Britain's decline - is money holding us at ransom?

hurfdurf · 9 Apr 2017 at 12:41

Universal basic income is around the corner in a few generations time, the capitalists will try and hold on to power for as long as possible but automation will decimate the working class and unemployment will mean millions out of work through no fault of their own because we are already at the point where there are more people than jobs, and most jobs don't pay a living wage.

Hopefully we will see the people come together to overthrow the billionaire classes.

Alex_6n2 · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:09

Britain doesn't need more wealth distribution

It needs more productivity, more efficiency, more innovation and more economic output.

Generate the money from the bottom up, don't go looking for handouts from the top down.

dowie · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:09

hurfdurf said:
Universal basic income is around the corner in a few generations time,[...]

Hopefully we will see the people come together to overthrow the billionaire classes.

well if universal basic income is introduced then a billionaire overthrow seems to be less likely

and universal basic income certainly doesn't mean the end of capitalism

Vonhelmet · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:13

dowie said:
well if universal basic income is introduced then a billionaire overthrow seems to be less likely

and universal basic income certainly doesn't mean the end of capitalism

It will make for a fairly weird shift, though. It would make for a bizarre sort of socialism, though one in which rather than owning the means of production the government would own the means of consumption.

It will have to happen though, as by taking jobs away from consumers through outsourcing, automation, etc, businesses are pretty much signing their own death warrants.

Vonhelmet · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:15

Alex_6n2 said:
Britain doesn't need more wealth distribution

It needs more productivity, more efficiency, more innovation and more economic output.

Generate the money from the bottom up, don't go looking for handouts from the top down.

And how do you suggest people do that? Is this some sort of bootstraps entrepreneurial thing? What jobs can people do that aren't already provided for by big business?

dowie · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:18

Vonhelmet said:
It will make for a fairly weird shift, though. It would make for a bizarre sort of socialism, though one in which rather than owning the means of production the government would own the means of consumption.

It will have to happen though, as by taking jobs away from consumers through outsourcing, automation, etc, businesses are pretty much signing their own death warrants.

I do suspect some of this doom and gloom is rather overdone - people have been predicting the end of work, mass unemployment ever since machines were introduced in cotton mills. Yet we've had computers for less than a century, the web for a few decades and there are entire industries around buying and selling digital content, entire companies who exist primarily to provide services on the web etc.. It seems that for each new big invention we end up creating different jobs that hadn't previously been envisioned. Go back a few centuries and 99% of the population was involved in farming, now we only need a small % to farm our food yet we've still got plenty of people in work.

mmj_uk · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:27

I think the main problem with Capitalism today is that too much money is being hoovered up by too few who just hoard it because they have so much money there's literally nothing to spend it all on, half a century ago there was a 98% income tax on the rich so a lot of money went back to the government to spend on the country and public services - today all of that money is just sitting idle in the accounts of people who even without using it are living a life of luxury. Globalism is the main problem, if a government tries to tax the rich today they will just go elsewhere where there's lower taxes, to be able to tax the rich properly you'd need the whole world to work in unison. I'm all for 'successful' people being rewarded otherwise they wouldn't get out of bed but there's no real reason for individuals to have tens of millions let alone hundreds of millions, if anything it's just breeding generations of people like Paris Hilton whose claim to fame is being born into a rich family.

dowie · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:31

well then the issue is inheritance tax not income tax if you want to avoid Paris Hilton types - I don't have any issue at all with someone earning tens of millions etc..

Ayahuasca · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:37

Or how about encouraging the richest among us to put their wealth to good use.
Having not been in the position and likely never will I fail to see why some of the elite don't do anything at all with their money to benefit society, their only interest is to take more away from it.

There are excellent examples of what can be done with the likes of Bill Gates and it obviously isn't just about pumping as much money in as you can. It requires a strategy that will take many years to carry out, but in the end parts of Africa are going to benefit hugely from his foundation and his other efforts.

Things change I've changed · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:39

We need to start tackling the high cost of the pensions seriously, my nan has thousands left every year extra from unspent pensions, she doesn't even need the government pension.

Uther · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:39

A vast majority of people have got used to, and expect, a standard of living that simply did not exist for most just a few short decades ago. Its unsustainable. In fact, I think that time has past, with most young people realising they missed the boat of cheap houses and big pensions. People have huge debts, and the whole thing will come tumbling down like the house of cards it is.

dowie · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:40

Ayahuasca said:
Or how about encouraging the richest among us to put their wealth to good use.
Having not been in the position and likely never will I fail to see why some of the elite don't do anything at all with their money to benefit society, their only interest is to take more away from it.

can you give an example of someone doing this?

Are you talking about someone literally hoarding cash or are you talking about people who don't visible donate to 'good causes' but carry on running companies that provide jobs etc..

Vonhelmet · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:49

dowie said:
can you give an example of someone doing this?

Are you talking about someone literally hoarding cash or are you talking about people who don't visible donate to 'good causes' but carry on running companies that provide jobs etc..

Victorian philanthropists gave away huge amounts of their wealth.

Uther · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:52

Vonhelmet said:
Victorian philanthropists gave away huge amounts of their wealth.

It seems to be in general 'every man for himself' these days though. Maggie did a great hatchet job with her ' no such thing as society' rhetoric. Look at the way people in a position to do so try everything they can to limit the amount of tax they pay. Nobody cares about anyone else.

dowie · 9 Apr 2017 at 13:56

Vonhelmet said:
Victorian philanthropists gave away huge amounts of their wealth.

that wasn't what I was asking - I meant people not putting it to good use and what he meant by that

Ayahuasca · 9 Apr 2017 at 14:00

Is simply writing a cheque to another company working though? That's why I eluded to what Gates is doing where most of the money is put to good use and isn't wasted or lining the pockets of another CEO. He's also trying to convince other billionaires to do something similar.

I don't know the figure or whether the majority of the rich are very charitable, but even if they are doing so, it doesn't seem to be making much of a difference. Perhaps the amount required is simply too large.

Vonhelmet · 9 Apr 2017 at 14:07

Part of the problem with holding great wealth is that banks aren't taking risks with the money they hold. That's one of the reasons that this idea of entrepreneurial small business startups is hard work - if banks are hesitant to lend then it's hard for them to get off the ground. The wealthy can sit on their safely invested money and the banks don't take any risks so no one benefits from being able to borrow from them.

Vonhelmet · 9 Apr 2017 at 14:07

dowie said:
that wasn't what I was asking - I meant people not putting it to good use and what he meant by that

Ah, sorry, I did wonder.

Vonhelmet · 9 Apr 2017 at 14:08

dowie said:
well then the issue is inheritance tax not income tax if you want to avoid Paris Hilton types - I don't have any issue at all with someone earning tens of millions etc..

Wealth taxes are another option, though they're fraught with problems.

Vonhelmet · 9 Apr 2017 at 14:13

Uther said:
It seems to be in general 'every man for himself' these days though. Maggie did a great hatchet job with her ' no such thing as society' rhetoric. Look at the way people in a position to do so try everything they can to limit the amount of tax they pay. Nobody cares about anyone else.

I think thatcher was misquoted. The point is there is no other entity that is "society". Society is everyone. The point is that society is all of us, so you aren't simply talking about society as a third party. Now that cuts both ways, because on the one hand it means you can't just cast your burdens on society without it actually meaning that you're depending on everyone else, but it should also mean that we are all society and we should all be held responsible for how each of us fares.