If governments controlled disposable income of the .1 %, would poverty end?

The best way to stop things getting better is to tell people it isn’t possible.

It was what the better class of usually wealthy people would say it was the whole idea of the old right – conservatism – was of not changing things, of keeping the ‘natural’ order which in their view was having the ‘better people’ looking after things.

Welfare for the poorer in society, unsustainable, better working conditions, uneconomic, common people and women having a vote, they haven’t the intelligence for that.

But changing things for the better happened.

The 20th Century saw huge strides in tackling the ills that effected the majority of the people in many places. And it was because those people fought for change.

People in many nations fought for the things the ‘better people’ said they didn’t need or deserve - voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, environmental change, progressive taxation and decent living wages.

The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more evenly distributed, money was spent trying to improve the lives of the majority rather than societies been twisted to favour only a few.

This wasn’t the same everywhere but in many places many people saw their quality of life improve.

But at the end of the 20th Century and now dominant in the 2ist, a new idea (that has come to be called neoliberalism) got the backing of wealth as it was opposed to the ‘distributive’ systems that had been developed. It wrapped up its ideas in fancy cloths and spread it through pithy soundbites but at its core was a return to when the ‘better people’ were in control and if was pushed by the radical right, whose radical idea was to put the few back in control.

And they now tells those that want to change things for the better that it can’t be done. Universal healthcare, unsustainable. The Green New Deal a fantasy. Increasing taxation on the rich, economic suicide.

 

How do you know I don't?

I think there is a thread on here where you and other mocked me for saying I would welcome some of the central American people walking 1,000 miles into my house.

I pay a higher middle class tax too already from my salary. I assume in theory that is going to welfare and roads just like I want.

I'm not sure what your point is. Like since these problems are not fixed it must mean no one does anything? I am one person. All I can is effect my immediate surroundings. I am not near your surroundings. How would you see?

 

So how many Hondurans living at your place now then?

 

I give money personally through charitable organisations and through taxation I add to the overseas aid budget. In the international ranking as a proportion of GNP the UK comes 5th with 0.7 in comparison I believe the US is 23rd with 0.1)

Also one of the reasons I support the EU is that it distribute aid to areas in the EU that are statistically deprived rather than doing what UK political parties have done when in charge of the government in giving money to areas that vote in their favour.

 

During a quiet period in my theater design work, I worked on a 2 year contract with the electricity supply company, dealing with supply faults.
Over that period, many of my calls were to the homes of the poor and what I saw truly amazed me.
I am now thoroughly convinced that a large percentage of poverty is self imposed by people who are simply unwilling to make the effort even to get out of bed in the morning and find a job. Instead, they rely on benefits while they laze around feeling sorry for themselves and needles to say many of them relieve the boredom by bringing more children into their self imposed environment.
On 'payout' days, they trooped down to McDonald's and spent £50 on junk food, rather than spending £15 at the supermarket and cooking a meal. Their excuse was that they could not cook because they did not have money to pay the fuel bill and their electricity had been cut off. The whole downhill spiral was a vicious circle.
Sadly, pouring money in to this situation is not going to resolve anything.
I wish that I could suggest a positive solution..

 

Wils

I’ve been poor, been unemployed, lived in a few deprived areas and I meet a lot of good people, that were far from lazy who didn’t want to be unemployed (or under employed) or were in bad situations that were difficult to deal with.

The thing is that statistics seem to back up what I saw rather than your own vision which seems more what is pumped out by right wing newspapers that have an agenda of cutting benefits so that taxes can be cut.

Oh yes you are going to get those that game the system or commit fraud but that’s the same at the top with such things as tax fraud and with both there are laws and regulations in place to stop it.

Fact is that we have a low unemployment rate and studies have shown that 80% of job seekers allowance claimants are in the scheme for short periods.

Also to quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children."

Also if child numbers was connected to the generosity of benefits places like Sweden should have higher levels than in the UK which it same with teenage pregnancy rates many right wingers claim that girls get pregnant so they can claim benefits - yet teenage pregnancy rates in Sweden with its very generous benefits system has a teenage pregnancy rate of only around 4% while it is some 22% in the US with its much less generous benefits system.

 

I agree that the best way to solve poverty is to use the tax system.

The problem is that the wealthy control our politicians and write the tax laws to suit the rich instead of the poor.

Regards
DL

 

Nicely put.

Regards
DL

 

Do you see it as moral for the rich to impose that much poverty on a country?

Regards
DL

 

I disagree.

All it takes is political will demanded by the electorate.

The electorate get what they vote for.

Regards
DL

 

So morality and ethics within a country are not important. Ok.

I disagree with your first as many politicians try to draw the poor vote by offering hand outs and tax breaks to them.

Regards
DL

 

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards
DL

 

Thats deep man

So....I shouldnt ask the question because of something some dead first lady said?

 

what? are you saying this, or pretending i did?

trying to draw the poor vote by offering handouts that do nothing to end poverty, and then reneging on half of their promises anyway, is completely different from trying to end poverty.

 

Well apparently they are getting stopped 1,000 miles away from me.

 

What do you mean "part of the political class"? Part of the class that actually participates in government decision making? Or the class that benefits from the decisions? If the 0.1% makes decisions that benefit mainly the top 1% and secondarily the
top 10%, the rich people who aren't part of the .1% benefit from its decisions--e.g., tax cuts for the rich. Generally speaking, the political class in the U.S. consists predominantly of finance capitalists, but the benefits are distributed somewhat more broadly in U.S. society. Some sharing of wealth is necessary to establish a support base. According to a paper from the Economic Policy Institute, in 2015, the top 1 percent of families in the United States made more than 25 times what families in the bottom 99 percent did. In the US, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, study concludes The top 10% of households controlled 68.2 percent of the total wealth in 1983 and 73.1% of the total wealth in 2007.20 Facts About U.S. Inequality that Everyone Should Know - Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality The 10% roughly coincide with what opinion experts call the "attentive public".

 

I agree that most politicians are liars and con men, just as most preachers are.

Regards
DL