Tardis Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 So, you want to redistribute equality by redistributing people's money. Sound spretty much like redistributing wealth. It would be pointless though. Within a few months or years there would be paupers and millionaires again, and the people in each group would be pretty much the same people as before. I have heard that statement many many times, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever to back it up. If we redistributed all the worlds wealth equally it would change the face of the world dramatically over the next decades. The people who now live off 10th generation inherited wealth in Britain would not even know how to survive without their maids, gardeners, housekeepers and butlers. They could not cope with equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 And while we're at it bring back Derek Hatton...He was always entertaining... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I have heard that statement many many times, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever to back it up. If we redistributed all the worlds wealth equally it would change the face of the world dramatically over the next decades. The people who now live off 10th generation inherited wealth in Britain would not even know how to survive without their maids, gardeners, housekeepers and butlers. They could not cope with equality. You're focussing on an irelevant, tiny proportion. There are a few hundred landed gentry families with inherited lands and titles. Some of them probably couldn't fend for themselves as you say - big deal, they're rare - very few. There are about 440,000 millionaires in the UK. That's not rich in real terms today, just comfortable, but remember that nearly all those people aren't titled upper classes, they're just people who've done well, and they'd mostly do well all over again if they had to start again, just as the weak-minded would not do well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tardis Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 You're focussing on an irelevant, tiny proportion. There are a few hundred landed gentry families with inherited lands and titles. Some of them probably couldn't fend for themselves as you say - big deal, they're rare - very few. There are about 440,000 millionaires in the UK. That's not rich in real terms today, just comfortable, but remember that nearly all those people aren't titled upper classes, they're just people who've done well, and they'd mostly do well all over again if they had to start again, just as the weak-minded would not do well. Your figures are grossly incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 You're focussing on an irelevant, tiny proportion. There are a few hundred landed gentry families with inherited lands and titles. Some of them probably couldn't fend for themselves as you say - big deal, they're rare - very few. There are about 440,000 millionaires in the UK. That's not rich in real terms today, just comfortable, but remember that nearly all those people aren't titled upper classes, they're just people who've done well, and they'd mostly do well all over again if they had to start again, just as the weak-minded would not do well. See my bold. Not rich, Jaysus - what is "rich" then. Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrogo Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Ask yourself " How was Scargill living while the miners had sod all " Yep he was living very well in his free penthouse. Who brought the miners down ( Scargill ). Who's a very wealth man ( Scargill) Who's a hypocrite ( Scargill ) Your right. Prior to the strike, the miners mined too much coal and stock piled it not knowing the reason. Also Maggie imported Polish coal and stock piled it, then the moners went on strike at the beggining of summer???? Bit of a foolish plan that was. Many of the nationalised industries did start making a profit after privatisation, but obvoisly that money went to shareholders. Why didn't the previous labour government get them ship shape under the public sector and use the profits for tax breaks for every person in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Whatever's said about King Arthur he was right that the government had a "hit list" of pits the tory government was to close... This was, apparently, because it was cheaper to import coal. The cold hard figures might have shown this. But when you look at the long term damage to mining towns and the effects on the following generations who have no work, its ended up more costly.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 And while we're at it bring back Derek Hatton...He was always entertaining... Hatton v Scargill would have been hilarious:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Your right. Prior to the strike, the miners mined too much coal and stock piled it not knowing the reason. Also Maggie imported Polish coal and stock piled it, then the moners went on strike at the beggining of summer???? Bit of a foolish plan that was. Many of the nationalised industries did start making a profit after privatisation, but obvoisly that money went to shareholders. Why didn't the previous labour government get them ship shape under the public sector and use the profits for tax breaks for every person in the UK? That is an interesting thought! I worked for the old 'Gas Board' from it being a nationalised industry through privatisation. Gas showrooms were subsidised by the profits from the sale of gas, as were repairs to items like gas cookers. I loved working there in the old days, but realistically it was overstaffed. I remember one manager whose priority was finishing his crossword every day. Sales staff in the showrooms were on bonuses for selling when there was really no competition. However, apprenticeships were really sought after as the training was second to none. We all got a small number of shares when the company was privatised and the opportunity to buy them was there for the general public. I scraped a few quid together and bought some more and I've still got some left. We used to wonder why we couldn't get free gas as did many of the NCB employees who didn't have coal fires. No-one grudged the miners their heating allowances, but why did all the managers, office and general workers get the same perks? The perks and high management costs didn't exactly keep down the price of fuel for the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Enoch Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Arthur Scargill makes me proud to be English! Arthur Scargill .... the enemy within! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.