my earlier comments. They are partly why societies pursue discordant goals. My contention is that basic human nature makes this inevitable.

I noted, for instance that I could not think of a single major civilisation in which wealth, power and influence did not end up concentrated in the hands of a few

Ancient Egypt, Greece, China, Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Viking, industrial revolution Europe, UK empire, US, now Russia and China. AFAIK all relied upon the dominance of a few - sometimes through inheritance, often through better education, skills, patronage or violence.

Jacobs seems to think this is all about the battle of the proletariat to improve their lot with the underlying presumption this would somehow improve society. This was not the point being made. It would help if he actually read what was written before commenting.