What If The 99% Refuse To Work & Consume?

[iamnumerate]

I don't know if I agree with the idea that there is a 1% who are rich and 99% poor.

If I had time I would divide society into several groups, the ultra rich, the comfortable, struggling, lazy on benefits etc.

Also I am not sure that the 1% all benefit from HPI.  I consume less because of limited space to store things, that is hardly good for the retail sector.

[hayder]

all you'd need is: 

-Farmers

-Lorry Drivers

-Air Traffic Controllers

-Port Vessel Traffic Controllers

-Water Treatment Plant Control Technicians

-Rubbish Collection workers

 

To strike in unison.

[ThePrufeshanul]

I like it - it's like a reverse "Atlas Shrugged". 

The sheeples will never actually be able to co-ordinate such an event however the politicians and their idiot policies have partly ensured that this is happening already. 

[Big Orange]

17 hours ago, oatbake said:

I think the 1% would take their wealth somewhere warmer and leave is to our squalour. That's what I think. 

Um, most "places warmer" tend to be a bit unstable or blowing up anyway, me thinks the deposed super-rich would have to beg to a navy for protection - either way the 1% will pay dearly for destroying the middle and working classes in Western countries. How defensible is Kensington and the Hamptoms? 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Big Orange

[Wayward]

I consume little...just what I need. I don't do materialism / consumerism but then I often think I am being a fool...nobody cares that I don't consume much and plenty of people are consuming my share for me.  I might be cycling to work and cooking at home etc but my landlord drives a big new car and dines in the best restaurants.

This talk of the 1% is misleading...the problem is much wider than that...it is the top 20%.  It isn't the 1% buying up and hoarding the nations housing and using this for exploitation...it is the guy at work and lady next door.

[oatbake]

2 hours ago, Big Orange said:

Um, most "places warmer" tend to be a bit unstable or blowing up anyway, me thinks the deposed super-rich would have to beg to a navy for protection - either way the 1% will pay dearly for destroying the middle and working classes in Western countries. How defensible is Kensington and the Hamptoms? 

I hear the Caribbean is quite nice this time of year. And last time I checked, not especially dangerous. 

The USA, I'm sure, would gladly welcome any multi-millionaires we want to offload also.

A lot of the "1%" have actually worked for their fortune. Some have inherited it, but again in most cases their ancestors worked their socks off.

There has to be an incentive for people to build successful businesses. Part of that incentive should involve keeping *most* of the profits, albeit paying more tax than lower earners

Edited May 11, 2018 by oatbake

[Wayward]

3 hours ago, hayder said:

all you'd need is: 

-Farmers

-Lorry Drivers

-Air Traffic Controllers

-Port Vessel Traffic Controllers

-Water Treatment Plant Control Technicians

-Rubbish Collection workers

 

To strike in unison.

The system is very fragile...remember the fuel tanker driver strike...whole country on its knees within days.

[hayder]

2 minutes ago, Wayward said:

The system is very fragile...remember the fuel tanker driver strike...whole country on its knees within days.

which is why the government and large companies are working furiously to take low paid humans out of the loop in all critical jobs. - one day the low paid will strike. but by then they will be expendable.

[happyguy]

20 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

I came to the conclusion that the 99% have much more power than they think, as they are the ones who work and consume to keep the 1% in riches.

Imagine what would happen if the majority of the population refused to continue working (or forced to stop working by automation) and borrowing to consume and gave up this lifestyle.  Would we see systematic breakdown as the majority of businesses fail, or would we get a citizens income for all, so that the 99% can keep consuming using free 'printed' money?

Have been reading quite a few articles about the citizens income concept recently.  It seems to be gaining momentum, even among the so called 'elite'.

I think the 1% are generally people who have old money.  Most do not work or run businesses.  They would not care if the rest of the world stopped working.  Even a business man like say Bill gates or Alan sugar would not care they are already multi millionaires. 

I was at a terrifying seminar 3 weeks ago talking about automation and the effect it will have.  Automation as AI is taking jobs every single week, very soon anyone who does not have a skill in medicine, genetics, automation, engineering will have no choice other than not to work.  This is happening already with graduates in degrees which are not respected by employers racking up a 40k debt and working in a coffee shop. 

I have not heard anything about citizens concept and doibt that the "elite" as they are called have heard of it either.  If a person does not work how do they expect to buy food, clothes, watch TV, pay for gas? not sure this will ever happen interesting idea as it is. 

[happyguy]

20 hours ago, oatbake said:

Fact is that for many people there is little to stop a determined 99% working their socks off and becoming part of the 1%. For most it involves starting a business and taking risks, for sure, but like everything life is often about what you put in. 

Cannot argue with that.  I do not know any successful business owner who has not worked hard. 

[Riedquat]

13 minutes ago, hayder said:

which is why the government and large companies are working furiously to take low paid humans out of the loop in all critical jobs. - one day the low paid will strike. but by then they will be expendable.

It's called "progress". It's really just another word for contempt for human beings. What's sad is how so many think it's a good thing when they just stand to lose.

Plus I find the idea of wanting to develop systems to do jobs people are quite capable of and don't mind doing rather ridiculous.

[Bsmf]

20 hours ago, oatbake said:

I agree with this bit. One of the core ideas of a citizens income is that you should *always* be better off working. No tax credits etc.

A thread on scumsnet was posative about citizens income, but of course "there would have to be something extra like tax credits so people with children get more"?

[mrtickle]

6 hours ago, Bsmf said:

A thread on scumsnet was posative about citizens income, but of course "there would have to be something extra like tax credits so people with children get more"?

FFS. !

NO.

[maverick73]

If the locals dont want to work... then the imports will take over the road show ?

[jiltedjen]

You can see a map of signatures 

[GregBowman]

14 hours ago, happyguy said:

I think the 1% are generally people who have old money.  Most do not work or run businesses.  They would not care if the rest of the world stopped working.  Even a business man like say Bill gates or Alan sugar would not care they are already multi millionaires. 

I was at a terrifying seminar 3 weeks ago talking about automation and the effect it will have.  Automation as AI is taking jobs every single week, very soon anyone who does not have a skill in medicine, genetics, automation, engineering will have no choice other than not to work.  This is happening already with graduates in degrees which are not respected by employers racking up a 40k debt and working in a coffee shop. 

I have not heard anything about citizens concept and doibt that the "elite" as they are called have heard of it either.  If a person does not work how do they expect to buy food, clothes, watch TV, pay for gas? not sure this will ever happen interesting idea as it is. 

Citizens wage has been around as a concept for twenty years often seems to go hand in hand with the flat tax concept (every tax rate harmonised from vat to GCT to income tax ) 

Citizens wage removes the disincentive to work a few hours extra to improve your lot, currently this means losing a shed load of benefits if you are on them hence a disincentive to work 

You do away with tax allowances since everyone gets citizen wages of say £12k if you earn £50k then effectively your income is £62k

AI will require we seriously have to consider this 

[GregBowman]

14 hours ago, Riedquat said:

It's called "progress". It's really just another word for contempt for human beings. What's sad is how so many think it's a good thing when they just stand to lose.

Plus I find the idea of wanting to develop systems to do jobs people are quite capable of and don't mind doing rather ridiculous.

I don’t have contempt for Human beings nor do bigger companies that automate. Job creation is a side effect of building a business not its core objective.

Trouble is most people aren’t capable of reliably delivering their objectives consistently over extended lengths of time 

Hence the business owners lament ‘All my problems come on two legs ‘

Which is why the majority of business owners from micro businesses to corporations welcome automation 

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by GregBowman

[GregBowman]

14 hours ago, Wayward said:

It isn't the 1% buying up and hoarding the nations housing and using this for exploitation...it is the guy at work and lady next door.

Welcome to the human race, I suspect a version of this has been going on since we fell out of the trees. We can probably use our over rated intellect to play at the edges with taxes etc but not to any great degree 

[dugsbody]

On 10/05/2018 at 17:23, Sour Mash said:

As far as I can see, Citizens Income is inevitable.  We already give away lots of money for free through the benefits system, might as well give everyone a stipend and simplify the whole thing massively.

Yes. Imagine never having to listen to another "benefit scrounger" vs "greedy elite" debate again. Fantastic!

However, that relies on our government doing it correctly, which they won't. They'll start a citizens income but then they'll simply add top ups for those "most in need" and we're back to square one.

IMO, a citizens income has to be exactly that. No extra and enough to live on and any extra work you do simply improves your lifestyle. This means the incentives to make good choices are set correctly. There is no choosing to live in an expensive area of London simply because you want to and the government will fund your rent. Instead, you have the basic income and you will have to decide, do I live in a tiny bedsit in London or do I live in a reasonable house elsewhere. 

Edited May 12, 2018 by dugsbody

[xiox]

1 hour ago, dugsbody said:

However, that relies on our government doing it correctly, which they won't. They'll start a citizens income but then they'll simply add top ups for those "most in need" and we're back to square one.

They would simply have to. Imagine a disabled person who can't afford all the equipment they need to live, on a citizens' income. A one size fits all approach doesn't work. You'll still need the bureaucrats to administer it.

[dugsbody]

18 minutes ago, xiox said:

They would simply have to. Imagine a disabled person who can't afford all the equipment they need to live, on a citizens' income. A one size fits all approach doesn't work. You'll still need the bureaucrats to administer it.

It's a good point and I agree, a problem that needs a solution. There are many benefits to a CI, but a big one for me is setting the correct incentives for people. One benefit of this is eliminating both the concept and the finger pointing at "benefit cheats". How do we keep the correct incentives but still provide the extra care for those that genuinely need it? One way would be the CI remains the same for everyone but those that genuinely need extra care and equipment are provided with it. There is no cash incentive to pretending to be in need of it. 

[The Spaniard]

6 hours ago, GregBowman said:

Citizens wage has been around as a concept for twenty years often seems to go hand in hand with the flat tax concept (every tax rate harmonised from vat to GCT to income tax ) 

Citizens wage removes the disincentive to work a few hours extra to improve your lot, currently this means losing a shed load of benefits if you are on them hence a disincentive to work 

You do away with tax allowances since everyone gets citizen wages of say £12k if you earn £50k then effectively your income is £62k

AI will require we seriously have to consider this 

C H Douglas was advocating something similar back in the 1920's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._H._Douglas

 

[Riedquat]

7 hours ago, GregBowman said:

I don’t have contempt for Human beings nor do bigger companies that automate. Job creation is a side effect of building a business not its core objective.

Trouble is most people aren’t capable of reliably delivering their objectives consistently over extended lengths of time 

Hence the business owners lament ‘All my problems come on two legs ‘

Which is why the majority of business owners from micro businesses to corporations welcome automation

Sounds pretty much like contempt for people to me. Of course they welcome automation, kicking all those awkward people out so they can sit at the top whilst the machines bring everything in - the ultimate slave labour. Looks good for the first few businesses to do it, then once they all have done no-one's got an edge any more and we're back to square one, just with far fewer people employed unless something pops out of thin air to supply new jobs. Which just shows how short-sighted, selfish, and counter-productive wanting automation is (as opposed to having to go down that path because everyone else has and it's become impossible to act responsibly and stay in business).

[regprentice]

7 hours ago, GregBowman said:

You do away with tax allowances since everyone gets citizen wages of say £12k if you earn £50k then effectively your income is £62k

AI will require we seriously have to consider this 

I haven't seen any realistic CI propoaals at this level. The green party had CI in their manifesto, and Scotland is trialling CI this year but both set their CI payment around £5-6k a year. 

There is absolutely no way you will wean half the working population off tax credits and onto CI that's £3k less than the state pension. 

And for anyone who pays 40% tax the move to a flat tax rate more than cancels out the CI payment. 

I've spoken to a few pub philosophers about CI, they've all reckoned itll need to be set at 20k for them to be interested. Can't see that happening. 

[Riedquat]

47 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

It's a good point and I agree, a problem that needs a solution. There are many benefits to a CI, but a big one for me is setting the correct incentives for people. One benefit of this is eliminating both the concept and the finger pointing at "benefit cheats". How do we keep the correct incentives but still provide the extra care for those that genuinely need it? One way would be the CI remains the same for everyone but those that genuinely need extra care and equipment are provided with it. There is no cash incentive to pretending to be in need of it. 

Then they get lumbered with whatever officially approved state equipment is, rather than being able to tailor it to their own needs and means. And it still means the genuinely unable to work are pretty much stuck at the bottom of acceptable living standards.