This relates to the BBC article [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states “the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries”.

The UK abolished slavery in 1833. That’s 190 years ago. So nobody alive today has a slave, and nobody alive today was a slave.

Dividing £18tn by the number of UK taxpayers (31.6m) gives £569 each. Why do I, who have never owned a slave, have to give £569 to someone who similarly is not a slave?

When I’ve paid my £569 is that the end of the matter forever or will it just open the floodgates of other similar claims?

Isn’t this just a country that isn’t doing too well, looking at the UK doing reasonably well (cost of living crisis excluded of course), and saying “oh there’s this historical thing that affects nobody alive today but you still have to give us trillions of Sterling”?

Shouldn’t payment of reparations be limited to those who still benefit from the slave trade today, and paid to those who still suffer from it?

(Please don’t flame me. This is NSQ. I genuinely don’t know why this is something I should have to pay. I agree slavery is terrible and condemn it in all its forms, and we were right to abolish it.)

  • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pretty much my take.

    OPs position is based on the idea that the reparations are punitive, which they are not.

    No one alive in England today was engaged in slaving, but everyone is the beneficiary of the practice.

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, but the few dollars per slave that a trader would have received is nothing in comparison to the value a slave would generate through their lifetime.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Compensation is based on damages, not on how much money the crime made. People routinely owe damages for assault or vandalism that makes them no money.

          • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You may have misunderstood me. By removing someone from their home nation, the damages would be the value they would have produced in their home nation.

    • Jamie@jamie.moe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Disclaimer that I’m not English and don’t particularly have a dog in this fight, and my opinions are a little mixed. On the one hand, I agree on the morality there, a lot of people were damaged in the very long term by slavery. But on the other, even if you can say that it’s an act to attempt to return the wealth to the wronged people, that doesn’t mean the wealth has simply been sitting there for nearly 200 years, waiting for return. That money has to come out of some budget, somewhere.

      So where are they going to pull 18 trillion to give reparations from? Certainly, cuts will need to be made somewhere to make it happen, and often, those cuts are usually made along the lines of political agendas rather than things that are objectively bloated.

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        But the ability to pay reparations isn’t really considered in deciding whether reparations should be made.

        You’re right that the money isn’t just sitting there, it’s embedded in the development of the nation.