No Fault Evictions

[Chris152]

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.

Groucho Marx

 

[Terry - Somerset]

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 think we need to be clear about the distinction between socialism, socialist and society.

Society - a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

Socialism - an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production

Socialist - someone who supports a political or economic philosophy that says society as a whole, rather than private companies, should own or control various goods and services.

That we are all part of society is undeniable. That most developed societies operate with some level of social endeavour (eg: health, education, defence) is certainly both sensible and true.

To suggest in a mixed economy we are all socialists is ridiculous - we might easily claim we are all capitalists - capitalism defined as "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit".

Rather than applying labels to define polarised views, the issue is the balance between social control and individual rights.

 

[Chris152]

To suggest in a mixed economy we are all socialists is ridiculous

Who said we were? Sounds a daft thing to suggest.

 

[John Brown]

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

"Quotations are just a form of Argument from Authority fallacy"


J. Brown.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Done a calculation for you:
https://highpaycentre.org/reading-t...ysis-of-the-wealthiest-households-in-britain/
"The richest 350 British households have a combined wealth of £795bn: bigger than Poland’s annual economy."
Divide by 60million (population of Britain) that gives £13250 per person.
Divide by number of wage earners and you get approximately double £26500 per wage earner.
Not to read too much into those particular figures but it is a good indication of how wealth is not distributed in Britain.
"Furthermore, the net worth of the twenty richest people in the country has more than doubled in the past decade. If all household wealth had increased at the same rate, it would equate to over an extra £250,000, on average, for every household in Britain."

Lets just accept the figures above are correct.

Rather than a one off distribution let's assume that we want to enhance the income of folk for the indefinite future. To do otherwise would risk a growth bubble to meet immediate desires, followed by no lasting benefit.

Assume a reasonable rate of return of 5% pa on the capital - £662pa - nice to have but not lifechanging. A pleasant holiday, buy a few clothes, meal out for 2 once a month. A bit like the winter fuel allowance - for some important, for many (most) pensioners no great deal.

Investment needs a concentration of capital. Government do this - occasionally effectively, often not, through taxation. Private sector investment in business, jobs, enterprise would be curtailed as:

• the funds they would have otherwise have access to would have been confiscated,
• incentives for investment and risk are removed if profits are subject to further confiscation

A slight overstatement, I accept, but assuming higher tax rates, possibly amounting to confiscation would somehow transform economic prospects to the benefit of all in society is truly naïve.

 

[Yojevol]

I believe in socialism, it's the only system that will progress the human race to a sustainable level on this planet. And who should our role models be for this socialist utopia? Of course they're all.around us, hiding in plain sight - ants and bees.
Discuss

 

[woodieallen]

Done a calculation for you:
https://highpaycentre.org/reading-t...ysis-of-the-wealthiest-households-in-britain/
"The richest 350 British households have a combined wealth of £795bn: bigger than Poland’s annual economy."
Divide by 60million (population of Britain) that gives £13250 per person.
Divide by number of wage earners and you get approximately double £26500 per wage earner.
Not to read too much into those particular figures but it is a good indication of how wealth is not distributed in Britain.
"Furthermore, the net worth of the twenty richest people in the country has more than doubled in the past decade. If all household wealth had increased at the same rate, it would equate to over an extra £250,000, on average, for every household in Britain."

So? Leaving aside your statement without any references.... I thought you were a Socialist ? What about the rest of the world ?

 

[woodieallen]

I believe in socialism, it's the only system that will progress the human race to a sustainable level on this planet. And who should our role models be for this socialist utopia? Of course they're all.around us, hiding in plain sight - ants and bees.
Discuss

Sounds a bit like communism to me. `one queen bee at the top. aka putin. Lots of male fodder being shoved into the war.

 

[AJB Temple]

Discuss: Honey bees are nearly all female and have quite robotic and short lives of 6 weeks approx in summer. Ruled by a queen whom they all serve until they replace her.

 

[woodieallen]

Lets just accept the figures above are correct.

Rather than a one off distribution let's assume that we want to enhance the income of folk for the indefinite future. To do otherwise would risk a growth bubble to meet immediate desires, followed by no lasting benefit.

Assume a reasonable rate of return of 5% pa on the capital - £662pa - nice to have but not lifechanging. A pleasant holiday, buy a few clothes, meal out for 2 once a month. A bit like the winter fuel allowance - for some important, for many (most) pensioners no great deal.

Investment needs a concentration of capital. Government do this - occasionally effectively, often not, through taxation. Private sector investment in business, jobs, enterprise would be curtailed as:

• the funds they would have otherwise have access to would have been confiscated,
• incentives for investment and risk are removed if profits are subject to further confiscation

A slight overstatement, I accept, but assuming higher tax rates, possibly amounting to confiscation would somehow transform economic prospects to the benefit of all in society is truly naïve.

Reality or a hard grasp on financials was never one of Jacob's strongpoints.

 

[woodieallen]

That is a very convenient miss quote that Thatcher followed Wilson and that started the economic slide you seem to manipulate facts to suit your agenda forgetting about Callahan in between.

He is consistent !

 

[woodieallen]

I don't suffer from an entrenched perspective on life. I know it doesn't sit well with the socialist mindset but I favour a meritocratic society where ambition and hard work are rewarded and not seen as abhorrent because others fail to achieve the same goals.

Socialism is simply 'communism lite' ...if the UK doesn't meet with your expectations then name one communist country you would prefer to live in? I'm just surprised that you haven't migrated to one years ago.
I've always had ambition and a dedication to achieve so no matter where in the world I moved I would seek out and make the most of the opportunities available to me.

Socialism is the sure way to grind down a nation's aspirations. Why should people work hard if the state takes away the earnings of those who do and gives it to those who don't?
That isn't to say we shouldn't help those who can't or are unable to help themselves but we have a nation where false entitlement seems to outstrip working hard to achieve ambitions.
The vast majority of successful business people in this country are self made and yes some are very wealthy but what kind of a society is it that punishes success by taking way a high proportion of one's earnings? It's not their fault that they have been successful and others haven't! Successful people don't create poverty.

So far, judging by the utterances of Starmer et al this is likely going to be the worst socialist government since the WW2. The sleaze has already started and the indications are that everyone is going to be poorer, especially pensioners so not a lot of joy to look forward to under this lot!

You speak so much sense. We are screwed.

 

[woodieallen]

....you seem to manipulate facts to suit your agenda forgetting about Callahan in between.

Jacob is very consistent. I'll give him that

 

[woodieallen]

I am not burdened down with entitlement unlike socialists like yourself who dream of some Utopian land where fairy tales are made.

The world doesn't work like that. I came from a very impoverished background in a North East mining village. I left school at the age of 14 years and 10 months. I could easily have followed the majority of those who lived in that area but chose instead to go out into the world and make a living for myself that didn't involve going down a mine.
My parents died young and I started with absolutely nothing and therefore I worked for everything I own and gained an Honours degree in science which I earned as a full time mature student.
Let others do the same if they want some of those things I worked hard to achieve. The world doesn't owe anyone a living, least of all those who put little or nothing into it.

Obviously if someone through circumstance beyond their control or physical or mental health issues are unable to fend for themselves then society has a duty to support those people through the safety net of benefits but benefits should be not be there to fund lifestyle choices.

From what I've seen of so called 'true socialists', the vast majority I've come across were employed in the public sector. It's a breeding ground for envy and entitlement to the fortunes of others.

One of the best posts in this thread.

 

[woodieallen]

Probably best left forgotten. Once Thatcher came along then people started to think reincarnation might be real as it looked like Hitler had returned to finish off what the luftwaffe had failed to do to british industry.

Now you're being silly.

 

[woodieallen]

No it is not

Maybe you don't realise it but every one of your posts sounds bitter, resentful, angry, miserable.

Sounds like a miserable way to earn a living. I can see why this would make you resentful. Do you regard a normal 40 hour week plus holidays as pure laziness?

"Meritocracy" is one of the feeble excuses of the well off for hanging on to their wealth. A regularly trotted out little cliche. Who assesses the merit - just the bank manager?

Socialism facilitates success and always has, from birth - health and welfare, education, training, and so on. Massive public spending on all sorts of amenities and support for individuals and business at every level.
No doubt you've been helped along the way too, even if you don't realise it.
Anyway - give us an example of this non-socialist utopia you keep fantasising about.

Thank you, Jacob. I was in need of a good belly laugh.


"Socialism facilitates success"....that's a cracker. Love it

 

[woodieallen]

Discuss: Honey bees are nearly all female and have quite robotic and short lives of 6 weeks approx in summer. Ruled by a queen whom they all serve until they replace her.

I like that...

"Queen Jacob".

Has that ring of self-importance

 

[Jacob]

Who said we were? Sounds a daft thing to suggest.

I said it.
Basically society as we know it could not function without all those well known and contentious socialist functions in place - from NHS (UK's biggest business/employer) downwards.
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/the-nhs-workforce-in-numbers
There are no examples anywhere of non-socialist utopias based on private enterprise and free markets.
We are all socialists now.

 

[Jacob]

I like that...

"Queen Jacob".

Has that ring of self-importance

I see you have lost the plot altogether! Don't worry about it you are not alone.

 

[Jacob]

Lets just accept the figures above are correct.

Rather than a one off distribution let's assume that we want to enhance the income of folk for the indefinite future. To do otherwise would risk a growth bubble to meet immediate desires, followed by no lasting benefit.

Assume a reasonable rate of return of 5% pa on the capital - £662pa - nice to have but not lifechanging. A pleasant holiday, buy a few clothes, meal out for 2 once a month. A bit like the winter fuel allowance - for some important, for many (most) pensioners no great deal.

Investment needs a concentration of capital. Government do this - occasionally effectively, often not, through taxation. Private sector investment in business, jobs, enterprise would be curtailed as:

• the funds they would have otherwise have access to would have been confiscated,
• incentives for investment and risk are removed if profits are subject to further confiscation

A slight overstatement, I accept, but assuming higher tax rates, possibly amounting to confiscation would somehow transform economic prospects to the benefit of all in society is truly naïve.

I see you are missing the point as usual and defending the right of the mega rich to hold on to as much wealth as they can.
But at least you are out here talking about it, which is a way forwards!
The figures are probably correct they come from a reliable source.
They are just indicative of the scale of the issue and reworking them to suit your argument misses the point entirely. It's a much bigger issue.