Russell Brand.........

[beorhthelm]

I'm not saying socialism is the answer, I don't think I would want to live in a socialist world either. However you can't deny that many of the best political concepts applied in this world are socialist, some great examples in Scandinavia and here in the UK too such as our NHS, welfare or social housing. I don't think many of us would complain if our transport and utilities were renationalised so we have more affordable bills and fares, rather than wealthy foreign investors getting rich of us by selling us back our own services. The only way we could possibly tackle poverty and inequality is by applying some form of socialism, using the wealth gained at the top to support those at the bottom, which currently isn't happening.

it is happening, there is a massive welfare state consuming a third of GDP to provide free education, free healthcare and pensions to everyone, with unemployment benefits, housing and additional assistance to those that are in need. its not alot, but its there, why dont you include this in your view of the system? what you want is more, except for those that generate the wealth who you want to have less. sounds like you do want socialism after all.

You might like to review how the utilities are regulated, some 40-50% of the increase in energy bills over the last decade have been due to government intervention and regulations, not as you believe paying off foreign investors.

Hard working people will often never own their own home or have a liveable disposable income, many will have to live off credit cards or spend their lives struggling to pay their bills.

there's never been more home ownership, you applying a very recent and very regional issue, and recasting a large problem to suit a misguided view of the world. Capitalism has transformed the country (and by definition the whole of the first world nations) into a world of plenty, where ordinary people measure their well being by having the latest phone, the size of their TV, the marque of their car and how many holidays they go on each year. most people struggle to keep up with the Jones, not with anything approaching poverty, itself a relative concept that bears little relation to historic or absolute meaning of the word.

 

[symyjym]

Absolutely agree that there were some fantastic global movements in those era's - but the 80's the decade when capitalism became more sinister, greed took over with the corporations, and we began to find ourselves in the mess we're in today.

Older generations often have the attitude of "it hasn't changed before, so why bother" where of course this is absolutely wrong. Things can and will change, just as they always have throughout human history. Perhaps the reason they haven't in the last few decades is because the corporations are more powerful than any king, queen or dictator has ever been - so what makes this generation different? It's not Russell Brand, but it's the internet which popularises people like him in the first place. The ruling classes can no longer control our thought through the mainstream media and social media is currently beyond their control (although they are doing the best to change that). The internet has unified not just communities, but the entire world - ideas spread like wildfire and the status quo simply doesn't have the resources to extinguish them, despite the propaganda perpetually spewed out in the mainstream media.

Like I said earlier to you "The internet is the revolution" but this has been going on long before Brand woke up to the world 12 months ago.

If he wants to help tenants and battle landlords then good on him, however if he is going to crossover and also touch on daft conspiracy theories as well he is sending out the wrong message. You do realise that crazy conspiracy theories distract from the truth.

I've tried to listen to Brand but I like a straight forward talker who is able to hold a discussion, and from what I have seen, he answers questions with questions and goes on rambling tangents full of fanciful but empty words.

It was only two years ago that he was lapping up centre stage at the Olympics whilst being paid very well by the sponsors Mac Donalds and Coca-Cola. If he rejected the invite to perform at the games on principle it would have sent out a hard stance message. Then if we throw in the Andrew Sachs incident, Brand is a morally mixed up contradiction just out for laughs.

 

[Hastings gull]

Absolutely agree that there were some fantastic global movements in those era's - but the 80's the decade when capitalism became more sinister, greed took over with the corporations, and we began to find ourselves in the mess we're in today.

Older generations often have the attitude of "it hasn't changed before, so why bother" where of course this is absolutely wrong. Things can and will change, just as they always have throughout human history. Perhaps the reason they haven't in the last few decades is because the corporations are more powerful than any king, queen or dictator has ever been - so what makes this generation different? It's not Russell Brand, but it's the internet which popularises people like him in the first place. The ruling classes can no longer control our thought through the mainstream media and social media is currently beyond their control (although they are doing the best to change that). The internet has unified not just communities, but the entire world - ideas spread like wildfire and the status quo simply doesn't have the resources to extinguish them, despite the propaganda perpetually spewed out in the mainstream media.

The internet has made it much easier for folk to communicate, granted, but I am not at all sure that it has unified communities. Just take NSC - the ease of communication has resulted in much debate, and people of like minds can doubtless reach each other all over the world. But the same can be said for folk who think radically differently, so it does not follow that the internet has unified a community necessarily - in our case, it has become the medium to express our differences.

 

[The Spanish]

Absolutely agree that there were some fantastic global movements in those era's - but the 80's the decade when capitalism became more sinister, greed took over with the corporations, and we began to find ourselves in the mess we're in today.

Older generations often have the attitude of "it hasn't changed before, so why bother" where of course this is absolutely wrong. Things can and will change, just as they always have throughout human history. Perhaps the reason they haven't in the last few decades is because the corporations are more powerful than any king, queen or dictator has ever been - so what makes this generation different? It's not Russell Brand, but it's the internet which popularises people like him in the first place. The ruling classes can no longer control our thought through the mainstream media and social media is currently beyond their control (although they are doing the best to change that). The internet has unified not just communities, but the entire world - ideas spread like wildfire and the status quo simply doesn't have the resources to extinguish them, despite the propaganda perpetually spewed out in the mainstream media.

Capitalism got more sinister in the eighties? More sinister than the slave trade imperialism or the ruthless practices of the industrial revolution?

If capitalism got more ruthless than them then perhaps younger generations don't always have all the answers.

 

[beorhthelm]

No, it's not happening. The top 1% of people and their corporations are contributing very little relatively speaking...

i'll stop you there: the top 1% contribute about 25% of all income tax and the top 10% contribute about 55%. so clearly the wealthy are contributing most speaking absolutely or relatively. Its funny how you want to cite last years energy profits, ignoring firstly most the shareholders are our pensions and secondly that they saw losses for many years. the point you evade is that the cost of the bill has been rising more from regulation than payments to shareholders. i frankly care more about the amount on the bills than whether or not 3% margin was made that went to a shareholder (incidentally, even at todays low rates, government bonds to pay for infrastructure investment would cost more than that - unless of course the government spent less on investment.).

I'll grant you that the % of home ownership has dipped, but note that the number has still increased, its just the number of people renting has risen more (i'll leave other to explain where that's come from). the sample size is horrid too, by decade snap shots, its far too early to call that a trend. the average house price to wage would suggest homes are becoming more affordable, though thats country wide and not accounting for locality. fact is while people are being priced out in London and the south east, this isn't a universal problem, and again the cause is mainly government regulation to stifle development.

 

[brighton fella]

Cheers for the reply, sorry to patronise earlier but I wanted to provoke you into this response.

I'm not saying socialism is the answer, I don't think I would want to live in a socialist world either. However you can't deny that many of the best political concepts applied in this world are socialist, some great examples in Scandinavia and here in the UK too such as our NHS, welfare or social housing. I don't think many of us would complain if our transport and utilities were renationalised so we have more affordable bills and fares, rather than wealthy foreign investors getting rich of us by selling us back our own services. The only way we could possibly tackle poverty and inequality is by applying some form of socialism, using the wealth gained at the top to support those at the bottom, which currently isn't happening.

The bit where you are absolutely wrong is where you say capitalism offers the working class the opportunity to make something of his life without getting penalised for it - because that is absolute nonsense. There are a handful of working class people who do hit the jackpot in this capitalist game, but that is increasingly rare. A vast majority of working class people stay working class for life, they are incentivised to work hard not through the possibility of reward, but out of necessity - life on benefits is horrific, with worst case scenario poverty or even homelessness. Hard working people will often never own their own home or have a liveable disposable income, many will have to live off credit cards or spend their lives struggling to pay their bills. It is essentially modern day slavery - regular people being forced to work in unrewarding meaningless jobs which sole purpose is to make the rich even richer.

Capitalism was great before the corporations engrossed it. Hundreds of failed businesses every day cannot compete with the corporations, who will either buy you out or outcompete you. Long gone are the days where typical working class people can look to business as a realistic alternative to joining the rat race.

I believe, as I've said before, the first step would be applying socialism for the poor and keeping capitalism for the rich. We need to let the rich compete with one another and enjoy the rewards of wealth for their innovation - however it is their duty to support the rest of society who are responsible for allowing them that wealth in the first place. Increasing personal wealth by billions of pounds every year for doing nothing should be outlawed, especially when you consider our public services are being destroyed for a fraction of that and what kind of difference that wealth would make for regular people.

i agree with the left on one major issue and that is to prevent bankers from rewarding themselves massive unjust bonuses and colossal pay outs when that said bank is proved to be failing. when labour were in charge they ignored this and should have tackled the problem head on by nipping it in the bud once and for all. though to be fair to labour that was unlike them as they are not really a party renowned for bowing to its rich. it just goes to prove how politics has taken a dramatic change in recent years as you can hardly fit a fag paper between any of the 3 major political parties, neither party stands for what they were originally renowned for.
where I don't agree is all of this sudden disliking of the rich mainly stirred up by ignorant people like Russell brand. you need to encourage rich in to society who in turn create thousands of jobs not turn your backs on them and turn them away, by putting caps on them only makes them go elsewhere.
one final thing. your meaningless jobs attitude gripes me with every sense of the word, every job whether it be a toilet cleaner or a top barrister serves an important purpose in life. this snobbish attitude is self destructing cancer that spreads throughout the whole of society and is the very reason why most don't bother entertaining these meaningless jobs as you so put them. if everyone were to take that attitude in life nothing at all would get done, they are relied upon just like everyone else is and neither should they be looked down upon. that's just plain ignorance. we should celebrate our workers and not put them down at every given opportunity.

 

[Hastings gull]

The 1% may contribute 25% of income tax, but that is nowhere near enough. Considering they already have as much wealth as the poorest 55% (and that increases every year), they should be contributing far more - the richest 1,000 people in Britain increased their personal wealth by £65bn in 2013, but that's more likely to be £80bn in 2014... do you really think it is fair for billionaires to increase their personal wealth by 15% every year just because they are already obscenely wealthy? Austerity only seems to apply to regular people - those billions of pounds should be pumped back into the economy and our public services.

Put like this, then there might be scope for more to be paid, though they are doing their bit, to be fair. I would not like to put a figure on what they should be made to pay, and don't really know much about economics. Are all of these folk British or are you including say rich oil-rich arabs who live here, presumably mainly in London.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

The 1% may contribute 25% of income tax, but that is nowhere near enough. Considering they already have as much wealth as the poorest 55% (and that increases every year), they should be contributing far more - the richest 1,000 people in Britain increased their personal wealth by £65bn in 2013, but that's more likely to be £80bn in 2014... do you really think it is fair for billionaires to increase their personal wealth by 15% every year just because they are already obscenely wealthy? Austerity only seems to apply to regular people - those billions of pounds should be pumped back into the economy and our public services.

So suddenly you hit on a great money making scheme and you make yourself a multi-millionaire....,what would you do? Pay a lot more tax...give millions to the poor...you wouldn't invest to secure your fortune...just fritter your fortune away? Nah! you'd behave just the same as the people you slag off...it's called class envy....BTW the richest 1% pay 29% of the income tax. There is no way I call myself rich being on a state pension...but if anyone can make a fortune then good luck for getting a better deal than myself...their hard work and endeavour paid off.

 

[Soulman]

You're living in the last century. Millionaires are small fry, they have absolutely no power.

The problem is the multi-billionaires, many of them unknown to us, whose wealth is unimaginable - they can earn millions a day without lifting a finger. Collectively they own the media, our politicians, our land, our resources, our banks and one day probably our healthcare and prisons too.

.

The Rothschild's and the Rockefeller's are the ones that essentially run the world i thought.

 

[Hastings gull]

You're living in the last century. Millionaires are small fry, they have absolutely no power.

The problem is the multi-billionaires, many of them unknown to us, whose wealth is unimaginable - they can earn millions a day without lifting a finger. Collectively they own the media, our politicians, our land, our resources, our banks and one day probably our healthcare and prisons too.

The problem may not be them as individuals, although there has been studies which suggest that they could be prone to psychopathy, the problem is the system that allows them to become unimaginably wealthy without giving anything back, at the expense of everyone else.

A multi billionaire who is unknown? They must presumably employ people who must know who they are. They may earn millions a day but I doubt if that means they don't lift a finger -this is an obsession of yours that wealthy people do little, though you have absolutely no evidence to make such a sweeping statement, as you well know. As to what they own - you cannot be this fanciful, surely. Obviously we are all so stupid that we don't realise this.
I did ask you earlier whether the richest 1000 were British or oil-rich arabs making up the number. When asked to justify detail, you are as ever reluctant to reply, other than more fanciful musings.

 

[beorhthelm]

Are all of these folk British or are you including say rich oil-rich arabs who live here, presumably mainly in London.

he is using the Times Rich list, which includes lots of foreign nationals who happen to have based themselves in the UK. the fact their wealth is largely tied in assets and stock prices is lost on him. he wants to tax the wealth of India, Russia and other nations, which is rather extreme. the problem with taxing wealth, where ever it maybe, is that it destroys it, and diminishes incentives to create. every attempt to do so has lead to impoverishment of those nations.

 

[Hastings gull]

he is using the Times Rich list, which includes lots of foreign nationals who happen to have based themselves in the UK. the fact their wealth is largely tied in assets and stock prices is lost on him. he wants to tax the wealth of India, Russia and other nations, which is rather extreme. the problem with taxing wealth, where ever it maybe, is that it destroys it, and diminishes incentives to create. every attempt to do so has lead to impoverishment of those nations.

Mustafa hasn't replied and so I must take this as truth, I suppose -no offence meant, just that he could say otherwise. I rather thought this might be the case, and if so, is then misleading. It is very tempting to want to tax this and that and redistribute, Robin Hood style, but if the level of taxation is so high, then I am sure that I would think twice about bothering. There have to be incentives, and millions work hard for themselves and their families, firstly -this is quite natural and healthy. But if you object to extreme wealth, where do you then draw the line and say to people- sorry, I know you are working hard and successfully, but you cannot earn any more. Perhaps it is just a fact of life that you have to accept that there will always be inequality if you want general relative wealth, which we undoubtedly have. I am not an economist, so am intrigued as to what others think.

 

[Hastings gull]

Nobody knew about TB's wealth until he declared it - he only started appearing on rich lists following the purchase of the club. I would imagine if you had vast wealth, if you wanted to keep it quiet it wouldn't be too difficult.

Let's get hypothetical. Imagine you are a multi-billionaire and you had the option of spending your days working, or living out your wildest dreams - which would you do? The latter, of course, who wouldn't? But then what about your money running out? If you're a billionaire there are plenty of ways you could increase your wealth without doing any work - investments being the most obvious.

But it will get more sinister than that. Take into consideration that psychopathy occurs in around 1% of the population. Out of the 1,000 richest people in Britain, statistically at least 10 will be psychopaths - but it's potentially significantly more than that due to the probability of psychopaths becoming tycoons.

Whereas regular people use capitalism as a means to survive, to multi-billionaires it's a game, whether they see it that way or not. Through this kind of wealth they can do or buy anything they want - any government can be corrupted with brown envelopes and any media establishment can be bought. I am not saying this is definitely what's happening, but it's probable, due to the nature of allowing individuals this kind of power.

The sad reality of this world, this system, is that for the poor, money is freedom - but to the rich, it is power. With infinite wealth comes infinite power - even if a vast majority of multi billionaires are altruistic and philanthropic, albeit a little greedy, it just takes a few to have bad intentions or a disregard for humanity - and the quality of lives of billions of people could potentially be diminished. Whether this is happening already is subject to speculation, but the truth is that this kind of power should not be accessible to any individual, whether it's a dictator or a multi-billionaire.

your first para -this is hardly the point -we are not talking about people in retirement, rather those who have made money though their own endeavours. 2nd para -what on earth is one supposed to make of this? 1% of NSC, every community in the land -so what? At last you come down to earth with your final para, which does at least acknowledge that the nasty 1% of the ruling classes might just have some decent folk included in their ranks. OK. let's assume that people having much money may have power -what are you going to do about it, which is a question I posed earlier this week. Shoot them? the noose? send to the colonies? forcibly remove their assets?

 

[BadFish]

he is using the Times Rich list, which includes lots of foreign nationals who happen to have based themselves in the UK. the fact their wealth is largely tied in assets and stock prices is lost on him. he wants to tax the wealth of India, Russia and other nations, which is rather extreme. the problem with taxing wealth, where ever it maybe, is that it destroys it, and diminishes incentives to create. every attempt to do so has lead to impoverishment of those nations.

The trouble with not taxing wealth is that everybody else ends up with little. I don't think anyone is suggesting goign back to 50% taxes but imagine what differences could be made if loop holes were closed and corporations were forced to pair their allotted taxes in stead of being given licence to play the game to minimise their payments. Imagine also if they chose that instead of a trickle down system we had more of a flow down system where fair wages were paid to employees around the world. Many economists have lauded the idea of CEO's being paid no more than 12 times the amount of the average worker and explained its benefits.

 

[beorhthelm]

The trouble with not taxing wealth is that everybody else ends up with little. I don't think anyone is suggesting goign back to 50% taxes ...

yeah, they are. and anyway, i think you confuse income tax with wealth tax. wealth grows, and while you may not like the idea that someone at the top is getting more, so is everyone else - the pie grows even if you get a smaller slice. its win all round. only some just dont like the fact some have more than others, but this is relative and applies up and down the range (you are in the "1%" globally speaking for example). once you start taxing wealth, the assets and stocks that make this up, you compel the holders to sell and therefore lower the value. taxing income and profits, thats a different story, at the right rate you maintain incentive to work, create, invest etc.

 

[BadFish]

yeah, they are. and anyway, i think you confuse income tax with wealth tax. wealth grows, and while you may not like the idea that someone at the top is getting more, so is everyone else - the pie grows even if you get a smaller slice. its win all round. only some just dont like the fact some have more than others, but this is relative and applies up and down the range (you are in the "1%" globally speaking for example). once you start taxing wealth, the assets and stocks that make this up, you compel the holders to sell and therefore lower the value. taxing income and profits, thats a different story, at the right rate you maintain incentive to work, create, invest etc.

So all good with the wealth distribution?

 

[brighton fella]

The trouble with not taxing wealth is that everybody else ends up with little. I don't think anyone is suggesting goign back to 50% taxes but imagine what differences could be made if loop holes were closed and corporations were forced to pair their allotted taxes in stead of being given licence to play the game to minimise their payments. Imagine also if they chose that instead of a trickle down system we had more of a flow down system where fair wages were paid to employees around the world. Many economists have lauded the idea of CEO's being paid no more than 12 times the amount of the average worker and explained its benefits.

this anti rich campaign comes from the corporate bankers rewarding themselves at the expense of a failing bank. had they not fleeced the banks in the first place hardly any of this would have manifested.
greed seems to be rearing its ugly head time and time again demanding some form of change. i think something needs to be done at the very very top end of the scale where greed is running out of control and money is turning in to power.. so powerful it controls governments.
i sit smack in the middle of this argument there is no easy solution to it, if there was we would not be sitting here debating it.

 

[pastafarian]

imagine what differences could be made if loop holes were closed and corporations were forced to pair their allotted taxes in stead of being given licence to play the game to minimise their payments.

It would be superb if these corporation payed their allotted tax in the countries they traded in,instead of using legal loopholes to push their assets all over Europe.

Half decent article here from last year about this ridiculous avoidance.The trouble is the EU has been proposing clampdowns for 15 years,will it be another 15 years before this issue is put to bed?

http://www.spiegel.de/international...-curb-tax-avoidance-and-evasion-a-900900.html

If only there was a way of leaving this rotten institution now and enforcing our own laws to make corporations pay in full what they owe the UK economy.

If only.

 

[BadFish]

It would be superb if these corporation payed their allotted tax in the countries they traded in,instead of using legal loopholes to push their assets all over Europe.

Half decent article here from last year about this ridiculous avoidance.The trouble is the EU has been proposing clampdowns for 15 years,will it be another 15 years before this issue is put to bed?

http://www.spiegel.de/international...-curb-tax-avoidance-and-evasion-a-900900.html

If only there was a way of leaving this rotten institution now and enforcing our own laws to make corporations pay in full what they owe the UK economy.

If only.

We are not in the EU and our governments facilitate this practice as do many around the world. Do you honestly think that leaving the EU would result in corporations paying their fair share?

 

[pastafarian]

We are not in the EU and our governments facilitate this practice as do many around the world. Do you honestly think that leaving the EU would result in corporations paying their fair share?

it would result in Uk corporations paying their fair share,what is wrong with trying to sort our own house out first?the rest of the world and European corporations can carry on playing the system if they want.