The Folly of Class Warfare, Courtesy of World Bank - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15021127
World Bank recently made headlines declaring that, sniff, sniff, the Republic of South Africa has the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world. Harumph.

North Sentinel Island, in the Andaman Islands, unequivocally has absolute equality of distribution of wealth, which is zero. Everyone living there is a hunter-gatherer, with NOTHING. Their lives would be profoundly improved by moving into a shantytown anywhere in South Africa! They would finally have some access to food, medical care, clean water, written language, photographs, music and countless other things the rest of the world takes for granted.

What SHOULD concern leaders is not the inequality of wealth distribution, but rather the standard of living enjoyed by the working class, and how it can be improved by employing free market standards, and moving away from the chaos of socialism.
#15021404
MrWonderful wrote:Commandment: Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's.

Class warfare is a sin, like murder is a sin.

Indeed it is, but it is the upper classes who declared that war.

"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett
#15021406
MrWonderful wrote:What SHOULD concern leaders is not the inequality of wealth distribution, but rather the standard of living enjoyed by the working class, and how it can be improved by employing free market standards, and moving away from the chaos of socialism.


Por que no los dos?

Wealth inequality has very serious detrimental political consequences for the working class in a society where money is considered speech.
#15021408
Class warfare has already occurred. Is not the exploitation of the working class by appropriating the fruits of their labor not warfare? Is it not injustice for the working class, of whom contributes the greatesf to society, to be thrown under the bus while the bourgeoisie eat plentiful and obtain all what they desire.

There is blood, sweat, and tears on the hands of the property owning class and for that, wrongs must be made right. There is nothing personal here, just the balancement of collective force.
#15021411
@Saeko
Por que no los dos?

Wealth inequality has very serious detrimental political consequences for the working class in a society where money is considered speech.


@Potemkin
Indeed it is, but it is the upper classes who declared that war.

"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett


Viva la revolution!!! Down with the bourgeoisie!!!
#15021415
"What SHOULD concern leaders is not the inequality of wealth distribution, but rather the standard of living enjoyed by the working class, and how it can be improved by employing free market standards, and moving away from the chaos of socialism".


Such words coming from a capitalist body is rich hypocrisy indeed, equalled only by the pretence that a 'Socialist' displays in public.

Seeing as you are talking about retaining income inequality, it would be interesting to hear your take on achieving a raise in working class living standards.

You ought to consider some of the points that I make here.


Government's fiscal policies favour the rich & better-off's.

Tax breaks favour the pension vehicle's of the rich & better-off.

Higher rents favour the rich & better-off.

Tax cuts favour the rich & better-off.

Benefit system's by comparison, give an illusion of improved incomes, in fact, any 'gains' are offset by price increases & stealth taxes.

The saying that, "The poor are always with us", is a pleasing confirmation to the rich & better-off that their government is acting for & by them.

A rich or better-off person can retire at will before reaching the default state pension age, the rest can & will have to work until they drop.

There is no real 'Socialism' at work in the vast majority of 'social' democracies, 'socialist' politicians(of the champagne type)maintain the income gap between rich & poor.
Government's & central banks conspire to devalue the fruits of the working class's labour.

They do so, in order that, by being fed 'hand-to-mouth' by the 'socialist' benefit system, that benefit claimants will always vote for them-wrong!, but, despite evidence to the contrary, they still want to favour the rich & better-off so that divisions are maintained.

'Socialist' government's have no intention of reducing wealth or income inequality anywhere in the world, only a costly physical revolution could hope to achieve that & the cost in terms of loss of individual freedom or rights would be too high to call it a victory.

The establishment pillars have to be neutered in order to make progress, a good start is if you believe in social economic justice, then use your vote to deny those who wish to retain the status quo, any chance of maintaining such divisions.
#15021428
Nonsense wrote:Socialist' government's have no intention of reducing wealth or income inequality anywhere in the world, only a costly physical revolution could hope to achieve that & the cost in terms of loss of individual freedom or rights would be too high to call it a victory.


By considering the "cost" of a revolution, you have well demonstrated that it is (modern) human nature to make most, if not all, decisions and calculations based on cost and effect.  IMHO this fundamentally means everyone goes for the most profitable least disruptive way of living, and that inevitably leads to the inequalities as you all know, just like how matters in the Universe tend to aggregate along filaments of galaxies.

In other words, it seems the Law of Jungle could never been overrided, we can just tame them as much as we could.

Meanwhile, I have a thought that, before deciding what to do, we probably should define a line beyond which the assets of a rich or better-off is considered excessive, and (in theory) should be put back into circulation.

Then the problem will be down to how to implement it and how to assess and adjust if necessary.
#15021503
Patrickov wrote:By considering the "cost" of a revolution, you have well demonstrated that it is (modern) human nature to make most, if not all, decisions and calculations based on cost and effect.  IMHO this fundamentally means everyone goes for the most profitable least disruptive way of living, and that inevitably leads to the inequalities as you all know, just like how matters in the Universe tend to aggregate along filaments of galaxies.

In other words, it seems the Law of Jungle could never been overrided, we can just tame them as much as we could.

Meanwhile, I have a thought that, before deciding what to do, we probably should define a line beyond which the assets of a rich or better-off is considered excessive, and (in theory) should be put back into circulation.

Then the problem will be down to how to implement it and how to assess and adjust if necessary.



The market place is the 'law of the jungle', it operates on the basic laws of 'supply vs demand & the price mechanism'.

That law is always operated on by the rich or middle class that pull the levers, if you maintain the cost of production, which includes labour, materials,transport, overheads etc at the minimal level consistent with the ability to generate turnover in the market place at that price level, then you effectively, as a class, control consumer activity.

Once that efficiency is achieved, as proven by turnover, which increases profitability, then market share increases exponentially,mitigated only mimimally by competition, the point is reached whereby a monopoly is achieved, sustainable, only by that demand, when that falls, the whole edifice changes the dynamic radically, which happens frequently because market taste changes often.

In the U.K, we jokingly have 'regulators' that 'regulate' the utilities, that are private monopolies, which operate as cartels, annually increasing prices no matter what, at the slightest motivation, even when raw material cost fall globally on world markets.
When efficiencies have long been achieved, along with excessive, unearned profits, the conspiracy between those businesses & government allows the latter to impose stealth taxes on them as a way of 'skimming' off some of that profit, that tax is then recouped back from their customers by further price increases.

Against that background of gaming the system of conspiracy against the people, it's pretty obvious that only the naive think they are improving their lot in that game of monopoly.

Within the capitalist market paradigm, labour,as a commodity, is unlimited, therefore cheap as chips, only by occupying a niche within the labour market by pocessing necessary technical or vocational skills, can a worker obtain the just reward of the fruits of his\her labour.
The state is a major player in keeping the workers poor, both by taxing them at high levels on lower incomes, reducing benefits, deregulating markets, increasing the supply of local labour by unfettered migration at public cost, are all elements of the cards stacked against workers by the boss-political system, nauseatingly called, 'democracy'.

The whole system is macro-managed from top-=down by your political 'masters' & the capitalist no matter what flavour of government you elect.

In the U.K we have a government, like the last Labour government, which is completely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich, capping that attitude with cutting income taxes for those 'filthy rich' rich people, so, whether under Labour or Tory government's.

Both conspire against people on low or average incomes & Jeremy CORBYN's possibility of tenureship in Downing Street, will not alter that situation one jot, because Labour's 'anti-austerity' stance is a fraud against those whom it is intended to garner votes from in the next election.

Some 40% of pensioners on the 'old' basic state pension are in the two lowest income quintile groups, yet, Labour have never,ever uttered one single word railing against that situation, in which there are now two state pension systems,where one discriminates against the other, so much for Labour's 'anti-discrimination' policies where pensioners are never mentioned.
#15021509
Nonsense wrote:The market place is the 'law of the jungle', it operates on the basic laws of 'supply vs demand & the price mechanism'.

That law is always operated on by the rich or middle class that pull the levers, if you maintain the cost of production, which includes labour, materials,transport, overheads etc at the minimal level consistent with the ability to generate turnover in the market place at that price level, then you effectively, as a class, control consumer activity.

Once that efficiency is achieved, as proven by turnover, which increases profitability, then market share increases exponentially,mitigated only mimimally by competition, the point is reached whereby a monopoly is achieved, sustainable, only by that demand, when that falls, the whole edifice changes the dynamic radically, which happens frequently because market taste changes often.

In the U.K, we jokingly have 'regulators' that 'regulate' the utilities, that are private monopolies, which operate as cartels, annually increasing prices no matter what, at the slightest motivation, even when raw material cost fall globally on world markets.
When efficiencies have long been achieved, along with excessive, unearned profits, the conspiracy between those businesses & government allows the latter to impose stealth taxes on them as a way of 'skimming' off some of that profit, that tax is then recouped back from their customers by further price increases.

Against that background of gaming the system of conspiracy against the people, it's pretty obvious that only the naive think they are improving their lot in that game of monopoly.

Within the capitalist market paradigm, labour,as a commodity, is unlimited, therefore cheap as chips, only by occupying a niche within the labour market by pocessing necessary technical or vocational skills, can a worker obtain the just reward of the fruits of his\her labour.
The state is a major player in keeping the workers poor, both by taxing them at high levels on lower incomes, reducing benefits, deregulating markets, increasing the supply of local labour by unfettered migration at public cost, are all elements of the cards stacked against workers by the boss-political system, nauseatingly called, 'democracy'.

The whole system is macro-managed from top-=down by your political 'masters' & the capitalist no matter what flavour of government you elect.

In the U.K we have a government, like the last Labour government, which is completely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich, capping that attitude with cutting income taxes for those 'filthy rich' rich people, so, whether under Labour or Tory government's.

Both conspire against people on low or average incomes & Jeremy CORBYN's possibility of tenureship in Downing Street, will not alter that situation one jot, because Labour's 'anti-austerity' stance is a fraud against those whom it is intended to garner votes from in the next election.

Some 40% of pensioners on the 'old' basic state pension are in the two lowest income quintile groups, yet, Labour have never,ever uttered one single word railing against that situation, in which there are now two state pension systems,where one discriminates against the other, so much for Labour's 'anti-discrimination' policies where pensioners are never mentioned.


Unfortunately I only get a lot of information and opinion from your massive article, while I was thinking you are about to propose some solutions or your ideal system.
#15021551
Patrickov wrote:Unfortunately I only get a lot of information and opinion from your massive article, while I was thinking you are about to propose some solutions or your ideal system.



Any government has the tools at hand to determine a socially just system of income distribution, that is the tax system.

Instead of states running wel-fare systems that cost money, is expensive to administer, far better to operate a 'wealth-fair' system.

Instead of taking more money from workers on relatively low pay, taxing it, then redistributing it by way of benefits, a 'wealth-fair' system would deprive all people of financial assistance from the state when their gross incomes exceed the current benefit levels.

The state would then only tax them when their gross income exceeds that 'benefit' level by a margin deemed necessary to support the requirements of gaining & maintaining employment.
For those below that current benefit level, their employers would be expected to pay the affected employees higher wages, the cost, of which, would be offset by lower cost of employment by way of taxes remitted to government, until those workers affected, have incomes at the same level as their better paid colleagues.

The income tax liabilities levied on employers would be greatly reduced, it would help employers competitiveness, by equalising labour cost across industries, at levels set by the state, the benefit would be spread around, both to employees on low pay, to employers reduced labour employment cost & to government in benefit administration.

Most importantly, the state itself would shrink itself as a result of such changes.


Eventually, government should abolish income taxes, starting from the workers on the lowest incomes first & not giving tax cuts for the richest & better-offs.

The tax gap would be closed by reductions in benefits paid, by reductions in civil servants required to administer the benefit system & business becoming more efficient as a result.
The state should only impose taxes on sales out of disposable incomes,such as V.A.T, or, as it was once called, 'Purchase Tax'.

Income taxes are a form of inflation imposed by government, that decreases incentives to productivity & reward.
#15021566
Nonsense wrote:
"Your (sic) playing all the 'wrong' notes" .



Someone who does not know the difference between "your" and "you're" should not be lecturing others on the wondrous benefits of socialism. Move to Cuba if you think it's so special for everyone to be poor, except for the dictators in power, that is.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ0-cDKMS5M&t=10s
[/url]
#15021582
@MrWonderful

Someone who does not know the difference between "your" and "you're" should not be lecturing others on the wondrous benefits of socialism. Move to Cuba if you think it's so special for everyone to be poor, except for the dictators in power, that is.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ0-cDKMS5M&t=10s
[/url]


Someone who doesn't know how to properly put a link into its tag probably doesn't know anything about socialism either.

And communism isn't the only form of anti-capitalism out there.
#15021591
MrWonderful wrote:Someone who does not know the difference between "your" and "you're" should not be lecturing others on the wondrous benefits of socialism. Move to Cuba if you think it's so special for everyone to be poor, except for the dictators in power, that is.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ0-cDKMS5M&t=10s
[/url]


If I were you, I would be a bit reticent about publicising your ignorance around the web. :knife:

The text you complain about is within quotes by Andre PREVIN-nothing to do with myself.

It seems to be the case that you are playing all the 'wrong' notes in the right order. :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

For your information, the point I was making is, it's not right to give tax cuts or tax breaks, to people that earn more than the levels of benefits which the state pays out to poorer people in greater need of financial assistance.

The reason lies in the hypocrisy, as the state is saying that it cannot, or will not prioritise paying out more to the poorer members of society, yet, at the same time, it can forgoe taxes by giving tax cuts or tax breaks to the richest & better-off members of society.
#15021596
Nonsense wrote:If I were you, I would be a bit reticent about publicising your ignorance around the web. :knife:

The text you complain about is within quotes by Andre PREVIN-nothing to do with myself. (sic)


She meant to say, but was too ignorant to type, "nothing to do WITH ME."
One says "Are you going to go WITH ME?" One does NOT say "Are you going to go with myself?"


For your information, the point I was making is, it's not right to give tax cuts or tax breaks, (sic) (comma superfluous) to people that (sic) ("who)) earn more than the levels of benefits which the state pays out to poorer people in greater need of financial assistance.

The reason lies in the hypocrisy, as the state is saying that it cannot, or will not prioritise paying out more to the poorer members of society, yet, at the same time, it can forgoe (sic) taxes by giving tax cuts or tax breaks to the richest & better-off members of society.


Tell it to your elected British socialists. There are many valid reasons for incentives, which of course you dismiss out of your victocrat socialist mentality. Taxes were hiked on yachts built in New England. The lunacy put many men out of work until it was reversed. That's how socialism and class warfare work.

I googled your Andre Previn quote and found only 4 hits the way you so ignorantly spelled it. There were 657 hits with the correct spelling, which you could have and should have typed into your own footnote. Don't play your childish games with me. They don't work like they do with your Leftist Palestinians.
#15021627
Nonsense wrote:The income tax liabilities levied on employers would be greatly reduced, it would help employers competitiveness, by equalising labour cost across industries, at levels set by the state, the benefit would be spread around, both to employees on low pay, to employers reduced labour employment cost & to government in benefit administration.


I am not knowledgeable enough to opine whether you whole plan works or not, but this small part induces my doubt.

How do we address a potential problem that some jobs are more desirable to people than others, given that all other circumstances are equal (e.g. the applicants are equally qualified)? Also, having the state to decide that potentially leads to a big state which, I am afraid, goes against your ideals.
#15021634
@Patrickov

The only way to have a society which rewards all members of society for their labor and maintains low state interference is an anarchist society.

An anarchist society does this by reworking the economy into one based around needs rather than capital. Thus, the needs of the population directly govern the organization of the economy without the imbalances that come with accumulation of capital and big government is dealt with by having no government at all.
#15021792
Patrickov wrote:I am not knowledgeable enough to opine whether you whole plan works or not, but this small part induces my doubt.

How do we address a potential problem that some jobs are more desirable to people than others, given that all other circumstances are equal (e.g. the applicants are equally qualified)? Also, having the state to decide that potentially leads to a big state which, I am afraid, goes against your ideals.


Yes, some jobs are more desirable than others, but everybody is different, nature abhors a vacuum, so too does a market, there is a niche in the labour market to fulfill their interest or skills, in order to earn a living.
It's not for the state to tell anyone that they must do a certain job, I haven't said that, but, the state creates the economic environment, in which there is capacity for everyone to be employed in one way or another, that makes, for a normal healthy person, a situation where they say they cannot work, totally implausible & state support should be withdrawn from them.


Any intervention by the state through fiscal balancing on taxes owed, in order to raise labour wage levels, would continue until the rates for similar skill levels are approximately the same across the market & once achieved normal employer taxes would apply.

If we can raise incomes at the lowest level, so that work does really pay, we can then begin to withdraw in work benefits, because, what was formally paid directly by the state to employees on low wages, was, effectively, a state subsidy to low paying employers, that cost would, through reduced tax liabilities to low paying employers, would be withdrawn once those living wage levels are reached.

The system of tax credits that Gordon BROWN introduced into the U.K, which I believe was cloned from the U.S.A, was wrong, because it allowed employers of low pay to transfer a large proportion of their labour cost onto central government, which is always short of real money to spend, hence the use of 'credits', a kind of I.O.U by the state to low paid people, the tag, of which is picked up by taxpayers anyway.

The full cost of labour to the living wage level must be shouldered by employers, not the state, but, employer-employee taxes must be reduced to make employing people at a decent pay level economic, both from the market & social perspective.
Last edited by Nonsense on 28 Jul 2019 00:00, edited 1 time in total.
#15021796
MrWonderful wrote:She meant to say, but was too ignorant to type, "nothing to do WITH ME."
One says "Are you going to go WITH ME?" One does NOT say "Are you going to go with myself?"




Tell it to your elected British socialists. There are many valid reasons for incentives, which of course you dismiss out of your victocrat socialist mentality. Taxes were hiked on yachts built in New England. The lunacy put many men out of work until it was reversed. That's how socialism and class warfare work.

I googled your Andre Previn quote and found only 4 hits the way you so ignorantly spelled it. There were 657 hits with the correct spelling, which you could have and should have typed into your own footnote. Don't play your childish games with me. They don't work like they do with your Leftist Palestinians.


Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

I reiterate, they were within quotation marks,no input was made by myself, the 'ignorance' rest solely on your shoulders & it's not for you to tell other posters what to, or not, put into their post.

I am not 'socialist', neither am I 'Palestinian' or 'Leftist', as for posting on a subject that depicts the low paid as 'victims' in a capitalist economy,your comment is wide of the mark from my perspective.
As I have stated above, employers should carry the burden of paying a living wage, not using the excuse of a going 'market rate' for which to pay lower rates(an argument against migration-which is both 'Liberal' & 'Socialist'), which are then topped up by taxpayers.

# 15021127
"What SHOULD concern leaders is not the inequality of wealth distribution, but rather the standard of living enjoyed by the working class, and how it can be improved by employing free market standards, and moving away from the chaos of socialism".

I find that ^ to be contradictory, how can you not be concerned about inequality, yet, be concerned about "the standard of living of the working class", the issue of class warfare revolves around both inequality & standards of living.
The Irishman...

I believe there were rumours that John Wayne wasn'[…]

Big Eyes, Big Lies and Trump

He made a living in real estate then used lies and[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://twitter.com/ScouseGirlMedia/status/1204043[…]

How to become an EU citizen

Don't worry, I know you're incapable of admitting[…]