Keir Starmer Labour Leader

[Frosty]

Indeed but the guilt is not ours to bear.

We are not going to agree on this.

But I will say that I agree with you. I don't think people should feel guilty. Not least because guilt is easy to feel.

Taking responsibility for past wrongs and taking concrete actions is far more difficult.

 

[2mufc0]

We are not going to agree on this.

But I will say that I agree with you. I don't think people should feel guilty. Not least because guilt is easy to feel.

Taking responsibility for past wrongs and taking concrete actions is far more difficult.

It's a bit like inheritance, whilst the inheritor did nothing to earn it they still benefit from it. And much like inheritance tax most people don't want to pay the reparations tax either.

During the 1770 Bengal famine the EIC were still ruthlessly collecting taxes from starving people just so money could still be sent back to the mother country. Britain's economy became so dependent on the exploitation of Bengal the economy would collapse without it, it resulted in the government bailing out the EIC when the S hit the fan. Britain wouldn't be the 6th biggest economy today which we all benefit from without this exploitation over multiple continents throughout the past.

 

[neverdie]

Britain wouldn't be the 6th biggest economy today which we all benefit from without this exploitation over multiple continents throughout the past.

Why not? It was the first industrialized nation on the planet. Has a sizeable population (70 million for UK) and Germany which had no real historical empire to speak of is ahead in both population terms and GDP. France is just behind England, which did have a sizeable empire. The Japanese are always in and around Germany (or just above it) and they never really had an empire after their failed attempt in the early twentieth century and then complete lack of any such thing thereafter.

England's history, sans slavery and slave trade, as well as its location (for other reasons), is such that putting its economic situation today down to what it was doing from 1600-1800 is a massive oversimplification.

 

[2mufc0]

Why not? It was the first industrialized nation on the planet. Has a sizeable population (70 million for UK) and Germany which had no real historical empire to speak of is ahead in both population terms and GDP. France is just behind England, which did have a sizeable empire. The Japanese are always in and around Germany (or just above it) and they never really had an empire after their failed attempt in the early twentieth century and then complete lack of any such thing thereafter.

England's history, sans slavery and slave trade, as well as its location (for other reasons), is such that putting its economic situation today down to what it was doing from 1600-1800 is a massive oversimplification.

I think you missed the point, and I disagree the actions of 1600-1900 has nothing to do with the economic or political position of the country today. Which was the main point I was trying to make, we have all benefitted from it to today whilst made other suffer and set them back decades, hence the discussion of reparations comes in. Is it the only reason for Britain's current standing? I agree probably not but is a big contributing factor.

Germany and Japan to their credit are quite unique in this respect, although both did have some overseas territories. Although, I don't see the relevance to the discussion whether modern Britain has benefitted from empire and them.

 

[neverdie]

I think you missed the point, and I disagree the actions of 1600-1900 has nothing to do with the economic or political position of the country today. Which was the main point I was trying to make, we have all benefitted from it to today whilst made other suffer and set them back decades, hence the discussion of reparations comes in. Is it the only reason for Britain's current standing? I agree probably not but is a big contributing factor.

Germany and Japan to their credit are quite unique in this respect, although both did have some overseas territories. Although, I don't see the relevance to the discussion whether modern Britain has benefitted from empire and them.

Your point is that the UK wouldn't be the sixth largest economy today if it weren't for the slave trade. I disagree. I use Japan and Germany as examples as to why the UK is roughly where it ought to be. Did it benefit from the slave trade? Yes. No one doubts it. It still benefits from it, depending on how you define slavery (absolute slavery across the global south, something like 40 million people iirc) and then of course wage-slavery which few, if any, can see to find a different economic model which moves people away from that.

I'm also in favour of reparations as it goes, as stated in this thread previously.

 

[Buster15]

It's a bit like inheritance, whilst the inheritor did nothing to earn it they still benefit from it.

How do you know if the inheritors did nothing to earn in.
How do you know whether the children for example cared for or looked after their parent(s) or looked after the family home because their parents were not able to.

 

[2mufc0]

Your point is that the UK wouldn't be the sixth largest economy today if it weren't for the slave trade. I disagree. I use Japan and Germany as examples as to why the UK is roughly where it ought to be. Did it benefit from the slave trade? Yes. No one doubts it. It still benefits from it, depending on how you define slavery (absolute slavery across the global south, something like 40 million people iirc) and then of course wage-slavery which few, if any, can see to find a different economic model which moves people away from that.

I'm also in favour of reparations as it goes, as stated in this thread previously.

This isn't what I said either, the slave trade was just a part of a wider economic exploitation including natural resources and taxation of colonial subjects. I think we agree that modern Britain has reaped the benefits of this but disagree in the the degree of this benefit.

 

[Trequarista10]

How do you know if the inheritors did nothing to earn in.
How do you know whether the children for example cared for or looked after their parent(s) or looked after the family home because their parents were not able to.

If children contributed to the upkeep of the home, then they could claim this back to reduce the tax liability.

I.e. parent moves into care. Child spends £X on essential maintenance/running costs. £X is then deducted from the final value of the estate as a debt owed by the parent to the child. For costs in exchange for care services provided by the child, I don't know for sure. I suppose it could be claimed that parent is to pay £x per hour in exchange for support received, and so is a debt owed by the estate (if hasn't yet been paid), or if it has been paid already then it would not contribute as a chargeable gift.