The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Bletchleyite]

How are they a ponzi scheme? Apart from the schemes run by the government the money is there in the fund invested to be ready to pay out. You may have seen the strikes in the university sector when the benefits were cut following a revaluation.

Must admit I didn't know that, I thought they were all based on the current workers paying for the current pensioners. I still think defined contribution is a better, more realistic approach, though.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Pubs are not greedy. It's barely possible for them to keep their head above water now. Nobody (bar Tim Martin) makes a fortune running a pub; it's basically a lifestyle choice that'll get you minimum wage if you're lucky.

Landlords aren't greedy, but pubcos are another matter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2025 ==

Don't forget these profits go to shareholders many of which are pension funds paying our pensions in future. Not all shareholders are fat cats, I'm willing to bet most aren't.

Yes, but those pension funds (and other major corporate investors / equity funds) tend to be absolutely ruthless in the way they want businesses they control / influence to be run: maximum profit, which is rarely compatible with such businesses being generally good for society or in many cases for their staff!

 

[bleeder4]

Landlords aren't greedy, but pubcos are another matter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2025 ==



Yes, but those pension funds (and other major corporate investors / equity funds) tend to be absolutely ruthless in the way they want businesses they control / influence to be run: maximum profit, which is rarely compatible with such businesses being generally good for society or in many cases for their staff!

The business I work for is owned by private equity and, just like you said, is focused entirely on maximum profit to boost dividends for shareholders. But why would we not be? We're a commercial enterprise so of course we're focused on maximum profit. It would be corporate suicide if we weren't. It's a dog eat dog world out there. And the mental wellbeing of the staff is perfectly fine thank you.

 

[RT4038]

Yes, but those pension funds (and other major corporate investors / equity funds) tend to be absolutely ruthless in the way they want businesses they control / influence to be run: maximum profit, which is rarely compatible with such businesses being generally good for society or in many cases for their staff!

Well, what do you expect? They want maximum profit to ensure that they can pay out the pensioners when they have call on the fund. I am not sure how you could regulate them to be 'generally good for society' rather than looking after the interests of their members. That is just a tax by another name.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2025 ==

Must admit I didn't know that, I thought they were all based on the current workers paying for the current pensioners. I still think defined contribution is a better, more realistic approach, though.

I am incredulous....... This is true for Central and Local Government pension schemes, but they are not going to going bust/ ceasing trading etc in the future and have means to guarantee the future pensions with tax revenue.

Most companies have moved to Defined Contribution schemes by now.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

The business I work for is owned by private equity and, just like you said, is focused entirely on maximum profit to boost dividends for shareholders. But why would we not be? We're a commercial enterprise so of course we're focused on maximum profit. It would be corporate suicide if we weren't. It's a dog eat dog world out there. And the mental wellbeing of the staff is perfectly fine thank you.

Businesses exist within society, and creating social problems (which many do with their working practices) is not beneficial to society as a whole, which is why they need regulating. Making a decent profit is fine, but when it gets to the point where further increasing the profit creates problems (and often financial or social costs) for society, that's not fine. See water companies as an example (or privatised utilities generally).

I made no specific comment on the 'mental wellbeing of staff', but not sure how you can speak for everyone at the company where you work - it may or may not be the case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2025 ==

Well, what do you expect? They want maximum profit to ensure that they can pay out the pensioners when they have call on the fund. I am not sure how you could regulate them to be 'generally good for society' rather than looking after the interests of their members. That is just a tax by another name.

Regulate how they operate, as appropriate for the sector - that isn't 'tax by another name'.

E.g. water companies - if they are going to be privatised they ought to be regulated much more tightly so they have to maintain infrastructure properly, and cannot just dump sewage into watercourses, lakes and the sea because it's cheaper for them to do so. This is the sort of thing which happens when increasing profit is the only desired outcome, and governments don't put sufficient regulation in place.

 

[RT4038]

Businesses exist within society, and creating social problems (which many do with their working practices) is not beneficial to society as a whole, which is why they need regulating. Making a decent profit is fine, but when it gets to the point where further increasing the profit creates problems (and often financial or social costs) for society, that's not fine. See water companies as an example (or privatised utilities generally).

They are regulated - businesses are not allowed to collude and be in cartels etc but it is a natural human trait to 'maximise profits' , be it how much you can sell your labour for or how much profit you can make from a business activity. Your definition of a 'decent profit' may well be different to mine; likewise your definition of a 'decent wage' which is beneficial to society will be different to mine.

 

[SteveP29]

How are they a ponzi scheme?

If I understand it correctly, pensions being paid out now are being paid for by the investment of the contributions of those currently working.
When we are old enough to draw pension, it will be financed by the investment of the contributions of the generations below us.

In a Ponzi, your 'profit' on your investment is dependent on many more people paying in at the next level down from you, which, in effect, is what the above is also doing.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

They are regulated - businesses are not allowed to collude and be in cartels etc but it is a natural human trait to 'maximise profits' , be it how much you can sell your labour for or how much profit you can make from a business activity. Your definition of a 'decent profit' may well be different to mine; likewise your definition of a 'decent wage' which is beneficial to society will be different to mine.

Many aspects of how they operate are very definitely not regulated sufficiently. See the example of water companies which I've already given. There are plenty more fields where companies can and do engage in antisocial practices of one type of another, and nothing is done to stop it.

I don't think I mentioned anything about wages - you are now simply making things up!

 

[uglymonkey]

We do seem to be in a continuing downward spiral, or "doom loop" I feel. " Managed decline" I think BR called it. What exactly are we getting for all these taxes, more and more, squeeze,squeeze, squeeze? Everything is broken, people are just- just holding on hoping something turns up. No hope, no sunny uplands just never ending "drudge" trying to keep your head above water. What disposable income?????? etc..etc..

 

[JamesT]

If I understand it correctly, pensions being paid out now are being paid for by the investment of the contributions of those currently working.
When we are old enough to draw pension, it will be financed by the investment of the contributions of the generations below us.

In a Ponzi, your 'profit' on your investment is dependent on many more people paying in at the next level down from you, which, in effect, is what the above is also doing.

That's how the state pension and the civil service pension work, but that's not how defined benefit schemes work in general. See all the schemes that have closed to new entrants so there are no people at the next level down. They are obliged by the pensions regulator to be able to meet their liabilities (i.e. future pensioner payouts), one of the legacies of Robert Maxwell.
The payouts to current pensioners should be coming out of the returns on the investments in the fund, which are the past contributions of workers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Landlords aren't greedy, but pubcos are another matter.

Indeed. Stuff like the beer tie have long been controversial due to screwing over landlords.

 

[DoubleLemon]

One area that we could get a decent amount is to tax those companies who don't operate shops but ship from warehousing. They should be taxed an additional amount as they will pay lower business rates.

• Bricks-and-mortar retailers paid £7,168mn in business rates for 2018-19, or 2.3% of their retail sales
• Online retailers only paid £457mn (6% of total retail rates bill), around 0.6% of online traders’ sales.

Latest Business Rates | Future of the High Street - The Centre For Retail Research

I know rates were cut for the pandemic and are going back soon (if not already) but online retailers should be targeted specifically as the money they make is staggering.

 

[ainsworth74]

That is because taxes are too low. Aside from where you have significant other incomes like Switzerland or Dubai, you can either have a low tax low service country (e.g. USA) or a high tax high service country (Scandinavia). Messing around in the middle doesn't work and never has.

I think that's perhaps part of it but I do reckon a not inconsiderable reason for our issues is the over-utilisation (and indeed inappropriate usage) of private contracting/outsourcing. Take for instance children's homes which is one that's bubbling away in the background, take a recent NAO report covered by the BBC here:

The cost of residential care for vulnerable children in England has nearly doubled in five years but many children still do not receive appropriate care, says a report from the independent public spending watchdog.

The National Audit Office (NAO) says councils on average spent £318,400 on each child placed in a children's home in the year ending March 2024.

But these huge sums do not represent value for money, the report concludes.

"I do not know where the money is being spent," says Ezra Quentin, now 20, who recalls smashed windows and broken glass in the showers of one of the care homes he was placed in.

Ezra, who now works with Become, a care leavers' charity, first went into care aged nine.

Originally from Greater Manchester, he remembers being moved to a different home every few months, often many miles from where he originally lived.

He thinks he had up to 60 different placements and although he has spent most of his life in Salford and Stockport, he has lived in Wales, Liverpool, Crewe and Leeds.

His education was considerably disrupted but he did achieve C grades in all of his GCSEs.

At one home the windows were boarded up because of smashed windows.

"We were told to wear shoes if we wanted to shower because they didn't clean up the glass properly," he told BBC News.

The NAO report found rising costs were driven by a record number of children in care, the increasing complexity of their needs - and a profit driven market.

In 2023-24 councils spent £3.1bn on residential placements, in a market the report describes as "dysfunctional".

It says councils are struggling to find enough appropriate placements, arguing that this allows many private care providers to cherry pick the children they take, based on how much support they need and how much profit this allows.

The report draws on previous research which showed the 15 largest providers of children's homes making average profits of more than 22%.

Report author Emma Wilson says several factors contribute to rising costs but with the overwhelming majority (84%) of children's homes run for profit: "It's really important to get right that balance between supply of available care home places and demand."

Cost of children's homes doubles but care can be poor

Huge sums spent on children's residential care in England do not represent value for money, says spending watchdog.

www.bbc.co.uk

So we have care costs that have doubled in five years so it's now costing £320k per year per child on average, at the same time that the 15 largest providers are seeing profit margins of 22% and the standard of care provided is often incredibly poor. Indeed that poor care induces even more costs down the line when the broken children that come out of these homes inevitably need more state support in the form of healthcare and benefits plus eventually they may well end up within the criminal justice system bringing even more costs. We know that looked after children are more likely to end up in custody than their peers.

Of course there will always been a place for private providers to help accommodate fluxes in demand for services. But it seems to me that we have a sector which is costing over £3bn per year (and that was 23/24, I bet its more now), is providing extremely poor outcomes all to often but is doing a very good job of taking taxpayer money and converting it into private profits.

You can doubtlessly find similar examples in adult social care and in care homes for elderly people. Vast amounts of money being spent by taxpayers on substandard care whilst large profits are extracted for the privilege of this.

State provision is not going to be a panacea, children's home have always been subject to stereotypes for a reason even when many more were state operated, but it seems to me that if we want to try and get better value for money from the tax we do collect we could start by trying to actually work out what is the best way of delivering a service (whatever it is). Because a lot of the current delivery models seem to excel solely at maximising private profits on the back of taxpayer expenditure on the basis of, it seems to me, and ideology that market forces always deliver the best outcome.

 

[RT4038]

Many aspects of how they operate are very definitely not regulated sufficiently. See the example of water companies which I've already given. There are plenty more fields where companies can and do engage in antisocial practices of one type of another, and nothing is done to stop it.

Well yes, but that is an issue of regulation and its enforcement. If the company is not regulated sufficiently, or enforced sufficiently, then that is for Society (through its representative, the Government) to take up. Exactly the same as individuals are regulated and the regulations enforced (or not) and the behaviour of individuals if the regulation is lax or enforcement no existant. No-one, individual or business, is going to self regulate in this scenario!

I don't think I mentioned anything about wages - you are now simply making things up!

I didn't say you brought it up - I am giving a micro example of that individuals maximise their profit when selling their labour, very similar to companies maximising their profits on a macro level.

We do seem to be in a continuing downward spiral, or "doom loop" I feel. " Managed decline" I think BR called it. What exactly are we getting for all these taxes, more and more, squeeze,squeeze, squeeze? Everything is broken, people are just- just holding on hoping something turns up. No hope, no sunny uplands just never ending "drudge" trying to keep your head above water. What disposable income?????? etc..etc..

See post #2362. We have kept awarding 'ourselves' more and more, beyond the level that is affordable. Plus spending to the extent that this 'standard of living' is now normal and expected. Reset required - ouch - so inevitably rather the eyes of greed and envy are going to other peoples wealth - why not just confiscate that to fund this society and individual lifestyle.

We do seem to be in a continuing downward spiral, or "doom loop" I feel. " Managed decline" I think BR called it. What exactly are we getting for all these taxes, more and more, squeeze,squeeze, squeeze? Everything is broken, people are just- just holding on hoping something turns up. No hope, no sunny uplands just never ending "drudge" trying to keep your head above water. What disposable income?????? etc..etc..

There are plenty of people with plenty of disposable income ..... just take a look around.

 

[bleeder4]

One area that we could get a decent amount is to tax those companies who don't operate shops but ship from warehousing. They should be taxed an additional amount as they will pay lower business rates.

Latest Business Rates | Future of the High Street - The Centre For Retail Research

I know rates were cut for the pandemic and are going back soon (if not already) but online retailers should be targeted specifically as the money they make is staggering.

The problem with that is it would be hard to differentiate between small businesses and large online giants. For example, a tax on platforms like Amazon would likely increase the fees charged to the many small and medium-sized businesses that use the site to reach customers. This would disproportionately impact smaller sellers who depend on the platform for their business. You're also reducing consumer choice. Higher prices resulting from the tax could lead some consumers to reduce their Amazon purchases, especially for larger, more expensive items. This could also force some heavy Amazon shoppers to cut spending in other areas.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Don't forget these profits go to shareholders many of which are pension funds paying our pensions in future. Not all shareholders are fat cats, I'm willing to bet most aren't.

This line often gets trotted out and it's largely untrue.

Some large institutional investors are pension funds, but most are not. And even of those pension funds the actual change in investment value is through the share price changing, not through dividends, most of which get swallowed up by the pension funds' own fees and profits.

Tesco's largest shareholder is BlackRock. BP's largest shareholder is also BlackRock. BlackRock is not a pension fund.

Where do we think all this money goes?

Into Larry Fink and Ken Fisher's back pocket.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Well yes, but that is an issue of regulation and its enforcement. If the company is not regulated sufficiently, or enforced sufficiently, then that is for Society (through its representative, the Government) to take up. Exactly the same as individuals are regulated and the regulations enforced (or not) and the behaviour of individuals if the regulation is lax or enforcement no existant. No-one, individual or business, is going to self regulate in this scenario!

That's not really the case. You are basically saying that the only reason businesses and individuals don't engage in criminal / antisocial behaviour is because they are concerned about being caught. The reality is that the majority of small businesses and individuals wouldn't engage in criminal / antisocial behaviour anyway: it's the big corporations who will often push it to the maximum they think they can get away with if it makes them a little bit more profit. Even fines often aren't a deterrent if the extra profit gained by whatever they are doing is greater than the fine for doing so.

See post #2362. We have kept awarding 'ourselves' more and more, beyond the level that is affordable. Plus spending to the extent that this 'standard of living' is now normal and expected. Reset required - ouch - so inevitably rather the eyes of greed and envy are going to other peoples wealth - why not just confiscate that to fund this society and individual lifestyle.

Sure, that applies to some people, but it's certainly not a universal trait. The big issue here is housing. This country doesn't manufacture much any more, but the economy has to be seen to keep on 'growing'. We also don't build enough houses / flats for the increase in population levels. Those two factors have pushed house values (and therefore the proportion of people's income which goes for rent / mortgage payments) to an ever higher level. This is a problem which has only really affected post-boomer generations: the boomers bought their houses fairly cheap (compared to current prices), and are hanging on to them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

For example, a tax on platforms like Amazon would likely increase the fees charged to the many small and medium-sized businesses that use the site to reach customers. This would disproportionately impact smaller sellers who depend on the platform for their business.

Most of the smaller sellers on Amazon are Chinese drop-shippers and other scam artists.

That's the first thing I'd change- remove the VAT exemption for goods valued less than £135 from drop-shippers.

You can doubtlessly find similar examples in adult social care and in care homes for elderly people. Vast amounts of money being spent by taxpayers on substandard care whilst large profits are extracted for the privilege of this.

Bingo.

What has happened is that care homes have been loaded with debt and that debt is owed to the owners of the care homes. That debt is issued by and paid back to companies based offshore, typically in the BVI but other low-tax jurisdictions are available, including the one I live in. Interest rates are typically very high, 15%-20% is not uncommon. So on paper the care homes sector is not very profitable but the money is literally gushing into the back pockets of the private equity bros who now control the sector.

Private Eye Magazine | Official Site - the UK's number one best-selling news and current affairs magazine, edited by Ian Hislop

The official site for Private Eye magazine, the UK's number one best-selling news and current affairs publication edited by Ian Hislop. Subscribe to save money on the shop price and get delivery straight to your door.

www.private-eye.co.uk

U2 FRONTMAN and oh-so-modest philanthropist Bono's more than $2bn The Rise Fund pledges to "address various societal challenges globally" while seeking healthy profits for its private investors.
The latter has certainly been true – with returns of up to 80 percent. But societal changes seem to include, er, kicking autistic children out of their homes.

Rise, co-founded by Bono (pictured) and former eBay president Jeff Skoll – and with Virgin chief Richard Branson on the board – bought a majority share in Outcomes First in 2023, when the children's residential care and special education provider was valued at around £740m and had seen annual profits up almost ninefold from £3.3m to £27m in just four years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2025 ==

The reality is that the majority of small businesses and individuals wouldn't engage in criminal / antisocial behaviour anyway

However, there's a reason why tradies will give you a discount when you pay in cash.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

The problem with that is it would be hard to differentiate between small businesses and large online giants. For example, a tax on platforms like Amazon would likely increase the fees charged to the many small and medium-sized businesses that use the site to reach customers. This would disproportionately impact smaller sellers who depend on the platform for their business. You're also reducing consumer choice. Higher prices resulting from the tax could lead some consumers to reduce their Amazon purchases, especially for larger, more expensive items. This could also force some heavy Amazon shoppers to cut spending in other areas.

I'm not sure that a reduction in the power of Amazon would be a bad thing - the centralisation of retailing onto the internet, and subsequently from individual shop sites to the likes of Amazon, is really not a good move for anyone in the long term.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tesco's largest shareholder is BlackRock. BP's largest shareholder is also BlackRock. BlackRock is not a pension fund.

BlackRock isn't a charity and isn't a pension fund, but it does provide investment funds to the public (in which some pensions will be invested). Anyone who uses Monzo investments, for instance, is investing in their funds. So it isn't necessarily the big guys, no.

 

[bleeder4]

However, there's a reason why tradies will give you a discount when you pay in cash.

Yes, if you pay by cash they get the full amount. Whereas if you pay by card the card processor takes a cut. My barber charges £15 for a haircut, but if someone pays by card he only gets £14.80. The card processor keeps the remaining 20p. Over the course of a week, if everyone pays by card, that's basically the cost of a full haircut he's missed out on. So of course he prefers cash.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure that a reduction in the power of Amazon would be a bad thing - the centralisation of retailing onto the internet, and subsequently from individual shop sites to the likes of Amazon, is really not a good move for anyone in the long term.

Having multiple such platforms is probably a better bet. But it does seem "peak Amazon" may have been reached, just like Ebay appears to be in steep decline now. I'd be more worried about the likes of AliExpress and Temu because that allows Chinese products to flood our market directly without any profit going to UK based businesses (and tax paid by them).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2025 ==

Yes, if you pay by cash they get the full amount. Whereas if you pay by card the card processor takes a cut. My barber charges £15 for a haircut, but if someone pays by card he only gets £14.80. The card processor keeps the remaining 20p. Over the course of a week, if everyone pays by card, that's basically the cost of a full haircut he's missed out on. So of course he prefers cash.

Banks charge businesses to deposit and process cash, plus the time the person takes to take it to the bank, so that'll easily make that 20p and make card cheaper overall.

What's more likely is that the cash payment isn't going through the books but rather direct into his pocket rather than taking it as a salary through the company, or alternatively directly to buy supplies. That's tax evasion, and it's what most trades are up to when they ask for cash. If you see a cash only business that isn't run by someone aged maybe 65+ who's always done it that way (and still does stuff with paper ledger books etc) and is a bit of a technophobe/conspiracy theorist (these do exist) then it's very likely that's exactly what they are up to.

 

[bleeder4]

What's more likely is that the cash payment isn't going through the books but rather direct into his pocket rather than taking it as a salary through the company, or alternatively directly to buy supplies. That's tax evasion, and it's what most trades are up to when they ask for cash. If you see a cash only business that isn't run by someone aged maybe 65+ who's always done it that way (and still does stuff with paper ledger books etc) and is a bit of a technophobe/conspiracy theorist (these do exist) then it's very likely that's exactly what they are up to.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Lloyds charge businesses 85p for every £100 they deposit. Santander charge £1.25 for every £100. So if you take an average and assume £1 for every £100 paid in, it's still much cheaper than losing 20p on every £15 sale.

 

[ainsworth74]

See post #2362. We have kept awarding 'ourselves' more and more, beyond the level that is affordable. Plus spending to the extent that this 'standard of living' is now normal and expected. Reset required - ouch - so inevitably rather the eyes of greed and envy are going to other peoples wealth - why not just confiscate that to fund this society and individual lifestyle.

Perhaps though as I noted above we've also been awarding private companies more and more whilst getting less and less for it. Some sort of rebalancing is required but I'm not convinced that just slashing expenditure on things like state pensions. And I say pensions because if you want to save real money that is where the axe will need to fall. In 2023/24 for Great Britain we spent £138bn on pensioner benefits of which £125bn was state pensions. It's the single largest item of expenditure in the welfare budget taking up 42% of expenditure.

The state pension is the largest single item of welfare spending, forecast to make up 42 per cent of the total in 2023-24. The system for pensioners who retired before April 2016 comprises the basic state pension (paying up to £156.20 a week in 2023-24) and the state second pension which is mostly related to prior earnings. Since April 2016, these have been replaced by a ‘single-tier’ (flat-rate) state pension for newly retired pensioners (paying £203.85 per week in 2023-24).

Pensioner benefit spending is forecast to total £138 billion in Great Britain in 2023-24, of which we project £125 billion will be spent on state pensions. The same system operates in Northern Ireland, but spending there is not included in these figures or discussed on these pages as we include it separately in our figures for ‘Northern Ireland social security’. Pensioner benefit spending in 2023-24 represents 11.3 per cent of total public spending (up from 10.7 per cent in 2022-23), and 5.1 per cent of GDP.

Welfare spending: pensioner benefits - Office for Budget Responsibility

Welfare spending is the biggest source of AME spending, with pensioner spending the biggest item in the social security budget (accounting for 46 per cent of the total in 2020-21, down from 49 per cent in 2019-20).

obr.uk

I mean we could try cutting welfare benefits for working age people but if you want to save real money you're going to have to start cutting pensioner benefits.

Personally I'd rather we start by trying to actually stop the mass extraction of taxpayer funding out of the system into private pockets for dubious gains before we really start swinging the axe around the place.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, if you pay by cash they get the full amount. Whereas if you pay by card the card processor takes a cut.

Banks charge businesses for depositing cash. Isle of Man bank, part of HBOS, charges you 95p per £100 or part thereof, plus a 95p service charge. Sumup, which is the card processor of choice around these parts, charge a flat 1.69% with discounts for bigger customers.

There's not much in it between the cost of handling cash and handling card payments, not once you factor in the hassle of handling cash, paying it in, making sure you have a float, etc etc.

Tradies give you a cash discount for another reason.

I'd be more worried about the likes of AliExpress and Temu because that allows Chinese products to flood our market directly without any profit going to UK based businesses (and tax paid by them).

Again, the sooner we abolish the import VAT exemption for goods under the value of £135 the better.

We have kept awarding 'ourselves' more and more, beyond the level that is affordable. Plus spending to the extent that this 'standard of living' is now normal and expected.

The richest in the UK are richer than they have ever been. The failed economic policies of austerity and quantitive easing have rewarded them beyond their wildest dreams. It's the rest of us schmucks who haven't had a real-terms pay rise for 20 years.

The current situation is that valuable economic activity- earning money and spending money- is taxed to hell whilst parasitic rentier economic activity is barely taxed at all. The situation simply isn't sustainable or tenable.

I don't know how we can robustly tax wealth and assets in a way that would be meaningful and wouldn't leave us with unintended consequences or whopping great loopholes. But it has to be done because the current situation is simply not sustainable. You can't keep cutting benefits and you can't keep taxing the middle class. At some point we are going to have to start properly taxing the rentier class.

 

[Richard Scott]

This line often gets trotted out and it's largely untrue.

Some large institutional investors are pension funds, but most are not. And even of those pension funds the actual change in investment value is through the share price changing, not through dividends, most of which get swallowed up by the pension funds' own fees and profits.

Tesco's largest shareholder is BlackRock. BP's largest shareholder is also BlackRock. BlackRock is not a pension fund.

Into Larry Fink and Ken Fisher's back pocket.

I did state 10% from BP so didn't imply it's the largest but still significant, would you rather BP made no profit and nothing went into pensions? You can't dictate who buys share in a company.
No matter how much you all go on about profits and who makes the money that seems to be how the world works. What do BlackRock do with the money? Sit on it like it's a piece of art? All these companies employ people, all these employees spend money keeping other people employed, money moves around it's how it works, like it or not. Look what happens when it stops moving such as during lockdown.
Whether we like it or not there will always be wealthy people in society, remember some of those have worked very hard to get to where they are and it hasn't just fallen in their laps. Afraid it is how it is, some people have a good idea, some people get lucky and rest of us just do everyday jobs.
Perhaps we'd all like to try the communist set up as that was really successful, even then it seems some are more equal than others?

 

[ainsworth74]

Perhaps we'd all like to try the communist set up as that was really successful?

Feels like a bit of a strawman argument to be honest? Not sure anyone is suggesting we impose Stalinism or Leninism on proceedings. Simply that the current way we do things might not be working very well so doing more of the same but harder might not be the solution? Or are we approaching the point of arguing that true Capitalism has never been tried?

 

[Richard Scott]

Feels like a bit of a strawman argument to be honest? Not sure anyone is suggesting we impose Stalinism or Leninism on proceedings. Simply that the current way we do things might not be working very well so doing more of the same but harder might not be the solution? Or are we approaching the point of arguing that true Capitalism has never been tried?

It isn't, just making the point that even if you take it to the extreme there's no sustainable solution.
It was meant tongue in cheek.
Lots of different arguments on here but plenty of counter arguments as well, there is no Eutopia not matter how you look at it.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

I did state 10% from BP so didn't imply it's the largest but still significant.
No matter how much you all go on about profits and who makes the money that seems to be how the world works. What do BlackRock do with the money? Sit on it like it's a piece of art? All these companies employ people, all these employees spend money keeping other people employed, money moves around it's how it works, like it or not. Look what happens when it stops moving such as during lockdown.
Perhaps we'd all like to try the communist set up as that was really successful?

The main issue is when capitalism evolves into corporatism, which is what we now have. The biggest companies are now richer than many countries, and are consequently virtually untouchable. Many major areas of the worldwide economy are now controlled by one or a handful of mega-corporations.

Even Adam Smith recognised the need for competition and regulation. Too little of both is why we are where we are now.

 

[ainsworth74]

It isn't, just making the point that even if you take it to the extreme there's no sustainable solution.
It was meant tongue in cheek.
Lots of different arguments on here but plenty of counter arguments as well, there is no Eutopia not matter how you look at it.

On that we can agree!