Just to stir the pot, has anyone noticed...

[RogerS]

..... moderate socialist policies of Corbyn/McDonnel,......

 

[highwood122]

.The blame-game is tories favourite gambit -
schools can be "failed" rather than the Dept of Education itself,
or sub post masters rather than the government owned "limited" company which runs the whole dung-show,
or NHS for "bad management" rather than deliberate govt underfunding.
Or at the bottom of the pile; the poor blamed for not working hard enough, or not "getting on their bikes" etc. Tory b******s.

how can nhs be underfunded if they have just cut health contributions by £2 a week

 

[Jacob]

how can nhs be underfunded if they have just cut health contributions by £2 a week

No connection between them. Health contributions do not pay directly for NHS. The cut is just electioneering and the NHS will carry on being run-down and underfunded.

 

[highwood122]

No connection between them. Health contributions do not pay directly for NHS. The cut is just electioneering and the NHS will carry on being run-down and underfunded.

i understood that already, just what pays for what, its all bull sh|t, just to make the water muddy. but how many people believe.

 

[DerekJohn]

This is how the country now works.

Billionaires, have taken over the running of government completely* They call the shots when it comes to any contracts the country needs for civil works, probably military too.

Those that arrange it are paid, and the money goes offshore, into accounts set up and run with directors being previous government members, cabinet ministers, solicitors. and higher ranking members of thew civil service.
*
Currently, though corrupt, members of the tory party are still originally members of the public who entered politics. Unless you vote for the reform uk party, which is owned, and run by a pair of businessmen, well one man, the other is a venture capital/hedge fund company.
So if for example reform uk were to get into power, the country would no longer be run by career politicians, but by business interests, putting their profits first.

Its not going to get better.

I know many will think, thats a bit mad, a bit paranoid or conspiracy theorist type of thing, but you can check it for yourself but it is a complete rabbit hole to disappear down.
Take any of the players, for example Baroness Mone's partner Doug Barrowman. Check out who and which companies he does business with. Check out the links to them and you will find the same names coming up time and time again. Look to who they are connected to and the businesses they deal with and again you'll see familiar names, faces, countries where they operate from.
Venture capital firms owned by individuals who go from having a personal fortune of £3m, which then in the space of 4 or 5 years jumps to staggering amounts of 40 or 70 million. People who have worked with British politicians, or have been seen in the company of.

They use the public purse like their own piggy banks, and its not illegal, because theyre the ones making the laws.

Use wiki to gather the names of individuals, and companies house will show connected businesses they held directorship in. Notice that many are incorporate and are dissolved within 6 months. Same names, same faces ,same connections, and same affiliations to members of government.

Blimey you sound like you have just read my book "British Politics is broken, but, we might just be able to fix it", The book suggests quite firmly a far better way forward but needs 55% of the voting population to see reason. (IMHO) Have a quick listen or read of an extract or two on Amazon. You will become one of the 55% I hope

 

[Jacob]

Blimey you sound like you have just read my book "British Politics is broken, but, we might just be able to fix it", The book suggests quite firmly a far better way forward but needs 55% of the voting population to see reason. (IMHO) Have a quick listen or read of an extract or two on Amazon. You will become one of the 55% I hope

Sounds interesting.
Only available on Amazon?
Ten reasons to avoid Amazon | Ethical Consumer
https://socialjusticebooks.org/about/why-boycott-amazon/I'll buy a copy if it turns up elsewhere!

 

[niall Y]

We need "limitarianism"

I can't see how this could possibly work or even the mechanism by which it could be made to work. I think a case could be made for limiting the pay of directors to a reasonable multiple of their employees. And, I could see how this could prove both popular and capable of being implemented, at least for publicly listed companies.

Quite how this would work with privately owned businesses, or wealthy people in general I cannot see. It is counted as a freedom to be allowed to pass on what one earns in ones lifetime, to ones children. The state could co-opt this right entirely and meet out what it deems to be acceptable level of inheritance. This will only capture the assets of the not so rich, but the really wealthy who live straddling the borders of countries - they will move their assets to another jurisdiction entirely.

The state is not an impartial, do-gooding God who can be relied upon to act fairly, impartially, and without political malice. What government, of whatever political stripe is not going to be tempted to tweak inheritance levels in its favour, whether it is fair to its citizens or not.? So, for it to have this additional power that will fundamentally affect the freedom of all its citizens, is a bad move.

 

[Jacob]

It is counted as a freedom to be allowed to pass on what one earns in ones lifetime, to ones children.

But it then becomes unearned income of the children and hence fairly taxable at a higher rate than earned income.

they will move their assets to another jurisdiction entirely.

But not their land or buildings. Land and property taxes are key issues.

...... So, for it to have this additional power that will fundamentally affect the freedom of all its citizens, is a bad move.

As a democracy we are the state.
It's about distributing "freedom" more equally, which is obviously a fundamentally good idea.
Funny how right-wingers endlessly trot out arguments against civilisation!
Sometimes they do manage to turn the clock back, as we have seen since 1979, and accelerating in recent years.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I can't see how this could possibly work or even the mechanism by which it could be made to work. I think a case could be made for limiting the pay of directors to a reasonable multiple of their employees. And, I could see how this could prove both popular and capable of being implemented, at least for publicly listed companies.

Quite how this would work with privately owned businesses, or wealthy people in general I cannot see. It is counted as a freedom to be allowed to pass on what one earns in ones lifetime, to ones children. The state could co-opt this right entirely and meet out what it deems to be acceptable level of inheritance. This will only capture the assets of the not so rich, but the really wealthy who live straddling the borders of countries - they will move their assets to another jurisdiction entirely.

The state is not an impartial, do-gooding God who can be relied upon to act fairly, impartially, and without political malice. What government, of whatever political stripe is not going to be tempted to tweak inheritance levels in its favour, whether it is fair to its citizens or not.? So, for it to have this additional power that will fundamentally affect the freedom of all its citizens, is a bad move.

Limitarianism applied to multi-billionaire and future trillionaires may make very little difference to those at the bottom of the economic pile.

The mega wealthy spend whatever they choose - take a billion away from a trillion, consumption is unaffected. Their wealth is digits in a database - a bank account or share register. It provides power not the capacity to consume more. How that power is used may be a legitimate concern.

Allocating digital wealth may not enable the recipients be able to purchase more goods and services - a mix of labour and materials.

The UK as a developed economy has low unemployment - there is a skills shortage. Increasing demand will not increase labour supply without greater immigration - reliance on ever increasing immigration is unstable (nothing to do with boat or asylum issues).

Materials - food, manufactured items etc - will need to be imported. Direct impacts on balance of payments, exchange rates etc.

Transferring wealth from the mega wealthy to the poorer has much the same characteristics as the Treasury printing more money - it creates a demand that cannot be sensibly satisfied, and is potentially inflationary.

Improvement for those at the bottom of the economic pile relies upon taking from those who would otherwise spend - those with income between (say) £40-200k. Moral judgements, envy etc may make "soak the billionaire" an attractive proposition but may deliver little.

It is reasonable to debate a fair distribution of income and wealth within a society. Be clear that for (say) the lowest quartile to benefit materially requires the upper quartile to make significant reductions. The upper quartile income starts at £42k!

 

[Jacob]

.....

It is reasonable to debate a fair distribution of income and wealth within a society.

Yes. I thought you were arguing the opposite; you appear to be yet another self-deceiving right-winger arguing against civilisation, as though it is mathematically not possible!

Be clear that for (say) the lowest quartile to benefit materially requires the upper quartile to make significant reductions. The upper quartile income starts at £42k!

Start cranking things up with the upper 1% and work back from that? Ot the upper quartile of the upper quartile?
Lots of ways to skin the filthy rich!

 

[Yojevol]

Limitarianism. Did you hear Ingrid Robeyns on the Today programme this morning? Very brief but she was shot down by John Cordwell who pointed out that the philosophy could only be introduced formally if it is done on a worldwide scale and the chances of that happening are absolutely zero.
Ingrid herself seemed to be a bit confused. Firstly she said that it's a philosophy that all the wealthiest should take up as a sort of code of practice, ie, voluntarily. Difficult to argue with that, but she also seems to want some formal way of redistributing the wealth.
Here she is promoting her book on UT
https://www.youtube.com/live/qnrJhvkFt3k?si=TVGcq4YwlySP9H-DOnly looked at the first few minutes myself. Maybe the following hour will help with my insomnia in the early hours of tomorrow morning.
Brian

 

[Jacob]

Limitarianism. Did you hear Ingrid Robeyns on the Today programme this morning? Very brief but she was shot down by John Cordwell who pointed out that the philosophy could only be introduced formally if it is done on a worldwide scale and the chances of that happening are absolutely zero.

He was just blagging on in a loudmouth sort of way. Revealed that he was rattled and lacked coherent arguments - well he's only a billionaire business man, which somewhat prejudices his point of view!

Wealth is already "redistributed" to (very) varying degrees in all modern states, so it is not even a revolutionary idea to start with.
Land tax would be a good point to start cranking things up, as extreme wealth gets ever more extreme.

PS and Nick Robinson is a raving tory and has a slightly one sided view of "impartiality"; Caudwell is about the last person to ask for a balanced view. Reminds me of the Climate Change debates where an acknowledged expert and scientist would be set against a complete fruitcake sceptic like Nigel Lawson, "for balance"

 

[niall Y]

But not their land or buildings. Land and property taxes are key issues.

One has to pose the question : "Do the rich actually own anything, at least in the way that the majority of us do. Surely all their land and property is owned by businesses and therefore exempt from things like inheritance tax.
To quote Lao Tso " Pain comes from having a body " - If the mega wealthy appear to have no assets how can they be properly taxed?

 

[Jacob]

One has to pose the question : "Do the rich actually own anything, at least in the way that the majority of us do. Surely all their land and property is owned by businesses and therefore exempt from things like inheritance tax.
To quote Lao Tso " Pain comes from having a body " - If the mega wealthy appear to have no assets how can they be properly taxed?

I think you'll find that most of them do own assets. Even if we don't know who they are we can still identify and tax the assets such as the half of Scotland owned by about 500 people apparently, where land ownership is particularly feudal

 

[Fergie 307]

Would you enlighten us as to exactly how you would go about that? Bearing in mind that owning property worth £x does not necessarily mean that you actually have that amount of money sloshing around in order to pay the tax on it.
I believe you have recently downsized, and presumably will have made money from selling your big house and buying a smaller one. Having thereby realised the previously only potential value of your property, what percentage of that do you feel it would be appropriate for the tax man to take?
At the moment, if it is your main dwelling it is effectively exempt.
Perhaps more to the point in view of your argument, are you suggesting that the tax man should be able to assess the value of your property at £x, and therefore demand £x in tax on its value. What would the situation be If you don't actually have that money? Should you be forced to sell it in order to raise that money?

 

[Fergie 307]

Yes. I thought you were arguing the opposite; you appear to be yet another self-deceiving right-winger arguing against civilisation, as though it is mathematically not possible!

Start cranking things up with the upper 1% and work back from that? Ot the upper quartile of the upper quartile?
Lots of ways to skin the filthy rich!

lots of ways to skin the filthy rich. Like Dennis Healey and his promise to tax the rich until they squeak. How did that go? Overall tax revenue actually decreased, and then increased by several.percentage points after Thatcher lowered the rates. The important point being that it is the overall amount of revenue generated that matters. Imposing draconian rates of tax on the rich may play well to the bash the rich brigade on the far left, but it doesn't actually work in terms of generating revenue. Need something a little more imaginative.

 

[Jacob]

lots of ways to skin the filthy rich. Like Dennis Healey and his promise to tax the rich until they squeak. How did that go? Overall tax revenue actually decreased, and then increased by several.percentage points after Thatcher lowered the rates. The important point being that it is the overall amount of revenue generated that matters. Imposing draconian rates of tax on the rich may play well to the bash the rich brigade on the far left, but it doesn't actually work in terms of generating revenue. Need something a little more imaginative.

The filthy rich are very lucky to have so many people speaking up in defence of their right to own as much as they can, whether or not they need it.
Or more to the point, whether or not anybody else needs it.

"This is the biggest yacht ever built by Royal Huisman a Dutch ship. The 81-meter (265’) three-masted schooner SEA EAGLE II.
One of the largest sailing yachts in the world and the largest with an aluminum hull.
Built 2020

Her value is $100 million. Her annual running costs are around $10 million. "

n.b. there are bigger ones, in fact around the world, huge fleets of these rich-boys (and girls) toys, usually anchored up as they are not really of much use to anybody

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Half of the £100m probably went in taxes somewhere along the line.
I'm sure if you told all the well paid people involved that it shouldn't have been built they'd tell you to swivel. I presume it would have been better to leave all the people employed in its building on the social?

 

[evildrome]

Limitarianism applied to multi-billionaire and future trillionaires may make very little difference to those at the bottom of the economic pile.

The mega wealthy spend whatever they choose - take a billion away from a trillion, consumption is unaffected. Their wealth is digits in a database - a bank account or share register. It provides power not the capacity to consume more. How that power is used may be a legitimate concern.

Allocating digital wealth may not enable the recipients be able to purchase more goods and services - a mix of labour and materials.

The UK as a developed economy has low unemployment - there is a skills shortage. Increasing demand will not increase labour supply without greater immigration - reliance on ever increasing immigration is unstable (nothing to do with boat or asylum issues).

Materials - food, manufactured items etc - will need to be imported. Direct impacts on balance of payments, exchange rates etc.

Transferring wealth from the mega wealthy to the poorer has much the same characteristics as the Treasury printing more money - it creates a demand that cannot be sensibly satisfied, and is potentially inflationary.

Improvement for those at the bottom of the economic pile relies upon taking from those who would otherwise spend - those with income between (say) £40-200k. Moral judgements, envy etc may make "soak the billionaire" an attractive proposition but may deliver little.

It is reasonable to debate a fair distribution of income and wealth within a society. Be clear that for (say) the lowest quartile to benefit materially requires the upper quartile to make significant reductions. The upper quartile income starts at £42k!

That's as well known straw man. You can't increase the wages of the poor because they'll just consume more causing inflation.

The economy is NOT a closed system.

MV = PQ

Money x Number of transactions = Price x Production

The fallacy you re-iterated depends on Q being fixed. Which it clearly is not.

Have you heard of the Witcher Conjecture?


If demand for Cheeto's goes up 10%, do Frito-Lay put up the price by 10% or do they make 10% more Cheetohs?

Duh... they make 10% more Cheetohs.

Higher capital equipment utilisation and economies of scale mean the price of Cheetohs goes DOWN, not UP.

Do you know that the price of a can of Campbells Tomato soup was fixed at 10c for over SEVENTY YEARS? (1898 to 1971)

This was possible because even though demand rose dramatically, productivity rose to match.


As long as we're part of a global supply chain, any increase in UK demand will be met.

This recent inflation proves this empirically.

Five years ago I predicted exactly this would happen if we were ever cut off from China.

Not exactly the prediction of the century. Just obvious common sense.

Improvement for those at the bottom of the economic pile DOES NOT rely on anyone else cutting back.

If it did we'd still be in the stone age having reached our productive maximum.

And I don't want to hear it about the BOT. The US is the largest, wealthiest economy in the world and it has the worlds largest BOT deficit.

 

[Jacob]

That's as well known straw man. You can't increase the wages of the poor because they'll just consume more causing inflation.

The economy is NOT a closed system.

MV = PQ

Money x Number of transactions = Price x Production

The fallacy you re-iterated depends on Q being fixed. Which it clearly is not.

Have you heard of the Witcher Conjecture?


If demand for Cheeto's goes up 10%, do Frito-Lay put up the price by 10% or do they make 10% more Cheetohs?

Duh... they make 10% more Cheetohs.

Higher capital equipment utilisation and economies of scale mean the price of Cheetohs goes DOWN, not UP.

Do you know that the price of a can of Campbells Tomato soup was fixed at 10c for over SEVENTY YEARS? (1898 to 1971)

This was possible because even though demand rose dramatically, productivity rose to match.


As long as we're part of a global supply chain, any increase in UK demand will be met.

This recent inflation proves this empirically.

Five years ago I predicted exactly this would happen if we were ever cut off from China.

Not exactly the prediction of the century. Just obvious common sense.

Improvement for those at the bottom of the economic pile DOES NOT rely on anyone else cutting back.

If it did we'd still be in the stone age having reached our productive maximum.

And I don't want to hear it about the BOT. The US is the largest, wealthiest economy in the world and it has the worlds largest BOT deficit.

All sounds interesting but I can't quite follow it! Is there a book to read, is this Modern Monetary theory or something?