A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
You mean, the country that still has Lords, Ladies, Barons, Dukes, Dutchesses and a Royal Family are.... financially classist ?????
Yeah, zero surprises here.
I don’t think that that is related really. They are effectively just rich people who pass on generational wealth.
It’s probably more to do with more than a decade of conservative government.
I don’t think that anyone would argue that the US isn’t financially classist.
Lmfao, who do you think runs the government? (Hint: go read up on what some of those titles actually mean)
I’m not saying that they don’t have influence but the titles are pretty meaningless compared to the generational wealth.
Again, the US has the same situation and they don’t have titles.
Do you know how the UK government works?
I suppose next the UK is gonna axe the public healthcare system? Between inequality and the rising authoritarian laws showing up...yikes?
There is a few steps before then. We are currently at the stage of privatising previously state ran services within the NHS such as radiology and buying extra capacity from private business This is being done at a local level using existing budgets so it means money for actual services gets reduced or quality of service drops as no outsourcer works at a loss for very long.
Other step that happens is you can pay to jump the queue by paying the heavily subsidised private offerings in the UK. This is often the same person you would have seen via the NHS. There isnt this huge magical pool of extra doctors in the UK who only work private (outside cosmetic) so anybody you see privately will almost certainly have a NHS case load. More work private, less work NHS as there is only so many hours they can and will work.
Next stage is national privatisation of some of the bigger services, for example the recent agreement with Palantir that sells off our data for far less than its worth and without explicit patient permission.
I would imagine as that will increase costs it will then become optional to pay for the NHS and instead you can pay for private cover (rather than paying for both as we do currently if you want private cover). Once this happens its only a matter of time before the NHS becomes an empty shell as the middle earners who pay the most tax towards the NHS will simply stop paying. Then at that point does private start getting way more expensive and the exclusions start.
Usually some privatisation apologist will appear and say that we do not have to follow the American model, to which I always say what exactly about this government has ever given you the complete confidence that anything other than the shitest option will happen. Its nice to wish for unicorns but they are not going to happen here.
Welcome to America.
Rishi Sunak has been doing his bootlicking job quite well!
Sunak's family is worth literal billions, he is the boot not the licker.
Yet when I have debates in work my colleagues are like but people now are richer than ever.
Look at how many cheap screens and toys the slaves have made for us, luxuries our forebears with nutritious food and community resources and homes could never imagine
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“Inequality has made the UK more unhealthy, unhappy and unsafe than our more equal peers,” said Priya Sahni-Nicholas, the co-executive director of the trust.
“It is also causing huge damage to our economy: we have shorter healthy working lives, poorer education systems, more crime and less happy societies.”
Sahni-Nicholas said: “There is a direct financial cost to inequality: the consequences of structuring society to allow for massive profiteering for the richest at the expense of the rest of us have been enormous.”
Stewart Lansley, the author of The Richer, the Poorer and The Cost of Inequality, said it was “an acute paradox of contemporary capitalism that as societies get more prosperous, rising numbers are unable to afford the most basic of material and social needs”.
Lansley blames the way the gains from growth have been increasingly colonised by a small group of financial and business magnates – a process he says is facilitated by state policy.
Too much of today’s economy involves unproductive activity geared to personal reward, a far cry from the culture of entrepreneurialism promised by Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, Lansley adds.
The original article contains 606 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The best thing is that ghis means Europe is just spending less, but it's doing the same thing. Wtf EU
Capitalism, even though it was invented by the Dutch, I always associated with Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture.
You can see these same problems being repeated in other Anglo-Saxon countries like Canada, the U.S. and Australia, but less so in countries with other cultural influences.
Which countries are you talking about? China? Mongolia? South Africa? Emirates? Argentina? I would argue that the "Anglo-Saxon" countries probably have less capital inequality, but it's definitely a global problem - people with money don't need to adhere to borders.
Which countries are you talking about?
I literally wrote a list of countries in my comment...
The other ones you mentioned, with the exception of South Africa, are completely different. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Some are rich, but the wealth is in the hands of one wealthy royal family and use actual slavery, others have a complex system of social classes meant to have a poor class for workers, based on family origin. Some are just poor countries. And one had an actual apartheid where a whole race of people were discriminated against.
I literally wrote a list of countries in my comment...
Let's see..
..countries with other cultural influences.
No, no you didn't.
You literally compared Anglo-Saxon countries to "countries with other cultural influences" and then say it's complex.. Pick a lane dude.
I misunderstood your reply, my dude.
Generally companies get lower tax rate than physical persons with 10+ years experience in many european countries. And the rich have all assets in their companies. In my opinion it should be lowered to match the same as the companies. As for the lower class that can barely afford stuff with a basic salary in some EU countries, stay very low or just null.
You got to give it to the guardian for their headlines 😂