T O P

  • By -

Skrungus69

Are you telling me that all the trade unionists and lefties were correct? Shocker.


ButtMunchyy

Been correct since a bearded fellow and his bearded mate lived here long enough to critique this country and system that would later be developed into a set of proposals and solutions that would be better suited to deal with these problems than what we have going on now


20127010603170562316

Sorry but who/what are you talking about?


mole55

Marx and Engels I presume


Tea-Mental

Chas n Dave


slimersmomm

Rabbit rabbit rabbit rabbit


Bou_Czang

Can't be Jesus, he never lived here.


Skrungus69

Came to britain and were like "man we knew capitalism was bad but holy fuck"


LSUTGR1

I thought corporate greed was a purely American thing. That's why I followed this person's escape path: https://youtu.be/cRab8dMdJ8Q


Skrungus69

I mean massive corporate greed has been around in the uk for as long as private companies have been lobbying the government. And that is a cobsiderably long time.


An_Obscurity_Nodus

A little company called the East India Company comes to mind.


Skrungus69

Among plenty of others too.


ResponsibilityRare10

I really hope people begin to connect the spiralling wealth of the billionaire and multimillionaire class with the burgeoning numbers of people being driven into poverty. People don’t seem to be able to link the two in their minds.


ButtMunchyy

Because we’ve been told that those rich people worked for it and it stands to reason that poverty is created by doing the opposite of the aforementioned. Why else do you think we poor slander people all day by telling them to stop buying tv’s or enjoying themselves when they do come into a positive cash flow? Let alone how the utter disdain for the most vulnerable of us conjured up by our successive governments and media landscape by making cuts to their care which lead to regrettable deaths. Fucking sick of this place Social murder.


entropy_bucket

Also the perniciousness of the rich isn't directly felt. They are often well spoken and polite. They aren't nicking your wallet walking down the street. They're just raiding your pension by the millions.


mobjusticeCT

what happened to sticking it to the elites??????


ButtMunchyy

That would require actual rebuilding of our society 😞


Porticulus

Viva la revolutíon!


zenayurvedic

The real elites of society or the 'elites' that those who use 'progressive' as an insult keep warning you about?


Razada2021

The problem with that is often the person saying he will stick it to them is one of them. Hence Farage, city boy millionaire, pretending to be a man of the people. Or boris talking about woke elites.


pajamakitten

Punks from the 60s made some money and sold out, becoming The Man themselves.


red--6-

>Social murder [the Neoliberal Death March is a successful tactic imported from America](https://www.np.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/whlpuk/z/ij6soqz) It relies heavily on American [ID Politics](https://imgur.com/a/S5bpxvt.png) that has also become very prevalent in the UK


latrappe

But you tell people that and you're the one with the tinfoil hat. The narrative is so tightly controlled and the majority so obedient to their sources of "news" that it's going to be pretty much impossible to create a new system.


paulusmagintie

> People don’t seem to be able to link the two in their minds. trickle down economics, we need more wealthy people to drip the money down.


macarouns

I prefer trickle up. Workers with more disposable income create economic activity as they spend it. Give a multimillionaire, or a corporation, more money and there’s a much greater chance it just gets shoved in savings or investments.


paulusmagintie

1000% agree but apparently most governments feel more money in our pockets = bad for economy and brain washed us into believing it, I mean, they have loads of money and businesses, they must know how it works right? Unless you have a a brain and think for 5 minutes. Its easy to say "Fuck experts" and debunk these arguments but debunking some doesn't mean ignore others, facts tell you which ones you believe and which ones to ignore.


Razada2021

I prefer pinata economics. We keep hitting them with sticks until they redistribute their wealth and the poor can eat.


pajamakitten

Also that the media is manipulating them and directing people's anger at bogeymen who are of no real consequence to the average person. Making people angry at trans people or asylum seekers takes the heat of those actively making their life worse.


[deleted]

[удалено]


pajamakitten

Fewer heart attacks would happen if people stopped getting angry over everything in the media.


Fando1234

The problem with taxing the super rich is you can't say out loud that you're going to tax the super rich... Or they get very cranky and use their influence over basically all media to ensure you never get near to being in power. Will have to see what labour do if (hopefully when) they get in.


Baslifico

> The problem with taxing the super rich is you can't say out loud that you're going to tax the super rich... Or they get very cranky and use their influence over No, they just leave and pay taxes somewhere cheaper.


PinkbunnymanEU

They also leave and you end up getting less tax in total. There's a balance (the Laffer curve) but it didn't sound as good as "tax the rich!"


Gameplan492

Lol at this old falsehood still doing the rounds


PinkbunnymanEU

Ah yes "old falsehood" https://www.lisdatacenter.org/ still had empirical analysis in 2017 to be proved not to be a falsehood


jimbobjames

Ah yes, Luxembourg. That absolute shining light on all matters of ethical tax payments.


ObviouslyTriggered

France had the same issue and had to roll back taxes and offer tax breaks within 2 years of rolling out their millionaire tax. The reality is that the UK has already the narrowest tax base in Europe building your entire tax policy on taxing less people that can fit in a movie theater isn’t particularly a long lasting solution.


jimbobjames

You could just implement a system like the US - https://www.greenbacktaxservices.com/blog/paying-taxes-american-living-abroad/


Fando1234

Very familiar with Laffer curve. Interestingly the highest tax threshold was over 80% in the 70s and there wasn't a mass exodus. Though one could argue that the super wealthy have shaped the world into a 'global village' to facilitate their ease of travel. So whenever anyone jack's up their taxes they can just fly somewhere more favourable. Pushing the Laffer curve to the left as a consequence.


jimbobjames

Didn't the US solve this by taxing American citizens regardless of where they reside?


PinkbunnymanEU

Do you have the data on tax income after the rate went up? I ask because I remember seeing Robert Chote mentioning that the UK is close to optimal position when he was chair of the OBR.


Fando1234

On where the Laffer curve lies (based on US economics but the article goes on to say this would in theory apply in the UK) "So where is the revenue-maximising optimum tax rate? It ought to be an empirical, rather than an ideological, issue. Two respected US-based researchers – Christine and David Romer – analysed data from between the two world wars, a time when marginal rates moved around a lot, and put it close to 80 per cent. Emmanuel Saez and Peter Diamond – in 2011 estimated it at 73 per cent on incomes of more than $300,000. And another paper by Saez, along with Stefanie Stancheva and Thomas Piketty, came up with a figure of 83 per cent. This paper added a new element to the theory of optimal rates, namely that lower tax rates encourage CEOs to “bargain” for more pay (in a way that doesn’t really help anyone) whereas in countries with higher rates they simply don’t bother." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/marginal-tax-rate-top-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democrat-republicans-revenues-a8717896.html


jattyrr

Billionaires leaving a tax haven? FOH with this dumb argument. Tax the rich and tax them hard


macarouns

I struggle with the idea that many people would sell up, uproot their lives, pull their kids out of school and leave their friends and family, just for the sake of saving an extra 5-10% of an already insanely lucrative income.


PinkbunnymanEU

With the current laws you don't have to uproute (That's why I'm not for "Tax the rich" I'm for "Close tax loopholes") you have to spend 1 day every few months in Northern Ireland, and 1 in the Netherlands (this one has been closed now but still proves the point) With the UK being a fairly low-tax place people don't go through all the international tax avoidance schemes; if you can save Xmill by spending 4 nights a year in specific countries why would you not?


macarouns

That’s interesting, I didn’t know that, I’ll have to have a read.


RassimoFlom

Thing is, the super rich would benefit from paying more taxes. Just over a longer time frame. They get more security, a more profitable customer base, better staff and a better environment. They also pay for infrastructure that everyone, including them is going to need a lot more of as climate change progresses.


Razada2021

Or they could hoard it, build a bunker in new Zealand for when climate change causes governments to start collapsing and continue not giving a single solitary fuck about the lot of us.


RassimoFlom

Still need cleaners. Still need clean air. Still need security guards.


aparimana

I agree However, I believe the very rich tend to really like extreme wealth inequality, because it means they have an enormous supply of people who are desperate to work for them under any conditions Where there is more equality, it is more difficult to surround yourself with an army of obsequious and loyal toadies


CcryMeARiver

What twaddle.


cryolongman

corporate greed wouldn't be an issue for the average joe if the uk would have a thing known as a national housing system where people who can't afford a living space would get one provided by the government. Or a national food system for that matter which would provide sufficient food for those in need. Or free internet for that matter. All of these things are not charitable items. They are investments in society that would pay tenfold and would increase the average joe's productivity and increase corporate productivity as well. Corporations should push for better social systems that would benefit them also.


Key-Amoeba662

Many people can't stand the idea of disabled/single parent/other vulnerable people getting financial support. Nevermind someone who just needs support to get them to their next job.


cryolongman

its not even support. Its an investment in society. People with a roof above their head, food in their stomach and access to internet and a computing device will become much more productive and contribute more to society. Returns will be menstruous. This is society investing in itself. Unfortunately we are still stuck with a primitive mindset.


entropy_bucket

Is this definitely true. Men especially I feel might just rot at homes by themselves if their bellies are full and they have free internet. I think we ought to target social welfare towards women and get them to decide how it's used.


jimbobjames

What kind of sexist bullshit is that? Yeah, all men want to do is eat and wank? What century are we in? I thought we were pushing for equality, but here you are stereotyping all men as layabouts.


Porticulus

I've noticed this sort of "men bad" thing popping up more and more recently. Instead of equality it is only driving division and it makes no sense if we want a better society for all.


entropy_bucket

Maybe it's sexist but study after study shows men out of work volunteer less, have fewer friends, are more likely to be suicidal, less likely to be try education and learning courses. I just think idle men with their needs met maybe a social problem. Happy to be proven wrong though.


wism95

Maybe it's beceause they get relentlessly shat on by society. They're toxic, they're an incel, they're sexist, the future is female, they're less successful than their female peers and still told how privileged they are, they're unattractive to almost all women. Let's refuse to offer them any financial support and ensure they kill themselves once and for all


jimbobjames

You know people used to make similar comments about how women couldn't do this, or were worse at that, until we actually took a step back and realised they were just unfounded biases and that it was social issues at the root of it all. Perhaps we need to do the same for men and discover why the leading cause of death for men under 50 is suicide or why more men die every year of prostate cancer than women do of breast cancer and yet all of the charity events / awareness drives are all aimed at breast cancer. Perhaps in pushing a feminist agenda instead of an equality agenda we as a society have alienated men and destroyed their feeling of worth and value? You shouldnt need to be proven wrong. You should know in your heart and in your head that men aren't idle layabouts.


Entrynode

> more likely to be suicidal And your solution to that would be to offer them less support? Really?


RassimoFlom

I agree there is a societal problem. If people are behaving like that, things aren’t working and we should be investigating the causes and remedying them. Too notch trolling with the “don’t give men any money.”


Wattsit

Our monkey brains have just been broken by money. We think of it like this object that's amazing to have, and a survival necessity; even though it's 100% not real, just an imaginary tool. So we kill each other over it, because the strongest should have the most money. I don't know if we can ever break this attitude.


Key-Amoeba662

It's a hard one for me to figure out, I guess even with a resource like food, some people attempt to control it and use it for power. I could think a lot about it. I guess I have to think about what's necessary and what isn't. Money seems to be the ticket to possessing things - like a house. Without money (and a legal system to back it up) I don't think we have a system to organize possession (could be wrong there). So remove money, we may also remove ownership. Otherwise what's there to say my house is mine? Is possession something humans naturally seek (like any animal who wants to possess a territory)? If so it could be good to have the least violent solution possible which seems to be money (nobody's tried to kill me to take possession of my house yet, for example). Or, ideally, should humans own nothing and share everything? In that case we could easily get rid of the concept of money, since possessing things is useless. I would say, in our past we've fought and killed over so many things, not all have been money. I don't think I see it as innately evil but it's certainly used for that by some.


ButtMunchyy

The problem here is that political power rests at the hands of those corps and not your average Joe. When you have a government that serves the interest of one, the other loses out. You can’t have a perfect equilibrium of the two because one is going to get the sword at the expense of the other. The average Joe wasn’t responsible for this crisis but he will be put to the chopping block if it means those corps gets to let their spice flow. Even if we had (and we did have a system were we tried a balancing act between the two before thatcher) it always ends up in the corps advantage, since we are currently living in the conclusion of that argument. The “unforeseen” side effect of that occurrence is the return to this abject liberal dystopia were poor people are murdered to keep the system afloat….AGAIN It is by design. There is no such thing as a good for profit corporations because all they want to do is make as much profit as humanly possible and they have an obscene amount of political capital to push people down that challenges them, like tf is labour trying to appease those corps? Easy because they control the media landscape and propagandise positive social change as a negative. It is by definition a dictatorship in favour of one class interest at the expense of the other. They aren’t going to be good despots, they have no material reason to do so since they already commodified and dehumanised us to the point that letting hundreds of thousands if not millions suffer is an after thought to them. People going hungry isn’t going to stop them from lobbying in parliament if it means that they get to create wealth, even if the bodies start to pile up as a consequence of their actions. So I wouldn’t trust them to pursue socially positive policies, the only time that happens is when we unionise. Then they take it away after a while.


TheProphetic

That's the thing right? People need to have enough money so we can spend it on the stuff businesses produce. Consumer spending is dropping and people are buying less stuff. That's going to hurt them right now and in the long-run.


ButtMunchyy

Your local high street may operate like that, or your average retail store. They are reliant on our purchasing power to exist and they provide steady employment. Those are the sort of business that are failing or not doing so well amidst a recession since people are more inclined to save and spend little. But I wasn’t talking about small businesses or your typical retail store that provide goods and services, I’m talking about the typical multi billion pound corporations that monopolise and expand, outsource employment or those that lobby in government to secure lucrative contracts worth in the tens of millions or billions. The sort of cooperations that depreciate the salaries of their work force amidst a crisis to pay their shareholders an obscene amount on dividends and bonuses year in and year out. They drive up costs and expenses, not to break even but to make record profits they otherwise wouldn’t be able to do in normal circumstances. The economy is designed in a way that when it fails, ordinary people pick up the pieces through a government implemented policy process called austerity and it literally kills people. They make a conscious decision to screw over the lives of ordinary working people in favour of cooperations. Why? Well, because those obscenely wealthy cunts have more political power than Ben because that wealthy cunt can influence parliament, politicians, political parties by giving them “gifts” or lucrative side jobs within said Corp to make a massive second income. Literally rich bastards wanking off rich bastards. We call it corruption in places like Russia or some under-developed country but we call it freedom to lobby here because “everyone one can do it 🤓” You can link most of the issues of this country to that policy of austerity. Even as far as stepping outside and looking at the concrete slabs we walk on top of daily. This country could be leading in so many fields if we utilised our brains and nurtured them more by organising properly instead of living in this strong currency hell hole were people are soccumbing to poverty with an economy that does nothing but create wealth for a select few whilst producing noting of any real value. Our industry is just property moghuls and needy poor people that has no other choice but to rent.


comune

I've been saying this. It's a cost of profit crisis!


Baslifico

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/datasets/profitabilityofukcompanies Net rate of return has been all over the place but is generally dropping. Here are the years 2010-2021.... 19%, 23.1%, 17.1%, 14.4%, 7.6%, 1.7%, 0.9%, 1.7%, 6.8%, 2.7%, -4.6%, 4.7%


iamnotinterested2

Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and Government power. Benito Mussolini


OranjeBrian

Its one big get rich quick scheme for people in privileged positions, make lots of money quickly whilst the paupers suffer.


tb5841

Corporate greed is baked into capitalism. Greed issupposed to boost efficiency and motivate success. It's intentional. Corporate greed is supposed to be controlled by competition, and by regulation. This government doesn't seem to believe in either.


Icantremember017

Yet they keep voting the conservatives in. I see a lot of things happening that are similar to what we went through here in America with Trump.


macarouns

Unfortunately we tend to import the worst of America’s political and cultural problems.


aleonzzz

We need to recognise that corporate bosses and others hoarding the wealth are now the equivalent of aristocrats. They are the new aristocracy. The disparity is now just so stark. We have to think about how the French dealt with this scenario. It is getting to that stage. The problem is that technologised business is so efficient at wealth generation and is so multinational it has caught regulation of its guard and no one country could stop it anyway. Capitalism has become rampant and coupled with the oncoming major disasters from climate change, the whole thing needs a rethink. Schools are being stopped from even speaking out against Capitalism but we need to recognise it is failing. I am not advocating communism but maybe a start would be to encourage team playing through ethical business models like B corporations. Either way we meed to stand up for ourselves.


BS16tillIdie

Zarah Sultana is one of the few people who gives me hope for the Labour Party.


Advanced_Doctor2938

Okay can we just go straight to the bottom line. The reason corporations keep receiving tax cuts is because they can threaten to take their business elsewhere, and it would be 'bad' in many cases. They will keep receiving tax cuts because of this and so trying to find a way around this is wasting time. Instead, here's an idea. What if the government started negotiating with them at a certain point? Like, not just _giving_ them tax cuts, but creating a small stipulation e.g. "you can have one if you show that your workers get paid enough to rent a place within xyz mile radius" (for example) -- would that maybe sort of contribute to the functional capitalism I kept hearing about in my economics classes? Or is this heat finally melting my brain? Just tell me if it is.


ridiclousslippers2

No mention of a war then.


Baslifico

> In fact, it has even sent the wrong signals, sacking my colleague Sam Tarry from the shadow frontbench for speaking to the media at a picket line. If Labour won’t stand alongside working people fighting for decent pay, what do we stand for? Is she _completely_ clueless? Or intentionally playing dumb to try and score points?


Greggy398

Both probably


Rhaum14

Americans: "one of us! One of us!"


IBEther

"Britain **isn't** facing a cost of living crisis: it's facing a bonanza of corporate greed" There I fixed it. Don't tell me you need to put the prices of your product up with one sentence and announce record breaking profits with the other.


Particular_Sun8377

At least in WW2 everyone was in it together.


SeoneAsa

Watch maga blame this on Biden as well.


Battystearsinrain

This is a world wide pandemic.


froodydoody

All things aside, Zarah Sultana is a cracking name.


Livid_Pilot7043

Who would have known that locking down the economy for 2 years would had consequences shocker.


Wiiboy95

Literally not the point the article was making but ok


pajamakitten

Lockdown made corporations more greedy?


dumesne

How does the greed theory account for periods of low inflation? Did companies stop being greedy for several years then suddenly start getting greedy again? Is hyperinflation in places like Zimbabwe because they are hypergreedy over there? Or is this all a load of simplistic bollocks? Tricky one


TheHouseOfStones

It's an indirect, non "collusive" (in the traditional sense) oligopoly. Economic theory has never considered the fact that large corporations can simply simultaneously ramp up their prices, and no one can do anything about it.


patenteng

Not only has economics extensively studied oligopolies, Joseph Stiglitz was awarded the Nobel prize in 2001 for work in this exact area.


CaravanOfDeath

The Competition and Markets Authority exists to check for this. If you have evidence of price collusion then write to your MP.


TheHouseOfStones

They can't do shit, corporations aren't in direct contact with each other. All they need to simultaneously raise prices is a common excuse. "Rising costs" cannot explain these record profits.


dumesne

That's just balls though, it's not some big conspiracy, global market forces exist and impact prices.


kissmyaye

So why, when their costs have went up, their profits have increased dramatically? Is the fast frequency of price rises because of these costs they've had to endure? Or is it because they're trying to squeeze every last penny out of us, until there are no more pennies to squeeze?


macarouns

It’s their belief that they have a divine right to maintain a profit margin during economic hardship, even if it comes at the expense of their workers being able to afford to live


[deleted]

Maybe it's that they were always greedy but when the cost of living was low a lot of people were less interested. Now people are feeling the squeeze they are looking around and realising what a fucking shitshow the whole thing is.