skomer Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Too true. The ultimate endgame is revolution and/or economic collapse. As Sir Marty Sorrell pointed out in Davos, the last time we saw inequality on this scale was in, you guessed it......1929. If the BoE announce another round of QE, you'll know that the elite think they can get away with anything. Perhaps its part of a natural cycle. The Uber wealthy get too powerful, buy influence at the expense of the rest of the population, promote monopolies etc. The masses (proletariat/middle class/working class etc) then rebel and we have a revolution and cut them down to size for the cycle to repeat all over again. Seems to happen every 100 years or so even in the US. Let the 2020's be the decade of revolution Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Perhaps its part of a natural cycle. The Uber wealthy get too powerful, buy influence at the expense of the rest of the population, promote monopolies etc. The masses (proletariat/middle class/working class etc) then rebel and we have a revolution and cut them down to size for the cycle to repeat all over again. Seems to happen every 100 years or so even in the US. Let the 2020's be the decade of revolution Will the English proletariat take to their camels too? :- Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jetcat Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Dan Carlin made one of his last shows about fixing the growing wealth gap and possible alternatives to forced redistribution. Might worth a listen. http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive/Show-188---Dodging-the-Guillotine/jobs-economy-rich Quote Link to post Share on other sites
StainlessSteelCat Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Newsnight on Monday night had Jeremy Paxman discussing company tax avoidance with someone from UK Uncut and the Institute of Directors. 37:17 into here http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y9xtm/Newsnight_31_01_2011/ Was there any truth in this article? The real scandal is why we are paying them £1m. If they are companies, then surely the BBC has a duty to get the best value for money. Edited February 2, 2011 by greencat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tomandlu Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Will the English proletariat take to their camels too? :- Heh - it will be somewhat ironic if the revolution is inspired by the ME... I think it's coming... perhaps not a revolution, but enough of a bargy to upset a few apple carts and spark some genuine reform. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mightytharg Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 The tax payable by a star such as Paxman, earning £1m, would be £627,000 from April if he were on staff, compared with £520,100 corporation tax and dividend tax if he used a service company and paid out the entire fee as a dividend. Either way, he's giving away most of the money he has earned to your chosen good causes. What's wrong with you people? Why aren't you grateful? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Buccaneer Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'm pretty sure that the elites aren't afraid of people on upper-middle incomes. The ones they should be afraid of are those with nothing to lose. Absolutely right. That is why the middle income group will be quietly taxed to oblivion to keep the underclass in cheap cider and sky subscriptions; the latter day version of 'bread and circuses'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big Orange Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 You can tell the unelected corporate elite are running into serious trouble and are removed from the reality they have a huge impact on when a billionaire executive couldn't put his head around being on a commercial airliner amongst the common people... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vagabond Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Either way, he's giving away most of the money he has earned to your chosen good causes. What's wrong with you people? Why aren't you grateful? Because he has more than they do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
eric pebble Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Good thread this...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Saberu Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 This is just mainstream media catching on to what we all knew 5 years ago. But if half of you guys spent as much time trying to become rich as you did complaining about being poor you would be one of those super rich and we'd all be chasing you off the forum due to your dirty banker money Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guyanarama Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 They never left us behind. We're still here and they'll always have to put up with us! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
winkie Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 The rich really need to think about where all this is heading. It's not a good place for them or us. Very true.....if they are not careful the poor will spoil it for the rich....justified remuneration, when others are having to pay for it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
200p Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 The elite will do anything, including mass murder, to remain in power. Does this mean there is no heaven and hell, no god, no judgement day? No afterlife? This life is you one shot? We have been lied to? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shermanator Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Very true.....if they are not careful the poor will spoil it for the rich....justified remuneration, when others are having to pay for it. Yes agreed. The super rich elite have been overtly greedy and it'll come back to bite them in the backside in the form of civil unrest, war or depressed asset values. Awarding themselves vast bonuses at the taxpayer's expense AFTER they were bailed out will be seen by historians as a major act of hubris. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scott Sando Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Not one banker showed up too defend themselves but it ok because London elected mayer showed up to defend them. Yes we know who you work for Boris and its isn't the majority who voted for you. And the Tory party have the nerve to put tax up to 40% on people who earn £35,000, while the elite pay none. As george Carlin said " its a big club and you ain't in it". Edited February 3, 2011 by Scott Sando Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scott Sando Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fluffy666 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Not one banker showed up too defend themselves but it ok because London elected mayer showed up to defend them. Yes we know who you work for Boris and its isn't the majority who voted for you. Most of the super-rich tend to subscribe to the tenets of absolutist libertarianism, i.e.: - All the wealth that a person acquires is entirely the result of their efforts and no other factors - Taxation is theft. - All things are for sale, including political influence. - A contract is only valid if both parties have the means to fully enforce it. If one side lacks the means, tough; even the enforcement of contracts is for sale. So if the voters of the world lack the will (or means) to restrain them, then as far as they are concerned it's tough. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shermanator Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Most of the super-rich tend to subscribe to the tenets of absolutist libertarianism, i.e.: - All the wealth that a person acquires is entirely the result of their efforts and no other factors - Taxation is theft. - All things are for sale, including political influence. - A contract is only valid if both parties have the means to fully enforce it. If one side lacks the means, tough; even the enforcement of contracts is for sale. So if the voters of the world lack the will (or means) to restrain them, then as far as they are concerned it's tough. This form of absolutist libertarianism is fine if it were applied across the board. Didn't hear many of the banksters banging the non-intervention drum back in '08 when they were bailed out though, did you? The bail outs changed the economic and political rules of engagement forever. It's a case of take what you can as quickly as possible - that goes for the demos as well as the elite. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
alexw Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Either way, he's giving away most of the money he has earned to your chosen good causes. What's wrong with you people? Why aren't you grateful? Its a shame you have a brain the size of a pea. As to your point - We are in no way grateful because we recognise that the only reason the rewards are so vast for the elite is that it is the result of a vast bubble in money supply growth, which was at ~13% growth per year through the decade before the 2008 crash. And yet now that the velocity adjusted money supply is going negative (and at least a few of people have seen this bubble for the fraud that it is), instead of these elites taking the hit with their paypackets and wealth going back down, they are pushing the costs on to the rest of us. So whats wrong with you? Do you like being defrauded? Or is it that you one of those ones doing the defrauding & stealing? Edited February 3, 2011 by alexw Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shipbuilder Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 This form of absolutist libertarianism is fine if it were applied across the board. Didn't hear many of the banksters banging the non-intervention drum back in '08 when they were bailed out though, did you? The bail outs changed the economic and political rules of engagement forever. It's a case of take what you can as quickly as possible - that goes for the demos as well as the elite. No, not fine - you missed this point in the post - - All things are for sale, including political influence. Hence the bailout. Whoever has the power and the money wins and if that's not you, tough. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shipbuilder Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Most of the super-rich tend to subscribe to the tenets of absolutist libertarianism, i.e.: - All the wealth that a person acquires is entirely the result of their efforts and no other factors - Taxation is theft. - All things are for sale, including political influence. - A contract is only valid if both parties have the means to fully enforce it. If one side lacks the means, tough; even the enforcement of contracts is for sale. So if the voters of the world lack the will (or means) to restrain them, then as far as they are concerned it's tough. Agreed, and yet still you will get those that will argue in favour of this. There are plenty with such egos that they identify and side with the elites, even while being shafted by them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs Bear Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Historically, haven't the super-rich always been around, and on a different planet from us mortals? 'The Rich Are Different' and all that? I recently re-read a Trollope, published l870s, where he mentions a single banquet costing £60K. (Given by a supposedly fabulously rich con-man who ultimately comes to a bad end, you'll be pleased to hear.) Plenty of other mentions in Trollope of sums/incomes (and debts) that must have seemed astronomical at the time to any ordinary person, let alone the poor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.