Hey Guv can you lend us a fiver?

[handsomefortune]

http://www.buynothingday.co.uk/

'buy nothing day' ideally should perhaps be once a month!

shopping's supposedly 'rewarding' - which it definitely can be.

but it can also be negative as in useless. as well as addictive, and mindless and totally ineffectual as a stress reliever. since the crash, i treat browsing as particularly 'hazardous'!

though a shopfree day is in some ways 'too late' (for those already in debt, still living beyond own means) but a regular 'buy nothing day' is imo still very worthwhile, a tonic for the mental health of the nation generally. if only to reinforce a positive image, or profile of 'abstaining: having personal control'. demonstrating that there are definitely other types of 'wealth' other than cash/goods, which i think occupy protests represent. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin..._klein_mic.php

a new buzz about consumers - not as 'individualist' as in 'obedient, paranoid, suckers' ....would be positive.

perhaps witholding cash might be publicly clebrated a lot more effectively on the tellybubble/etc than it has this far been? preferably this is not a job for the likes of patronising careerists, such as alvin hall, or the equally hideous paul lewis, on r4.

i notice despite dave retracting his (only)? sensible statement, about families ideally paying off plastic, credit's being widely advertised AGAIN for this very xmas 2011 potential spending bonanza. unbelievable, and hypocritical though this is, in the current financial hi jack and counter protest.

for instance, what use an absolutely giant inflatable santa? i mean the ones attached by ropes to suburban homes, bobbing in the wind, clinging on for the xmas duration, outdoor lights blazing, supposedly proof of family X having the BIGGEST xmas locally ............ yet, they might also risk the same as the rest - home/job-lessness come the spring?

[Serial_Apologist]

for instance, what use an absolutely giant inflatable santa?

I was going to make a suggestion before reading the purposes for which said Santa is intended, handsome!

Then I had another use in mind: dart practice?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

is that the bl%%dy first xmas crapticon of the year S_A?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

wages and productivity the US divergence ....is catching?

[Serial_Apologist]

is that the bl%%dy first xmas crapticon of the year S_A?

Crackers sir? Certainly: top row on the right.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Clappers?

[Serial_Apologist]

Clappers?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it is not just the disparity in incomes that is corrosive as the High Pay Commission reports today but the welfare state for the rich as George lays bare

[teamsaint]

he was talking (prophetically as it turns out) about other types of conflict as well I think, but as Adrian Borland said

"From the safest places come the bravest words".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTe6DF7Erx0

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

hard data .... if you don't make the £££ you can't spend it ...

[handsomefortune]

darn it, your last link to 'hard data' isn't working?

[Serial_Apologist]

darn it, your last link to 'hard data' isn't working?

Strange - mine's OK

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i can't get the G front page to work at the moment will refresh the link later

here it is unadorned

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/nov/23/uk-household-earnings-fall

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/nov/23/uk-household-earnings-fall

all links now appear to be operational

[aeolium]

Confirmation by the IFS that the effect of the policies announced in the Autumn Statement is regressive in terms of income inequality:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/osbornes-impact-laid-bare-the-rich-get-richer-and-the-poor-get-poorer-6270235.html

"Those with an annual income of £15,600 will lose an average of £44.75 in the year 2012-13. Those earning £18,200 will be worse off by about £36 in the same year. By contrast, those with an annual income of £76,100 will benefit by about £105, thanks to Mr Osborne's most recent tax changes. Those with an yearly salary of £45,300 will get £98 more. As a result of all the tax and benefit measures by Mr Osborne since he became Chancellor in May 2010, the IFS calculates that those in the bottom 10 per cent of earners will see their annual incomes decline by £168 in 2012-13. Those in the second to last 10 per cent of earners will see their incomes go down by £265."

[teamsaint]

Confirmation by the IFS that the effect of the policies announced in the Autumn Statement is regressive in terms of income inequality:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/osbornes-impact-laid-bare-the-rich-get-richer-and-the-poor-get-poorer-6270235.html

"Those with an annual income of £15,600 will lose an average of £44.75 in the year 2012-13. Those earning £18,200 will be worse off by about £36 in the same year. By contrast, those with an annual income of £76,100 will benefit by about £105, thanks to Mr Osborne's most recent tax changes. Those with an yearly salary of £45,300 will get £98 more. As a result of all the tax and benefit measures by Mr Osborne since he became Chancellor in May 2010, the IFS calculates that those in the bottom 10 per cent of earners will see their annual incomes decline by £168 in 2012-13. Those in the second to last 10 per cent of earners will see their incomes go down by £265."

well I wouldn't worry too much.Its all ok, cos the bbc told me it is.

I had the misfortune to watch a bit of Nick robinsons party political broadcast last night.
Before I turned off because i still had work to do, I was given the very distinct impression that :

1. The general public don't know their economic a**e from their elbow.

2. That the rich already more than pay their way tax wise, and that us ordinary folks already get a great deal out of the tax and benefits system.

Deeply comforted though I know I should have been, I wasn't.

EG : Robbo gave us a chart showing the proportion of the total income tax take paid by the rich. Any kind of balance would require a comparison with the total proportion of incomes enjoyed by the same group, which I don't think happened....otherwise its a meaningless statistic.

I imagine he also got round to mentioning the industrial sized tax avoidance of the super rich and the big corporations too... sorry I missed that bit.