Richest one per cent in UK own 20 times more total wealth than the poorest fifth

>Richest one per cent in UK own 20 times more total wealth than the poorest fifth.

Poor Britfags will defend this just as they defend their ridiculous monarchy.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Other urls found in this thread:

independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/inequality-uk-contributed-to-brexit-oxfam-rich-poor-research-one-per-cent-a7239306.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

waaah people have more money than me

Sauce: independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/inequality-uk-contributed-to-brexit-oxfam-rich-poor-research-one-per-cent-a7239306.html

cuck

Isn't that the first line in the Polish national anthem?

Literally who cares

>rich people are rich
shocker

>monarchy
>being eternally fucked by one family
>HAHAHAHA

>anglo countries have africa tier wealth inequality
>wonder out loud why people get shot and stabbed on the streets

what are ya some kind of gay communist?

t. gommie

Monarchy as a system is superior to all forms of government.


this

who gives a flying fuck about the poor, fuck them

>Monarchy as a system is superior to all forms of government.
it's not to be honest. the only positive thing people can say about the queen is that she doesn't do anything. its as though we're impressed that she's entirely benign which I don't really see as a quality.

Nearly 10000 times more money

Commies believe that the gap between rich and poor should be smaller even if that means a lower quality of life for the poorer person.

Commies should be fucking zykloned to be honest.

Don't even bother, most brits in this board are barely cultured chavs

welp, better rev up those gulags, start liquidating the rich, and prepare to be a shithole for the next hundred years then.

to be honest the extent of the gap can start to have negative externalities such as criminality or the situation where the rents of capital outweigh the actual growth of productivity in the economy

>wahhh that handful of people have more money than me

>alright, we'll give you some of their money, but then we'll give basically all of their and your money to the thousands of people poorer than you

>HEY! don't take my money!

It literally is.

The most stable modern democracies are disproportionately are monarchies.

>he only positive thing people can say about the queen is that she doesn't do anything

She really isn't. You are a cretin. Go and actually learn something.

>What can possibly go wrong?
Africa-tier thinking

>The most stable modern democracies are disproportionately are monarchies.
correlation != causation, there are plenty of fine republics, the functioning of a political system has so many variables you cannot just make a crass statement like that.
>She really isn't
what?

>America talking about wealth equality

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Is.....is an American insulting another nation's inequality gap?

The U.S. would be experts in talking about wealth inequality tho

>dumb americans will defend this just as they defend their district-system

Tbh, the US has had literal segregation in the majority of the country until recently. It has an excuse as to why large inequality exists.

The UK however is a white country with a large labor movement, yet is in some respects worse than the US in social mobility.

many people here do not wish for the dismantling of the social divisions, but only for their own personal scaling of class-echelons.

the marriage of william to that kate, was very good at stoking up this sort of aspirationalism.

>Large labour movement.

That died with Thatcher. New-Labour wasn't very friendly to the working man, see mass immigration.

>correlation != causation

No, but it can suggests a relationship between the two.

>the functioning of a political system has so many variables you cannot just make a crass statement like that.

You can if they are the foundation of the politics of that nation.

>what?

The Queen. She isn't idle, sitting round doing nothing. Her life is full of attending formal and informal functions. She's the most experienced foreign diplomat in the world.

"Further, the top 400 Americans had net worth of $2 trillion in 2013, which was more than the combined net worth of the bottom 50% of U.S. households."

Source: Forbes

DOWN WITH THE ELITE AND THE BOURGEOISIE! THE PROLETARIAT HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT THEIR CHAINS!

>No, but it can suggests a relationship between the two.
yes but you should be careful about claiming it is the best, when you haven't controlled for anything else.
>You can if they are the foundation of the politics of that nation.
but it isn't, the irish republic and the UK have more or less similar systems of government in practice and probably in terms of quality (I'm not an expert on Ireland but I guess they're doing as well as us), but of course are fundamentally distinct in the way that you are suggesting.
>She's the most experienced foreign diplomat in the world.
I've heard this line before, but I'm not actually sure that Britain's international relations and trade position are made that much better by the queen going around shaking hands.

Kek

>smart people make more money
XD

>yes but you should be careful about claiming it is the best, when you haven't controlled for anything else.

It is my opinion based upon my own learning. Our history is a great thing that you can learn from why monarchy is a great form of government. I'd recommend looking up David Starkey he's a great historian and he states his case very well throughout his books and series(s). There's a load of his stuff on youtube.

>but it isn't, the irish republic and the UK have more or less similar systems of government in practice and probably in terms of quality (I'm not an expert on Ireland but I guess they're doing as well as us), but of course are fundamentally distinct in the way that you are suggesting.

Ireland has been fundamentally shape by the UK and its will. This will was wielded and lead by the monarchy. Neither have I said you cannot get good republics.

>I've heard this line before, but I'm not actually sure that Britain's international relations and trade position are made that much better by the queen going around shaking hands.

That's your own opinion and you (wrongly) could say the exact thing for any hand shaking hand event that any politician does.

smart rich people worked hard to get where they're at, and have no business handing out money to lazy and dumb poor people

As an American I do my part and work very hard every day to make myself literally retarded

>That's your own opinion and you (wrongly) could say the exact thing for any hand shaking hand event that any politician does.
I'd argue it is the trained legal experts, economists, security experts and so on who are to thank for good international relations, rather than the queen.
>Ireland has been fundamentally shaped by the UK
yes but it is also proof that, it is not MONARCHY that is the recipe for success and with a well structured constitutional system of government good governance can be achieved without the need for a monarchy. Actually what is nice about Ireland is that they massively improved their own country since the 1920s on their own.
>Starkey
I'm familiar with him. I see what you're saying, I'm familiar with these arguments, I am just very sceptical.

A good example could be the fact that the Queen is the Queen of Papua New Guinea which is one of the most violent corrupt shitholes on earth, where does the checks and balances that monarchy offers fit in there? Or how most of the apartheid legislation in South Africa was passed in the name of Elizabeth and yet there was no checks and balances protecting the democracy (or lackthereof for 80% of the population).

Ultimately I think monarchy is inconsequential to the functioning of government in the modern age, as countries like Ireland show.

I'm actually enjoying this discussion with you t;bh

>I'd argue it is the trained legal experts, economists, security experts and so on who are to thank for good international relations, rather than the queen.

Her role does not diminish theirs.

>yes but it is also proof that, it is not MONARCHY that is the recipe for success and with a well structured constitutional system of government good governance can be achieved without the need for a monarchy. Actually what is nice about Ireland is that they massively improved their own country since the 1920s on their own.

Again. I have never said that you cannot have a successful government without monarchy. However, Ireland isn't a great example (much like any anglo country) because of the extent that the UK influenced it.

>I'm familiar with him. I see what you're saying, I'm familiar with these arguments, I am just very sceptical.

He makes the case better than I can and fair enough to you.

>A good example could be the fact that the Queen is the Queen of Papua New Guinea which is one of the most violent corrupt shitholes on earth, where does the checks and balances that monarchy offers fit in there? Or how most of the apartheid legislation in South Africa was passed in the name of Elizabeth and yet there was no checks and balances protecting the democracy (or lackthereof for 80% of the population).

Neither am I denying that monarchy cannot be corrupted or shitty governing cannot happen. But monarchy can offer a 'three way' system that most other political systems only have two. The monarchy, the political class and the people. When one fails, the people can turn to the other.

>Her role does not diminish theirs.
i'm not arguing that her role diminishes theirs, i'm arguing that her role doesn't even marginally augment theirs. As in countries without monarchs or even particularly charismatic leaders, can still do well in the international sphere depending on their economies, security, and negotiation skills of front-end diplomats.

>However, Ireland isn't a great example (much like any anglo country) because of the extent that the UK influenced it.
It's a brilliant example, it's proof that the British successful form of governance can be replicated without monarchy. I'm not saying that Britain isn't good at government, I'm saying it is not monarchy which is the secret recipe, since there are republics influenced by Britain that can still pull it off quite well. You're conflating Britain with Monarchy.

>three way' system that most other political systems only have two. The monarchy, the political class and the people. When one fails, the people can turn to the other.
ahh but in PNG and South Africa, Elizabeth failed to deliver on this alternative when the government failed. Checks and balances are a bit of a meme.

As I said, I'm arguing not that monarchy does harm, only that it is ultimately benign and offers little actual benefit as compared with non-monarchy in practice (especially when you start considering all the other variables of governance and so on).

I personally dislike monarchy on philosophical grounds, but I accept that people like to keep it as a tradition or something. However I feel that arguing that monarchy puts countries at some sort of advantage is disingenious, to me Monarchy is inconsequential as a symbol on the flag. We might as well be arguing over which design of the union jack is more aesthetically pleasing

so what? We have no absolute poverty, fucking socialists

a constitutional government offers a perfect balance between stability and continuity and representation/ arguably meritocracy.

>monarchy
>meritocracy

lmao

>trying to have a reasonable, fact-based discussion on Sup Forums

>Ireland is an example of a good country

I'm Irish diaspora myself but common man

>smart rich people worked hard to get where they're at, and have no business handing out money to lazy and dumb poor people

>what is inheritance?
>america has perfectly equal oppurtunity we swear

>house of commons
>house of lords
Works well desu, would recommend you get one

>coming from an American of all people

look, its always hard to understand different countries, but a class system is part of our culture.
Plus the worst sides of each class are literal scum who destroy cultures.

This desu.

no it doesn't, Britain arguable has one of the worst systems of any European democracy. You have no guaranteed rights, besides the Human Rights Act, which the Tories will remove soon, a large section of your population is disenfranchised by your voting system. There is no seperation between the judicial, legaslative and executive powers, which makes an abuse of power extremely easy, like the extensive powers of GCHQ.

Your political system is positively medieval. The only reason it exists is because faggots like you are so submissive and insular that they could never imagine anything other than the shitty middle England they are used to.

>look, its always hard to understand different countries, but a class system is part of our culture.

this is the same non-argument saudis use to behead homos and chinks use to kill dissidents. There's no reason culture can't be changed, and being a submissive faggot to people solely because of their birth is retarded.

...

Every country has a class system it's just that in the UK classes are more apparent.

>constitutional government
yes and needn't include monarchy

>the poorest fifth.
this seems so arbitary. why choose the poorest fifth and not the poorest sixth or quarter?
Just to make a sensationalist headline?

>eternally

you have never been to britain have you?
You have a very different country with a different people and a different history

we have an independent court system
the executive/legislative house is kept in check by the house off lords
a large proportion of every democracy is disenfranchised, you are moving away from one into a superstate so i suppose we can compare

it helps to substantiate it

I's probably way worse in america

fuck off, it's a constitutional monarchy anyway she does fuck all

>literal segregation in the majority of the country
The South isn't the majority of the country. Does anyone have any data as to wealth data in the US by race?

it would be hypocritical of me not to back you up, blacks in america are very much like the worst inner city blacks here, most people never see this.

no it doesn't. As demonstrated with the case of Ireland or in countries like France or Switzerland.
yes exactly, then how can she have a benefit if she does fuck all?

I'm saying monarchy is not benefiical, it is not adverse but it adds no benefit in itself.

You're right and wrong.

The UK system of government is retarded. Monarch. Unelected Hoise of Lords. State religion. Bishops unelected on government. First past the post. Strange idea of a constitution. No embedded right to free speech.

Despite all that it works. That is not up for question. A small country with low pop and no resources that has been a world power for the past 5 centuries.

To the other posters: Pointing to the monarchy as good or bad in this litany of functioning insanity is pointless.

Those aren't as well substantiated , only switzerland is as stable and switzerland is an exception due to how old ,small, rich and homogenous it is.

>but it adds no benefit in itself.
all those tourism monies. and besides, people in the here and around the world like her.

>tourism moneys
doesn't influence governance directly and debateable since people still visit republics like France or Italy or America. Most tourists do not actually see the Queen.
>homogenous
with like 4 languages
>Ireland is less politically stable than the UK
hmm, Ireland is the best example of how british style governance is not reliant on there being a monarch in order to function.
>well substantiated
There are countless measures of governance, you'll find that there are lots of republics in the top rungs of them.

>low pop
22nd highest