inky pete Posted April 30, 2012 Report Share Posted April 30, 2012 we needed WW2 and a Yankee loan to get out of depression. Wrong again Obs. But don't let that stop you. I'm starting to quite enjoy your rose tinted workers paradise selective view of documented facts. We were out of the Depression by 1934. That's when the cuts to benefits and public sector salaries were reversed. Unemployment actually ROSE and real income FELL after re-armament started in 1937 - because taxation rose to pay for it. The way out of a recession or depression is to CUT public spending and CUT taxes - in order to leave money in people's own pockets for them to spend on the fruits of other people's labour, thus creating jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2012 Problem with your theory is that, the few can't spend enough, whilst the majority can - problem is, the few monopolise the cash, hence the need for redistribution. :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horace Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 Doesn't work like that Horace: give a million people £1 each and you'll still eventually finish up with one millionaire, no matter how hard folk work. Precisely - but it is not because they work hard but because they don't know what to do with some money when they've got it. Which means, as I said before, that they have nobody to blame but themselves! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 What it suggests, is that this natural tendency for wealth to gravitate to the few, requires redistributive tax policies as a counter weight in order to maintain demand and consumption by the many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 I agree with Obs, Inky if it was not for the empire buying our goods the depression would have been far worse, they bought less but they still bought, It was our very own single market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 What it suggests, is that this natural tendency for wealth to gravitate to the few, requires redistributive tax policies as a counter weight in order to maintain demand and consumption by the many. So your answer to "a fool and his money are soon parted" is "give the fool more money"????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 Yep, as so do you - didn't YOU ask for tax cuts?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 something has to be done about the growing wealth gap why don't you go to your boss in the morning and ask him to stop 10% off your salary and give it to the lowest paid member who works for your company? redistribution of wealth at source.... excellent idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 Yep - but only if "we're all in it together"! :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 Another well thought out plan by Baz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 Another well thought out plan by Baz tell me the flaw Kije.... you want an answer to the problems, I gave you one... your idea is to take it off pensioners..... I like mine better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 So Baz, You would do nothing about the growing wealth gap, where the bankers and others give themselves big pay rises, for not doing very well, while the workers receive nothing. I do not have a problem with company directors giving themselves massive pay rises, if they also give the workers one, just take alook at how much directors pay has gone up over the last 30 years and compare it with what employees pay has done. Some reports have directors pay going up 50 fold over the last 30 years, I think you will find employees has not, Now I agree employees should not get the same as directors, but I hope you agree they are taking more and giving less, let's have a little more fairness. How about them taking less and giving more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 Kije.... I am a company director. I probably earn less than you do. I could earn a lot more using my skills working for someone else but I don't because I enjoy working for myself The big problem Kije, is that you and Obs are falling into the socialist Labour Party trap of blaming the bosses and the directors and accusing them of all earning too much when in reality, you are probably talking about less than 0.05% of all company directors. The ones who earn all the big money like the bank bosses and the bloke who runs BT and the like (and don't forget, it is the shareholders in the banks who award the directors pay, not the board of directors themselves) employ millions of peopleacross a few massive companies.... the vast majority of company directors do not earn more than the average employee as they often employ less than 5 people anyway and do not turn over the millions that the jealous leftys would have you believe. The net effect of what you are suggesting with regards to bankers and top company directors will be absolutely bugger all I'm afraid..... no where near as much as Gordon Brown lost the country when he sold all the gold at a fraction of its real worth and then had to raid YOUR private pension pot to get some money back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 Aw Baz. You can't say things like that, it destroys their image of people who have more than them. The thing that seems to be overlooked by the "it's not fair" people, is that there are different levels of Company Directors. Some employ up to 100 people and others employ thousands. Therefore you can't treat them the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 Has to be taken as an average, why don't you google directors pay rises over the last 30 years, some directors are ok, but their are also don't invest and take to much out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 You've just has the rich list published, showing the top 1,000 getting £414billion. Bob Diamond, despite a poor showing, will be pulling £20million this year - and despite an attempt by some individual share holders to block it - guess what Baz, the big investors outvoted them - guess it helps if your p*ing in the same pot eh?! And lower down the scale, we've now got an industry of tax avoidance in both public and private management. So while the minnows, including self employed bosses, presumably pay their dues - these characters that you seem to think don't exist - are laughing all the way to Maldives! Pierre, if you can't actually get out and travel the world, start watching your TV, and see it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 You've just has the rich list published, showing the top 1,000 getting £414billion. Bob Diamond, despite a poor showing, will be pulling £20million this year - and despite an attempt by some individual share holders to block it - guess what Baz, the big investors outvoted them - guess it helps if your p*ing in the same pot eh?! And lower down the scale, we've now got an industry of tax avoidance in both public and private management. So while the minnows, including self employed bosses, presumably pay their dues - these characters that you seem to think don't exist - are laughing all the way to Maldives! Pierre, if you can't actually get out and travel the world, start watching your TV, and see it! obs, are you jealous of these people who have money???? Take all the money off everyone and start from a level playing field and a few years down the line, the same people would be in the same position because they are "better" at creating wealth. And the people don't care because they don't force the politicians to do anything about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Nope - just a totally pragmatic view of affairs. As you'll notice (if you read my posts), I said exactly that - "that wealth will gravitate from the many to the few", a natural consequence of free market capitalism. Problem is, "the few" can't or won't spend it as quickly or diversly as "the many", thus stifling demand and seizing up the economy. Therefore a continual system of redistribution is required to keep the show on the road. :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 I agree with Obs, The bankers have just given themselves nice pay rises, the banks have not been performing very well so it is not performance based!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 I agree with Obs, The bankers have just given themselves nice pay rises, the banks have not been performing very well so it is not performance based!!! It doesn't stop people using the same banks. If the majority all moved to the same bank, it might change things. And the reason the few don't spend their money is that is how they got in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Which is the very point of redistribution - more folk spending = increased demand = increased employment - thus keeping the merry go round, keep going round. :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Don't worry Obs they might get it in the end Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 Kije.... the workers are no better in lots of cases.... surgeons. They are on a hundred thousand a year+ GP's, they are on £125,000 minimum.... I know of engineers on over £100,000 a year.... how many people do you know who earn the "average" workers salary? not many round here I would guess.... there has to be give and take in all aspects and unfortunately for you two leftiy types, there isn't enough bankers bonus money to pay the debts..... so who is next in line for the jealousy tax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 Look at any of the top 100 FTSE, Look how directors pay has gone up over the last 30 years then put it against their share prices, Their is absolutely no resemblance. I have no problem with people being paid for success. Look what happened just at Aviva, they got court. Sadly they are an exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.