No Fault Evictions

[woodieallen]

1 Where did you get your figure from? Can you show us the calculation?
2 Do you think wealth distribution as it currently is, is the best and fairest possible?
3 We've had 200 or more years of astronomically increasing productivity, how is it that we still have low wages, the poor and homeless?
4 Why is it that so many people are so happy to leap to the defence of the mega rich and their ill-gotten gains, even fabricating spurious argument which they don't understand themselves ?

https://www.jrf.org.uk/wealth-fundi...e/changing-the-narrative-on-wealth-inequality

1 The exact detail is unimportant. The worlds population is vast. So it might be £2 or evenr £3 per person on the planet. The point is that simply grabbing their money will do SFA other than give you a feeling of righteousness.

2 Done OK so far. You work. You earn. You invest. Alien concepts to you, I agree, Jacob.

3 Maybe several excess billion people might have something to do with it.

4 Pointless even wasting my breath at pointing out the fallacy in your attempt at applying reason.

I'm out

 

[Jacob]

1 The exact detail is unimportant. The worlds population is vast. So it might be £2 or evenr £3 per person on the planet. The point is that simply grabbing their money will do SFA other than give you a feeling of righteousness.

2 Done OK so far. You work. You earn. You invest. Alien concepts to you, I agree, Jacob.

3 Maybe several excess billion people might have something to do with it.

4 Pointless even wasting my breath at pointing out the fallacy in your attempt at applying reason.

I'm out

So you can't back up your argument? There's a surprise!
In any case nobody is suggesting "simply grabbing their money". That's known as a "reductio ad absurdam" argument.

 

[Jacob]

.....

But to assert that council housing was highly successful is a nonsense. ...

It was highly successful compared to the alternative; doing nothing,

 

[paulrbarnard]

In the recent past there used to be a lot of talk of the three day week just around the corner in our ever improving world. What happened to this idea?
Actually the answer is very simple. Take a look at the lists of mega rich billionaires for starters.

Good point. The majority of self made billionaires are workaholics. It seems to be a key contributor to how they achieved their success and billions, and their disastrous private lives. Unfortunately for those who are looking for a different work life balance you tend to have to sacrifice the financial part. It’s a well documented aspect of working for the likes of Bezos, Musk et al that a three day week is never going to happen. Unless Labour let the unions take over again and we get a repeat of 1973

 

[Jacob]

Good point. The majority of self made billionaires are workaholics. It seems to be a key contributor to how they achieved their success and billions,

So they work, er, several million times harder than you or me? How do they find the time?

 

[paulrbarnard]

So they work, er, several million times harder than you or me? How do they find the time?

Several million times more successfully…

 

[monster]

https://order-order.com/2024/08/30/...ord-labour-mp-renting-out-ant-infested-flats/

 

[Terry - Somerset]

It's been going on for thousands of years. You are a descendent of immigrants yourself; could be one, ten, fifty generations back

Yes, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
That's a very respectable communistic notion!
You're not going a bit lefty are you Terry?

Well yes we need a larger workforce to support our ever improving standard of living. Unfortunately slavery is out of fashion and these workers have to be treated like normal human beings, though the right try to do this on the cheap. Ditto their attitude to the indigenous working population - as near to slavery as society will allow.

Nothing new here - it has been the same problem since the start of the industrial revolution. The whole purpose of increasing productivity is to get more things done with fewer people.
It follows that something has to be done for those thus freed from work.
A comfortable retirement should be on offer but unfortunately these tend to be those at the bottom of the heap, manual workers etc with the least political power, and they don't get a fair deal.

Why when we have AI etc doing their work? Doesn't make sense, surely we should lower retirement age. That's the whole point of increased productivity: it means we need to do less work, at every level, from housework to the heights of industry.

Should be treated the same as everybody else

What for? We don't need the extra work - you've made that point yourself.

What for if there are no jobs? Better to let them retire gracefully.

Absolutely agree.
Blaming immigrants, the unemployed, the low paid, the homeless etc for their problems is the right wing denial of reality. For you it would seem that the most "uncomfortable solution" is to treat them well.
The whole point of industrial changes from the frame knitting to AI is to REDUCE the amount of work we need to do and INCREASE the amount we produce.
Generating ever more work is unsustainable.
In the recent past there used to be a lot of talk of the three day week just around the corner in our ever improving world. What happened to this idea?
Actually the answer is very simple. Take a look at the lists of mega rich billionaires for starters.

Since 2000 the UK population has increased by 9m, of which net immigration accounts for 6m. Net new housing starts are 4m.

House building, and I suspect most infrastructure - health, education, etc, has been needed to simply absorb population increases. The benefit (quality, quantity, standards) to the existing population has been limited to illusory.

I am not critical of immigration - simply observing that high levels of immigration (the main reason for population increases) means we need to run ever faster just to keep up. No different to running a permanent budget deficit where any progress is absorbed by increased interest payments.

Improvements in efficiency and automation since the industrial revolution have reduced reduced working hours, but not total employment. Jobs have changed - some becoming largely obsolete, with the new driving standard of living improvements.

As usual squeeze the rich until the pips squeak is the standard solution to all societal ills - the 160 billionaires in the UK may simply decamp to sunnier climes, and make the UK an investment free zone. Who wants to invest in a country where any wealth generated is taxed (conficated).

 

[Jacob]

......

As usual squeeze the rich until the pips squeak is the standard solution to all societal ills -...

Bring it on - never been tried! Top tax rates are historically low and it has not led to increased investment.
As % of income the low paid tend to pay more by far. Unearned income from capital gains and investment is taxed at lower rates thasn earned income.
Public spending from tax revenues is most certainly part of the solution to societal ills.
We could not live without it, hence modern states tend to have around 50% GDP as public spending.
It's not just about remedying "ills" it's more about creating and maintaining the infrastructure of a civilised society.
We are all socialists now, there is no alternative.
I'm continually amazed by how little is understood about how society works, as though taxation is some sort of emergency measure to remedy "ills", and in some sort of Thatcherite right-wing utopia we could manage without it! Ridiculous!

 

[niemeyjt]

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

'twas ever thus.

 

[John Brown]

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

'twas ever thus.

The problem with capitalism is the same.

 

[ey_tony]

The problem with capitalism is the same.

Would you care to qualify that comment with examples and while you're at it name ONE truly socialist country that is deemed successful?

 

[Jacob]

Would you care to qualify that comment with examples and while you're at it name ONE truly socialist country that is deemed successful?

All modern states have a large component of socialism in their makeup. Typically 50% of GDPs is public spending. There is no alternative.
Democracy itself is a socialist venture.
In fact a nation without socialism is unimaginable - can you think of an example anywhere in the world where everything is run by private enterprise and "free markets"?

 

[AJB Temple]

Yes. Russia. Oligarchs personify a free enterprise collective with a dominant leader.

 

[Spectric]

As usual squeeze the rich until the pips squeak is the standard solution to all societal ills - the 160 billionaires in the UK may simply decamp to sunnier climes, and make the UK an investment free zone.

Portugal is waiting with open arms and offering added incentives. But is this not just a case of others taking the better bits of the UK whilst leaving the carcass to the remaining scavengers. It happens in many busineses where there is a downturn, opportunities dry up and pay progression stalls so the competition come along and take the best people by waving a fatter carrot.

 

[John Brown]

Would you care to qualify that comment with examples and while you're at it name ONE truly socialist country that is deemed successful?

Capitalism is based on growth or expansion. If perpetual growth was viable, we could all start a chain letter tomorrow, and become fabulously wealthy. Sadly, we'd eventually run out of other people's money.
As for the "while you're at it", no. I'm not saying that communism is the panacea. I don't believe that pure communism or pure capitalism are long term, sustainable systems. I'm not professing to have the answers, just voicing my opinion that capitalism is also a flawed ideology.
If you're really after a long term, stable society structure, maybe consider a return to the feudal system, when the underclass didn't have time to worry about any sort of aspiration, as they were too busy from dawn to dusk grubbing around in the dirt. Were they happier or more contented than today's underclass? I don't know.

 

[ey_tony]

All modern states have a large component of socialism in their makeup. Typically 50% of GDPs is public spending. There is no alternative.
Democracy itself is a socialist venture.
In fact a nation without socialism is unimaginable - can you think of an example anywhere in the world where everything is run by private enterprise and "free markets"?

I can imagine a nation WITHOUT Socialism very easily.
You don't need so called socialism for a nation to be both successful and fair in its policies at the same time. Socialism certainly does not have a monopoly when it comes to fairness and common sense as we will witness over the coming parliament.
Socialism will certainly NOT solve this country's issues, as they are mutually exclusive...common sense will.

 

[Ozi]

Starting to wish I had shares in popcorn

 

[John Brown]

Starting to wish I had shares in popcorn

Capitalist!

 

[user 26575]

[...] So let's assume you can wave a magic wand and take all their money and divide it equally amongst the population of the world. What are you going to do with your £1.36? Or are you suggesting that we just divide up all their money between those in the UK ?

Rather than attempting to divvy the money out so everyone gets a little bit, I think the point would be for government to take excess wealth and use it to create opportunity for everyone - better education, health and social care, infrastructure, that kind of thing. Many people in the UK have very little opportunity. The old "everyone would get tuppance ha'penny" argument isn't the point, as I'm sure you're aware.