Work so hard you cripple yourself

[RobinBHM]

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

In the U.K. far more is concentrated in the hands of the very few.

None of you right wingers address the fact that U.K. has far higher levels of wealth inequality and far lower standards of living than equivalent economies


Nobody is calling for wealth equality, all I want is the U.K. to have a distribution of wealth which gives a standard of living similar to equivalent Western economies.

Tell me Terry, do you think it would be terrible for U.K. to have similar levels of wealth distribution to Norway?

 

[Croolis]

So what about the basic premise that, hypothetically or otherwise:

The state needs more funding and must increase the tax burden. A marginal increase in taxes paid by the very wealthy will still leave them with a very welathy status and lifestyle. Increasing the tax burden on those with very little disposable income has a direct impact on their ability to spend on anything other than subsistence items, thus concentrating wealth that they spend into the hands of fewer companies and the government and not benefiting the wider economy and overall social stability.

I mean, these are unarguable facts, right? So, should the need to raise taxes arise, first stop is the wealthy. The question remains of how punitive the taxes should be, can't be going too mad or they'll sling their hooks.

But what I'm after here is, who thinks this approach is wrong? Who thinks taxing the wealthy before the lower rungs of society is the wrong thing to do?

 

[RobinBHM]

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.

Moral hazard

Privatise the profits
Socialise the losses

 

[RobinBHM]

The state needs more funding and must increase the tax burden

The problem is that we’ve privatised our public services so increasing tax burden just means more money going to assets of the wealthy not better services

 

[Jacob]

.....should the need to raise taxes arise, first stop is the wealthy. The question remains of how punitive the taxes should be,

Not "punitive" at all, merely the price of civilisation and should be taken for granted.
They should be pleased and proud to think that thanks to their hard work and expertise, or good luck, or inheritance, that they are in a position to improve the lives of all, not just a few.
It's amazing that it has to be explained - over and over again!.
I'll try: imagine we all lived in a group entirely dependent on potatoes. If someone in the group manages to dig faster and harder than someone else and builds up a heap of surplus potatoes, should he then share them out to those who have too few, or just keep them, even if he doesn't need them and can't possibly eat them all?
Or even simpler - imagine a small group in a lifeboat. One has managed to get there with lots of cakes and drinks which he won't share out . Others have little or non. Who should be thrown overboard first?

can't be going too mad or they'll sling their hooks.

Good riddance. If they don't want to be part of society then let them all ouef off. They can't take land and property with them.

PS sense of deja vu here - this is the sort of issue we'd knock about in discussion groups at junior school. Some people still struggle with these very simple issues! No coincidence that the mega rich tend to spend their surplus on big collections of toys - what else is there for them?

 

[Diver Fred]

Wow imagine having to lift 18kg. 1cwt cement bags was work.

As for age, I can't find anyone under 60 willing to do a days work.

Mate wants an apprentice; he's prepared to to take the salary hit for 2 years whilst he gats the person up to speed and pay for their college education.
He expects that after 2 years the apprentice will be able to benefit the business sufficiently to pay their way.

Can he find one, anyone? to date he's had 2 lads who thought they were there to 'Look & Learn' and one other who only wanted to do the easy stuff. None of them wanted to do the normal beginner apprentice tasks.

He's given up for now as he has help from a chap who has just been made redundant.

In the last few years I was at work I oversaw the small number of apprentices coming through the business - the most applied was one lad who had done a technical degree and the 2 girls.

 

[artie]

I reckon the money, in a few years, will be for someone who can lift, cut, join things and get the hands dirty

 

[AJB Temple]

My view is that the government (of any colour) made serious and fundamental errors when it privatised utilities such as water, electricity, gas, internet etc and compounded this by allowing foreign ownership. It needs reversing. We need nuclear power.

The NHS is a money pit and needs to have some limits as to what it can and can't do as we can't all live forever in perfect health. The near absence of NHS dentistry is disgraceful as dentists have a licence to print money.

I have no problem with selling council houses but I do have a problem with not replacing them with social housing for those in need.

We have an ageing population and falling birth rate. The pension system will collapse if this goes on, and government really needs to have a serious think about care for the elderly now that society no longer sustains family hubs.

The electorate will quickly get sick of any government that allows uncontrolled immigration and lets them draw benefits and receive priority housing.

Some real fundamentals need attention, but we lack visionary political leaders.

 

[MikeJhn]

The political leaders of our current generation are only interested in making sure they don't upset their voting populous irrespective of popular opinion.

 

[Jacob]

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.

Looking at survival of the species as the common goal I'd say that we are very near to that ideal, in fact we have over shot it to a great extent and now need to cooperate in remedying the damage we have done to the planet and our environment

• Individuals and sectors within society frequently pursue discordant goals.

Fair enough, we are all different to some extent.

• why some individuals dominate in wealth influence and power

because we allow them too. It's a somewhat deviant trait, of little value to those doing it and quite deleterious to the rest of us

• ...... They are partly why societies pursue discordant goals. My contention is that basic human nature makes this inevitable.

not inevitable, just another variation on the themes and needs to be regulated, along with many other primitive urges we are all prone too!

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

As I said - they tended to start off with concentrated wealth/power but the influence of democracy and civilisation tends to disperse this. Political democracy is accepted but there's a long way to go with democracy in finance and other areas.

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 -

....but even more reliant on the cooperation of the many - imposed either by force or by democracy.

...

Jacobs seems to think this is all about the battle of the proletariat to improve their lot

more or less

with the underlying presumption this would somehow improve society.

It would improve society virtually by definition. The proletariat are the part of society most in need of improvement

This was not the point being made. It would help if he actually read what was written before commenting.

Not sure what else was the point.
Repeating myself here - but once again we find someone defending and making excuses for excess wealth and the inevitable corollary of excess poverty.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

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.

My contention is that we don't just sit back and say "oh well, it's inevitable, just let them crack on"...

It's only inevitable if you allow it to be. Or worse, if you actually support it. Or is your contention that if you support them the "bad guys" will smile upon your support and reward you?


I also say that this is not black and white situation. Arguing for black, or that black is inevitable in a shoulder shrug stylee, in a shades of grey environment only increases the possibility of black occurring.

The shades of grey refers to the extent to which the power and wealth is concentrated. None of the countries listed were black/white either - they were all shades of grey. You avoided mention of Nazi Germany - arguably the farthest towards black in a shades of grey environment that it might be possible to be? At least in modern history. Perhaps Genghis Khan or Pol Pot or Vlad the Impaler from farther history...
But being a democratic nation, you and I do have some sway in nudging towards white rather than black, while still acknowledging the shades of grey environment.
You didn't mention France, either, the country of the people's uprising - which still shapes their national psyche to this day - you know the drill - farmers blockade bringing the country to a standstill and that being generally "accepted" by the country famed for their "people's uprising". Recent rejection of Marine Le Pen is a moment of relief in our time. It was a close thing, though.
The USA is the next scary upcoming moment.

So

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

My view is that the government (of any colour) made serious and fundamental errors when it privatised utilities such as water, electricity, gas, internet etc and compounded this by allowing foreign ownership. It needs reversing. We need nuclear power.

The NHS is a money pit and needs to have some limits as to what it can and can't do as we can't all live forever in perfect health. The near absence of NHS dentistry is disgraceful as dentists have a licence to print money.

I have no problem with selling council houses but I do have a problem with not replacing them with social housing for those in need.

We have an ageing population and falling birth rate. The pension system will collapse if this goes on, and government really needs to have a serious think about care for the elderly now that society no longer sustains family hubs.

The electorate will quickly get sick of any government that allows uncontrolled immigration and lets them draw benefits and receive priority housing.

Some real fundamentals need attention, but we lack visionary political leaders.

Do you mean that the electorate will quickly get sick of any government when they believe a fundamental lie that immigrants draw excessive benefits and get priority access to housing - even when they categorically do not?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Looking at survival of the species as the common goal I'd say that we are very near to that ideal, in fact we have over shot it to a great extent and now need to cooperate in remedying the damage we have done to the planet and our environment

We have survived so well we are in danger of completely destroying that which we rely upon for our continued existence. We are not remotely near to the ideal - survival of the species requires a stability which spans millennia.

because we allow them too. It's a somewhat deviant trait, of little value to those doing it and quite deleterious to the rest of us

There is a contradiction in your assertion that we allow individuals to dominate. If the currently subjugated "rise up" and "take control" it would be they who "dominate".

A "deviant trait of little value" - it is what provides leadership and progress from the mass of humanity who have neither the skills nor motivation to do other than average and follow.

not inevitable, just another variation on the themes and needs to be regulated, along with many other primitive urges we are all prone too!

Those who would seek to regulate are doing precisely that which you seem to abhor - imposing regulation.

As I said - they tended to start off with concentrated wealth/power but the influence of democracy and civilisation tends to disperse this. Political democracy is accepted but there's a long way to go with democracy in finance and other areas.

Rubbish - the dominant do not all start off with concentrated wealth/power - simple examples - Adolf the house painter, Jimmy Carter the peanut farmer, Margaret Thatcher the grocers daughter, Vlad Putin the son of a factory worker and naval conscript.

In 5000 years of settled communities covering numerous societies none has come remotely close to egalitarianism (and lasted). The grounds to support the belief that this can or will somehow change are limited at best.

Repeating myself here - but once again we find someone defending and making excuses for excess wealth and the inevitable corollary of excess poverty.

Nonsense - I am making the case that emergence of dominant individuals in any society is all but inevitable. This has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of income or wealth distribution.

Imagine a group of 10 people need to agree something trivial - where to go for a meal, or what film to watch. Endless debate follows. Usually resolved when one stands up and says assertively this is what we should do. Dominance in action.

You really should (a) read what has been written before responding, (b) avoid the temptation to assume any question can be answered with Jacobs version of "42" (the answer to everything).

 

[Terry - Somerset]

My contention is that we don't just sit back and say "oh well, it's inevitable, just let them crack on"...

It's only inevitable if you allow it to be. Or worse, if you actually support it. Or is your contention that if you support them the "bad guys" will smile upon your support and reward you?


I also say that this is not black and white situation. Arguing for black, or that black is inevitable in a shoulder shrug stylee, in a shades of grey environment only increases the possibility of black occurring.

The shades of grey refers to the extent to which the power and wealth is concentrated. None of the countries listed were black/white either - they were all shades of grey. You avoided mention of Nazi Germany - arguably the farthest towards black in a shades of grey environment that it might be possible to be? At least in modern history. Perhaps Genghis Khan or Pol Pot or Vlad the Impaler from farther history...
But being a democratic nation, you and I do have some sway in nudging towards white rather than black, while still acknowledging the shades of grey environment.
You didn't mention France, either, the country of the people's uprising - which still shapes their national psyche to this day - you know the drill - farmers blockade bringing the country to a standstill and that being generally "accepted" by the country famed for their "people's uprising". Recent rejection of Marine Le Pen is a moment of relief in our time. It was a close thing, though.
The USA is the next scary upcoming moment.

So

The proposition is that emergence of a few dominant individuals in any society is all but inevitable.

The discussion was initiated related to skewed wealth and income distribution, not related to what we would both agree are unacceptable manifestations in terms of bigotry, violence, etc. As a pragmatist I accept that many solutions to life's questions are shades of grey, not B&W.

You can disagree with the proposition - a matter of opinion - in which case we will agree to differ.

If by observation of historical societies the proposition is proven supportable, then there are two fundamental options:

Pragmatically accept what appears to be a reality. Dominant individuals need a structure beneath them to secure their hold on power - selection may well be based on a mixture of patronage, experience, talent, effectiveness etc.

Whether in pursuit of status or wealth it is in the interest of the dominant to ensure society functions optimally. Riot etc is not productive. Providing healthcare, training, good diet, housing etc can be. Assuming all is subordinate to the immediate pursuit of wealth is simplistic.

Fight to improve the lot of those towards the bottom of the food chain - in 5000 years of settled societies, none have yet evolved close to a point where egalitarianism is a reality - some today are very slightly closer than others towards the ideal.

However worthy the fight, I do not believe it will succeed. It may even prompt a sharp move to the right. Banging head against a brick wall is one common expression - more crudely it is like f&rting against thunder.

 

[Jacob]

The proposition is that emergence of a few dominant individuals in any society is all but inevitable.

All the more reason to be concerned and to make sure that they don't dominate. This is why, as a result of generations of struggle by "the many", we have democracy. It wasn't given to us willingly from above. - the french revolution helped clear their minds. Very real fear of the guillotine!

The discussion was initiated related to skewed wealth and income distribution, not related to what we would both agree are unacceptable manifestations in terms of bigotry, violence, etc. As a pragmatist I accept that many solutions to life's questions are shades of grey, not B&W.

The problems evolve and change as do the solutions

You can disagree with the proposition - a matter of opinion - in which case we will agree to differ.

I agree with you. A few tall, short, fat, boring, crazy people are also inevitable and we have to deal with any issues or problems they cause, as necessary, if any.

If by observation of historical societies the proposition is proven supportable, then there are two fundamental options:

Pragmatically accept what appears to be a reality. Dominant individuals need a structure beneath them to secure their hold on power - selection may well be based on a mixture of patronage, experience, talent, effectiveness etc.

And the majority need to undermine that structure, which they have done, in spite of the brutality visited upon them over the years.

Whether in pursuit of status or wealth it is in the interest of the dominant to ensure society functions optimally.

Nonsense. They need to ensure that society functions without objecting too severely to the greed and exploitation. Not an easy task and regular uprisings have occurred throughout history. Nothing "optimal" about it, in fact highly inefficient and regressive.
The threat certainly has been productive over the years. Peaceful meetings even more important. In recent years the `Peterloo Massacre was a major turning point

Providing healthcare, training, good diet, housing etc can be. Assuming all is subordinate to the immediate pursuit of wealth is simplistic.

Fight to improve the lot of those towards the bottom of the food chain - in 5000 years of settled societies, none have yet evolved close to a point where egalitarianism is a reality - some today are very slightly closer than others towards the ideal.

"Egalitarianism" is a popular right-wing demon. It isn't the issue in a literal sense, but they have made the impossibility of it an excuse for not doing anything at all and chosen the familiar Thatcherite neo liberalism, free-market crack pot ideology.

However worthy the fight, I do not believe it will succeed. It may even prompt a sharp move to the right.

You obviously haven't been taking any notice:
We got the franchise! It took some time. 300 years or more depending on how you look at it. Read "The Vote" by Paul Foot. Very readable and interesting.
We got Labour governments! Also expanded upon in the book, not always in a positive way, he is no ideologue.
We got the NHS, ban on slavery and child labour, workers rights, shorter hours, habeus corpus, official holidays, minimum wages, social services, welfare provision, union rights, detailed regulation regarding health and safety, thousand and one improvements.
No going back, except as short-term wiggles - look what happened when building regs control went slack at Grenfell Tower and several thousand other buildings not yet consumed by the failings of right wing ideology

Banging head against a brick wall is one common expression - more crudely it is like f&rting against thunder.

Banging on the walls seems to work very well. Non of the advances above were offered from above except in reaction to pressure from "the many" throughout history.
Keep banging on the walls chaps! Joining a union is a good start. Street protests are effective.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

The proposition is that emergence of a few dominant individuals in any society is all but inevitable.

The discussion was initiated related to skewed wealth and income distribution, not related to what we would both agree are unacceptable manifestations in terms of bigotry, violence, etc. As a pragmatist I accept that many solutions to life's questions are shades of grey, not B&W.

You can disagree with the proposition - a matter of opinion - in which case we will agree to differ.

If by observation of historical societies the proposition is proven supportable, then there are two fundamental options:

Pragmatically accept what appears to be a reality. Dominant individuals need a structure beneath them to secure their hold on power - selection may well be based on a mixture of patronage, experience, talent, effectiveness etc.

Whether in pursuit of status or wealth it is in the interest of the dominant to ensure society functions optimally. Riot etc is not productive. Providing healthcare, training, good diet, housing etc can be. Assuming all is subordinate to the immediate pursuit of wealth is simplistic.

Fight to improve the lot of those towards the bottom of the food chain - in 5000 years of settled societies, none have yet evolved close to a point where egalitarianism is a reality - some today are very slightly closer than others towards the ideal.

However worthy the fight, I do not believe it will succeed. It may even prompt a sharp move to the right. Banging head against a brick wall is one common expression - more crudely it is like f&rting against thunder.

I'm not saying that egalitarianism is possible - far from it - I'm a pragmatist too - but I also strongly believe that the shades of grey situation has skewed far too far towards the thing that you seem to believe is far too simplistic - despite the evidence of real facts that I have already brought.

To recap:
Private equity (Thames Water) have borrowed circa £20bn. They have also extracted circa £20bn as shareholder dividend. The infrastructure is worse than before the borrowing was sought. The costs of any future infrastructure improvement they have already committed to increasing customer bills.
- this is a sharp and obvious insight into the fact that it is not indeed "too simplistic" to say that Private Equity are treating EVERYTHING other than dividend and profit as completely subordinate to everything else.
This is but a single example.

To recap further:
Super-wealth have increased their wealth by a huge margin over the past 10 years.
On average, 99.9% of the common population has endured an 8% real terms decrease in the past 16 years.

It would appear that, using the very clear evidence above, for those of super-wealth, and therefore power, the immediate and gross pursuit of wealth is prime, and that absolutely everything else is subordinate to that selfish pursuit.


You are, I would assume, part of the 99.9%?
And yet it would also appear that you are completely sanguine about this? After all, it's inevitable, right? I say that it does not have to be.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Private equity (Thames Water) have borrowed circa £20bn. They have also extracted circa £20bn as shareholder dividend. The infrastructure is worse than before the borrowing was sought. The costs of any future infrastructure improvement they have already committed to increasing customer bills.

Thames water dividends since privatisation are £7.2bn. Borrowings at March 2024 are £15.2bn.

Since privatisation Thames Water have invested £16bn - broadly they borrowed to fund investment, without generating sufficient cash flow to repay the loans. This cannot go on indefinitely.

- this is a sharp and obvious insight into the fact that it is not indeed "too simplistic" to say that Private Equity are treating EVERYTHING other than dividend and profit as completely subordinate to everything else.
This is but a single example.

You are right that private equity invested to maximise profit. Water companies have been subject to regulation since privatisation - sadly proven ineffectual or incompetent (or both).

My guess - regulators have come under consistent pressure to minimise costs to consumers and limit inflationary increases. Bluntly, the regulators (and the government who set the rules under which the regulator operates) are responsible for the degradation in infrastructure.

Another bluntly - to improve water quality and sewage systems needs investment. This needs to be paid for - either through increased water bills or general taxation.

Privatisation was based upon the proposition that under private ownership efficiency would improve. Whether this justified the dividends subsequently paid is debateable. But the assumption that dividends are a form of theft from consumers is not one to which I subscribe.

You are, I would assume, part of the 99.9%?
And yet it would also appear that you are completely sanguine about this? After all, it's inevitable, right? I say that it does not have to be.

I am one of the 99.9%. There are folk who have far greater talents than I - work harder, cleverer, prepared to take risks, innovative etc etc etc.

I am fortunate that I am able to live fairly comfortably (not in luxury) and can value and prioritise other things far above more wealth - family, friends, health, security etc. I am genuinely not envious of those possessing huge wealth.

Perhaps if my lot in life was less agreeable I may be inclined towards anger and resentment - but right now I am happy to encourage those with the energy to initiate progress, subject to democratic oversight and regulation.

 

[John Brown]

Thames water dividends since privatisation are £7.2bn. Borrowings at March 2024 are £15.2bn.

Since privatisation Thames Water have invested £16bn - broadly they borrowed to fund investment, without generating sufficient cash flow to repay the loans. This cannot go on indefinitely.


You are right that private equity invested to maximise profit. Water companies have been subject to regulation since privatisation - sadly proven ineffectual or incompetent (or both).

My guess - regulators have come under consistent pressure to minimise costs to consumers and limit inflationary increases. Bluntly, the regulators (and the government who set the rules under which the regulator operates) are responsible for the degradation in infrastructure.

Another bluntly - to improve water quality and sewage systems needs investment. This needs to be paid for - either through increased water bills or general taxation.

Privatisation was based upon the proposition that under private ownership efficiency would improve. Whether this justified the dividends subsequently paid is debateable. But the assumption that dividends are a form of theft from consumers is not one to which I subscribe.


I am one of the 99.9%. There are folk who have far greater talents than I - work harder, cleverer, prepared to take risks, innovative etc etc etc.

I am fortunate that I am able to live fairly comfortably (not in luxury) and can value and prioritise other things far above more wealth - family, friends, health, security etc. I am genuinely not envious of those possessing huge wealth.

Perhaps if my lot in life was less agreeable I may be inclined towards anger and resentment - but right now I am happy to encourage those with the energy to initiate progress, subject to democratic oversight and regulation.

As far as I can tell, none of the left leaning posters on these forums are envious of those possessing huge wealth either. Whatever ey_tony and his chums may think, I'm not after his lawnmower, but that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the serious inequality problem that we have in the UK.
But it's not about me - I've got my own lawnmower, two strimmers, two hedge trimmers and a little chainsaw on a pole thing.
It would be great if we could all start massive Amazon type enterprises, we'd all be super rich and there'd be no need for taxes! But I have a feeling there's a flaw in that plan somewhere.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Thames water dividends since privatisation are £7.2bn. Borrowings at March 2024 are £15.2bn.

Since privatisation Thames Water have invested £16bn - broadly they borrowed to fund investment, without generating sufficient cash flow to repay the loans. This cannot go on indefinitely.


You are right that private equity invested to maximise profit. Water companies have been subject to regulation since privatisation - sadly proven ineffectual or incompetent (or both).

My guess - regulators have come under consistent pressure to minimise costs to consumers and limit inflationary increases. Bluntly, the regulators (and the government who set the rules under which the regulator operates) are responsible for the degradation in infrastructure.

Another bluntly - to improve water quality and sewage systems needs investment. This needs to be paid for - either through increased water bills or general taxation.

Privatisation was based upon the proposition that under private ownership efficiency would improve. Whether this justified the dividends subsequently paid is debateable. But the assumption that dividends are a form of theft from consumers is not one to which I subscribe.


I am one of the 99.9%. There are folk who have far greater talents than I - work harder, cleverer, prepared to take risks, innovative etc etc etc.

I am fortunate that I am able to live fairly comfortably (not in luxury) and can value and prioritise other things far above more wealth - family, friends, health, security etc. I am genuinely not envious of those possessing huge wealth.

Perhaps if my lot in life was less agreeable I may be inclined towards anger and resentment - but right now I am happy to encourage those with the energy to initiate progress, subject to democratic oversight and regulation.

My mistake - I did that from memory - and I should not have done that - I apologise (maybe my in-head figures are from across the privatised water industry??) What we both ought to be able to agree on, bearing in mind the sewage being pumped directly into rivers, is that the infrastructure is incontrovertibly in a bad state and in need of investment.



I too am comfortable and some might even say "well off" - and like you I do not begrudge or feel any anger towards "wealthier" folks than me. What I do feel is a cold, hard, unemotional, and dispassionate opinion that paying out huge dividends is not appropriate when the standard of the infrastructure is going backwards and the "extra efficiency" of private sector "competition" is proven to not exist - and could never exist from the outset - particularly when we can both clearly agree that private equity exists as a SOLE means to generate dividends/profit while everything else plays second fiddle, including investment, and good management - it's just another banks/rail/energy situation where profits are privatised and losses/costs are socialised.

 

[redhunter350]

Wow imagine having to lift 18kg. 1cwt cement bags was work.

As for age, I can't find anyone under 60 willing to do a days work.

Artie 18kg is nowhere near a cwt ! 1cwt = 50.80kg 18kg = 39.68lbs and yes when a young fella almost everything came in hundredweight bags, coal, cement, grain, etc I could lift it no problem but now I have difficulty with 25kg [55lb] [1/2cwt] bags