Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:18 am  

Dally wrote:

... Let's have rampant, beneficial capitalism rather than current nonsense ...

What do you imagine we have now, other than rampant, laissez-faire capitalism?

And unless you create some form of controls, then someone will always end up with more – and be able to use that extra money to make more at the expense of others.

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:32 am  

On a related matter: look at this hypocrite, condemning people for 'not working hard enough' or for a low enough wage (like them there Africans), when she had to work oh so hard to inherit her family's wealth. And that's not 'envy'.

On a related matter: look at this hypocrite, condemning people for 'not working hard enough' or for a low enough wage (like them there Africans), when she had to work oh so hard to inherit her family's wealth. And that's not 'envy'.

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:44 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

... The majority of tax is paid by a very small percentage of the population...

The majority of income is accrued by the same very small percentage of the population, that's why.

The Video Ref wrote:

... Many people make no positive financial contribution through income tax whatsoever. Something for people to think about before shouting out loud to 'tax the rich'. ..

Many of the richest people in the country do nothing themselves.
Is the Duke of Westminster an entrepreneur? I think not.

Also, the gap between the two ends of the income distribution is widening all the time, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and it's time to redress this.

If you want those at the bottom to pay more tax, they will need to be paid higher wages first.

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:47 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

... If you want those at the bottom to pay more tax, they will need to be paid higher wages first.

And if that happened, not only would such people be paying more tax (including through VAT) but would also be costing less in in-work benefits – or taxpayer subsidies to business, as they should be correctly called.

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:57 am  

Cronus wrote:

Who begrudges people working hard to earn a lot of money? I don't. Good luck to 'em.

But it's their money, it gets taxed, and it's theirs to do what they like with. If some kids end up inheriting millions what's the problem? It's not like they'll be a drain on resources, is it? If they choose to sit in a big house and party for the next 60 years, who cares? Meanwhile, many of the wealthy will actually go on to create or sustain businesses and jobs.

If it's the last will & testament of the deceased to pass on their wealth - money they have earned and paid tax on - why is it anyone else's business? Smells fishily of jealousy.

I guess you mean envy.

As the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, climbing out of poverty gets harder and harder.
The talented from humble backgrounds have to compete with those who are often less-talented but better-educated and much better-funded and consequently, more confident.
A financial risk on a limited income is much, much harder to face than it is when you know damn well that your family fortune is big enough to not even feel the impact if the risk fails.

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:46 am  

Mintball wrote: On a related matter: look at this hypocrite, condemning people for 'not working hard enough' or for a low enough wage (like them there Africans), when she had to work oh so hard to inherit her family's wealth. And that's not 'envy'. So, if the key to increasing personal wealth is to quit smoking & drinking and simply work harder for less, without moaning. Why isn't Africa bursting at the seams with millionaire women?

Mintball wrote: On a related matter: look at this hypocrite, condemning people for 'not working hard enough' or for a low enough wage (like them there Africans), when she had to work oh so hard to inherit her family's wealth. And that's not 'envy'. So, if the key to increasing personal wealth is to quit smoking & drinking and simply work harder for less, without moaning. Why isn't Africa bursting at the seams with millionaire women?

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:17 am  

Mintball wrote:

What do you imagine we have now, other than rampant, laissez-faire capitalism?

Go on I'll bite - which industries do you think currently run under laissez-faire capitalism?

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:11 pm  

Diavolo Rosso wrote:

Go on I'll bite - which industries do you think currently run under laissez-faire capitalism?

Banking (one of our "success" stories (ha, ha))- largely nationalised.
NHS - (largest 'er) - public
Railways - heavily subsided
Car industry - large subsidies to foreign companies
Pharmaceutical manufacture - subsidised via NHS
A large "third sector" - hardly rampant capatalism there
Hi - tech manufacturing - propped up by MoD

We're basically left with professional services as the bastions of capitalism - and they are dependent on the above! So, as I have said before we are effectively living in the socialist utopia that the Labour party always used to aspire to. Mintball has lost the plot with that statement!

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:00 am  

Dally wrote:

Banking (one of our "success" stories (ha, ha))- largely nationalised.
NHS - (largest 'er) - public
Railways - heavily subsided
Car industry - large subsidies to foreign companies
Pharmaceutical manufacture - subsidised via NHS
A large "third sector" - hardly rampant capatalism there
Hi - tech manufacturing - propped up by MoD

We're basically left with professional services as the bastions of capitalism - and they are dependent on the above! So, as I have said before we are effectively living in the socialist utopia that the Labour party always used to aspire to. Mintball has lost the plot with that statement!

On the other hand your examples are either examples of where the private sector has tried its hand at running a public service and then failed miserably (Railways), examples of where the private sector will only take on part of the job (Health), examples where rampant capitalism ended up chasing and then eating its own tail (Banking) or examples where no other market exists other than the public sector (MoD and NHS suppliers)

I haven't a clue what you mean by "third sector" but your list is contrary to the point you are trying to make.

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:34 am  

Diavolo Rosso wrote: Go on I'll bite - which industries do you think currently run under laissez-faire capitalism? One could start with the (news) media, which is so unhampered by government and regulation, that Leveson is now having to take place, with the possibility of the industry being regulated, since it so evidently cannot regulate itself. One could throw in the country's biggest industry – food processing – which with few 'nudges' from government gets away with pretty much what it wants. Consumer pressure is not the same. Indeed, government 'nudge' policy on public health has now even ensured that taxpayers' money is being spent on effectively advertising for some very big businesses under the guise of 'health advice' (see here). Read more here. One could look at big grocery retail, which effectively has so much financial clout that it can ride roughshod over local communities and businesses that are smaller; and which is also, in practice, able to bully producers and suppliers (see this with nothing stopping them.

Diavolo Rosso wrote: Go on I'll bite - which industries do you think currently run under laissez-faire capitalism? One could start with the (news) media, which is so unhampered by government and regulation, that Leveson is now having to take place, with the possibility of the industry being regulated, since it so evidently cannot regulate itself. One could throw in the country's biggest industry – food processing – which with few 'nudges' from government gets away with pretty much what it wants. Consumer pressure is not the same. Indeed, government 'nudge' policy on public health has now even ensured that taxpayers' money is being spent on effectively advertising for some very big businesses under the guise of 'health advice' (see here). Read more here. One could look at big grocery retail, which effectively has so much financial clout that it can ride roughshod over local communities and businesses that are smaller; and which is also, in practice, able to bully producers and suppliers (see this with nothing stopping them.