ForumGarden

I spent some time watching Billionaires Paradise Inside Necker Island and followed it with The Super Rich and Us

And now I can't wait for the revolution.

It seems like the idea that super rich people's money 'trickles down' is now in question and that the opposite is now thought to happen, and more to the point, it doesn't help anybodies lifestyle.The poor get poorer and the rich have to build bigger walls to protect themselves.

That is where they think it trickles down. Those poor rich people need us poor poor people to build those ever growing walls. Its those crumbs we have to live off.

Bruv;1471304 wrote: I spent some time watching Billionaires Paradise Inside Necker Island and followed it with The Super Rich and Us

And now I can't wait for the revolution.

It seems like the idea that super rich people's money 'trickles down' is now in question and that the opposite is now thought to happen, and more to the point, it doesn't help anybodies lifestyle.The poor get poorer and the rich have to build bigger walls to protect themselves.


I watched both programmes. It seems that "trickles down" is a con. What a surprise :-5

And it was suggested that home ownership for the majority is fast disappearing.

theia;1471309 wrote:

And it was suggested that home ownership for the majority is fast disappearing.


Not really surprising. Ever since "Right To Buy", Council Tenants have been buting their homes at a disgustingly discount price, then selling them on to property magnates at the full market price for them to rent out at inflated prices as "Desirable Residences". In the meantime those that sold their home set about putting their names down on the Council Housing list again.

FourPart;1471310 wrote: Not really surprising. Ever since "Right To Buy", Council Tenants have been buting their homes at a disgustingly discount price, then selling them on to property magnates at the full market price for them to rent out at inflated prices as "Desirable Residences". In the meantime those that sold their home set about putting their names down on the Council Housing list again.


The programme also suggested that Buy To Let was making it harder for first time buyers as it was forcing up the prices at the lower end of the market. Then it mentioned that wealthy investors were now looking at other areas outside London for property investment. Worrying.

Hmm

If all of a sudden I received an fantastic amount of money, I would move. Pay people to help me move.

I would pay somebody for a big piece of land. pay people to build my new home. It would be so big I need to pay people to help maintain it. It would be way too much for Mrs. Dog to keep up, so we need paid help.

There are so many toys I want, somebody has a job to make it.

I think I gave ya all the message.

Home I now live in will be in good hands.

tude dog;1471329 wrote: Hmm

If all of a sudden I received an fantastic amount of money, I would move. Pay people to help me move.

I would pay somebody for a big piece of land. pay people to build my new home. It would be so big I need to pay people to help maintain it. It would be way too much for Mrs. Dog to keep up, so we need paid help.

There are so many toys I want, somebody has a job to make it.

I think I gave ya all the message.

Home I now live in will be in good hands.


How many times would you move?

How many houses would you live in at one time ?

How many cars would you drive ?

How many more meals would you eat ?

That was one of the scenarios put forward by a very very rich man as an argument against trickle down, his personal fortune rose, but his needs didn't so trickle down is negligible.

Food banks and homelessness rises in both our countries, alongside luxury car sales, property prices, something is just not working they way they tell us it should.

I never call it 'trickle' down, I call it 'piss' down or 'piss' on, as that would be more apt.

Bruv: "How many times would you move?

How many houses would you live in at one time ?

How many cars would you drive ?"

Conspicuous Consumption, it is called. A person's life can be ruined for a few thousand while these pricks have more & more & more. It's sickening to me, as they are usually the ones complaining about social services so others can have some sort of decent life in one home & means of transport. In the U.S., that includes medical care as well. We owe our souls to the company store & the company is not a cooperative.

AnneBoleyn;1471336 wrote: I never call it 'trickle' down, I call it 'piss' down or 'piss' on, as that would be more apt.

Bruv: "How many times would you move?

How many houses would you live in at one time ?

How many cars would you drive ?"

Conspicuous Consumption, it is called. A person's life can be ruined for a few thousand while these pricks have more & more & more. It's sickening to me, as they are usually the ones complaining about social services so others can have some sort of decent life in one home & means of transport. In the U.S., that includes medical care as well. We owe our souls to the company store & the company is not a cooperative.


That's no language for a Lady.

If you can watch those links you will see conspicuous consumption alright.

Bruv;1471338 wrote: That's no language for a Lady.




:yh_blush

Who paid for all this money that you suddenly came into? Off whose back?

FourPart;1471310 wrote: In the meantime those that sold their home set about putting their names down on the Council Housing list again. They can't do that.

Bruv;1471304 wrote: It seems like the idea that super rich people's money 'trickles down' is now in question ....


Were you ever fooled by it?



Snowfire;1471306 wrote: That is where they think it trickles down. Those poor rich people need us poor poor people to build those ever growing walls. Its those crumbs we have to live off.


Yes, I think you've got it. The thing is that with prices going up, a pay rise is needed ..... but try telling that to the rich! "How ungratefull! It's thanks to us that you got a job to begin with, isn't it! What more do you want?"

Oscar Namechange;1471359 wrote: They can't do that.


Immediately ?

High Threshold;1471371 wrote: Were you ever fooled by it?


I always listen to experts, it would be wrong not to.

Bruv;1471378 wrote: I always listen to experts, it would be wrong not to.


During my time with the RAF in Germany we listened to BFBS as standard entertainment during “working hours. A Brit I knew well from Lancashire would always get his back up whenever some structure (anywhere in the world) would fail and the radio announcer would repeat the same old adage, “Experts are being called in to sort out the problem, to which my friend would always reply, “Experts eh! I wonder who built the damned thing if not experts?! I find that to be a healthy way to look at it.

A friend of mine used to say an 'Expert was a drip under pressure' which sums it all up really.

Listening to experts and believing everything they say is two different things.

I listen to everybody with something to say, then filter out with my own experience who to believe, doesn't always work of course.

Bruv;1471394 wrote: ...... I listen to everybody with something to say, then filter out with my own experience who to believe ...


A-ha! That's why you read what I have to say in the mornings ....... then ignore me the rest of the day. :wah:

yes did you see virgin trains tycoon sir richard branson and his wife and he got jumped on my his misus

Bruv;1471377 wrote: Immediately ? Once you've bought and sold a council property, the only way you can do It again, Is by changing your details. Why do you think Tommy Robinson got banged up for mortgage fraud ?

High Threshold;1471400 wrote: A-ha! That's why you read what I have to say in the mornings ....... then ignore me the rest of the day. :wah:


No comment

FourPart;1471310 wrote: In the meantime those that sold their home set about putting their names down on the Council Housing list again.


Oscar Namechange;1471415 wrote: Once you've bought and sold a council property, the only way you can do It again, Is by changing your details. Why do you think Tommy Robinson got banged up for mortgage fraud ?


I am pretty sure there are many people that are now housed in Council homes that have previously sold ex-council homes they bought earlier due to financial problems.

It would be another question whether they are eligible to buy their latest home.

Buying a second council house wasn't part of it.

AA grumpy;1471403 wrote: yes did you see virgin trains tycoon sir richard branson and his wife and he got jumped on my his misus


No...........to be honest.

Bruv;1471417 wrote: I am pretty sure there are many people that are now housed in Council homes that have previously sold ex-council homes they bought earlier due to financial problems.

It would be another question whether they are eligible to buy their latest home.

Buying a second council house wasn't part of it.


Then provide some evidence.

Oscar Namechange;1471424 wrote: Then provide some evidence.


No.......why ?

Bruv;1471426 wrote: No.......why ?
Because you can't. It's just your assumption.

Oscar Namechange;1471427 wrote: Because you can't. It's just your assumption.


My assumption of what exactly ?

Show me with your evidence how wrong I am.............should be easy enough.

I've searched on Google & although I can't find anywhere that specifies that you can't apply for a Council property after having previously bought & sold one on Right to Buy, I can't find anywhere that disqualifies applications either. The only one I found that came close was that you would be ineligible if you already had an application to buy registered.

This is a typical example of how the Right to Buy scam was clearly intended as a way for other Tories to feather their own nests:

Right-to-buy housing shame: Third of ex-council homes now owned by rich landlords including family of ex-Tory minister Ian Gow - Mirror Online

"Let them eat cake." Heads are going to roll.

Bruv;1471332 wrote: How many times would you move?

How many houses would you live in at one time ?

How many cars would you drive ?

How many more meals would you eat ?

That was one of the scenarios put forward by a very very rich man as an argument against trickle down, his personal fortune rose, but his needs didn't so trickle down is negligible.

Food banks and homelessness rises in both our countries, alongside luxury car sales, property prices, something is just not working they way they tell us it should.


Oh I see. You seem to argue that wealthy people don't have enough money to cure all the problems of the poor, disenfranchised, disaffected or what ever underclass you champion.

I AGREE

I answered OP in the personal short term. The positive of my personal lifestyle choices which would be a fraction of my wealth.

What I didn't say was with all the money I now have, needs to be invested, and invested wisely. Wise investments create jobs.

tude dog;1471457 wrote: Oh I see. You seem to argue that wealthy people don't have enough money to cure all the problems of the poor, disenfranchised, disaffected or what ever underclass you champion.

I AGREE

I answered OP in the personal short term. The positive of my personal lifestyle choices which would be a fraction of my wealth.

What I didn't say was with all the money I now have, needs to be invested, and invested wisely. Wise investments create jobs.


I don't champion any underclass, I do agree with evidence that I can see with my own eyes and that statistics are showing that there is obscene richness beside an increasing decline in the average working mans wealth.

Of course there have always been rich and poor, but the differential is such these days that the money is flowing upward to the richest and not 'working' for anybody.

Otherwise why would the richest nation in the history of the world have to rely on food banks to feed some of it's people ?

Bruv;1471463 wrote: I don't champion any underclass, I do agree with evidence that I can see with my own eyes and that statistics are showing that there is obscene richness beside an increasing decline in the average working mans wealth.

Of course there have always been rich and poor, but the differential is such these days that the money is flowing upward to the richest and not 'working' for anybody.

Otherwise why would the richest nation in the history of the world have to rely on food banks to feed some of it's people ?


Our nation does not rely on food banks.

We got something here often called FOOD STAMPS

Bruv;1471463 wrote: I don't champion any underclass, I do agree with evidence that I can see with my own eyes and that statistics are showing that there is obscene richness beside an increasing decline in the average working mans wealth.

Of course there have always been rich and poor, but the differential is such these days that the money is flowing upward to the richest and not 'working' for anybody.

Otherwise why would the richest nation in the history of the world have to rely on food banks to feed some of it's people ?


Food banks.

In this country we supply SNAP

Good at any groecery store.

tude dog;1471469 wrote: Our nation does not rely on food banks.

We got something here often called FOOD STAMPS
This is an argument previously held in FG. Food stamps are demeaning & open to abuse. Those who are issued with them are liable to sell them at less than their face value in order to have cash with which they can pay for other necessities, not covered by food stamps.

Whether the budget is in food stamps or cash, they are still a unit of currency & there are still going to be other priorites, such as heating, electricity, rent, clothing, travel, toiletries, etc. It has to be decided which is more important. Whether to maintain a roof over one's head - to heat it - or go hungry.

Since being in Full Time employment now for 3 months, after previously having been on benefits I still haven't amassed the annual income at which I start to pay tax. This is not because of being in a low paid job - on the contrary, it's quite a well paid job - but it reflects the abysmal income that the growing millions have to survive on. I'm pretty good at handling my budget, and am in no way a big spender, but even so I found that I was regularly having to dip into my savings from a couple of years previous, which had gone down from £2500 to about £150. I dread to thik where I would have been had I not got this job. I qualified for help from Food Banks, and had been referred on more than one occasion, but my personal pride refused to let me resort to them & chose to go without. I know it's no shame to be in that situation, but there is still that personal stigma attached.

What infuriates me is that state of the country where this sort of thing is getting worse by the day, whilst not only are the Government increasing tax rates on the lower paid groups, but giving tax breaks to the higher bands. Furthermore, while there are people going hungry & being put on the streets because they can't afford to pay their rent, we are still paying billions in aid to countries such as India, who have their own Space Programme. The Government needs to get its priorities right.

Otherwise why would the richest nation in the history of the world have to have such a thing as FOOD STAMPS or SNAP to feed some of it's people ?

Just like the Great Depression eh?

The question really lies in how you define 'the richest nation'. The chances are that it's either the highest units of currency in the country, or the average number of units of currency per capita in the country.

Depending on the 3 methods of calculating averages (Mean, Mode & Median) you would get 3 totally different averages, but regardless of the method, it all boild down to the fact that the vast majority of the country's wealth is owned by an extremely small minority. Once you take them out of the equation the chances are that it's not much better off than any other 3rd World country.

Bruv;1471416 wrote: No comment


It must be après-midi.

FourPart;1471475 wrote: The question really lies in how you define 'the richest nation'.


The Nation with the most wealth ?

It doesn't really matter, you could take any western advanced economy where the new phenomenon of Food Banks have cropped up comparatively recently to fill a need.

FourPart;1471475 wrote: The question really lies in how you define 'the richest nation'.


Ah! Now you're on to something! My pet subject. The highest number of gazillionaires? Natioinal net worth? Highest average income? Abscence of lowest individual income or destitute? Percentage of population above national minum wage?

Bruv;1471484 wrote: The Nation with the most wealth ?

It doesn't really matter, you could take any western advanced economy where the new phenomenon of Food Banks have cropped up comparatively recently to fill a need.
"Food Banks" aren't exactly 'new'. Rebranded, perhaps, but in effect they are nothing more than the age old Soup Kitchens.

FourPart;1471519 wrote: "Food Banks" aren't exactly 'new'. Rebranded, perhaps, but in effect they are nothing more than the age old Soup Kitchens.


Did you ever see any 'Soup Kitchens' prior to the rebranded Food bank surge ?

You are focusing on a name, I missed the Soup Kitchens in my life time, but now we have Food Banks, so there were many years when there was no need for such things.

The Salvation Army & other worthy organisations have never stopped running them.

FourPart;1471537 wrote: The Salvation Army & other worthy organisations have never stopped running them.


For homeless down and outs ?

I agree, but now in lots of towns there is a greater need than the previous 20/30 years.

Kent banks