The one percent

[Mecky]

No, I mean people should accept we're not all equal, and there will always be some people who are more successful than others, and some people who couldn't be successful no matter how much help you gave them.

 

I'm not sure quite where the 'over the shoulder' paranoia comes into that, but each to their own I suppose.

 

It's very difficult to generate money from running a business totally above board e.g. putting every contract/job through the books, not fiddling tax (off shore accounts = fiddling) etc. People are always looking to exploit and not be exploited i.e. looking over their shoulder.

[Tony]

The happiest societies are those with the smallest gap between the rich and the poor though.

 

Is that because they are the societies where nobody has anything that resembles a modern life?

 

As soon as those people see what they can have, they all want it...

the clever ones get it,

the others resent it,

the really clever ones ensure sure that they don't lose what they have worked for,

and the others resent it even more and blame 'the system' for their shortcomings.

 

 

It's just basic animal instinct at work.

[upinwath]

Left-leaning politics and capitalism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

Nobody is advocating a revolution of the proletariat here just polinting out some contrasts between the elites and the rest of us.

 

One of the issues with the extremes at both ends of the spectrum is it all becomes very black and white, too simplistic, too blinkered. As old f a rts become even older f a rts the simpler it is for them the better.

 

My gawd, a intelligent post on SF.

This is generally correct but you'll always get the top 1%, revolution or slightly right/left of centre politics, because winners will always be winners.

[Guest sibon]

My gawd, a intelligent post on SF.

This is generally correct but you'll always get the top 1%, revolution or slightly right/left of centre politics, because winners will always be winners.

 

Two intelligent posts in a row. Let me see if I can complete the hat trick.

 

Surely having winners is a good thing. Human nature dictates that we will always be competitive. It isn't the existence of the 1% that is the problem, but what they choose to do with their wealth.

 

The Victorian philanthropists were the 1% of their day, but they were also a force for good within their society. In my opinion, we should be expecting the same of our ultra wealthy individuals and corporations. I know quite a few wealthy individuals, most of them use a proportion of their wealth in very constructive ways.

[upinwath]

Two intelligent posts in a row. Let me see if I can complete the hat trick..

 

Pretty good go but you have to remember much of the Victorians' cash came from the triangular trade and/or spice trade that pretty much involved stealing people and/or their countries.

 

However, that apart, you're pretty much right. Forcing capitalists to share won't do a lot. They'll just pay people to find the loopholes.

You need to make it tax advantages to be generous. The cash will get spread more efficiently that way.

Government is wasteful so private charity would get more help to where it's needed.

[Penistone999]

Here is an article about one of the 1%, the Upper class, the priveleged that laugh in the face of laws and shareholders, and have sycophants on the right offering them further tax breaks....

 

 

 

You come across as either a raving militant leftie OR just plain old Jealous.

[Stan Tamudo]

Here is an article about one of the 1%, the Upper class, the priveleged that laugh in the face of laws and shareholders, and have sycophants on the right offering them further tax breaks....

 

You come across as either a raving militant leftie OR just plain old Jealous.

 

You come across as the forums raving nutjob troll under a new username. Good Evening Derek.

[Wildcat]

Once again you're making the mistake of assuming that we have a choice between left and right.

 

................

 

Labour said they would close the loophole when they were elected in 1997, but never did.

 

Once again some people have either incredibly short memories or have an appallingly superficial grasp of basic current affairs.

 

Or both.

 

Where exactly did I make that mistake? I didn't say anything about Labour, the article isn't even about UK politics.

 

How many times now have you made that post, btw? you seem to make it most of the time, does the fact that Thatcher played such a large influence on New Labour really irk you so much? and if so why is your ire always directed at Labour and not the other parties that take the same politics even further?

[Wildcat]

So what?.

The masses got their revolution in Russia.

See what that got them.

All this lefty stuff is rubbish. Every time some fool tries it, people die in large numbers while the masses find out what it's really like to be poor.

At least with capitalism, you have a chance to win.

 

Not really sure why you are off on one about Russia??? but even on a favourite topic of yours it is worth pointing out that the masses also had a revolution in England in seventeenth century, and in France in the eighteenth.... and look what that got them.... yes it brought about an end to the ancien regime and brought us in to the modern age.

 

As for Capitalism having a chance to win.... <shrugs> so what? It is not like Capitalism is defined in such an unambigious way it means it and only it has to be the way our economic system works. It doesn't stop us looking to change the economic system to make it fairer does it?

[ronthenekred]

 

You come across as either a raving militant leftie OR just plain old Jealous.

 

Is that a Clarkson quote?