What the 1% don’t want you to know

Pardon?

Who are?
Generally people that are paid under £500k - such as the Prime minister.
Hardly up there with the echelons of the wealth elite who earn millions running TV stations or act in TV shows etc.
Those people (PM's etc) can also effect billionaires (regulations).
It must be more than money that means power.

Key word(s) there: 'according to' - you have to look into these issues yourself to see if what is said is fair or not.
Judging by what you have said it seems you would lap up what ever prejudices he has.

Pardon? Incoherent.

 

Never going to happen. See: miner/teacher/driver/bin men etc strikes

 

You're playing too thick to understand and intentionally dodging so later odon. Play your stupid incoherent dhit on somebody else. Your country is fucked up as ours and all your bullshit won't change that or that you are completely owned and nothing you think, say or do will change shit.

 

Taxes CAN be increased, those who will pay should be assured against theft by corruption and Gvmt. waste. Perhaps also if everyone pays something those who pay the most will feel better coughing up more.

 

That is just your political opinion.
It does not mean you are right.

:sunny:

 

i just saved a ton of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico..

 

No, I'm actually not.
It genuinely made very little sense to me.
I'm sure there was a point in amongst it somewhere, but your English and turn of phrase just left me baffled.
I have read other posts you have made, and I think I read a blog under what you said your name is, and that was coherent and the English was understandable.

'obammy declared genocide is now called birth control'

That didn't make any sense to me.
So, an Obama type genocide in India, Africa, the EU and UK (UK is in the EU, btw) makes no sense to me, either.

Are you opposed to birth-control?
What has Obama got to do with birth control?

I don't think I should have to try and wade through your half arsed comments that only seem to make sense to you (anybody else is free to try and translate them for those that don't seem to understand - or is that just me?)

If you have read Mr Frankenstein's posts, then you you can't say they are not heavily biased. That's his fine. But don't take his word for it, imho. look into it yourself. From what I can gather, you live in a rural community where jobs are scare, and money is tight. So I do understand that might colour your view. Although, you say you talk to people in this country about certain issues, so surely you have more than a blinkered view of your country.
Realistically, there are jobs in existence, but, obviously not for everybody.
It definitely depends where you are in the country, and who you are (skill-wise).
A bit dated, but you should get the general idea:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...s-local-unemployed-people-one-job-a-week.html

Economy tracker: Unemployment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

You seriously believe the Queen has the power to determine what jobs and income there will be? lol.

I tell a lie, this does make some sense: The upper money tree creates the financial and work reality which is what "trickles" down instead of the money here.

 

A stratified society is a good way of putting it. I do accept there is somewhat of a pyramid. However, as far as my life is concerned my personal pyramid doesn't seem to be any better or worse living under a Queen, and what happens in other social circles bothers me little. As far as 'equal' is concerned, it does seem the majority of people can rise to what ever level they strive for.
A daughter of a shop-keeper can end up being the Prime-minister.
We have people that were not even born in this country have titled positions such as 'Lord' and 'Lady'.

Another point I was trying to make was that I do not think the amount of money a person makes is as relevant these days.
Taxing 'rich' people (or their family) more won't change much, imho.

Imho, yes.

 

I did read that, and I did read some of the articles.
Maybe I need to read every single one.

The first article I read was: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2014/03/31/140331crbo_books_cassidy?currentPage=all

It talked about wage inequality. It also said:

"Still, some people would argue that wage stagnation and rising inequality in the developed world are an acceptable price to pay for the benefits experienced by the worst off. Piketty doesn’t really address this question. He glosses over China’s success, during the past three decades, in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty."

And also:

"If current trends continue, Thomas Piketty sees “potentially terrifying” consequences."
The article does not say what these are, imho.

What ever that is, the solution given seems to be:

"His new wealth tax would be like an annual property tax, but it would apply to all forms of wealth. Households would be obliged to declare their net worth to the tax authorities, and they would be taxed upon it. Piketty tentatively suggests a levy of one per cent for households with a net worth of between one million and five million dollars; and two per cent for those worth more than five million. “Or one might prefer a much more steeply progressive tax on large fortunes (for example a rate of 5 to 10 percent on assets above one billion euros),” he adds. A wealth tax would force individuals who often manage to avoid other taxes to pay their fair share; and it would generate information about the distribution of wealth, which is currently opaque. “Some people think that the world’s billionaires have so much money that it would be enough to tax them at a low rate to solve all the world’s problems,” Piketty notes. “Others believe that there are so few billionaires that nothing much would come of taxing them more heavily. . . . In any case, truly democratic debate cannot proceed without reliable statistics.”"

So giving governments more money might solve world hunger etc? Cool!
Taxing them (the rich) is for the betterment of the world as a whole?
Is the UK going to suddenly increase their International development aid above 0.7%? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18568533
Couldn't the UK afford to raise it to 1-2 or 3% already?

 

By the looks of things in this thread - genocide.

I'm being flippant, obviously.

Perhaps pick somebody from the Forbes rich list.

 

Or are they just going to spend it on: US Navy Orders 10 New Subs for Record $17.6B



http://www.defensenews.com/article/...80024/US-Navy-Orders-10-New-Subs-Record-17-6B

 

Other comments from your post 'Notes' :

In sum, the vast increase in the wage gap may not be fair or good, but it isn’t arbitrary. And it’s certainly not a conspiracy of the so-called 1 percent. The pattern is clear: The best way to get ahead financially is to be part of a married couple in which both partners have a college degree and a career.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ch-got-richer-as-did-most-americans-view.html

In response, the usual suspects have rolled out some familiar arguments: the data are flawed (they aren’t); the rich are an ever-changing group (not so); and so on. The most popular argument right now seems, however, to be the claim that we may not be a middle-class society, but we’re still an upper-middle-class society, in which a broad class of highly educated workers, who have the skills to compete in the modern world, is doing very well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&

This is news. Economists have long suspected that you can't really experience ever-growing income inequality without experiencing a decline in Horatio Alger-style upward mobility because (to use a frequently-employed metaphor) it's harder to climb a ladder when the rungs are farther apart. Krueger calculates based on the Gatsby curve (admittedly, somewhat speculatively) that "the persistence in the advantages and disadvantages of income passed from parents to the children" will "rise by about a quarter for the next generation as a result of the rise in inequality that the U.S. has seen in the last 25 years."
Translation: If we don't get growth in income inequality under control, the next generation will see about 25 percent less upward mobility than the current one.

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/tim...ouse-heres-why-you-have-care-about-inequality

 

America fuck yeah.. atriot:

 

I suppose it creates/maintains jobs...:juggle:

 

Odon

Once again you think in terms of individual examples rather than long term group analysis, the in depth study made by Piketty and team are dismissed by you because Bill gates is giving away a lot of his money.

Which is great of him but as you point out he an individual and it must be remembered that although John Rockefeller gave away a lot of money his family is still one of the wealthiest in America.

What Piketty is pointing to is a grouping – and as a group they are going to try and bring influence to bare in there interest’s it’s not just the obvious ones like the Koch and Walton family who pay for influence. For example take the lobbying around the inheritance tax, while some people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are roughly supportive of such a tax many rich families are opposed -

“The super-rich got an early Christmas gift in the $858 billion tax package that President Obama signed into law on Friday. On top of a two-year extension of Bush-era income tax rates, the wealthiest Americans dodged an estate tax that was set to jump up from zero to 55% for individuals worth more than $1 million. Instead, under a deal Senate Republicans negotiated with the White House, individuals can exempt estates up to $5 million and pay 35% beyond that. The exemption for couples is $10 million.
Official estimates pin the two-year cost of the adjustment at $68 billion, and it will shield all but about 3,600 estates from the levy, according to a projection by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The windfall for the well-heeled wasn't delivered out of thin air. Indeed, a small band of the richest Americans have acted as their own secret Santas on this issue for years. A 2006 report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy -- both nonprofits opposed to concentrated wealth -- identified 18 families financing a coordinated campaign to repeal the estate tax altogether. Among the leading names behind that push: the Gallos (E&J Gallo Winery), the Kochs (Koch Industries), the Mars' (Mars Inc.), the Waltons and the Wegmans (Wegmans Food Markets). At the time, the report estimated the families' collected net worth to be at least $185 billion” http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/21/news/economy/estate_tax_lobby.fortune/