The Global Plague

a reply to: pikestaff

Nero actually helped with trying to put the fires out.

Says you. I doubt that very much. The Roman Empire caused its own down fall.

Hitler pretended not to want to conquer the world either. And covered up he decided to let his cities be razed rather than surrender.

On March 19, 1945 Hitler issued a general order that all military, industrial, transportation and communication installations as well as all stores in Germany must be destroyed in order to prevent them from falling intact into the hands of the enemy. The measures were to be carried out by the military with the help of the Nazi gauleiters and "commissars for defense." "All directives opposing this," the order concluded, "are invalid."
Germany was to be made one vast wasteland. Nothing was to be left with which the German people might somehow survive their defeat.
Hitler told Albert Speer, the Minister for Armament and War Production:
If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis for which the people will need to continue a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation [Russia]. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have been killed.
This "scorched earth" directive was followed the next day, on March 23 by an equally monstrous order by Martin Bormann, the Fuehrer's secretary.

Source

Even within developed countries the level of inequality is staggering.

From your linked article in the UK the poorest 50% have less than 5% of the wealth.

In the US the richest three individuals have more wealth than the poorest 50%.

While there are some legitimate criticisms if the methodology to work this out, the fact that any method at all even comes close to this is ridiculous.

a reply to: supermouse

Bloody well said!!!
I have worked my entire life, at one point I had four jobs to make ends meet. My life has settled somewhat lately and I'm on a more even financial keel, that being said, if I can't afford something I won't have it. If I'm able to save to buy something I will.
I won't lose any sleep over things I can't poses.
No bright House entrapment hp for me thanks.

a reply to: Revolution9

Yep. It is a plague of psychopathy, a mental disease that has been with us a long long time and now is reaching epidemic proportions like a super pimple that will not pop before it kills the rest of us.

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: supermouse

originally posted by: Revolution9

stop doing anything for them until they agree to look after us better

Or you could look after yourselves...

I've noticed the opposite problem. There has been no austerity and public largesse continues to increase.

For example, the poor have doubled the proportion of London housing they occupy over the last decades. Forcing the rich to spend up to four hours a day traveling in to work, plus all the environmental problems this causes. If the poor could somehow be persuaded to watch daytime TV in the provinces the world would be a better place.

Tax rates have been rising too. If you're in the 60+ percent tax bracket plus paying two lots of VAT at 20 percent each, you can be the same or worse off than someone on minimum wage who works a few hours while scamming for tax credits.

I'm kind of a philanthropist, but often shocked at how ungrateful the "poor" seem to be.

I also subsidise the ultra wealthy, billionaires get huge handouts to look after their racehorses, millionaire landlords live almost entirely on housing benefits, housebuilders are getting rich on help to sell.

Really, what we need is to try to stand on our own two feet rather than suckling on the teat of the poor taxpayer.

Probably do more for your self-respect as well.

Really? The poor have doubled the amount of housing they occupy in London forcing the rich to commute up to 4hrs. Any evidence? What's really happened is the property value in London has gone up so astronomically that even some of the rich can't afford it. The rich of course aren't entitled to social housing which is for the poor.
Until robots and AI take over the jobs the poor do in London, there will still be a need to house the poor in London.

As for VAT, business's required to pay VAT pass on this tax to their customers when selling their goods and or services. They can also claim VAT back in terms of their costs. So it's not really a tax on business but on the consumer.

Unless you are living way beyond your means there is no way a person in the 60 percent plus tax bracket is financially the same or worse off than someone earning minimum wage.

Try working a zero hours contract job, then you might understand why the poor get pissed off. The tax payers by the way, are barely able to pay the interest on the countries national debt, so in effect, we aren't paying for anything.

www.citymetric.com...

Here's some statistics showing how the poor have
doubled their share of London housing. What that article calls the middle is what I would call rich.

Even rich people can't compete with the deep pockets of the government. A family with tax credits on minimum wage can certainly have more expensive housing, more leisure time and as much money as a doctor or lawyer. A big issue seller can easily pass forty thousand in benefits. Get some BTLs or racehorses and you can easily pocket over a million in benefits.

Commuting four hours is normal. I've worked in London with people coming in from Tunbridge Wells and East Grinstead to the City.

I work a zero hours contract.

a reply to: supermouse

That article doesn't say that the poor are getting more houses. It says that more households are poor. Major difference.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: supermouse

That article doesn't say that the poor are getting more houses. It says that more households are poor. Major difference.

Isn't that the same thing?

a reply to: supermouse

It might be if your David Cameron but to the rest of us it's a major difference.

The benefits system is messed up, but so is the housing market or even housing 'economy' especially in London!! But I'm from the north where things aren't so extreme.

As far as working a zero hour contract there is a major difference between running your own business, two in your case I presume? Just one in mine. Than being unemployed and it costing you more money to get to work and back for an hour or so here and there on minimum wage than what you're earning.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Ask yourself if the benevolent bureaucrats who are administering the benefits the poorest in your nation receive are counted among them or somewhat higher up on the income bracket. Then ask yourself where the top bureaucrats are counted. Sure they aren't super wealthy, but if you are operating off the presumption of equality, I think you will find your own bureaucrats are skimming quite a bit off the top to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor you feel so badly about.

My better half worked for a large bank/credit card company.

If you TRULY want to derail the entire system...
Just get every cardholder from, say, Bank of America to NOT pay their minimum balance due for one month. That means every cardholder. Not to pay the minimum due for the month. Just one bank, just one month.
The entire system would collapse.

That is all the more it would take.

No violence, just everyone not paying a minimum.

Worldwide financial collapse.

Just letting you know.

originally posted by: supermouse

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: supermouse

That article doesn't say that the poor are getting more houses. It says that more households are poor. Major difference.

Isn't that the same thing?

No. If I was to lose my job and be unable to get another I would relatively quickly become poor.

Doesn't mean I have been given the house I am in.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Ask yourself if the benevolent bureaucrats who are administering the benefits the poorest in your nation receive are counted among them or somewhat higher up on the income bracket. Then ask yourself where the top bureaucrats are counted. Sure they aren't super wealthy, but if you are operating off the presumption of equality, I think you will find your own bureaucrats are skimming quite a bit off the top to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor you feel so badly about.

By skimming off the top you mean being paid to do a job?

The thread is about wealth inequality and a tiny fraction of the population controlling the majority of the wealth.

While the very very top civil servants might fall into that 1% they are only a fraction of that 1% be certainly not amongst the super rich.

We have massive and growing wealth disparity that is causing more and more social and economic issues.