The all-new shiny cockpunch thread (Part 2)

Full herd on site. Might not be too restful. FoL v3.0 has already done her nut.

3 Likes

No and I’m not a tax expert so not equipped to point at the what and how either.

I just come from a place that is suspicious of the root source of these difficulties (not yours Graeme, the think tanks and paid naysayers) and also I don’t see any choice but to find a way past them to reduce inequality.

The biggest issue I see is the almost passive acceptance that the very richest are untouchable and almost have to have all of our assets and greater share of wealth otherwise we’re somehow doomed, whereas I think we’re doomed if we let them keep hoarding it.

4 Likes

In the meantime Trumf is doing his best to clear the swamp in DC. The worst is happening now :sob:

I think you might be right there.

From my Ladybird Book of … viewpoint, surely all wealth derives from somewhere: income (earned and unearned), inheritance, capital gains, good fortune (the lottery etc), abroad (assets transferred into the country) and any other channels I’ve missed. We actually have taxes which hit all those things while the money’s ā€˜in transit’ if you like. Those taxes seem to work quite well and since they already exist wouldn’t it be easier to use them to stop the super-rich getting any richer and, when they expire, to stop them handing it down the dynasty ?

In part the problem seems to be that using the taxes we already have requires the politicians to have courage (don’t put ā€˜We won’t raise taxes’ in your manifesto) and the electorate to have common sense (don’t believe that you can have a stable, well-serviced society you can be proud of without having to pay for it). Sadly political courage and electoral common sense seem to be in short supply.

4 Likes

Where there’s a will there’s a way.

Where there’s no will there’s no way.

We need a big fucking riot. But no fucker wants to get off their lardy-saturdaynight-antndec-gameshow-areses anymore

Or learn how to spill arse :face_with_symbols_on_mouth:

riot against who or to change what exactly?

2 Likes

Against people, to change fings, innit, obvs :roll_eyes:

ā€˜Riot’ is the wrong word and I find myself a bit uncomfortable about this… but when Brian Thompson met his end, you sensed actual genuine fear from powerful people. In much the same way, French industrial relations have been influenced by what happened to Georges Besse.

We know the trope about the super wealthy being largely removed from the rigours of society but that’s currently largely elective. If it became a tiresome 24/7/365 necessity in every civilised corner of the planet, I suspect you could probably engender a negotiated settlement.

For the benefit of GCHQ I’m not advocating this… but I am pointing out that it has historical elements of success.

2 Likes

While I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment - it’s been WAY too long since we last:

…it would simply be used as an excuse by those in power to remove more of our Rights and further extend their control over us.

Now, a full-blooded popular revolution, where millions rise-up and the blood of the elites runs cold into the sewers…

Would be very reprehensible, and I in no way endorse it :+1:

3 Likes

I didn’t read / see / feel, in any ā€œmainstream mediaā€ that genuine fear was felt in any way although, undoubtedly, we would all feel that little better if it were.

I believe that all of these people feel untouchable and, unfortunately, other than such direct action, they are.

1 Like

The point I was trying to make is that apathy is rife and most simply don’t give a fuck anymore. But then you probably knew that anyway

1 Like

Interestingly the police arrested more people (>500 IIRC) last weekend for voicing their support for Palestine Action than they did during the poll tax riots (339).

I particularly admired the guy who got arrested (then de-arrested after the officers had found their specs) for wearing a Plasticine Action T shirt, complete with Morph for the more observant.

16 Likes

Instead of riots & violence I’d rather see a different political movement and party evolve, win a general election and rearrange the country in a more equitable way.

I’m sure it could happen but at present there don’t appear to be enough of the sort of clear sighted yet charismatic types such a movement would need.

Certainly unlikely & too late to occur in my lifetime. At some point too the US & China will clash in a big way over diminishing resources and fuck everything, if not permanently, at least for several generations.

Heads on poles may be our best option.

7 Likes

Seemed familiar though; Arese was an Alfa Romeo factory once! :nerd_face:

1 Like

Agreed; establishing such a party requires a fucktonne of money and people with principles.

Both difficult to find. Not impossible.

I have often thought that it was a real shame that Napoleon didn’t win.
The ruling classes would have stripped of their estates and power (And their heads in some cases) and a better meritocracy introduced.

No doubt by now a new ā€˜ruling class’ would have emerged, but maybe like the French, building barricades and burning things might have been embedded in our DNA.

There was a lot of support for Napoleon by the working classes in England. There is a huge amount of pro Bonaparte songs in the English Folk Cannon

3 Likes

:grimacing:

4 Likes

Considering the current electoral system is completely dominated by those already in power and control, the many have very little say so true change will never happen. When things get too noisy they will throw a few crumbs from the table as has been the case for ever. Until things get messy nothing ever really changes.

If 10milllion people went out marching and demanded an immediate wealth tax of 50% on anyone worth over Ā£50million and a government had the balls to action it it would not matter a fck to the man on the street. Wages wouldn’t go up, millionaires would plead poverty and the little people would still be left fighting over the scraps. We would still have a very small amount of people controlling the wealth and the media of the country and the poor would be congratulated for driving the change the powerful would pretend it was their idea all along.

I think a number of things would really help society as a whole.

Inheritance tax. When you’re gone your money goes with you. Tapering tax from 50% at Ā£1m to 95% at 50m+. No current politician has the balls or power to get that through. Needs to be an entire rethink on leaving a legacy to turn society into a true meritocracy.

1000% tax on second homes and buy to lets forcing house prices up and up whilst sucking the wealth from working people and creating a passive income for the rich. Same rule for foreign investors trying to land grab UK property as a safe bet.

A proper minimum wage, not a race to the bottom. I also think a rule tp say someone at the top of a company shouldn’t be allowed to earn more than x times their lowest paid employee.

A lot of big companies like to pretend they are creating wealth, fckin bullshit, they are draining money out of the country. If a 1000 Starbucks closed tomorrow, well sure there would be short term impact on jobs but in a years time there would be 1000 locally owned coffee shops opening up keeping and spending money locally, not syphoning it off to offshore tax havens. 1000 millionaires spending money on housing, cars, goods and services put a lot more money back into the country the one billionaire living 10000 miles away. Incentivise small businesses and make it far easier for them to compete against the big guns.

If it wasn’t already clear I know fck all about economics but the only way things will truly change for the better of everyone is to overthrow the current system that benefits the people who have put it in place and maintain it. Nothing of any significance will ever change until these people feel truly threatened.

Wandering rant that would probably bankrupt the country over.

1 Like