This data comes from an opinion poll run by the High Pay Centre earlier this year now published in a new report that includes an essay by me:
I guess there's not much there that surprises me, but it's good to know that most people do share the common sense views that tax justice promotes.
And isn't it odd that just 2% strongly disagree in each case?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I hope yo do not mind me campaigning here but it seems such a relevant place to do it.
38 degrees want people to have their say about the power of corporations having more power in the form of the TTIP treaty, which will I think, damage democracy and the rule of law over such entities, and destroy public services.
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/signup/ttip-evidence#petition
I read the debate in today’s (Friday) debate on the privatising of the NHS. i signed the petition and my MP (Conservative) informed me he would not be in Parliament today. Some of the Tories who were there, were saying there was no danger to the NHS from the TTIP. Only 18 voted against the bill. Curious.
Mark reckless said he was sceptical about TTIP. Interesting times!
The Tories are only working Monday to Wednesday now
My understanding is that there is a legal principle that says that a corporation can be regarded as a person and has the same rights as you and I (‘legal personality’) in law. To me, this is bad law – an aberration – as corporations are tangibly not indivdual people but actually made up of individual ‘peoples’and other entities.
I would say that until this principle is purged from public and commercail life, we are always going to have problems with corporations. End of.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Those numbers are going to get a good airing.As you say, perhaps the most startling is the consistent 2%.
Not convinced.
I mean, you could say that 2% of the populace do better, rather than worse, under our insanely unfair ‘free market’ system.
You could equally say that only about 2% of people, regardless of their political views, know anything at all about business & finance.
98% of scientists know that man-made emissions contribute to climate change, but scientists are well under 1% of the populace & their views are swamped by people that know nothing but like driving.
100% of scientists know that human beings evolved from apes but scientists are well under 1% of the populace & in the USA 50% of people would prefer to believe that we descended from angels.
I’m in favour of democracy but not populism. Acceptance of the majority view on every issue is the way to hell in a handcart. We’d never have abolished hanging if people like MacMillan & Douglas-Hume had cared tuppence about what the majority thought.
Rather than worry about the 2% who consistently disagree shouldn’t we be worrying about the 16-17% who dont know? Either they really do not know if large corporates have too much influence and power over government or they don’t care.
The latter worries me more than those who disagree.
Interesting point
Thanks
Truth is not a democracy.
As Eriugenus rightly notes, an overwhelming majority of scientists believe in evolutionary theory but polls of the general population reveal that some 32% believe in creationism (Pew data from US) – the popular vote does nothing to reveal truth.
The interplay between corporate and political interests is complicated, opaque and by no means obvious. I would argue strongly that they should be simple, transparent and screamingly obvious, however the views of the general lay-population on this matter is by and large irrelevant to understanding the reality of the situation.
Quoting favourable populist polls on complicated issues is grasping in the extreme and a classic example of confirmation bias. If Richard disagrees with that then perhaps he would permit me to post some populist “truths” on matters such as immigration and the EU?
Of course confirmation bias exists. So what? Ins’t that in itself important?
And just because it does exist does that necessarily invalidate the opinion expressed? Why?
For example, immigration is not the issue UKUP claim it to be. Saying so will not stop it being an issue in UK politics right now. Are you suggesting otherwise? Denial is not an argument in such cases. And sometimes denial fans the flame. Sometimes it even denies the truth.
In this particular case I think that would be the case. But them I am normative. And happy to admit it. But then everyone is normative. Some just deny it.