This is the first part, as the article says.

@einkorn@feddit.org

No, we are not talking about technology. The humanitarian situation in Chinese supply chains is devastating. Brazil sued China carmaker BYD over ‘slave-like’ conditions in a Brazilian plant this year.

It is noteworthy that Chinese companies operate across integrated supply chains, meaning there are almost no relevant local or non-Chinese workers along the value chain. When expanding abroad, Chinese companies bring their own Chinese workforce. It is noteworthy that China is among the countries that heavily oppose laws for transparent supply chains.

In the mentioned case in Brazil, the authorities found that the Chinese migrant] workers could not leave their dormitories without permission, were forced to work long hours without weekly breaks, and were deprived of wages and passports. Their living quarters were overcrowded and lacked basic amenities, including sufficient toilets and refrigeration for food. Brazilian labour authorities stated that the workers are victims of human trafficking.

Such conditions are typical for China. There is ample evidence for forced labour in China’s Xinjiang region and across the country as well as in Chinese companies operating abroad.

Here is another image. There are more on the web.

What would you say if such dolls are offered in a shop around the corner? This is insane. It is impossible that these ‘products’ have been made by mistake. It has been manufactured intentionally.

It must be said over and again: This platforms must be shut down.

Yeah, you may have misunderstood my point. So once again for you: It’s not perfect in Europe, inequality rises here, but inequality in China is now higher than it is in Europe.

@GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip

You say there is a lot of statistical information available, but then you admit you don’t even know where it is. Classic.

China is far ahead with that, I hope Europe finds its own democratic path …

Here is another image. It’s disgusting.

Yeah, the benefit of the doubt is invaluable. So go back and rethink your interpretation.

And what degree do you have that enables you to spit out this gibberish? I hope they shut this platform not only in France but everywhere. Look at the picture, this is insane.

Yeah, just look where the post comes from. The headline (followed once again by just a few lines of content) helps to let Germany or Europe look bad, that’s all what OP aims at.

Removed by mod

Thanks for linking a source but this is a misleading interpretation, please don’t try to argue with data if you don’t know how to interpret it.

Thanks for this. Inequality is now in Europe lower than it is in India, China, the U.S., and it is below the global average. It may be hard if this doesn’t align with your desired narrative, but this doesn’t change the fact.

there is a lot of statistical information available that you could have a look at

Where are these statistics about China?

As an (important?) side note: Europe is among the region with the highest equality, together with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Philippine, Papua New Guinea. Of course, there is a lot room for improvement, but inequality has not risen in the last 20 or so years - unlike in countries like Russia, China, India, where the gap between the richest and the poor has widen significantly.

Addition: Here is the data - https://wid.world/world/#shweal_p99p100_z/US;FR;DE;CN;ZA;GB;WO-PPP;QE-PPP;XR-PPP/last/eu/k/p/yearly/s/false/12.912/100/curve/false/region

And the difference between the top and the bottom only keeps growing

For Germany, France, UK and the EU in general this is not true. The top-1% and top-10% wealthiest people own around the same share of their countries wealth than 25 years ago.

Outside Europe, however, the inequality has risen much faster in the same period, particularly in India and China. Just look at the numbers.

Addition: Look it up yourself - https://wid.world/world/#shweal_p90p100_z/US;FR;DE;CN;ZA;GB;WO-PPP/last/eu/k/p/yearly/s/false/37.836/125/curve/false/country

This is good, but isn’t it a bit hypocritical to recognize the injustice caused to Mexico’s Indigenous peoples while the Spanish government drafts its king into China charm offensive, ignoring the genocide in Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia?

[…] Spain’s King Felipe VI would visit China from November 11-13 […] The king’s visit has been orchestrated by the leftwing government of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who leads the most openly pro-China administration in western Europe as he seeks to strengthen economic ties with the country.

What is ‘fair’?

If the ‘wealthy’ consume more - and more luxury goods - they would automatically pay more taxes, and the administrative costs of consumption taxation are much lower than they are in an income tax regime.

A consumption tax would also reduce the headache of low economic growth, which limits the income tax of the state in the long term.

A consumption tax is also ‘fairer’ in that under an income tax regime, savers pay more tax than consumers. Suppose we have a consumer and a saver with the same annual earnings. In an income tax regime, the consumer (who spends the money right away) pays tax only once when income is earned. The saver, however, pays not only once when the income is earned but also later on the income on the saved earnings (interest rates, dividends). So those who save (and invest) pay more taxes than those who spend their money right away.

Taxation on income (and capital gains) are often justified with the fact that the wealthy save more than the poor, so it is only fair that they pay more taxes, many say. In addition, it is often said that more wealth goes hand in hand with more economic power and political influence. Although these arguments have some validity, they do not address the core task of taxation. And, more importantly, they ignore the fact that social and political equality must be addressed primarily by other means such as transparency in political decision making, open public discourse, direct democracy, and other instruments.

Instead of taxing income and capital gains we could, for example, apply the consumption principle to the taxation not of wealth but wealth transfer since giving assets to heirs is, in fact, some form of consumption. This would ease the various troubles associated with all forms of income taxes, and would help to create a ‘fairer’ society.

In a recent report citing German intel, it says amongst others:

Russia has evolved its tactics. Instead of deploying elite intelligence operatives, Moscow now outsources the work in what could be called a “gig economy” model. That means local criminals, extremists or vulnerable individuals are recruited online, sometimes for trivial sums, to commit sabotage. Railway signal boxes have been set ablaze. Defence contractors have been targeted. German naval vessels have been sabotaged.

This approach offers Russia perfect deniability. When a petty criminal sets fire to a railway junction, that does not usually create a diplomatic incident. There are no captured spies, and it is hard to link Moscow to the attack – until one sees the pattern across dozens of incidents …

Higher VAT hurts regular people more than the wealthy.

How does a luxury VAT on yachts and private jets and things like that hurt regular people more than the wealthy?

Across OECD countries, VAT & goods and service tax combined contribute around a third to the tax revenues (on average), that’s only slightly less than income from personal and corporate tax and capital gains tax. The rest (around 25%) comes mainly from social security contributions.

Compared to consumption taxes, income taxes impose steeper administrative and compliance costs. It would be much easier to apply in our modern world - contrary to more than 100 years ago, when nation states shifted from a primarily consumption tax-based system to an income tax-system, and when only an incredibly small number of citizens were subject to these income taxes.

Switching to a primarily consumption-based taxation would be a better choice for a variety of other reasons, too. I don’t say we should abandon income tax completely, but the shift would be a good thing imo.

[Edit typo.]

Yachts, private jets, luxury cars - there are a lot of products for which such a ‘luxury VAT’ could be an idea imo. Some European countries had that after WWII, but then abandoned it in the 1980s or so. I don’t have list of products for which it could apply, and no list is perfect, but it would be part of the solution imho.