It seems the logic of the oligarch and his politico-puppets goes like this: Your country is bankrupt because you're all lazy and you can't keep your noses out the trough. The best way out of the situation is austerity. How do we go about it?
Here, in the UK, we get the plebs to work for multi-national organisations for nothing. One irritating drawback is that human beings have this inconvenient propensity for needing food and shelter. Without it, apparently, they don't have the energy to deal with the daily grind that you have planned for them. Never mind, the good old taxpayer will come to the rescue - as usual. All you do is screw more taxes out of the hoi polloi and your indentured servants will be able to eke out an existence on dole money.
What kind of logic is that?
Well, it makes good sense if you happen to be CEO of a multinational looking for ways to justify your bonus claim at the annual shareholder's meeting. And, if you're of the political class, it's no skin off your nose either; you'll still be swanning about in your ministerial limousine. But, for the rest of us, if we're going to force people to work, (or inveigle them into it) we could at least get the main beneficiaries to pay something towards the upkeep of our indentured brothers and sisters. What guarantee do the UK taxpayers have that that extra profit won't end up in a bank account in the Cayman Isles? Personally, I don't think there's much doubt it will.
If a multi-national company doesn't like paying for the upkeep of these human resources (who selfishly complicate the profiteering process by needing food and shelter) - too bad, I say. Give that free labour to the public sector. Where did it say in the Queen's Speech that you could rip it off the taxpayer? Taxpayers are already up to the eyes in debt, paying for the shenanigans of the banksters. Ah but, I forget. The public sector is due for the chop. Does anyone see a pattern here? No? Neither, it seems, does mainstream media; or, surely, they'd have mentioned it, being, as they are, in the business of mentioning things - (but only what they want us to know about.)
I suggest, that in a democracy, these kinds of manoeuvrings are treasonous -- and that we should hold those responsible for such a policy/strategy, to account. I don't just mean by a well-earned ousting from office (so they can take up their positions on the boards of the outfits that bankrolled them). However, the UK populace would have to wake up first. An awakening of the Iceland sort might do the job nicely.
I suggest it's slavery by the back door. But even if we, the people, who are, after all, ultimately responsible for the conduct of our democracy, decide that slavery/compulsory labour/indentured servitude/deceit (if it quacks like a duck...) is necessary for our survival, what has that to do with fattening the bottom lines of multinational companies? Why should we let that lot profit from the "not mandatory" toils of the slaves we find ourselves feeding and sheltering as a direct result of the outsourcing of 'the means of production'? What happened to the proverbial, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'? I suppose that's the "free' bit about the "free market'; someone else pays. It's like keeping a dog to bark at next door's burglar. I thought there was "no other way" but the individualism of the Iron Lady. Yet, it seems that we, the people are to remain a charity for the corporations.
I suggest that tax, in a democratic state, should belong to the people of that state and not outsourced along with the assets that they and their predecessors built up. If we decide to elect a government with a mandate for forced labour, albeit "not mandatory" (assuming you have the gumption to know, or can afford a lawyer to explain what that means), the least we should do is apply due diligence and select the sort that doesn't hand the proceeds over to a bunch of globetrotting shysters.
It reminds me a bit of the American chain gangs of early last century, where they hired out prisoners as free labour to local companies. (I can't remember where I read about that, but I know it wasn't in the mainstream media). No wonder jobs are coming back from the Third World under Third World wages and conditions. But, the beneficiaries of yesteryears' equivalent weren't so multinational; the wealth engendered stayed in the country in these days; the multinationals hadn't yet mastered the art of shipping all the assets out of the country. Progress, (unlike my sarcasm) is such an uplifting thing (if only for the few, not the many).
Anyway, I heard something recently about privatised prison companies in the USA these days. (No doubt, there's a modern euphemism). I can't remember where; you'll just have to trust me -- or trust your instincts (keeping in mind the corporate mentality). It seems that they're only willing to accept contracts guaranteeing a specified percentage capacity (upwards of 90% if I remember right). These things have to be worth a corporatist's while, you know. If you can't procure them enough bad people from whom to profit, they have to penalise everyone else. Never mind, just add it to the tax bill - (as long as it isn't corporation tax).
I can see how it escapes the notice of the mainstream media and the judiciary, but can anyone see a pattern here yet? No? Oh well, as George Carlin once said, "Nobody seems to notice; nobody seems to care". Speaking of George Carlin, didn't he once say, "They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it"? They say "you couldn't make it up', but I think the question for we, the people, is - at what stage, do we realise that the dream has become a nightmare?