Buce Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 I think Webbomeans I'm alright Jack. I'd be disappointed if that is the case; I think Webbo is a better man than that.
MooseBreath Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 It's called having a social conscience; just because you and I have enough, as Oz points out, billions don't. It's immoral that billions live that way while a handful of people have more wealth than they can possibly spend. It's simply a question of social justice. So you'd take the businesses and the industries away from the wealthy people or tax them to the point that they're not worth running? Then there would be no production, no economic growth, no jobs and we'd all be together in poverty. Would that be a success? Wealth isn't a zero sum game, it doesn't matter if some people are becoming extraordinarily wealthy as long as everybody is becoming more wealthy, and by all measures that is happening, not only have we seen global poverty fall to its lowest level ever, we've also seem simply unprecedented levels of improvements to things like healthcare and education right across the world, improvements that are only accelerating as more and more countries embrace capitalism and stand to benefit from its amazing transformative power. Try looking at the positives for a change instead of being driven completely by envy.
leicsmac Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 So you'd take the businesses and the industries away from the wealthy people or tax them to the point that they're not worth running? Then there would be no production, no economic growth, no jobs and we'd all be together in poverty. Would that be a success? Wealth isn't a zero sum game, it doesn't matter if some people are becoming extraordinarily wealthy as long as everybody is becoming more wealthy, and by all measures that is happening, not only have we seen global poverty fall to its lowest level ever, we've also seem simply unprecedented levels of improvements to things like healthcare and education right across the world, improvements that are only accelerating as more and more countries embrace capitalism and stand to benefit from its amazing transformative power. Try looking at the positives for a change instead of being driven completely by envy. And yet we still have the vast problems as detailed in ozleicesters list. If the change is happening, it's happening too slowly and it's hardly a reassurance to the dead and dying.
Carl the Llama Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 So you'd take the businesses and the industries away from the wealthy people or tax them to the point that they're not worth running? Then there would be no production, no economic growth, no jobs and we'd all be together in poverty. Would that be a success? Wealth isn't a zero sum game, it doesn't matter if some people are becoming extraordinarily wealthy as long as everybody is becoming more wealthy, and by all measures that is happening, not only have we seen global poverty fall to its lowest level ever, we've also seem simply unprecedented levels of improvements to things like healthcare and education right across the world, improvements that are only accelerating as more and more countries embrace capitalism and stand to benefit from its amazing transformative power. Try looking at the positives for a change instead of being driven completely by envy. Really because that's exactly what I thought it was: The money pool is a finite thing, you can't just make new money when you feel like it. So if 'the 1%' keep increasing the % of the global wealth holed up in their bank accounts then things are going to gradually get worse for the rest of us. The funny thing is we're encouraged to go out and spend money to combat recession and boost our 'trickle down' economy. Money which will eventually make its way to the pocket of CEOs and directors within 'the 1%' where it seems to get stuck indefinitely. Sound more like a trickle up economy to me.
MooseBreath Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 And yet we still have the vast problems as detailed in ozleicesters list. If the change is happening, it's happening too slowly and it's hardly a reassurance to the dead and dying. It's not a question of 'if' it's happening. It clearly is. Go back 10, 20, 50, 100 years and you'll see. At no point in history has positive transformation occurred as rapidly as it has done in the last few decades. We're in the midst of a revolution.
MooseBreath Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 Really because that's exactly what I thought it was: The money pool is a finite thing, you can't just make new money when you feel like it. So if 'the 1%' keep increasing the % of the global wealth holed up in their bank accounts then things are going to gradually get worse for the rest of us. The funny thing is we're encouraged to go out and spend money to combat recession and boost our 'trickle down' economy. Money which will eventually make its way to the pocket of CEOs and directors within 'the 1%' where it seems to get stuck indefinitely. Sound more like a trickle up economy to me. You're totally wrong there in afraid. It absolutely isn't a zero sum game. The wealthy don't hole money up in bank accounts, they invest it, which drives more growth.
Nalis Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 The wealthy don't hole money up in bank accounts, they invest it, which drives more growth. Not so sure about that. They invest some at opportune moments for business needs and bank most if not all for personal use. The latest figures prove that trickle down economics is disproportionate to trickle up economics. Don't get me wrong, entrepreneurship is good for the economy to an extent and people should be allowed to earn hundreds of millions. However, no single individual should be worth over USD$1 billion. No 'needs' this wealth and anyone who does is, to put it simply, greedy.
Jon the Hat Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 Not so sure about that. They invest some at opportune moments for business needs and bank most if not all for personal use. The latest figures prove that trickle down economics is disproportionate to trickle up economics. Don't get me wrong, entrepreneurship is good for the economy to an extent and people should be allowed to earn hundreds of millions. However, no single individual should be worth over USD$1 billion. No 'needs' this wealth and anyone who does is, to put it simply, greedy. Are you insane? You think the super rich keep their money in bank accounts for personal use? Christ.
Nalis Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 Are you insane? You think the super rich keep their money in bank accounts for personal use? Christ. Couldnt be arsed explaining since I'm a phone pal but obviously meant through personal funds/trusts, etc rather than reinvesting into whatever organisations they've built. Works on a case by case basis depending on the individual obviously but you know what I'm getting at...
Webbo Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 WUM ok, sure why not. If more than half the world lives in poverty, then its a problem. People starving, people dying from lack of clean water. And if that 1% wanted to, they could end it. 1. Nearly 1/2 of the world’s population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty, that's less than $1.25 a day. 2. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. 3. 870 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat. Food banks are especially important in providing food for people that can’t afford it themselves. Run a food drive outside your local grocery store so people in your community have enough to eat. Sign up for 4. More than 1 billion people lack adequate access to clean drinking water and an estimated 400 million of these are children. Because unclean water yields illness, roughly 443 million school days are missed every year. 5. In 2011, 165 million children under the age 5 were stunted (reduced rate of growth and development) due to chronic malnutrition. 6. Preventable diseases like diarrhea and pneumonia take the lives of 2 million children a year who are too poor to afford proper treatment. 7. As of 2011, 19 million children worldwide are not vaccinated. 8. 1/4 of all humans live without electricity — approximately 1.6 billion people. 9. 80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. 10. In 1998, the UN estimated that it would take $40 billion annually to offer basic education, clean water and sanitation, reproductive health, and basic health and nutrition to every person in every developing country. That would be about $58 billion today. 11. The World Food Programme says, “The poor are hungry and their hunger traps them in poverty.” Hunger is the number 1 cause of death in the world, killing more than HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined. And if you took all the money off the top 1% all those problems would still be there. It's not the fault of some telecoms millionaire from Hong Kong that someone in Africa hasn't got clean water, that's down to the c**ts they put in charge of their countries but that billionaires company can make it possible for that person to own a mobile phone, if that's what they want. If Oxfam spent the money that people donate to help these people on actually helping these people rather than spreading left wing propaganda their lives could be a lot better. Still the person responsible will probably get a safe Labour seat out of it so who cares?
Jon the Hat Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 Couldnt be arsed explaining since I'm a phone pal but obviously meant through personal funds/trusts, etc rather than reinvesting into whatever organisations they've built. Works on a case by case basis depending on the individual obviously but you know what I'm getting at... No I don't, really. The super rich invest their money through a number of routes, providing capital to a multitude of business.
Filbert Walker Posted 23 January 2015 Posted 23 January 2015 I don't think the fracking process will help the caller either... that's suppose to be the answer to all problems...
ozleicester Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 And if you took all the money off the top 1% all those problems would still be there. It's not the fault of some telecoms millionaire from Hong Kong that someone in Africa hasn't got clean water, that's down to the c**ts they put in charge of their countries but that billionaires company can make it possible for that person to own a mobile phone, if that's what they want. If Oxfam spent the money that people donate to help these people on actually helping these people rather than spreading left wing propaganda their lives could be a lot better. Still the person responsible will probably get a safe Labour seat out of it so who cares? Im not suggesting we take ALL the money from people....It is estimated that we could solve the worst of the problems with around $65 Billion per annum....The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That means even if we took that every year for ten years the 1% would still have 50 trillion left to play with... Solved! Its everyones fault, it can be fixed, we just dont care enough. Really, the "left wing" diversion?... its not about right or left, its about starving and suffering children in the UK, OZ and across the world, that are suffering because we dont care enough to stop it.
Captain... Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 Course it's silly, its thrown away at the distribution places that sort and pick the stuff so only perfect produce gets delivered to the store, if a crate containing a thousand tins of beans is damaged, the whole lot gets dumped as its quicker than sorting through a thousand tins of beans, and the reason for that is profit. You're kinda contradicting yourself there, the manufacturers/distributors that throw away crates of food are wrong, but they are doing so to keep profits high by keeping costs and therefore prices low. If the cost of sorting repackaging and distributing damaged goods is so high then that cost will need to be recovered somewhere. Usually the consumer. As for supermarket waste, back when I was working for Kwik Save we would reduce everything that was going out of date that day by 50% as the first job in the morning and it was nearly all gone by lunch time so they started fvcking about by reducing it by 25% in the morning then by 50% late afternoon and we got a lot more shrinkage but made more money. Now when you see the reduced section it is often no cheaper than buying in date stuff on multi buy deals. Not really sure what my point is though.
Captain... Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 I think I remember the point I completely failed to make in my last post. Basically it is about balance. There are 2 types of people that use food banks, those that need it and those that don't. Same with benefits, those that deserve it those that don't, even immigration those that benefit the country and those that don't. Nobody has a problem with the first category, every sees the second category as something we should aim to reduce. The problem is other than costly and expensive measures of testing and investigating everyone any attempts to reduce the impact of the second group negatively impacts the first. Ultimately human nature will always try to get something for nothing whether it is tax breaks or tax credits, it is all the same, and any attempt to help people will be open to exploitation by the unscrupulous. The balance is where it is acceptable. There will always be hard luck stories and there will always be someone who knows someone that is popping out kids to increase their benefits to pay for their sky subscription and 40 fags a day habit. You can't base policy on the extreme ends, short of just giving everyone as much free money as they demand there will be those that struggle, and unless we lock the borders, close the food banks and stop all benefits there will be those that exploit it. Picking out extreme examples and getting all worked up about it is not productive and not a basis for policy making.
Rincewind Posted 24 January 2015 Author Posted 24 January 2015 A lot of the 'free money' is entitlement after a person has contributed to the system over the years. The majority of food banks need referrals and only allows a person to visit two or three times. After that they are given advice. Even people that are working and on minimum wage are starting to use them now. If there is no safety net then the use will increase.
MooseBreath Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 A lot of the 'free money' is entitlement after a person has contributed to the system over the years. That's often incorrect, ken. You have to earn and pay full tax on something like £26k per year before you start making a net contribution to public finances. Before that you're already receiving more than you pay in from services such as police, healthcare, education etc. The irony of your statement is that the people who do actually make a net contribution to public finances, ie those who earn above £26k on average throughout their careers, are often the ones who get penalised for having too much money and aren't allowed to access any state funds.
Spiritwalker Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 No I don't, really. The super rich invest their money through a number of routes, providing capital to a multitude of business.The super rich invest their money to make more money not because they want to redistribute their wealth. You only have to see the lengths they go to avoid paying tax to realise this. For socialism to work we need wealth creators, however capitalism must be regulated and go hand in hand with social justice.
MooseBreath Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 Good to see the old Moose back. Just bringing the facts to the party dearest.
lavrentis Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 He got a job http://www.lbc.co.uk/heartbreaking-call-the-man-too-poor-to-eat-101623
Merging Cultures Posted 24 January 2015 Posted 24 January 2015 And if you took all the money off the top 1% all those problems would still be there. It's not the fault of some telecoms millionaire from Hong Kong that someone in Africa hasn't got clean water, that's down to the c**ts they put in charge of their countries but that billionaires company can make it possible for that person to own a mobile phone, if that's what they want. If Oxfam spent the money that people donate to help these people on actually helping these people rather than spreading left wing propaganda their lives could be a lot better. Still the person responsible will probably get a safe Labour seat out of it so who cares? Actually... A lot of the rare earth metals in phones come from Africa. The demand for those causes all sorts of conflict.Many Africans don't have much choice in who is elected. Lesotho has elections next month. All the parties came from one main party. There is no real choice.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.