We're all in this together!
 

So we're told, again and again by the small cohort of wealthy, high-born, privately educated men who run the country.

And before people jump on me for that: I don't know what it's like in the States, but we still have a ruling class. Born to it, across many generations. Educated together with princes and the sons of great industry in the classrooms of ancient schools.

The Old School Tie has currency here. Maybe that's why, in the face of the worst recession in living memory, our chancellor has cut the tax burden for the wealthy and reduced assistance for pensioners and the most vulnerable benefits claimants.

Time and again they have used that phrase: We're all in this together.

Except some of us cannot afford the 200k required to get a 'lunch' with the Prime Minister, to put our case across.

Favours to supporters, contracts to friends. Murdoch's bid was all set to be waved through before the phonehacking scandal exploded. All set to wave through a deal for their friends, whilst simultaneously attacking the BBC. When the cabinet member in chanrge of the decision let slip he was anti-Murdoch, he was removed and in his place a new man who owuld supposedly treat the issue with the dispassionate disinterest required for a quasi-judicial decision.

Except the person they put in was a staunch supporter of Murdoch. A 'cheerleader' is has bene said. And the meetings and the emails flowed. And now this dispassionate and disinterested party has been shown to be kneedeep in it. Fortunately for him, he had an aide he could throw the blame onto. For now. His position looks very shaky.

We're all in this together my Prime Minister told me, echoed by his Chancellor, as they stripped away the help and support needed by cancer patients. Sick for more than a year? Tough, you had your year of sympathy, no more sickness benefit for you. As they stripped away the protections for those in desperate need and farmed the assesment of their health away ftrom their doctor and onto a benefits advisor. As they sripped back the appeal process, because so many refusals were being overturned at appeal. As they stripped away some of the tax credits for pensioners and working parents, as they hyped up the fees for students and as they cut the top rate of income tax for the highest earners.

We're all in this together and yet...something isn't quite right.

He understands, says the Prime Minister, how people feel. How people are scared, and how people struggle. He understands the need to put food on thetable, to put petrol in the car, to put shoes on their children. He's a family man, after all.

We're all in this together, says the man in the Top Hat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17883101


Meanwhile the Chancellor's proposals for even greater cuts to the benefits system have gone so far they have even drawn criticism from their own Conservative minister for work and pensions:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17877732

I've seen the effects of the changes to the benefits system. I've had constituents come to me in desparate need. People who are sick and struggling, but whose claims have been rebuffed by an unqualified and unsympathetic assessor.

We're all in this together, but we aren't all below the water mark.

But the man in the Top Hat understands, he really does.



He understands, he says. But many of us would find his policies more palatable if they came from a place of ignorance. To understand and still act in this way is unforgivable.



So says the (small 'c') conservative Catholic cardinal.


We're all in this together and the Prime Minister understands. But he won't put the cost of the nation's distress onto his friends, when the poor are able to shoulder so much.

This, incidentally, is the man currently masterminding swingeing cuts to benefits and public services, whilst easing the tax burden for the highest earners:

http://tankthetories.com/wp-content/...bullingdon.gif

George Gideon Oliver Osborne, heir to the baronetcy of Ballentaylor, member of the Bullingdon Club, friend to David Cameron and Nat Rothschild, Member of Parliament for Tatton, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, with an estimated personal fortune of £4 million (from a trust fund paid for by his father).

So how about that Man of the People, Cameron? We're all in this together and he understands what it's like for the common folk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_C...litical_career

He's also the nephew of Sir William Dugdale, brother-in-law of Katherine, Lady Dugdale (died 2004) Lady-in-Waiting to the Queen from 1955.

But...that's all just birth. It doesn't necssarily disqualify him from having experienced the rigours of a life unprotected.

So, after six months working for his Godfather and then his father, where did he go?

He didn't get that role. But got another. And stayed pretty much within the realm of politics until he eventually became a member of parliament.

So...his experience of anything which might be deemed 'the real world' in terms of economic survival seems limited to six months work experience between college and university.

He worked hard, very hard. Absolutely earned his place in his party. But he really doesn't understand. And we really aren't all in this together.

I just wish, that whilst they're doing what they're doing, what we all knew they'd do, that they'd just get on with it and stop trying to tell us that they feel the same pain, or face the same struggle.

K. I'll stop now.

What a great essay! You're so talented.

You guys were much better off when Hugh Grant was your PM. ;)

(I watched that movie again Friday night and it made me think of you.)

The only real difference is that our elite class gets a little more leeway to call themselves self-made, most of the time, and that power tends to hang around only two or three generations rather than for hundreds and hundreds of years. And that most of our elites can stay out of the limelight if they want to, more than those connected to british nobility at least, I think.

Wow. It's a close tie between Dana and TW for 'The Cellar's shortest poster'.;)

Seriously, a great post. While it's no surprise how coddled politicians with no financial or health care worries can make such decisions, it is instructive as to how coddled some of them were before they got into office.

Ahaa! Love that, Blue.

For clarity by the way, I am not suggesting that their lives have been without trouble or sorrows, or suffering, or fear. David Cameron and his wife suffered probably the harshest pain anybody ever could, when they buried their first child.

But even that becomes tainted when it enters the political arena. Their grief, and their experiences of emergency admissions and sleeping in hospital chairs, and the years of negotiating care for their son. It was offered to us as proof that he could be trusted with the NHS.

Safe in his hands he said. Of all things the NHS was close to his heart he said. Die hard leftie and general cynic that I am when it comes to politics, on that claim, and that alone, I believed him.

And now general practitioners, consultant specialists and hospital administrators, not best known for their collectivist attitudes, have joined with the nurses and other healthcare workers to condemn the scale of change this government is determined to usher through, and the remaining barriers to complete privatisation are being battered away.

Safe in his hands. I dont think so.

Listen, kid, we're all in it together.

They might call themselves self-made, but few are. Money begets money. The ability to move upward in the US is diminishing.

From Wiki

There comes a point, doesn't there, where a person has enough money to live more than comfortably, to invest and create and luxuriate in? And beyond that, making even MORE money is rather obscene and irrelevant, except to those without.

So excuse the fuck out of me if I don't sympathize with cutting tax rates on the wealthiest, while reducing benefits to the poor and sick. It's pure greed, plain and simple. The people in charge, elected and otherwise, need to realize that greed will do them (and everyone else) in, eventually.

EVERYBODY SING! :snapfingerssmilie:

Stormieweather has said everything I'd like to.

I think it's an illness, that need for more and more power and money. It makes no sense to me, and I don't think you'll find it in whatever DSM is the next one because it's all entangled with that whole "american dream" (or whatever is comparable in your homeland) thing, and those who would dare find such insane wealth and power, well...insane, are nothing more than the greenest of envious (guilt and shame have been successful stomping boots since the beginning of mankind, though they're usually employed in religion as tools to scare us into submission.)

So what part of our US Constitution gives you a right to take from others and give to someone else? I can't follow your logic.

Explain "greed", and "enough money" and "comfortable" and what is "MORE money"? as compared to what? Who gets to decide? Describe and define the term "Wealth" and "Fair Share" as the POS president like to use all the time. What is it to you? What should it be to the masses? Under our current Constitution of the United States where does is describe these definitions? In a Free Market Economy who gets to say what the tax rates should be on the "Wealthiest"? Who are they compared to your income? Who gets the Authority to define that?

GO!

Well, apparently the wealthy do. Thats the problem.

Cool. Define "Wealthy".

So would "Wealthy" be someone who makes 1) $100 a week more than you? 2) $200 a week more than you? 3) $400 a week more than you? 5)$1000 more a week than you? 6) Or someone who just is not on public assistance? 7) for fun... $10,000 more a week than you?

How are you suppose to define terms that are completely subjective?

In a civil society, everyone is going to get fucked over one way or another. It just depends on how you look at it.

My point exactly. SO what is "Wealthy"? Because that seems to be the watch word in this day and age. Please define. That seems to be the term that defines those who think they give enough and those that don't.

Is this your senior year - PH45?

Its more than that. It is how jobs get destroyed.

I know that is your point. I agree that wealthy cannot be defined as 'someone who makes more than me'. Yet, there has to be some benchmark that determines whether someone is wealthy or not in the eyes of the state. A benchmark that both makes practical economic sense (yes that is subjective as well) and will not get people marching with pitchforks. This benchmark is going to end up being completely subjective anyways so trying to find a rational one is pointless.

Honestly, I feel that most of the anger is not against people who make more than them but the feeling that they are disproportionally bearing the load (many possible definitions) while these "other" people are not. The "poor" are just mooching off your tax dollars. The "rich" are just using the law and society to make them money for themselves without paying back. This is not fair but any 'debt solution' must take this feeling into account. The details are not important. What is important is that the "poor" feels like the "rich" are going to pay more in taxes and the "rich" need to feel that the "poor" are not mooching off their tax dollars. It is more symbolic than anything.

My senior year was two years ago. I am planning on completing my Master's in a month and going to move on to a PhD once that is completed.

I don't mean to come off as an arrogant d-bag (it is largely tone which can be hard to pick up online) but why you ask?

No reason really - I kinda thought/remembered that you were close to graduating
I just effed up the masters part. Congrats!

Thanks! I appreciate it.

Cool, define it. TO date no one can do it.



In a Free Market Economy the "State" has no legal or Constitutional Right to define it.

Well, sort of depends doesn't it? Homeless dude with no income teamed up with the disgruntled Anarchist who went to Harvard and can't pay his educational degree in French Lit off.... who is more worthy?

Not how the press is making it out to be...

Great, define it in quantifiable terms that can be measured and studied for validity.......

What is really "symbolic" here is the idea that the "poor" exists.... Bull shit.... fucking DEFINE IT!. "This is not Fair"... fucking someone define "FAIR". "Feeling" My ass. Where in our Constitution is shit defined as "Fair"? This is totally manufactured BS for a collective re-election campaign. And guess what? In 4 years the poor will still be poor, and the disadvantaged will still be disadvantaged..... It is fucking Kabuki Theater....

YW - PhD eh .... We'll have to call you Dr. soon enough.

Your timing sounds perfect too - the job market should start picking up in 4-6 years too.

???

Of course no one can define 'wealthy' because it is entirely subjective. It means something completely different to a middle class American, lower class American, and piss poor Somali. Yet, you can't just use that to justify throwing away tax brackets all together (or whatever point you are trying to make).

What is your overall point BTW?

I've already "allowed" my friends and family to call me Doctor. None have taken up on the offer yet. Not sure why.... :(

Yeah. It largely depends on the field. I wasn't in a good position two years ago (Structural engineering was shit) but my goal is to make myself marketable enough that I will get a job no matter how bad the economy is doing.

We're all in this together!
 

this totally reminds me of someone... someone... hm...

Attachment 38529

Rich/Wealthy, is making/having enough money to take advantage of the myriad of loopholes and shelters in the tax code.

That cartoon is brillliant V :)

merc, I don't know exactly how wealthy and poor should be defined. But in the UK we have a recognised 'poverty line'. If you're income is at or below that line, you are officially 'poor'.

This is the official definition of poor:

This then is what qualifies as 'poor' in my country:

http://www.cpag.org.uk/povertyfacts/index.htm



So, what is 'wealthy'?

Well, in our tax codes, those with earnings above £150,000 per annum are in the highest tax bracket. For tax purposes they are wealthy. There are, however, gradations of wealth, and we also recognise the 'superwealthy'.

Personally, I don't consider £150k per anum 'wealthy' unless is is coupled with a personal 'fortune' and valuable property.

But that's one of the problems really. because the 'wealthy' seldom count their wealth by earnings alone. Unlike the 'poor'. their annual earnings represent only a portion of their actual income/wealth. For the poor, there are only wages. And those wages are taxed as they are earned, and again as they are spent.

For the affluent, with property, investments, shares and a bank balance with lots of zeros, tax works very differently. The money they earn and which is taxed when they earn and when they spend is not the whole of their finances. And the bulk of their wealth is taxed very differently from annual income.

The tax codes recognise poor and rich. My government has cut taxes to the highest earners, whilst stripping away benefits from people living below, on, and just above the official poverty line.

An interesting documentary following the lives of four children living below the poverty line in modern Britain. As the voice over tells us, they speak for the 3.5 million children living in poverty here today.


One of the things that angers me is the disparity in cost of living on basic needs. It isn't just that the poor can only afford the worst of everything, and sometimes not even that. It's the fact that everything is less value for money. The damp in t he house that wrecks your clothes, and means you have to replace them sooner. The cost of electricity and gas for your home costs more if you are so poor that you pay through metering. You pay more, for less. You don't get any of the savings that come from being able to py regularly, upfront through direct debit. You don't get the savings that come from being able to invest, up front, the purchase cost for your television, your friedge or your washing machine. These things are only available on credit, and the only credit that will touch these people with a ten foot barge pole, is the high interest variety.

Everywhich way.

The rich have loopholes, the poor have potholes.

I think the attitude of, "Fuck you, I don't care if you live or die, I got mine" borders on sociopathic.

It's not just greed and it's not jealousy.

It's the utter lack of empathy and appreciation for the community within which we live. It's the narrow minded view that the wealthy person got where they did without a lick of help from anyone, that they don't owe anyone anything, and that the less fortunate are not their problem. It's arrogance and snobbishness (amazingly, many of the poor have this same pathetic attitude).

I wrote the above, then found the below article, which says what I was trying to say, but better:

Based on that last sentence, our society is immoral and sociopathic. And becoming more so by the day.


Note: ~~ = sections of article removed for brevity.

Sciopathic society


Also, who decides what wealth is? I think that people who are truly rich know that they are wealthy.

Personally, I find it immeasurably insulting and enraging that the wealthy continue to stack the deck in their favor at the expense of those who are not wealthy. I'm all for doing the best you can, and living with what you've accomplished, just as long as we are all playing by the same fucking rules.

Maybe they aren't sociopathic and you just don't understand their positions?

Oh, I think we understand where they stand.

Oh yes. I understand perfectly where they stand.

Are we talking about the top 1% or conservatives in general? Either way, calling them all sociopaths is a clear lack of understanding.

I remember very clearly, Margeret Thatcher, the doyenne of British conservative politics, and still the beating heart of the party in terms of its political views, telling us that: 'There is no such thing as society'

That is a sociopathic political stance.

What I actually said was that this attitude "borders on sociopathic"...the, I got mine, screw you, attitude.

Yeah. Trying to argue that they're literally all sociopaths is obviously false. Arguing that their worldview and policy positions take a stance that fundamentally sociopathically disregards the suffering of others - strangers - is one that, whether you agree or not, is logically sound.

Right, and we weren't talking about the Joe Bob with a Job family down the street who have an inground pool.

At least I wasn't: I mean the "have to get more more more more more and don't care about your less less less less less." It's a sickness, and it's detrimental to more than just the sickie.

But those who consider themselves 1% (though really only the 40 or 50%, which is pretty funny) love to twist it around that we're all envious of Joe Bob with a Job for having that pool.

How's that twisty-turny Thing working Out for you, merc?

I think saying people who hold the views discussed above are sociopathic is to go too far. I think it's misguided and based on high-minded notions with no relevance to reality, but then so are most political beliefs.
There is one main problem with the attitude that if people want to be rich, then they should work hard, and if they are poor, then clearly they just didn't try hard enough.
Pretty much anyone can do it, if they try really hard. Margaret Thatcher came from a humble background. However, saying that anyone can do it isn't the same as saying that everyone can do it. Because that is obviously not the case. Some people will always be poor. Not everyone gets to come first in a race as long as they run as fast as they can.
This is what I think a lot of privileged people fail to grasp. Who exactly do they think will come round to clean their house if everybody lifts themselves up from the bottom? It's simply impossible.
Therefore, there will always need to be something provided for the poorest people, so they are not living in poverty.

It is logically sound just in the same way that it is logically sound to state liberals (leftists in general) are thieves who steal money since technically the money we earn is our property. The problem with both arguments is its framing. Every political philosophy has its positive and negative aspects and how you view a philosophy largely depends on you personally look at it. So yes, we can look at the glass half empty and assume that the mindset associated with economic conservatism is selfish and be logically sound. Yet, that only paints half the picture. The other half is looking at economic conservatism from another way. Some people truly believe that the best way to help someone is to let them accomplish something themselves. Give a someone a rod and not a fish type mindset. This, I am the first to admit, has pitfalls but it also makes a lot of sense in many other situations. Helping people can create dependencies and there is some truth to the idea that if we let everyone on the boat, everyone drowns.

People with those of mindsets are not necessarily selfish people. Some of these are the most giving people but they would rather give on their own accord and not have government intervention.

Sociopathic behavior is a gradient and people's behavior is very dynamic in that sense so their isn't that much difference. It isn't a black and white divider between sociopathic and borderline sociopathic (which is a real thing) behavior.

How is that exactly sociopathic? I understand how sociopaths could gravitate towards that but I don't see how it sociopathic itself?

Yeah, I agree. While I find conservatism, especially in its least compromising iterations - think Ayn Rand - more or less reprehensible, I understand that there are definitely respectable groundings of the philosophy. That's sort of what I meant by logically sound - you can defend the position logically, but not necessarily while accurately doing the other side justice. That's why I tend to stay away from attacking conservative ideology - I take after my utter idol Rachel Maddow in trying to make it a conversation about POLICY, and INSTITUTIONS, and all of that sort of stuff, without necessarily making the conversation about the foundations of the ideology.