There is a decided hypocrisy in regularly speaking ill of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks while having them back one's Presidential campaign and later appointing a former COO to the Treasury.
However, it has long been known that Trump is a hypocrite so I don't see why this is news at all.
Further, Reagan was a train wreck, minus the jokes and soundbites.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
When Trump calls the Taiwanese president and pi$$es off China he's slated for breaking protocol, when he hires millionaires he's slated for being the same. He can't win with you guysbeing an ex banker isn't automatically bad, Steve Bannon isn't an 'establishment' figure. We can't just get random guys off the street to run the economy, these people understand how it works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bannon isn't an establishment figure?!
Another multi-millionaire who came through Goldman Sachs, worked with executives in that same organisation in investment for his media projects, ran Breitbart...
What people need to recognise is that the political establishment is subservient to the financial establishment. You cannot change the government, replacing one set of multimillionaires with another and expect anything to change.
Go away and find out about who the investors in Breitbart are, then come back and tell me it is an 'anti-establishment' organisation. It is the same with Trump's campaign funding, UKIP, the French National Front and Wilders' Freedom Party.
It's all a massive smokescreen. The same people who fund the Democrats, fund the Republicans, and funded Trump. They're not interested in poverty, healthcare, social mobility, social cohesion, or the environment. They are interested in making lots and lots of money and people talking about anything else.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
The first two he will improve imo, not sure about that last. He's not a total climate change denier the way the media makes out though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it probably didn't help his case that he said MMCC is a hoax constructed by the Chinese government.
And I don't have any issue with him talking to the Taiwanese government at all, although he should really have waited until his inauguration and consulted with his diplomats and reshaped policy formally before doing so.
To me the whole Taiwan thing is a nonsense. Is it a crime to take a phone call from someone?
Should we not talk to any Palestinian leader?
comment by Got_Bianchi (U17054)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
When Trump calls the Taiwanese president and pi$$es off China he's slated for breaking protocol, when he hires millionaires he's slated for being the same. He can't win with you guysbeing an ex banker isn't automatically bad, Steve Bannon isn't an 'establishment' figure. We can't just get random guys off the street to run the economy, these people understand how it works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bannon isn't an establishment figure?!
Another multi-millionaire who came through Goldman Sachs, worked with executives in that same organisation in investment for his media projects, ran Breitbart...
What people need to recognise is that the political establishment is subservient to the financial establishment. You cannot change the government, replacing one set of multimillionaires with another and expect anything to change.
Go away and find out about who the investors in Breitbart are, then come back and tell me it is an 'anti-establishment' organisation. It is the same with Trump's campaign funding, UKIP, the French National Front and Wilders' Freedom Party.
It's all a massive smokescreen. The same people who fund the Democrats, fund the Republicans, and funded Trump. They're not interested in poverty, healthcare, social mobility, social cohesion, or the environment. They are interested in making lots and lots of money and people talking about anything else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Being a banker or millionaire doesn't make them part of the establishment, rich people don't all think the same. Bankers do the job because they get paid a tonne of money not for ideological reasons. Trump isn't even that right wing, he was a democrat until 2009 and a lot of his positions go against what true conservative Republicans believe. He basically just hijacked the party to run on his own platform.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 29 minutes ago
The first two he will improve imo, not sure about that last. He's not a total climate change denier the way the media makes out though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am frankly amazed that anyone would think living standards and working conditions and protections would improve for the working class under Trump.
He has appointed people to cabinet who have actively campaigned against healthcare subsidisation, state funding of food banks, the provision of social housing, and increases in both state and federal minimum wages. His Labour Secretary is an anti-union CEO of a company that makes sales of over $4bn per annum and is massively profitable, but has been caught paying staff less than state minimum wages.
And you think social cohesion will improve? Look at the political and social organisations that have celebrated his victory most enthusiastically. I would not say they are exactly champions of social cohesion. I do not expect the next four years to be happy times for any minority group.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Got_Bianchi (U17054)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
When Trump calls the Taiwanese president and pi$$es off China he's slated for breaking protocol, when he hires millionaires he's slated for being the same. He can't win with you guysbeing an ex banker isn't automatically bad, Steve Bannon isn't an 'establishment' figure. We can't just get random guys off the street to run the economy, these people understand how it works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bannon isn't an establishment figure?!
Another multi-millionaire who came through Goldman Sachs, worked with executives in that same organisation in investment for his media projects, ran Breitbart...
What people need to recognise is that the political establishment is subservient to the financial establishment. You cannot change the government, replacing one set of multimillionaires with another and expect anything to change.
Go away and find out about who the investors in Breitbart are, then come back and tell me it is an 'anti-establishment' organisation. It is the same with Trump's campaign funding, UKIP, the French National Front and Wilders' Freedom Party.
It's all a massive smokescreen. The same people who fund the Democrats, fund the Republicans, and funded Trump. They're not interested in poverty, healthcare, social mobility, social cohesion, or the environment. They are interested in making lots and lots of money and people talking about anything else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Being a banker or millionaire doesn't make them part of the establishment, rich people don't all think the same. Bankers do the job because they get paid a tonne of money not for ideological reasons. Trump isn't even that right wing, he was a democrat until 2009 and a lot of his positions go against what true conservative Republicans believe. He basically just hijacked the party to run on his own platform.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bankers do the job because they get paid a tonne of money"
If that is their primary interest, then I think you have answered my question.
Are those bankers who are interested in entering politics likely to be champions of the redistribution of wealth, do you think?
Here's Puzder's direct threat:
If you force us to revise our wage structure or redirect our massive profits so that we pay our frontline employees, who *earn less than a living wage*, more, we will find a way to automate their jobs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/03/19/carls-jr-ceo-try-a-15-minimum-wage-and-see-those-jobs-get-automated-out-of-existence/#426f59b6f0e9
Clear as day. We'd rather sack our staff than curb executive pay or shareholder dividends in order to pay workers a wage that allows them to support their families.
It is pretty obvious that if you raise minimum wage drastically that it will harm smaller businesses and those who can will automate their processes
There's a difference between raising the minimum wage drastically and abolishing that insane prohibition eras loophole that allows businesses to get away with not paying their employees and getting their customers to plug the rest of the gap.
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
It is pretty obvious that if you raise minimum wage drastically that it will harm smaller businesses and those who can will automate their processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, small businesses are the biggest job creators we need to be supporting them with less regulations/costs and help them grow. Lowering corporation tax will keep companies in America, it's not as simple as lower taxes=hate the poor.
comment by Got_Bianchi (U17054)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 29 minutes ago
The first two he will improve imo, not sure about that last. He's not a total climate change denier the way the media makes out though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am frankly amazed that anyone would think living standards and working conditions and protections would improve for the working class under Trump.
He has appointed people to cabinet who have actively campaigned against healthcare subsidisation, state funding of food banks, the provision of social housing, and increases in both state and federal minimum wages. His Labour Secretary is an anti-union CEO of a company that makes sales of over $4bn per annum and is massively profitable, but has been caught paying staff less than state minimum wages.
And you think social cohesion will improve? Look at the political and social organisations that have celebrated his victory most enthusiastically. I would not say they are exactly champions of social cohesion. I do not expect the next four years to be happy times for any minority group.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it's not as simple as taking money from the rich and handing it out to everyone else, why do you think living standards or social cohesion would improve under Hillary when it got worse under Obama? The democratic party became about political correctness, gay rights, trans rights, feminism etc. and forget they're meant to be the party of normal people.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Got_Bianchi (U17054)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 29 minutes ago
The first two he will improve imo, not sure about that last. He's not a total climate change denier the way the media makes out though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am frankly amazed that anyone would think living standards and working conditions and protections would improve for the working class under Trump.
He has appointed people to cabinet who have actively campaigned against healthcare subsidisation, state funding of food banks, the provision of social housing, and increases in both state and federal minimum wages. His Labour Secretary is an anti-union CEO of a company that makes sales of over $4bn per annum and is massively profitable, but has been caught paying staff less than state minimum wages.
And you think social cohesion will improve? Look at the political and social organisations that have celebrated his victory most enthusiastically. I would not say they are exactly champions of social cohesion. I do not expect the next four years to be happy times for any minority group.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it's not as simple as taking money from the rich and handing it out to everyone else, why do you think living standards or social cohesion would improve under Hillary when it got worse under Obama? The democratic party became about political correctness, gay rights, trans rights, feminism etc. and forget they're meant to be the party of normal people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't really know what to say about the last part of that.
And I wouldn't argue that a Democratic administration under Hilary would help address poverty or living and working standards as it should.
And yea, it is about redistributing wealth. Is has to be. Resources are finite. Executives shouldn't be paid 100 times the wage of front line staff, when those staff cannot afford to feed, clothe and access medical care for their children. It is inexcusable.
If you look at the total remuneration paid to all American workers, not a single person in that country needs to live in poverty.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
It is pretty obvious that if you raise minimum wage drastically that it will harm smaller businesses and those who can will automate their processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, small businesses are the biggest job creators we need to be supporting them with less regulations/costs and help them grow. Lowering corporation tax will keep companies in America, it's not as simple as lower taxes=hate the poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends who benefits from those lower taxes.
The easiest countries to start a successful small business in are countries where the general population has the most disposable income.
(I know from actual experience not spin from a multi millionaire politician or lobbyist)
To aid small business you can of course give them tax advantages vs bug business ( if you think that's something lobbyists from huge multi nationals are planning to do) and more importantly you need to redistribute wealth. You need to get the richest paying their fair share and renumerating people lower on the ladder.
So you want a Robin Hood situation,take from the rich and give it too the poor,if you work in a p.a.y.e situation you don't have much choice,clamp down on the likes of the media people at the bbc who have their wages paid into a limited company offsetting their tax liability,if the bulk of your income comes from one source it should be taxed as p.a.y.e.
Another crushing assault on the establishment coming from Trump...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38277072
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 15 minutes ago
So you want a Robin Hood situation,take from the rich and give it too the poor,if you work in a p.a.y.e situation you don't have much choice,clamp down on the likes of the media people at the bbc who have their wages paid into a limited company offsetting their tax liability,if the bulk of your income comes from one source it should be taxed as p.a.y.e.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a relatively small proportion of very high earners (the top five percent in the UK earns £70k plus) whose income comes from one source.
groovy
A system in which the rich are given huge tax advantages and the poor not only start out with far less but are also the ones charged with paying for all public services as well is what we currently have.
Are you suggesting this is better than redistributing the wealth?
Look I'll spell a couple of things out in regard to small and large business are you can tell me if you think this is a situation that leads anywhere but mass inequality.
Two coffee shops.
A big coffee multinational buys it beans at ridiculously low prices and because fairtrade is irrelevant the bean grower works for next to nothing.
The company holds its tax headquarters in an off shore tax haven. They pay their staff minimum wage and they pay zero tax on their profits.
A small coffee shop opens. It wants to offer something a bit more premium so fair enough it can charge a little more. Firstly the beans, they can't get them at close to the same price because their order is far smaller, at least the bean seller is getting a better wage here.
Secondly they have to pay tax in the country they're operating, therefore they have to charge a lot more just to stay a float.
Eventually they simply can't compete, they go out of business.
What happens next is the big business now has all the power and this is where big multinationals really dig the knife in.
Firstly the bean seller has no alternative but to accept awful pay and slave like working conditions just to win the "prize" of supplying them.
Secondly everyone who used to run or work for a small business now works for the big one. They then reduce working conditions and lower pay because people no longer have an alternative way to earn money.
Third, now no small companies are paying tax as they're out of business. The goverment need to get some tax in to make up for the shortfall - they hike up tax on the only people they can - the ordinary workers.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and to make matters worse, the CEOs of the huge coffee chain now enter government.
This is happening everywhere and it only leads to more and more inequality.
The joys of living in a capitalist society,or is it different in an alternative system.?
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 21 minutes ago
The joys of living in a capitalist society,or is it different in an alternative system.?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After the 2nd world war policies were made to stop exactly what is happening now. While it wasn't perfect by any means that system is being dismantled and replaced by one that is decided by billionaires to make themselves richer.
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 11 minutes ago
I just want good coffee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best go to a smaller coffee shop then
I just want good coffee
-----------------------
Ever tried making your own.
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 2 minutes ago
I just want good coffee
-----------------------
Ever tried making your own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was living in the UK there was an online coffee distributor called Hasbean (i think), you could order great coffee from them.
A paper drip filter gave the best taste i found.
Sign in if you want to comment
LIVE: Great Britain EU Referendum
Page 394 of 395
391 | 392 | 393 | 394 | 395
posted on 10/12/16
There is a decided hypocrisy in regularly speaking ill of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks while having them back one's Presidential campaign and later appointing a former COO to the Treasury.
However, it has long been known that Trump is a hypocrite so I don't see why this is news at all.
Further, Reagan was a train wreck, minus the jokes and soundbites.
posted on 10/12/16
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
When Trump calls the Taiwanese president and pi$$es off China he's slated for breaking protocol, when he hires millionaires he's slated for being the same. He can't win with you guysbeing an ex banker isn't automatically bad, Steve Bannon isn't an 'establishment' figure. We can't just get random guys off the street to run the economy, these people understand how it works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bannon isn't an establishment figure?!
Another multi-millionaire who came through Goldman Sachs, worked with executives in that same organisation in investment for his media projects, ran Breitbart...
What people need to recognise is that the political establishment is subservient to the financial establishment. You cannot change the government, replacing one set of multimillionaires with another and expect anything to change.
Go away and find out about who the investors in Breitbart are, then come back and tell me it is an 'anti-establishment' organisation. It is the same with Trump's campaign funding, UKIP, the French National Front and Wilders' Freedom Party.
It's all a massive smokescreen. The same people who fund the Democrats, fund the Republicans, and funded Trump. They're not interested in poverty, healthcare, social mobility, social cohesion, or the environment. They are interested in making lots and lots of money and people talking about anything else.
posted on 10/12/16
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
The first two he will improve imo, not sure about that last. He's not a total climate change denier the way the media makes out though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it probably didn't help his case that he said MMCC is a hoax constructed by the Chinese government.
And I don't have any issue with him talking to the Taiwanese government at all, although he should really have waited until his inauguration and consulted with his diplomats and reshaped policy formally before doing so.
posted on 10/12/16
To me the whole Taiwan thing is a nonsense. Is it a crime to take a phone call from someone?
Should we not talk to any Palestinian leader?
posted on 10/12/16
comment by Got_Bianchi (U17054)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
When Trump calls the Taiwanese president and pi$$es off China he's slated for breaking protocol, when he hires millionaires he's slated for being the same. He can't win with you guysbeing an ex banker isn't automatically bad, Steve Bannon isn't an 'establishment' figure. We can't just get random guys off the street to run the economy, these people understand how it works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bannon isn't an establishment figure?!
Another multi-millionaire who came through Goldman Sachs, worked with executives in that same organisation in investment for his media projects, ran Breitbart...
What people need to recognise is that the political establishment is subservient to the financial establishment. You cannot change the government, replacing one set of multimillionaires with another and expect anything to change.
Go away and find out about who the investors in Breitbart are, then come back and tell me it is an 'anti-establishment' organisation. It is the same with Trump's campaign funding, UKIP, the French National Front and Wilders' Freedom Party.
It's all a massive smokescreen. The same people who fund the Democrats, fund the Republicans, and funded Trump. They're not interested in poverty, healthcare, social mobility, social cohesion, or the environment. They are interested in making lots and lots of money and people talking about anything else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Being a banker or millionaire doesn't make them part of the establishment, rich people don't all think the same. Bankers do the job because they get paid a tonne of money not for ideological reasons. Trump isn't even that right wing, he was a democrat until 2009 and a lot of his positions go against what true conservative Republicans believe. He basically just hijacked the party to run on his own platform.
posted on 10/12/16
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 29 minutes ago
The first two he will improve imo, not sure about that last. He's not a total climate change denier the way the media makes out though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am frankly amazed that anyone would think living standards and working conditions and protections would improve for the working class under Trump.
He has appointed people to cabinet who have actively campaigned against healthcare subsidisation, state funding of food banks, the provision of social housing, and increases in both state and federal minimum wages. His Labour Secretary is an anti-union CEO of a company that makes sales of over $4bn per annum and is massively profitable, but has been caught paying staff less than state minimum wages.
And you think social cohesion will improve? Look at the political and social organisations that have celebrated his victory most enthusiastically. I would not say they are exactly champions of social cohesion. I do not expect the next four years to be happy times for any minority group.
posted on 10/12/16
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Got_Bianchi (U17054)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
When Trump calls the Taiwanese president and pi$$es off China he's slated for breaking protocol, when he hires millionaires he's slated for being the same. He can't win with you guysbeing an ex banker isn't automatically bad, Steve Bannon isn't an 'establishment' figure. We can't just get random guys off the street to run the economy, these people understand how it works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bannon isn't an establishment figure?!
Another multi-millionaire who came through Goldman Sachs, worked with executives in that same organisation in investment for his media projects, ran Breitbart...
What people need to recognise is that the political establishment is subservient to the financial establishment. You cannot change the government, replacing one set of multimillionaires with another and expect anything to change.
Go away and find out about who the investors in Breitbart are, then come back and tell me it is an 'anti-establishment' organisation. It is the same with Trump's campaign funding, UKIP, the French National Front and Wilders' Freedom Party.
It's all a massive smokescreen. The same people who fund the Democrats, fund the Republicans, and funded Trump. They're not interested in poverty, healthcare, social mobility, social cohesion, or the environment. They are interested in making lots and lots of money and people talking about anything else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Being a banker or millionaire doesn't make them part of the establishment, rich people don't all think the same. Bankers do the job because they get paid a tonne of money not for ideological reasons. Trump isn't even that right wing, he was a democrat until 2009 and a lot of his positions go against what true conservative Republicans believe. He basically just hijacked the party to run on his own platform.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bankers do the job because they get paid a tonne of money"
If that is their primary interest, then I think you have answered my question.
Are those bankers who are interested in entering politics likely to be champions of the redistribution of wealth, do you think?
posted on 10/12/16
Here's Puzder's direct threat:
If you force us to revise our wage structure or redirect our massive profits so that we pay our frontline employees, who *earn less than a living wage*, more, we will find a way to automate their jobs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/03/19/carls-jr-ceo-try-a-15-minimum-wage-and-see-those-jobs-get-automated-out-of-existence/#426f59b6f0e9
Clear as day. We'd rather sack our staff than curb executive pay or shareholder dividends in order to pay workers a wage that allows them to support their families.
posted on 10/12/16
It is pretty obvious that if you raise minimum wage drastically that it will harm smaller businesses and those who can will automate their processes
posted on 10/12/16
There's a difference between raising the minimum wage drastically and abolishing that insane prohibition eras loophole that allows businesses to get away with not paying their employees and getting their customers to plug the rest of the gap.
posted on 10/12/16
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
It is pretty obvious that if you raise minimum wage drastically that it will harm smaller businesses and those who can will automate their processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, small businesses are the biggest job creators we need to be supporting them with less regulations/costs and help them grow. Lowering corporation tax will keep companies in America, it's not as simple as lower taxes=hate the poor.
posted on 10/12/16
comment by Got_Bianchi (U17054)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 29 minutes ago
The first two he will improve imo, not sure about that last. He's not a total climate change denier the way the media makes out though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am frankly amazed that anyone would think living standards and working conditions and protections would improve for the working class under Trump.
He has appointed people to cabinet who have actively campaigned against healthcare subsidisation, state funding of food banks, the provision of social housing, and increases in both state and federal minimum wages. His Labour Secretary is an anti-union CEO of a company that makes sales of over $4bn per annum and is massively profitable, but has been caught paying staff less than state minimum wages.
And you think social cohesion will improve? Look at the political and social organisations that have celebrated his victory most enthusiastically. I would not say they are exactly champions of social cohesion. I do not expect the next four years to be happy times for any minority group.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it's not as simple as taking money from the rich and handing it out to everyone else, why do you think living standards or social cohesion would improve under Hillary when it got worse under Obama? The democratic party became about political correctness, gay rights, trans rights, feminism etc. and forget they're meant to be the party of normal people.
posted on 10/12/16
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Got_Bianchi (U17054)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 29 minutes ago
The first two he will improve imo, not sure about that last. He's not a total climate change denier the way the media makes out though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am frankly amazed that anyone would think living standards and working conditions and protections would improve for the working class under Trump.
He has appointed people to cabinet who have actively campaigned against healthcare subsidisation, state funding of food banks, the provision of social housing, and increases in both state and federal minimum wages. His Labour Secretary is an anti-union CEO of a company that makes sales of over $4bn per annum and is massively profitable, but has been caught paying staff less than state minimum wages.
And you think social cohesion will improve? Look at the political and social organisations that have celebrated his victory most enthusiastically. I would not say they are exactly champions of social cohesion. I do not expect the next four years to be happy times for any minority group.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it's not as simple as taking money from the rich and handing it out to everyone else, why do you think living standards or social cohesion would improve under Hillary when it got worse under Obama? The democratic party became about political correctness, gay rights, trans rights, feminism etc. and forget they're meant to be the party of normal people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't really know what to say about the last part of that.
And I wouldn't argue that a Democratic administration under Hilary would help address poverty or living and working standards as it should.
And yea, it is about redistributing wealth. Is has to be. Resources are finite. Executives shouldn't be paid 100 times the wage of front line staff, when those staff cannot afford to feed, clothe and access medical care for their children. It is inexcusable.
If you look at the total remuneration paid to all American workers, not a single person in that country needs to live in poverty.
posted on 10/12/16
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 5 minutes ago
It is pretty obvious that if you raise minimum wage drastically that it will harm smaller businesses and those who can will automate their processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, small businesses are the biggest job creators we need to be supporting them with less regulations/costs and help them grow. Lowering corporation tax will keep companies in America, it's not as simple as lower taxes=hate the poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends who benefits from those lower taxes.
posted on 10/12/16
The easiest countries to start a successful small business in are countries where the general population has the most disposable income.
(I know from actual experience not spin from a multi millionaire politician or lobbyist)
To aid small business you can of course give them tax advantages vs bug business ( if you think that's something lobbyists from huge multi nationals are planning to do) and more importantly you need to redistribute wealth. You need to get the richest paying their fair share and renumerating people lower on the ladder.
posted on 10/12/16
So you want a Robin Hood situation,take from the rich and give it too the poor,if you work in a p.a.y.e situation you don't have much choice,clamp down on the likes of the media people at the bbc who have their wages paid into a limited company offsetting their tax liability,if the bulk of your income comes from one source it should be taxed as p.a.y.e.
posted on 10/12/16
Another crushing assault on the establishment coming from Trump...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38277072
posted on 10/12/16
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 15 minutes ago
So you want a Robin Hood situation,take from the rich and give it too the poor,if you work in a p.a.y.e situation you don't have much choice,clamp down on the likes of the media people at the bbc who have their wages paid into a limited company offsetting their tax liability,if the bulk of your income comes from one source it should be taxed as p.a.y.e.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a relatively small proportion of very high earners (the top five percent in the UK earns £70k plus) whose income comes from one source.
posted on 10/12/16
groovy
A system in which the rich are given huge tax advantages and the poor not only start out with far less but are also the ones charged with paying for all public services as well is what we currently have.
Are you suggesting this is better than redistributing the wealth?
Look I'll spell a couple of things out in regard to small and large business are you can tell me if you think this is a situation that leads anywhere but mass inequality.
Two coffee shops.
A big coffee multinational buys it beans at ridiculously low prices and because fairtrade is irrelevant the bean grower works for next to nothing.
The company holds its tax headquarters in an off shore tax haven. They pay their staff minimum wage and they pay zero tax on their profits.
A small coffee shop opens. It wants to offer something a bit more premium so fair enough it can charge a little more. Firstly the beans, they can't get them at close to the same price because their order is far smaller, at least the bean seller is getting a better wage here.
Secondly they have to pay tax in the country they're operating, therefore they have to charge a lot more just to stay a float.
Eventually they simply can't compete, they go out of business.
What happens next is the big business now has all the power and this is where big multinationals really dig the knife in.
Firstly the bean seller has no alternative but to accept awful pay and slave like working conditions just to win the "prize" of supplying them.
Secondly everyone who used to run or work for a small business now works for the big one. They then reduce working conditions and lower pay because people no longer have an alternative way to earn money.
Third, now no small companies are paying tax as they're out of business. The goverment need to get some tax in to make up for the shortfall - they hike up tax on the only people they can - the ordinary workers.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and to make matters worse, the CEOs of the huge coffee chain now enter government.
This is happening everywhere and it only leads to more and more inequality.
posted on 10/12/16
The joys of living in a capitalist society,or is it different in an alternative system.?
posted on 10/12/16
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 21 minutes ago
The joys of living in a capitalist society,or is it different in an alternative system.?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After the 2nd world war policies were made to stop exactly what is happening now. While it wasn't perfect by any means that system is being dismantled and replaced by one that is decided by billionaires to make themselves richer.
posted on 10/12/16
I just want good coffee
posted on 10/12/16
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 11 minutes ago
I just want good coffee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best go to a smaller coffee shop then
posted on 10/12/16
I just want good coffee
-----------------------
Ever tried making your own.
posted on 10/12/16
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 2 minutes ago
I just want good coffee
-----------------------
Ever tried making your own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was living in the UK there was an online coffee distributor called Hasbean (i think), you could order great coffee from them.
A paper drip filter gave the best taste i found.
Page 394 of 395
391 | 392 | 393 | 394 | 395