What do each of US feel about Wealth Inequality.

[tigerballs]

Again, CHILDREN.

No one else? Just children?

 

[jadtiger]

Did you know the ALP only won 34 percent of the vote to LIBS 32 percent nationality

The reason they crushed it was because of secondary preferred votes


I know a guy from the TV show MAFS

He was gloating one day about 4 months before the election the ALP gave him two million to run against a LIB held seat on the north shore

He was running as an independent the ALP knew he was going to lose but wanted his preferred votes to go to the ALP candidate to get the ALP over the line

They told him to spend 200K on a campaign manager at least 200K on the advertising and the rest he could do what ever he wanted

I told him that's amazing you get so much tax payer money

Actually Labor received just over 34.5 % the COMBINED LNP vote was less than 28%,the actual Liberal vote was barely over 20%.Dutton was a disgrace and a continuation of poor leadership in the coalition.

 

[crazycat]

My problem with organised charities lies in the logistics of running them. There are roughly 64 thousand in Australia whereas larger countries like America have 1.8 million and India reportedly 3 million. I’d like to know the combined operating costs of them all.
The Charity Aid Foundations annual report claims that 64% of the world’s population gave to charity last year. It’s not making any difference.
I think a more personal approach is required. Look after and support your own area. For instance, I regularly donate trucks and excavators for a couple of days everytime an ND hits our region to aid cleanup and I give to the surf lifesaving club. They are sporadic, yet practical contributions with measurable outcomes and I’ll tell you now, plenty of others do so as well.

We are off topic though…wealth distribution is a problem above our place in the chain. Governments and the special interest groups that run them would prefer to spend trillions on war. Keeping the masses under control is far more in their plans than providing equality. Shaming people who can barely afford to give money to do so on moral grounds is nasty and that’s why I’m no fan of this Singer prick.

Tucker, personal action is awesome.

Heck knew a guy that took disabled kids surfing. All time, all money spent was pure donation. Great for kids, great for him.

The argument though that you should donate X% of your income isn't a bad one though. It puts a clear bar, a clear level.
Singer made the donation point from the idea that "people in 3rd world country are starving, you can donate some food with very little discomfort".
You instead go "stuff some mismanaged western Charity, Ill do charity at home".

^Not going to knock that.
Heck I will applaud it.

I will say "don't niggle the charities on admin" too much. I know having been involved with Charities that kind of thinking leads too "Can we afford a new staplier this month" and just wrongheaded thinking. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ exists and you can look them up. Charities over 90% are usually pretty good.
But hey donate local is fine.


To the point though, Singer made the claim that you should donate at least 1% of your income. i.e. if you make $300 per week you should donate $3.
Now, some people in that income bracket that $3 is A LOT, I get that. Heck single parent on $300pw they are going to spend their excess on their kids lunch they can barely afford. This doesn't break Singer's argument here, if your net income is Negative or just floating then I think Singers arguments "for minor discomfort you could contribute to saving a life" don't apply.

Singer does shame Billionares. He specifically names "Paul Allen" and his 200 Million mega Yacht.
Jeff Bezos hired Milan, practically rented the entire city for his wedding.
We have people with Obscene amounts of money and if they are not donating a high percentage point (singer says the scale increases with income), they should be shamed.

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates both have donated huge amounts.

*THIS arugment, not defending and may attack Singers other ideas.

 

[Tigrr2]

We live in a country where the top 50 companies ( Big 4 banks, Telstra etc) are mostly owned by the US company Blackrock/ Vanguard with they being the major shareholders. The country has already been sold to the US Corporations who are running the world. We are all captured by these Corporations who control our polluted Food systems, the corrupted Medical Industry, the Mortgage Industry, etc etc We are all victims of their control with our constantly inept Govts being total compromised fools at best. Its good to worry guys as AI will be used to try and enslave makind even further.

 

[BZN]

I thought you started this thread to talk about the inequality of the uber rich vs the rest of us but I quickly worked out that wasn’t the agenda.
The reason I used that example above is because there is talk that those over 120, 150 etc should be doing more.
Look I have some sympathy for people trying to live on less than 60k a year but at the end of the day Im not fully sympathetic. They can re-train, re-skill, re-educate…there are plenty of Government assisted programmes to help them.
But no…let’s give them tax cuts and sting those who have completed the above and are making something of their lives.
It is socialist BS.

My apology if you feel I have led you astray, but Imo wealth inequality ["uber rich V the rest of us"], tax inequality, charities and donations to charities and homelessness are all aspects of a "tax extreme wealth movement"...... Imo.

 

[BZN]

Yeah well, Brexit has changed residency status options and long been responsible for the loss of at least 4% of the nation's GDP according to their OBM, with a recent US report stating that the current figure of its damaging effects some decade on is likely closer to 8%.

Meanwhile we have the party rebadged as Reform, still led by the same man that was mostly responsible for Brexit and like it's lower leadership, seems likely to have long been a Russian asset that is still trying to divide the nation by blaming race and immigrants.

Again this party is funded and promoted by the wealthy that caused the wealth disparity and control nearly all forms of media.

"control nearly all forms of the media" is another huge problem.
Rupert Murdock for instance.
But I won't start on that.... possibly off track.

 

[BZN]

You’ve answered most of your own questions.
However holding a demonstration to sulk and demand extreme wealth should be taxed more is a waste of time as they make the rules.

How do you link a group that is passionately concerned about something/anything to sulking.
The formation of a group saying "tax extreme wealth" could grow into a movement that put's a stop to the wealthy "making the rules".

 

[Tucker]

How do you link a group that is passionately concerned about something/anything to sulking.
The formation of a group saying "tax extreme wealth" could grow into a movement that put's a stop to the wealthy "making the rules"

All protesting is sulking.
As for your last sentence….How?
If they gain any footing at all we’ll cop another Covid Pandemic but this time it won’t be a practise run and the lockdowns could be permanently set in place. These people are far too entrenched in power, we’d literally have to go to war with them and guess what? They’ll have world governments, secret agencies, law enforcement and the military on their side.
Our side will be led by aging hippies and fat blue haired feminists with septum rings.

 

[Kelce68]

How do you link a group that is passionately concerned about something/anything to sulking.
The formation of a group saying "tax extreme wealth" could grow into a movement that put's a stop to the wealthy "making the rules".

'Tax extreme wealth' is just code for 'I wasn't as good at the game as you, so gimme some of what you've got'. It's envy wrapped as 'equality'.

The only way to beat any of it is teaching children to discern propaganda for themselves and bring a generation through that break the manipulated cycle.

Problem is, there's nothing easy about looking inward at yourself first before trying to fix the world and it's far easier to externalise all one's problems to another person or idea.

When people, collectively, start taking self-accountability for their own lives, their own cultures, their own people/communities being how they are, then people can truly start disengaging from the decision-makers in power.

It won't happen from a revolution, it'll only happen from everyone turning their back and walking away from it all collectively. Which, again, is beyond unlikely. Everyone's too comfortable; protesting from their iPhone.

 

[Kelce68]

Yeah well, Brexit has changed residency status options and long been responsible for the loss of at least 4% of the nation's GDP according to their OBM, with a recent US report stating that the current figure of its damaging effects some decade on is likely closer to 8%.

Meanwhile we have the party rebadged as Reform, still led by the same man that was mostly responsible for Brexit and like it's lower leadership, seems likely to have long been a Russian asset that is still trying to divide the nation by blaming race and immigrants.

Again this party is funded and promoted by the wealthy that caused the wealth disparity and control nearly all forms of media.

Here is a list of some of the objective improvements that Brexit has brought about for the UK:

• Regained sovereignty over laws, regulations, and borders, allowing independent decision-making without EU oversight.
• Implemented a points-based immigration system to attract skilled global talent and control borders more effectively.
• Struck independent trade deals with over 70 countries plus the EU, including Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, boosting exports.
• Joined the CPTPP trade bloc, accessing 15% of global GDP and expanding market opportunities.
• Increased services exports by 15% since 2018, outperforming goods exports.
• Economy grew faster than Germany, Italy, and Japan since the referendum, with IMF forecasting top G7 growth over next five years.
• Established eight Freeports with tax reliefs and simplified customs to attract investment and jobs.
• Removed EU restrictions, simplifying reporting for SMEs and reducing bureaucratic red tape.
• Reformed VAT rules, eliminating the tampon tax and halving domestic air passenger duty.
• Banned live animal exports for slaughter and recognized animal sentience in law, enhancing welfare standards.
• Introduced UK-specific subsidies and procurement favoring domestic suppliers, supporting local economies.
• Increased R&D funding to £20 billion by 2024-25 and launched pro-innovation AI and data regulations.
• Rejoined Horizon Europe as a net beneficiary, boosting scientific collaboration.
• Reformed financial services and insurance rules (e.g., Solvency II) for greater flexibility and competitiveness.
• Established independent sanctions policy and partnerships like AUKUS for enhanced global security.
• Reduced vulnerability to EU-wide shocks by increasing domestic suppliers and opportunities for growth.
• Regained control of fishing waters, increasing quotas for UK fishermen.
• Launched Turing Scheme for global education exchanges and reinstated duty-free shopping for overseas travel.
• Potential long-term benefits from diverging EU regulations in areas like AI and tax policy.
• Repurposed EU contributions for domestic priorities like NHS funding and levelling up initiatives.
  
  
  But, by all means, keep pedalling the deleterious effects simply because you refuse to engage with the fact that large, sweeping policy decisions made by countries have both pros and cons and that people, whose world view isn't solely based in suicidal empathy, voted to take back some control of the decision-making of their own country.

 

[Betterdays22]

'Tax extreme wealth' is just code for 'I wasn't as good at the game as you, so gimme some of what you've got'. It's envy wrapped as 'equality'.

The only way to beat any of it is teaching children to discern propaganda for themselves and bring a generation through that break the manipulated cycle.

Problem is, there's nothing easy about looking inward at yourself first before trying to fix the world and it's far easier to externalise all one's problems to another person or idea.

When people, collectively, start taking self-accountability for their own lives, their own cultures, their own people/communities being how they are, then people can truly start disengaging from the decision-makers in power.

It won't happen from a revolution, it'll only happen from everyone turning their back and walking away from it all collectively. Which, again, is beyond unlikely. Everyone's too comfortable; protesting from their iPhone.

Is it though? Feel like it is a bit more nuanced than that. The idea that it is solely the responsibility of the person, and that the system they live in perfectly incentivises hard work and good values is just disconnected with reality.

There is a balanced and rational debate to be had around current incentives in the system that favour rapid accumulation of wealth through property, stocks hell even scam crypto coins if you're a certain someone, while actual work buys a person less and less.

The creation of wealth also doesn't just happen in isolation, it often relies on a healthy and education general population, functioning roads, government, laws - wealth benefits from a functional society, not the other way round. There is some kind of tattered social compact here that is hanging on by a thread. This isn't even to mention the wealth that is simply inherited, or exploited from the 3rd world.

There is a line to walk, for sure, but can you honestly say the balance is correct at the moment? I certainly wouldn't characterise people who don't think so as simply jealous or lazy. It cheapens the debate. It would be like characterising someone who isn't a billionaire who thinks the balance is right as simply a cuck.

 

[Betterdays22]

Here is a list of some of the objective improvements that Brexit has brought about for the UK:

• Regained sovereignty over laws, regulations, and borders, allowing independent decision-making without EU oversight.
• Implemented a points-based immigration system to attract skilled global talent and control borders more effectively.
• Struck independent trade deals with over 70 countries plus the EU, including Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, boosting exports.
• Joined the CPTPP trade bloc, accessing 15% of global GDP and expanding market opportunities.
• Increased services exports by 15% since 2018, outperforming goods exports.
• Economy grew faster than Germany, Italy, and Japan since the referendum, with IMF forecasting top G7 growth over next five years.
• Established eight Freeports with tax reliefs and simplified customs to attract investment and jobs.
• Removed EU restrictions, simplifying reporting for SMEs and reducing bureaucratic red tape.
• Reformed VAT rules, eliminating the tampon tax and halving domestic air passenger duty.
• Banned live animal exports for slaughter and recognized animal sentience in law, enhancing welfare standards.
• Introduced UK-specific subsidies and procurement favoring domestic suppliers, supporting local economies.
• Increased R&D funding to £20 billion by 2024-25 and launched pro-innovation AI and data regulations.
• Rejoined Horizon Europe as a net beneficiary, boosting scientific collaboration.
• Reformed financial services and insurance rules (e.g., Solvency II) for greater flexibility and competitiveness.
• Established independent sanctions policy and partnerships like AUKUS for enhanced global security.
• Reduced vulnerability to EU-wide shocks by increasing domestic suppliers and opportunities for growth.
• Regained control of fishing waters, increasing quotas for UK fishermen.
• Launched Turing Scheme for global education exchanges and reinstated duty-free shopping for overseas travel.
• Potential long-term benefits from diverging EU regulations in areas like AI and tax policy.
• Repurposed EU contributions for domestic priorities like NHS funding and levelling up initiatives.
  
  
  But, by all means, keep pedalling the deleterious effects simply because you refuse to engage with the fact that large, sweeping policy decisions made by countries have both pros and cons and that people, whose world view isn't solely based in suicidal empathy, voted to take back some control of the decision-making of their own country.

This is such a narrow view of multilateralism which has been a net-gain for just about every Western democracy post WWII.

 

[Kelce68]

Is it though? Feel like it is a bit more nuanced than that. The idea that it is solely the responsibility of the person, and that the system they live in perfectly incentivises hard work and good values is just disconnected with reality.

The idea that the system is keeping everyone down and that a simple bit of hard work and making good choices in your life doesn't give you all the opportunities you want is just disconnected with reality.

People will side with anything that gives them some alleviation of their responsibilities.

There is a balanced and rational debate to be had around current incentives in the system that favour rapid accumulation of wealth through property, stocks hell even scam crypto coins if you're a certain someone, while actual work buys a person less and less.

Of course.

The issue is- that is not the discussion from the envious redistributors. There's no nuance whatsoever. It's the have-nots attacking the haves. It's a tale as old as time. Most haves are there because of a combination of circumstance, decisions-made and wherewithal, most have nots are there because of a combination of circumstance, decisions-made and wherewithal.

The creation of wealth also doesn't just happen in isolation, it often relies on a healthy and education general population, functioning roads, government, laws - wealth benefits from a functional society, not the other way round. There is some kind of tattered social compact here that is hanging on by a thread. This isn't even to mention the wealth than is simply inherited or exploited from the 3rd world.

Incorrect.

Wealth is relative. It doesn't matter the context, there will be relatively wealthy people in that context versus others who are less wealthy in the same context.

The modern, Western world has simply allowed those not particularly good at obtaining wealth to still thrive by all, historical metrics.

There is a line to walk, for sure, but can you honestly say the balance is correct at the moment? I certainly wouldn't characterise people who don't think so as simply jealous or lazy. It cheapens the debate. It would be like characterising someone who isn't a billionaire who thinks the balance is right as simply a cuck.

False equivalencies aside, because that wasn't your best effort, what 'balance'?

I don't care what others have. It doesn't concern me. I have managed to accumulate modest wealth in my own, simple, pretty straightforward, run of the mill way. Work hard at school, get good grades, pay my own way through uni, start fulltime work, go back to uni and pay my own way for a second degree, work both a full time gig and a business after hours for the last 12 years to get our family going, by a house in a suburb we could afford, continue to work hard, salary sacrifice as much extra super as I can afford, etc.

People have forgotten how to sacrifice. What is to stop ANYONE, right now, from up and moving to a country town in NSW, living at a caravan park temporarily whilst they work at Coles or Woolies stacking shelves 60 hours a week, maybe study something on the side, free/supported TAFE, part-time uni, whilst they build up a deposit, then look at a small, modest apartment? Or, work a bit longer and look for a small 2/3 bedroom home. Then reassess and go from there.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Everybody is so quick to blame the system, but people have forgotten how much sacrifice there was in our society even 20/30 years ago. We grew up on 2 minute noodles, HomeBrand and Savings fish fingers and maybe $11 of fish and chips once a month as a treat.

How other people have chosen to live their life is none of my concern. If they want to chase the big career title, the big pay cheque, the 80 hour weeks, good on them- it's not for me. If they want to risk it all on a business they believe can work, and does, good on them, I'm more risk averse and it's not for me. If they want to put aside building a family to chase individual or coupled wealth without kids, good on them, once again, it's not for me.

But none of their decisions affect me, nor do mine, them.

Only once others' decisions affect me, does it become an issue, and, right now, the most people who do shit that affect my life are poor, excuse-riddled jackasses that would rather break into my next door neighbour's home again than actually pull their finger out and do the work; make the sacrifices.

No one is stopping ANYONE from beginning to build wealth, people have just forgotten how long it takes and are unwilling to put themselves aside to do so.

It's so much easier to shout 'tax the rich!' when the 'rich' are there for a reason.

There is nuance to this conversation, a lot, but the nuance generally doesn't come from those complaining about the system...

 

[Kelce68]

This is such a narrow view of multilateralism which has been a net-gain for just about every Western democracy post WWII

Why is it narrow?

EXACTLY why?

You seem so quick to flippantly toss all of the reasons mentioned above out the window.

Not everybody wants a big, happy, global family.

Many people see the clear errors in globalist thinking (as well as the benefits) and, rightly, are voicing them or, in the case of Brexit, enacting them. As they are entitled to do.

Also, explain to me your understanding of 'suicidal empathy' as it was the bit you bolded to reply to.

 

[Betterdays22]

The idea that the system is keeping everyone down and that a simple bit of hard work and making good choices in your life doesn't give you all the opportunities you want is just disconnected with reality.

People will side with anything that gives them some alleviation of their responsibilities.

Acknowledging the playing field isn't level and advocating for reasonable adjustments to be made is NOT alleviating personal responsibility. I am well aware of the need to increase self-efficacy and autonomy, acceptance of the things you cannot change and taking action toward the things you can is a great philosophy in life. But you can understand this AND understand the system could be better.

The issue is- that is not the discussion from the envious redistributors. There's no nuance whatsoever. It's the have-nots attacking the haves. It's a tale as old as time. Most haves are there because of a combination of circumstance, decisions-made and wherewithal, most have nots are there because of a combination of circumstance, decisions-made and wherewithal.

A reduction in the impact of circumstance and an increase in the impact of decisions-made and wherewithal is all i'm advocating for.

False equivalencies aside, because that wasn't your best effort, what 'balance'?

I don't care what others have. It doesn't concern me. I have managed to accumulate modest wealth in my own, simple, pretty straightforward, run of the mill way. Work hard at school, get good grades, pay my own way through uni, start fulltime work, go back to uni and pay my own way for a second degree, work both a full time gig and a business after hours for the last 12 years to get our family going, by a house in a suburb we could afford, continue to work hard, salary sacrifice as much extra super as I can afford, etc.

People have forgotten how to sacrifice. What is to stop ANYONE, right now, from up and moving to a country town in NSW, living at a caravan park temporarily whilst they work at Coles or Woolies stacking shelves 60 hours a week, maybe study something on the side, free/supported TAFE, part-time uni, whilst they build up a deposit, then look at a small, modest apartment? Or, work a bit longer and look for a small 2/3 bedroom home. Then reassess and go from there.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Everybody is so quick to blame the system, but people have forgotten how much sacrifice there was in our society even 20/30 years ago. We grew up on 2 minute noodles, HomeBrand and Savings fish fingers and maybe $11 of fish and chips once a month as a treat.

No one is stopping ANYONE from beginning to build wealth, people have just forgotten how long it takes and are unwilling to put themselves aside to do so.

It's so much easier to shout 'tax the rich!' when the 'rich' are there for a reason.

There is nuance to this conversation, a lot, but the nuance generally doesn't come from those complaining about the system...

The balance i'm referring to is the increasing inequality in wealth and the increasing difficulties of working people to access housing, food, transport etc. It is harder than it was now than it was even 20-30 years ago to do the things you are asking them to do. Why can't people just up and move to a country town?
- INCREASED relocation costs compared with 20-30 years ago
- DECREASED housing options compared with 20-30 years ago
- Less job opportunities than compared with 20-30 years aho
Then there is a lack of childcare - how is it a single parent with a kid/s ups and moves to a country town where they know no-one, with no available childcare then work 60 hours a week? How about a person with a disability, mobility issues who cannot drive?

Again, acknowledging there are structural issues is NOT the same as refusing personal responsibility.

 

[Betterdays22]

Why is it narrow?

EXACTLY why?

You seem so quick to flippantly toss all of the reasons mentioned above out the window.

Not everybody wants a big, happy, global family.

Many people see the clear errors in globalist thinking (as well as the benefits) and, rightly, are voicing them or, in the case of Brexit, enacting them. As they are entitled to do.

Also, explain to me your understanding of 'suicidal empathy' as it was the bit you bolded to reply to.

Seems to me you are saying that people who believe in these multilateral institutions have a "worldview based solely in suicidal empathy"? is that not exactly what you wrote?

 

[Kelce68]

Acknowledging the playing field isn't level and advocating for reasonable adjustments to be made is NOT alleviating personal responsibility. I am well aware of the need to increase self-efficacy and autonomy, acceptance of the things you cannot change and taking action toward the things you can is a great philosophy in life. But you can understand this AND understand the system could be better.

Fair enough.

But we've got PLENTY whinging about what they don't have at the moment. Conversely, not too many advocating for self-accountability in one's own position... Seems that's the movement that needs more support then.

A reduction in the impact of circumstance and an increase in the impact of decisions-made and wherewithal is all i'm advocating for.

Well, the problem is, I think you might find, that if many were held MORE responsible for their decisions, they may be worse off...

Ergo, most people in shitty situations are there of their own doing. Not all by any means, but many. It's the discussion no-one wants to have...

The balance i'm referring to is the increasing inequality in wealth and the increasing difficulties of working people to access housing, food, transport etc. It is harder than it was now than it was even 20-30 years ago to do the things you are asking them to do.

Why can't people just up and move to a country town?
- INCREASED relocation costs compared with 20-30 years ago

Train and bus tickets are pretty cheap. Free camping sites are pretty cheap. Cheap cars are pretty cheap.

- DECREASED housing options compared with 20-30 years ago

Yep, in metro.

Not elsewhere.

- Less job opportunities than compared with 20-30 years aho

The literal opposite.
Look at what the internet has done for the job market. Point me to these people strugglign for work and I'll be everything I own that they still have, among other things, a working smartphone.

Then there is a lack of childcare - how is it a single parent with a kid/s ups and moves to a country town where they know no-one, with no available childcare then work 60 hours a week?

Again, make better choices. Pick a better mate in the first place. But, in that event, it's harder. But that's it,, it's harder, make it work.

How about a person with a disability, mobility issues who cannot drive?

How about them? Best of luck. We live in a pretty supportive society already, particularly in aus for people in those scenarios. Look at the damage NDIS is doing to the budget...

Again, acknowledging there are structural issues is NOT the same as refusing personal responsibility.

It's not by definition, but, every time we push blame of one circumstance onto things outside of our control instead of our own making, we do, by default, alleviate ourselves, if not to some degree, of the consequences of our actions.

 

[Betterdays22]

Fair enough.

But we've got PLENTY whinging about what they don't have at the moment. Conversely, not too many advocating for self-accountability in one's own position... Seems that's the movement that needs more support then.
.

This is not what I am doing though. I'm in a very fortunate position that in with a combination of luck and hard work I have built a lovely little life for myself. I don't care for extremes of politics and I am off social media. I genuinely think the scales are tipped or at least tipping against common people beyond what is reasonable, and that is bad for society. We can disagree there, that is fine.

Well, the problem is, I think you might find, that if many were held MORE responsible for their decisions, they may be worse off...

Ergo, most people in shitty situations are there of their own doing. Not all by any means, but many. It's the discussion no-one wants to have...

But why be happy with the fact a inequality is increasing (it is increasing by most measures). Meaning it is more difficult for people to pull themselves out of said shitty situations than before? That is a net bad for society.

This is where the balance thing comes in. It would be a BAD thing to completely remove any possible barrier for people, but there has to be a point where it is bad for society that the barriers have become too great?

Then there is a lack of childcare - how is it a single parent with a kid/s ups and moves to a country town where they know no-one, with no available childcare then work 60 hours a week?

Again, make better choices. Pick a better mate in the first place. But, in that event, it's harder. But that's it,, it's harder, make it work.

People make mistakes. Modern society means there are safety nets to help people turn it around and that single parent deserves a shot at a decent life even after some mistakes. There is currently a system in which it is getting harder for these people to turn their lives around, plus a middle-lower class worse off than the one that came before. Being uncomfortable with that happening while extreme wealth grows exponentially is a fairly moderate position to take IMO

 

[BZN]

All protesting is sulking.
As for your last sentence….How?
If they gain any footing at all we’ll cop another Covid Pandemic but this time it won’t be a practise run and the lockdowns could be permanently set in place. These people are far too entrenched in power, we’d literally have to go to war with them and guess what? They’ll have world governments, secret agencies, law enforcement and the military on their side.
Our side will be led by aging hippies and fat blue haired feminists with septum rings.

Sorry Tucker, but again I don't agree.

Protesting is not sulking.
Dismissing collective action trivializes the history of every major social change.
From civil rights to worker's rights, protest has always been the spark that forces entrenched power to listen.
It's not about whining, it's about refusing to be silent.



HOW.
By building networks that don't just make a noise but organise.
A "tax extreme wealth" movement could start locally, with communities demanding transparency, fairer redistribution and accountability.
When enough people link arms, the rules CAN change.
History shows governments bend when movements grow too large to ignore.

The Rich and powerful are not too far entrenched, not yet.

Imo, if we don't take positive strong action... like yesterday, they damn well may be too far entrenched, and things can only get worse.
If that then becomes the norm, your grandchildren may be living in 1984 land, and I don't think you would want to have that imposed on them.
I don't have kids, so these things probably won't affect me directly, but I am prepared to fight for your grandchildren.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Here is a list of some of the objective improvements that Brexit has brought about for the UK:

• Regained sovereignty over laws, regulations, and borders, allowing independent decision-making without EU oversight.
• Implemented a points-based immigration system to attract skilled global talent and control borders more effectively.
• Struck independent trade deals with over 70 countries plus the EU, including Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, boosting exports.
• Joined the CPTPP trade bloc, accessing 15% of global GDP and expanding market opportunities.
• Increased services exports by 15% since 2018, outperforming goods exports.
• Economy grew faster than Germany, Italy, and Japan since the referendum, with IMF forecasting top G7 growth over next five years.
• Established eight Freeports with tax reliefs and simplified customs to attract investment and jobs.
• Removed EU restrictions, simplifying reporting for SMEs and reducing bureaucratic red tape.
• Reformed VAT rules, eliminating the tampon tax and halving domestic air passenger duty.
• Banned live animal exports for slaughter and recognized animal sentience in law, enhancing welfare standards.
• Introduced UK-specific subsidies and procurement favoring domestic suppliers, supporting local economies.
• Increased R&D funding to £20 billion by 2024-25 and launched pro-innovation AI and data regulations.
• Rejoined Horizon Europe as a net beneficiary, boosting scientific collaboration.
• Reformed financial services and insurance rules (e.g., Solvency II) for greater flexibility and competitiveness.
• Established independent sanctions policy and partnerships like AUKUS for enhanced global security.
• Reduced vulnerability to EU-wide shocks by increasing domestic suppliers and opportunities for growth.
• Regained control of fishing waters, increasing quotas for UK fishermen.
• Launched Turing Scheme for global education exchanges and reinstated duty-free shopping for overseas travel.
• Potential long-term benefits from diverging EU regulations in areas like AI and tax policy.
• Repurposed EU contributions for domestic priorities like NHS funding and levelling up initiatives.
  
  
  But, by all means, keep pedalling the deleterious effects simply because you refuse to engage with the fact that large, sweeping policy decisions made by countries have both pros and cons and that people, whose world view isn't solely based in suicidal empathy, voted to take back some control of the decision-making of their own country.

Hahahahaha, that's so funny, and nearly pissed myself laughing when I got to the fishing bit. You would get thrown off their trawlers if you tried to pretend that Brexit has done any good for them.