What Industries Services should be Nationalised?

[ducati]

A poster on another thread was remembering fondly the Nationalised Railways, Utilities, Coal Industry, Car Factories and Steel Mills. All blamed on the Tories for shutting them down.

Well a number of Labour Governments have had ample opportunity to take them back into public ownership but declined. I wonder why?

[John Little]

Am I allowed to post on this thread?

[ducati]

Am I allowed to post on this thread?

Ahh! Another poster! Well I am very fussy who I allow to post on my theads. On you go and lets see if you annoy me.:lol:

[John Little]

Funnily enough Duke, though our Politics are different, you never annoy me.

Now then.

Historically, nationalisation of industries need not have anything to do with what people call 'Socialism'. Socialism entails the reform of society through the redistribution of wealth. This takes place in many forms; in Britain it meant taxing the rich more; in Russia it led to revolution. I point out that such things pre-date the formation of what we know as 'socialism'- the French Revolution took place well before Marx wrote his books.

Co-operativism is the forgotten aspect of social reform which is peculiarly British in its origins. The idea that industry should be run by a partnership of management, employees and government even pre-dates the formation of the Labour Party. My own great grandfather was a miner on a colliery which was owned by and run by its own miners back in the 1880s - nor was this rare.

There are successful cooperative and capitalist concerns all over the world and in this country. The most successful that comes to mind is the John Lewis Partnership.

The Labour Party included nationalisation of the heads of industry in their 1918 manifesto, but it was an idea they nicked; and they ran it in a guild socialist way when it did not have to be like that.

Boh Mussolini and Hitler tried a version of the corporate state, which drew on Co-operativism but did it on a coercive basis - ie if you do not co-operate then you get slapped. That's not what I had in mind.

To avoid the inefficiency, fragmentation, outrageous pricing and blatant profiteering that is endemic in our industry I should like to see the railways, mines, electricity, and gas runs as cooperatives, the employees being shareholders. For a start.

I should also like to see at least one of the high street banks run as a government bank, on ethical grounds, offering loans at a rate based on recouping running costs with a developmental surplus, rather than for pure shareholder profit.

Socialism and Toryism are not the only ways.

[Corrie 3]

Am I allowed to post on this thread?
As long as you dry your feet first John!!! :roll:

Duke...........All the one's that worked so well in the 50's as Nationalised Industries !!

C3...........;)

[John Little]

BTW - when I said my great grandfather worked ON a colliery - I meant it. His house was almost next to the shaft! :eek:

[squidge]

All energy/utility companies... Water, gas, electricity. The stuff we cant live without. Public transport - buses, railways, trains, trams oh and road maintenance too. Pension funds, public and private.

[ducati]

All energy/utility companies... Water, gas, electricity. The stuff we cant live without. Public transport - buses, railways, trains, trams oh and road maintenance too. Pension funds, public and private.

Good effort! Now, How we going to pay for it?

And what about food production, clothing, or house and road building?

[squidge]

Close the tax avoidance loopholes which make me dance with rage! A social levy on companies which make many millions of pounds. Tax huge bonuses. Income tax would have to rise i think. However the real challenge would be to change the ethos in society so the focus is on people and making lives better rather than on other things. We could also do with some victorian style philanthropists. As for housing, clothes and food nope. I would however, teach kids to cook in schools and ensure they all know how to make and mend stuff. I was utterly rubbish at needlework getting 28% in one exam but when the big lads were wee and we were skint, I made summer shorts for them and other bits and pieces. As for food, i wouldnt nationalise it but i would try to reduce the amount of food which we import. Where we produce our own food here we should maximise that rather than import stuff from abroad. Roads .... Maybe... Housebuilding .... Nope.

[theone]

In a perfect world any industry which uses public money would be nationalised. That way every penny spend would be returned to the public, nothing going to private profit.

But in reality, it doesn't work. For many reasons.

Public industries can't pay the wages private industries can. Big earners get criticised by every tabloid paper and throughout the media. So where do the best people go? Private companies or government jobs? The result is that public industries are weaker.

Private companies can be more ruthless than government bodies. Part of this is down to union interference and the political weight they carry. Basic pay, then expensive T's + C's, pensions, sick pay etc etc are all generally better in public life. It all costs more.

The government doesn't have the capital to invest in big projects, therefore private investment is needed, and private investors need profits.

[theone]

Close the tax avoidance loopholes which make me dance with rage! A social levy on companies which make many millions of pounds. Tax huge bonuses. Income rax would have to rise i think. However the real challenge would be to change the ethos in society so the focus is on people and making lives better rather than on other things. We could also do with some victorian style philanthropists.

Tax avoidance, I wouldn't disagree with that.

But the rest might be counter productive. Higher taxes on company profits mean they are likely to look elsewhere to invest.

The Victorian philanthropists probably wouldn't have donated so much had they been taxed 50% of their earnings, so why should we expect big earners to do it nowadays?

Also, times have changed in that he majority of big businesses are no longer owned by individuals or families, but by shareholders who demand a return on their investment. Many of those shareholders are pension funds, so cutting profits hurt our pensions. Counter productive.

I like the idea of an ethos change to a more charitable society, but seeing the amount of public money spent on the benefit system, combined with current tax rates, the average working tax payer can be forgiven for thinking they've given enough 'out'.

I saw a couple who won the Euromillions lottery donated £1,000,000 to a political party. If that's where those from the working classes choose to spend their unexpected gains, why should we expect the upper classes to be more charitable?

[John Little]

Commercial Criteria
Corporations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations)
State-Owned Enterprises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_ownership)
Worker Cooperatives


Purpose
a) To earn profit for owner, to increase value of shares.
a) To provide goods and services for citizens.
a) To maximize net and real worth of all owners.


Organization
a) Organized and controlled by investors
a) Organized and controlled by state
a) Organized and controlled by worker-members



b) Incorporated under relevant incorporation laws - varies by country
b) Chartered by relevant level of government
b) Incorporated under relevant incorporation laws - varies by country



c) Except for closely held companies anyone may buy stock
c) No stock
c) Only worker-members may own stock, one share per member



d) Stock may be traded in the public market
d) n/a
d) No public sale of stock


Ownership
a) Stockholders
a) State
a) Worker members


Control
a) By Investors
a) By state
a) By worker members



b) Policies set by stockholders or board of directors.
b) Policy set by government planners.
b) Policy set by directors elected by worker-members, or by assembly of worker-members



c) Voting on basis of shares held
c) n/a
c) One person, one vote



d) Proxy voting permitted
d) n/a
d) Proxy votes seldom allowed


Sources of Capital
a) Investors, banks, pension funds, the public
a) The state
a) By members or lenders who have no equity or vote



b) From profitable subsidiaries or by retaining all or part of the profits

b) From net earnings, a portion of which are set aside for reinvestment


Distribution of Net Margin
a) To stockholders on the basis of number of shares owned
a) To the State
a) To members after funds are set aside for reserves and allocated to a collective account


Capital Dividends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend)
a) No limit, amount set by owner or Board of Directors
a) n/a
a) Limited to an interest-like percentage set by policy


Operating Practices
a) Owners or managers order production schedules and set wages and hours, sometimes with union participation
a) Managers order production schedules and set wages and hours, sometimes with union participation
a) Workers set production schedules either through elected boards and appointed managers or directly through assemblies



b) Working conditions determined by labour law and collective bargaining.
b) Working conditions determined by labour law and collective bargaining.
b) Working conditions determined by labour law and assembly of worker-members, or internal dialogue between members and managers.


Tax Treatment
a) Subject to normal corporate taxes
a) n/a
a) Special tax treatment in some jurisdictions





Wikipedia source

A different sort of Capitalism.

[David Banks]

I've always liked the idea of co-operatives, but they seem to survive poorly, and only on the margins of societies.

Do they need better laws to flourish?
Would the EUROpeans approve?

[John Little]

I do not think so David. Cooperatives flourish all over the world - I think, like any other business, that their success, or lack of it, is affected by the management of them. This is one of the most successful companies in Britain;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership

Impeccably Capitalist, flourishing and much more socially just; I find it hard to see why individuals should be able to pocket extreme wealth when there are working models of a better system on offer.

I bank with these people;

http://www.co-operativebank.co.uk/servlet/Satellite/1193206368227,CFSweb/Page/Bank-CurrentAccounts?WT.svl=nav

They are a good bank and score highly in consumer surveys- and ideologically too;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Bank

I think part government ownership should be included in large industries though - as a watchdog and for strategic economic reasons.

[David Banks]

I do not think so David. Cooperatives flourish all over the world - I think, like any other business, that their success, or lack of it, is affected by the management of them.

You might be lucky being within spitting distance of London. I wonder if there are any co-operative banks in Caithness, or Scotland for that matter - and if not, why not?

[John Little]

You might be lucky being within spitting distance of London. I wonder if there are any co-operative banks in Caithness, or Scotland for that matter - and if not, why not?

I use their internet and telephone banking service called 'Smile'. I never visit a branch, can use any cashpoint, and any problems are sorted over the phone from anywhere, within minutes. It's superb - does not matter where you live.


http://www.smile.co.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Smile/Page/smView&c=Page&cid=1023953608805

T (http://www.smile.co.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Smile/Page/smView&c=Page&cid=1023953608805)he ethical policy bit reads well.

[weezer 316]

Ahem...

NHS
Schools
Armed forces
Police
Road maintenance
Half the electricity generation capacity
Customs and harbour authorities
justice system

Everything else should be privately done.

[ducati]

So the concensus seems to be we want all this stuff but to pay for it we have to tax the rich. Or in one circumstance abolish the rich.

The problem I see with this is there will be no rich to tax. Also, what motivation is there for anyone to work hard and strive to better their circumstances or is this a bad thing?

So why bother with further education for instance? (not that I did). It is the envy thing as I see it. I can't be rich so why should anyone else? (Put very simply of course).

[John Little]

What's being rich got to do with education? :confused:

[ducati]

What's being rich got to do with education? :confused:

I was always told study hard get a good education then a good job work hard get rich. (or you could just do the lotto but that didnt exist when I was at school) You will find that far and away the majority of rich people have a good education.

It might not be a proper corrolation thinking about it. Maybe it is that the majority of well educated people were motivated from an early age?

[John Little]

Well I know lots of people who should be very rich indeed then! But they ain't!

[ducati]

Well I know lots of people who should be very rich indeed then! But they ain't!

You mean they wasted their education? :eek:

[John Little]

You mean they wasted their education? :eek:

Depends how you look at it. All those teachers, nurses, social workers, cops, firemen etc with degrees. Seems to me they do a job but it ain't ever going to make them rich. All the education in the world does not make you rich because this is no meritocracy.

You want to be rich in our society then you must have a barrow boy mentality or a prodigious natural talent.

You can slave all your life but if the kid next door can kick a ball then he don't need no education.... he don't need no thought control...

[squidge]

If we want nationalised industry then we ALL need to pay for them. Taxation for ordinary people will have to go up too, however if we have an electricity industry for example that does not have to pay dividends to share holders and is not driven to make massive profits then we all benefit. Prices come down, businesses benefit and homes benefit. Given the p

[ducati]

Depends how you look at it. All those teachers, nurses, social workers, cops, firemen etc with degrees. Seems to me they do a job but it ain't ever going to make them rich. All the education in the world does not make you rich because this is no meritocracy.

You want to be rich in our society then you must have a barrow boy mentality or a prodigious natural talent.

You can slave all your life but if the kid next door can kick a ball then he don't need no education.... he don't need no thought control...

I would say that an education gives you choices. If you choose a career that will never make you rich despite your education, then that is a calling.
BTW you will find a great number of Firefighters have a second career in an attempt to get rich, or at least get a decent standard of living.
But the fact remains, you will be very hard pressed to find an Oxford Graduate who hasn't done well. You might blame the old school network but you still have to get to Oxford. (for example).

[John Little]

Given the P? :eek:

[weezer 316]

If we want nationalised industry then we ALL need to pay for them. Taxation for ordinary people will have to go up too, however if we have an electricity industry for example that does not have to pay dividends to share holders and is not driven to make massive profits then we all benefit. Prices come down, businesses benefit and homes benefit. Given the p

!?!!?!?!

If I had a hat I would eat it.

Can I ask what you would do given a situation where the wholesale price of electricity goes up say 50%, and we had to source from overseas to ensure the lights dont go out? Do you raise taxes to accomodate or pull cash from say the NHS or the Army?

And I wont even ask what you would do when things need repaired, and when the people you phone to complain about your bill ask for a pay rise....oops I just did.

[ducati]

Given the P? :eek:

P? You mean the upfront funding you are given and will never have to pay back if you choose a calling? :eek:

[John Little]

I would say that an education gives you choices. If you choose a career that will never make you rich despite your education, then that is a calling....
But the fact remains, you will be very hard pressed to find an Oxford Graduate who hasn't done well.

No I wouldn't! Got one on my Facebook friends right now - and rich she ain't - IQ of 165 or not so Nyah - Nyah!

She is, however, doing what she wants to do in the full knowledge that money is not everything.
And that 'doing well' ain't necessarily figured in £ s d.

[John Little]

P? You mean the upfront funding you are given and will never have to pay back if you choose a calling? :eek:

You mean the money that enlightened states pay to educate the technical class they need to run things?

[ducati]

No I wouldn't! Got one on my Facebook friends right now - and rich she ain't - IQ of 165 or not so Nyah - Nyah!

She is, however, doing what she wants to do in the full knowledge that money is not everything.
And that 'doing well' ain't necessarily figured in £ s d.

Well thats the point isnt it? Choices, would she have those same choices had she graduated from a secondary modern school with an O'level?

And at this point we probably should define rich. Lives on a council estate in Peckham does she?

[ducati]

You mean the money that enlightened states pay to educate the technical class they need to run things?

Yes, and then they get to pay it back if they do well as a result.:lol:

[John Little]

Now you're changing the argument. You've gone from holding that education equals riches to it being a matter of choice.

Secondary school with one o level? Don't know. Some of our richest people do not seem to have had much formal education.

[ducati]

Now you're changing the argument. You've gone from holding that education equals riches to it being a matter of choice.

Secondary school with one o level? Don't know. Some of our richest people do not seem to have had much formal education.

Well it never struck me until you mentioned it that, given the choice, some people would choose not to be rich.

Actually checking back you sidetracked me. The point I was, ineptly, making was if you took away the opportunity to become wealthy, then that would remove the motivation from the populace (In many cases).

[John Little]

Well it never struck me until you mentioned it that, given the choice, some people would choose not to be rich.

Actually checking back you sidetracked me. The point I was, ineptly, making was if you took away the opportunity to become wealthy, then that would remove the motivation from the populace (In many cases).

Ah - well now I cannot agree. If you read that stuff on the John Lewis Partnership it is quite illuminating. Employees at John Lewis are not called such but 'partners'. They receive pay but share in the profits of the company with a share dividend at the end of the year. Their Chief exec gets £500,000 a year plus a share of profits. Apparently some years ago they put it to the vote that the company should demutualise and float on the stock exchange. Partners would have got about £100,000 each - but the vote went heavily against demutualisation. They knew a good thing when they saw it and a one off payment that dissolves such a lucrative and beneficial enterprise was rejected.

You see you can be Capitalist without being Socialist, or Tory and get a fairer society out of it.

Anyway - don't you believe in altruism at all?

[ducati]

Ah - well now I cannot agree. If you read that stuff on the John Lewis Partnership it is quite illuminating. Employees at John Lewis are not called such but 'partners'. They receive pay but share in the profits of the company with a share dividend at the end of the year. Their Chief exec gets £500,000 a year plus a share of profits. Apparently some years ago they put it to the vote that the company should demutualise and float on the stock exchange. Partners would have got about £100,000 each - but the vote went heavily against demutualisation. They knew a good thing when they saw it and a one off payment that dissolves such a lucrative and beneficial enterprise was rejected.

You see you can be Capitalist without being Socialist, or Tory and get a fairer society out of it.

Anyway - don't you believe in altruism at all?

I'd be more convinced by that argument if the CEO of JLP earned £6.40 an hour. Talk about some being more equal than others :roll:

I believe we have a comparatively fair society, go and live in maybe 70% (made up percentage) of the recognised countries in the world. See what happens in Ethiopia or Somalia if you lose your livelihood for instance.


I was brought up to work hard and strive to provide the best I could for my family. And as someone of limited academic ability I've done my best. It wasn't always good enough, I've tried to make a living in Business through two previous recessions and I can't remember anyone ever say "oh isn't the economic situation great just now". Anyway, rambling aside' you won't convince me I wasted my time. (please don't try).:grin:

[John Little]

"I'd be more convinced by that argument if the CEO of JLP earned £6.40 an hour. Talk about some being more equal than others :roll:"

You'd remove differentials?

You are no Tory - you are far to the left of me! :eek:

[tonkatojo]

"I'd be more convinced by that argument if the CEO of JLP earned £6.40 an hour. Talk about some being more equal than others :roll:"

You'd remove differentials?

You are no Tory - you are far to the left of me! :eek:

How easily deceived, he's true blue for sure.

[John Little]

How easily deceived, he's true blue for sure.

Not really - he has some surprising views and not traditionally Tory. He's far too nice to be a real true Blue.

[tonkatojo]

Not really - he has some surprising views and not traditionally Tory. He's far too nice to be a real true Blue.

Perhaps he is not quite like his heroine and in some of his views he "is for turning". LOL

[ducati]

Perhaps he is not quite like his heroine and in some of his views he "is for turning". LOL

You guys have a completely blinkered view of what a Tory is or believes in.

If you get past the back biting and rhetoric, do you know what the difference is between the Coalition and Labour on the economy and the deficit reduction?

A number, and it isn't a very big one.

[Corrie 3]

You guys have a completely blinkered view of what a Tory is or believes in.
C'mon Duke....you aint a real Tory are you? You seem far too nice for that!!!

C3.............;)

[John Little]

Which is why I don't want to vote for any of them.

So what do Tories believe in then?

And who's backbiting?

[ducati]

Which is why I don't want to vote for any of them.

So what do Tories believe in then?

Oh no room or time here. But just to make you feel all warm and fuzzy. Squeezing every last drop of sweat and blood out of the workers then when they have no more to give, tossing them aside to expire on the scrap heap.

That the sort of thing?

[John Little]

Nah - that's Toryism circa 1830. You are a Conservative.

What is a Conservative and why do they so favour private enterprise?

[weezer 316]

Ill answer that...

Conservatives favour private enterprise as it put the shirt on your back and food on your table. Also, private industry employees outnumber public by about 4.2 to 1, so private enterprise is evidently the largest employer.

It also gives you a chance to work yourself out of the situation you are in. And a limit to the govt involvment allows space for people to put their skill and ideas to use for their and their customers benefits.

That and the belief that there isnt that much wrong with this country, at elast not with its institutions.

[John Little]

Hm - state industries, before they were run down, put shirts on many backs and food on many tables. The largest single employer in the country is still the state run HNS. Any work allows you to work out of where you are, and good management, state or private allows space for skills and ideas to please customers. State or private- if they do not do that then they fail.

And at the moment there is a lot wrong. Our economy is unbalanced in favour of finance and our manufacturing sector is not what it was.

Nothing about trickle-down ?

Anyway Weezer - what do you think about Co-operativist Capitalism as embracing a broader conservatism- sharing the wealth through the work ethic/ profit motive instead of through taxation? A share-owning democracy, not in the Thatcherite sense but in a way which does not unbalance the economy by concentrating the wealth in too few hands?

[gleeber]

You are no Tory - you are far to the left of me! :eek:

Hes a Tory right enough.
Mrs thatcher got me interested in politics. I never noticed politics before her and it took me ages to find out why I didnt like her. Once I found out why I didnt like her I started to respect her.

[ducati]

It's very simple as a philosophy. Create an environment where people can prosper, then don't interfere. Provide for the needs of the needy and protect the countries borders. Influence the world to be more like us.

It all sounds a bit like its gone tsit up. But having the situation as it is, get back to the above ASAP. :D

[John Little]

Interesting.

It should be the duty of government to pass laws so that a man, by the sweat of his brow, may provide for his family in decency.

Not an exact quote but the thought of Leonard Hobhouse, one of the two Hobs - the philosophers behind New Liberalism at the start of the 20th century. The difference between the New Liberals and the Conservatives was that the Conservatives believed in non-interference. The New Liberals recognised that the playing field was not level and that only legislation and light touch government regulation could make it so, and keep it so. Otherwise greed would slant it and destroy social balance.

Classic Liberalism.

[gleeber]

Britains opposing political philosophies have evolved over centuries and has a built in allowance for human nature. I think it was more by accident than design because no matter what kind of political system we have people just won't act like we expect them to. We behave a bit like particles at sub atomic levels. Here there and everywhere and all at the same time.

[John Little]

The total personal wealth in the UK is £9,000bn, a sum that dwarfs the national debt. It is mostly concentrated at the top, so the richest 10% own £4,000bn, with an average per household of £4m. The bottom half of our society own just 9%.

Given this situation I have no objection whatsoever to a wealth tax because our current taxes relate too much to spending. VAT at 20% hits the 9% at the bottom far far harder than the bloated 10% at the top. Renationalise the main heads of industry under a government ministry.
Use the capital to set up Co-operatives for Rail, Power, Gas etc. with a light touch regulatory body

The third way.

BTW - anyone reading this is far far more likely to be in the 9%.
So why on earth would you vote for the 10% at the top? :confused:

[squidge]

Given the P? :eek: thats what happens when your two year old falls over and needs kissing better!


!?!!?!?!

If I had a hat I would eat it.

Can I ask what you would do given a situation where the wholesale price of electricity goes up say 50%, and we had to source from overseas to ensure the lights dont go out? Do you raise taxes to accomodate or pull cash from say the NHS or the Army?

And I wont even ask what you would do when things need repaired, and when the people you phone to complain about your bill ask for a pay rise....oops I just did.

I dont have the answers Weezer - there are people who are much cleverer than me who could work this out. However what cannot be right in the 21st century is that electricity and gas companies make massive profits and yet pensioners are freezing in one room because they cannot afford to heat their homes. That is what makes ME eat my hat ( if i had one). Where something is necessary for life, Gas, electricity, NHS, water etc then it should be run for the benefit of the public not the shareholders. Given the PROFITS the energy companies are making for example there is no reason why companies in public ownership cant be very successful given the right environment.




Public industries can't pay the wages private industries can. Big earners get criticised by every tabloid paper and throughout the media. So where do the best people go? Private companies or government jobs? The result is that public industries are weaker.

Private companies can be more ruthless than government bodies. Part of this is down to union interference and the political weight they carry. Basic pay, then expensive T's + C's, pensions, sick pay etc etc are all generally better in public life. It all costs more.


And there you have the reason for todays strike in a nutshell. Public organisations cant pay the same wages as the private sector so they offset that with better pensions and terms and conditions which assists them to compete.... not any more they dont.

We are also wrong if we think that public sector employees are somehow not as good as private ones. I worked for a government department for 16 years and there were many capable and innovative people working in the department I worked for. Indeed after I left I really truly thought that I would struggle in the world of private business and that my skills and development would be out of date or somehow less business focussed. I was sooooooo wrong. In a lot of ways I was STREAKS ahead of many of my new colleagues and I was often amazed by their lack of understanding of tons of stuff.

I asked a question ... oh months ago about the situation in France. Here it is and John Little gave me a reply within which there was this sentence



And I suspect that in their thinking on life, people are more important than profit, community more important than cartels, and the individual more important than Utilitarianism.

Seems to me thats where we should all be positioned really

[ducati]

The total personal wealth in the UK is £9,000bn, a sum that dwarfs the national debt. It is mostly concentrated at the top, so the richest 10% own £4,000bn, with an average per household of £4m. The bottom half of our society own just 9%.

Given this situation I have no objection whatsoever to a wealth tax because our current taxes relate too much to spending. VAT at 20% hits the 9% at the bottom far far harder than the bloated 10% at the top. Renationalise the main heads of industry under a government ministry.
Use the capital to set up Co-operatives for Rail, Power, Gas etc. with a light touch regulatory body

The third way.

BTW - anyone reading this is far far more likely to be in the 9%.
So why on earth would you vote for the 10% at the top? :confused:

There you go again, outrage at people that do well. If you can't do well what is the point of trying?

I would put forward this thought. The wealth gap. The difference between an average employed or retired homeowner and say a homeless mother without a partner, is far, far wider than that between the aforementioned and a company director on a £million package.

That is the gap that needs addressing very urgently.

[squidge]

Ducati thats not outrage..... its sense.

VAT, fuel tax and other things hit the poorest hardest and so there is an argument that the income tax rates should be higher for high earners than for those on a low or average wage to even things out a bit.

In addition the highest earners often have packages which limit their tax liabilities and so they can avoid tax through a range of carefully worked out packages which mean they keep more of their earnings. The hairdresser, the shop assistant the single mum cleaning the offices where the high earners work doesnt really have those options - they often cant elect to take part of their wages in a way that gives them a tax break. Granted some companies offer chidcare vouchers which offer a slight tax incentive but not many and not enough. On an average wage you are on PAYE and thats just that. You dont have the option to be creative and minimise your tax liability so neither should high earners. And if they keep that option then they should be prepared to have a higher tax bracket for the parts they pay tax on.

I would love to earn £500 000 a year. or even £50 000 a year - in fact £5000 a year would be nice right now lol. Even paying higher taxes would mean I have plenty money and I would feel perfectly happy that my hard work was being recognised.

[secrets in symmetry]

You do pay higher taxes on higher salaries!

You pay 20% on earnings up to £35,000, then 40% on earnings between £35,000 and £150,000, and 50% on earnings over £150,000. There are arguments that the latter depresses the economy and everyone is worse off, although I haven't seen any serious models of that effect.

Tax dodges for the well off are a different matter....

Improving anything by monolithic state ownership is a return to the early days of wishful thinking viewed through rose tinted memories.

[theone]

And there you have the reason for todays strike in a nutshell. Public organisations cant pay the same wages as the private sector so they offset that with better pensions and terms and conditions which assists them to compete.... not any more they dont.


So surely there's a reason for privatisation?

If the government can't afford the costs running inefficient public services, go private, bring in people who can run the service cheaper and the public benefit?




My (private) company pension goes into a fund where what I get when I retire depends on the markets and how well my investment goes. Why should somebody in the public sector get a guaranteed, or even final salary based, unaffordable pension that I could only dream of?

[John Little]

You do pay higher taxes on higher salaries!

You pay 20% on earnings up to £35,000, then 40% on earnings between £35,000 and £150,000, and 50% on earnings over £150,000. There are arguments that the latter depresses the economy and everyone is worse off, although I haven't seen any serious models of that effect.

Tax dodges for the well off are a different matter....

Improving anything by monolithic state ownership is a return to the early days of wishful thinking viewed through rose tinted memories.

I think the distinction has to be between tax and wealth. Quite aside from some of the ridiculous salaries and even more ridiculous 'bonuses' that are handed out by a process of legalised theft, when 10% of the population own most of a country's wealth and it is tied up- mostly in land, art and gold, then it does little benefit to most of society.

Of course Thatcherites claim there is no such thing as society, which exonerates them from having to care about it, but with such an imbalance in the economy you get strains at the social fabric, political instability and civil strife.

And how that wealth was acquired needs examination. If large privatised utilities are formed that leach vast profits out of the rest of the economy because they have a virtual monopoly- and it's all legal, then maybe the law needs changing. It allows corporations, free of responsibility, to charge what they wish, channel the wealth thus raised into the pockets of the relative few, and squeezes the income of those who have least.

To me this is as plain as the nose on your face.

It is equally plain to me that this benefits not one single person on this forum for I tell you squarely that you can economise all you like, work all the hours that God sends and you will never- never - join that 10%.

So why are there so many good, hard-working, honest and community minded people willing to support this insupportable state of affairs?
Why vote for the very people who are disadvantaging you?

[ducati]

I think the distinction has to be between tax and wealth. Quite aside from some of the ridiculous salaries and even more ridiculous 'bonuses' that are handed out by a process of legalised theft, when 10% of the population own most of a country's wealth and it is tied up- mostly in land, art and gold, then it does little benefit to most of society.

Of course Thatcherites claim there is no such thing as society, which exonerates them from having to care about it, but with such an imbalance in the economy you get strains at the social fabric, political instability and civil strife.

And how that wealth was acquired needs examination. If large privatised utilities are formed that leach vast profits out of the rest of the economy because they have a virtual monopoly- and it's all legal, then maybe the law needs changing. It allows corporations, free of responsibility, to charge what they wish, channel the wealth thus raised into the pockets of the relative few, and squeezes the income of those who have least.

To me this is as plain as the nose on your face.

It is equally plain to me that this benefits not one single person on this forum for I tell you squarely that you can economise all you like, work all the hours that God sends and you will never- never - join that 10%.

So why are there so many good, hard-working, honest and community minded people willing to support this insupportable state of affairs?
Why vote for the very people who are disadvantaging you?

Who should we vote for?

[John Little]

Ah now that opens a whole can of worms Duke.

I really do not know.

There is not a single one of them out there that I would wish to vote for. For the first time in my life I am thinking of not voting.

I have always thought that if you did not vote then you deserved what you got.

But the Right's control of the media is so absolute that it seems that my vote will make little difference and at least I'd be able to say to myself 'Not in my name' to some of the stuff they do.

We have a hard right agenda driving our economy from a party that gained only 3% more votes last year than they did in 2005. They are enabled to do this by the Lib Dems, a soft left party who have done a deal with the devil, for most people in this country did not want these policies and their mandate is unsound.

The Lib Dems will be swept into the dustbin of History at the next election and really will be a wasted vote.

Labour's broad-based social democracy is a monolithic reflection of Thatcherism.

As the the Conservatives, they offer nothing to restructure our society into something where opportunity really is open to all. Opportunity, ultimately depends on wealth and unless a level playing field is provided most people in this country make seek opportunity but will never find it.

I have no advice on who to vote for.

[ducati]

To me this is as plain as the nose on your face.

It is equally plain to me that this benefits not one single person on this forum for I tell you squarely that you can economise all you like, work all the hours that God sends and you will never- never - join that 10%.



You are wrong you know, and its not your fault, you just came at it from a different direction. Its not that hard to make millions, I haven't managed it (yet) but I know several people that have and still are. You start a business and grow it then sell it. It is that simple. Sometimes you can achieve the sort of scale where you can 'float' a business on the stock market. At that point you make mega bucks. Once you have done this once it becomes almost impossible to avoid making money. You have options to start new businesses or buy small ones with potential, or invest in other peoples businesss and so it goes on.

Many millionaires didn't get it right first time. Some went bankrupt along the way. Then made a comeback, started all over again. It takes vision and sacrifice and self belief, but if you want it, and some would question is it worth it?, you can get it.

[ducati]

Look how far off topic this thread has gone, almost time to throw the toys out. :lol:

[John Little]

Look how far of topic this thread has gone, almost time to throw the toys out. :lol:

Now there would be a sight to see, Personally I think your thread is an excellent one. It allows free play to thoughts on industry, religion, politics, philosophy- and just good craic. Exactly the sort of thing that human beings do when matters are thrown into discussion.

However it is your thread so you have a perfect right to throw your toys as far as you like... :D

[ducati]

Now there would be a sight to see, Personally I think your thread is an excellent one. It allows free play to thoughts on industry, religion, politics, philosophy- and just good craic. Exactly the sort of thing that human beings do when matters are thrown into discussion.

However it is your thread so you have a perfect right to throw your toys as far as you like... :D

I'd never throw them as far as G, Blimey he/she's really got a bug up her/his fundaments.

[John Little]

I'd never throw them as far as G, Blimey he/she's really got a bug up her/his fundaments.

I think the time of year has summat to do with it.

[gleeber]

You must vote. its the strongest freedom a man could have apart from an estranged wife. Even if you just spoil your paper its the taking part that counts.

[gleeber]

There is not a single one of them out there that I would wish to vote for. For the first time in my life I am thinking of not voting.

The above post was in response to this

[John Little]

Voting would also validate a process that I have no faith in.

[gleeber]

Thats different then. How would you elect government?

[ducati]

Voting would also validate a process that I have no faith in.

Stand as an independent. :cool: For C, S & Wester Ross

[John Little]

Thats different then. How would you elect government?

Through a proper system of PR.

[John Little]

Stand as an independent. :cool: For C, S & Wester Ross

Me an MP? I'd rather go surfing on a pyroclastic cloud!

[ducati]

Through a proper system of PR.

I thought you didn't like coalitions? :confused

[John Little]

I thought you didn't like coalitions? :confused

There's coalitions and coalitions. I do like Democracy - but first past the post is not that!

[ducati]

There's coalitions and coalitions. I do like Democracy - but first past the post is not that!

Actually, FPTP would be a lot more democratic with a two party system would you agree?

[John Little]

Actually, FPTP would be a lot more democratic with a two party system would you agree?

No - the essence of a democratic system is pluralism.

It would make more sense to do as Alrock suggested somewhere else and abolish parties and whips

[ducati]

No - the essence of a democratic system is pluralism.

It would make more sense to do as Alrock suggested somewhere else and abolish parties and whips

Being realistic, nothing would ever get done! You would just have a 300 odd member commitee.:eek:

[John Little]

Being realistic, nothing would ever get done! You would just have a 300 odd member commitee.:eek:

That cannot stand. Every other government in Europe has PR. That includes the Germans. They seem to be doing just fine.

I don't believe in this silver-back system where some dominant person comes along, kicks derriere and gets things done by sheer force of personality. It smacks more of gorillas than humans. I like negotiation, compromise and consensus - it's more grown up.

[ducati]

That cannot stand. Every other government in Europe has PR. That includes the Germans. They seem to be doing just fine.

I don't believe in this silver-back system where some dominant person comes along, kicks derriere and gets things done by sheer force of personality. It smacks more of gorillas than humans. I like negotiation, compromise and consensus - it's more grown up.

And takes forever, why do you think they still haven't sorted the Eurozone? And.. I wasn't talking about PR I was alluding to a parliament made up of independents.

[John Little]

And takes forever, why do you think they still haven't sorted the Eurozone? And.. I wasn't talking about PR I was alluding to a parliament made up of independents.

Oh I see - no I think they would form groups based round issues which would set out to accomplish a task, then break up and coalesce according to what was on the agenda. They would form factions, but there would be shift and change and switching of members.

Just think! They'd have to actually talk and negotiate over issues, thinking them through instead of just doing as the alpha males told them to.

Much better. More civilised

[Dialyser]

The danger would be ending up with something like this!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13725277

[John Little]

Not too dangerous though-

"On a day-to-day basis, though, Belgium is ticking along nicely. Its economy is growing, exports are up, inward foreign investment has continued, the country's presidency of the European Union in 2010 was deemed a success, and it has contributed to the Nato bombing of Libya..."

We could use some of that!

[Corrie 3]

Another kick in the teeth for the professionals of this country!!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-15970418

C3................[disgust][disgust]

[Rheghead]

I think burials should be nationalised, fixed price for the basic disposal.

[Phill]

at this point we probably should define rich. I am interested to know what rich is (so I can aim for something at least).
Public organisations cant pay the same wages as the private sector so they offset that with better pensions and terms and conditions which assists them to compete.Really? I've spent many years looking at public sector pay wishing I could earn that much for what they do AND get pensions, flexible time, extra holidays, low hours, overtime, conditions and perks they get.

[ducati]

I am interested to know what rich is (so I can aim for something at least).


Depends who you ask but I supect it will be the next level up. Ask a homeless person, it will be someone with a council flat.

Or a £50,000 a year salesman, it will be the person with the next size up car in the carpark.

[John Little]

I am interested to know what rich is (so I can aim for something at least). Really? I've spent many years looking at public sector pay wishing I could earn that much for what they do AND get pensions, flexible time, extra holidays, low hours, overtime, conditions and perks they get.

:eek: Well I spent years in the public sector. And I have a pension, though it's hardly up to Fred the Shred's.

But flexible time, extra hols, low hours, overtime and perks? I never got any of that! What jobs you been looking at Phil?

I went for the wrong career!! :~(

[ducati]

In my heyday, in the FS industry, we all had an extra bank account, it was ostensibly the Porsche fund, privately we called it FO money. It was for commission on a huge deal. It we got a big enough payout we could tell the boss to FO.

A colleague did get close once, she sold a group pension scheme to an Airline. I think the first instalment on the commission was about £80,000. The boss got a phone call from the Seychelles saying I'll be in on Monday. :lol:

[orkneycadian]

But flexible time, extra hols, low hours, overtime and perks? I never got any of that! What jobs you been looking at Phil?

Sounds like a job with Orkney Islands Council!

[Oddquine]

Because they could see the way Maggie Thatcher had promoted the "me first" society to the extent that UK wide nobody much cares about anyone but themselves anymore....and re-nationalising industries which were handing dividends to Joe Punter, who immediately became middle class because he owned shares in the 'leccy etc PLUS was able to buy his council house for sweeties would guarantee they would never be re-elected...bar maybe in Scotland.

The problem with the Nationalised industries before they were sold off was never the nationalisation concept (though i do like John Little's Co-operative one)...but the problem was, has always been...and still is...the rank incompetence of successive governments.........who have never been able to control their quangos, themselves and anything remotely connected to the money we hand to them on a plate.....and which they think is theirs to waste.

If there had been sensible controlling oversight of the Nationalised Industries from the start, they would have worked....but there wasn't and, not discouraged by governments, they got into the "Government (as in the taxpayer) has a magic pocket which never empties.....so we don't have to watch our spending" mode. Heck, there is not yet, in 2011 sensible controlling oversight of anything at al for which the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill....but there are certainly lots of "committees" "quangos", "commisions" etc accomplishing not a lot at very great expense......and.because we have this magic never emptying pocket the numbers of useless, incompetent oversight authorites are increasing exponentially to give "jobs for the well academically qualified, but commonsense lacking" boys.

About time the "political classes were all put against a wall and shot.because they trash everything they touch.

[secrets in symmetry]

I think the distinction has to be between tax and wealth. Quite aside from some of the ridiculous salaries and even more ridiculous 'bonuses' that are handed out by a process of legalised theft, when 10% of the population own most of a country's wealth and it is tied up- mostly in land, art and gold, then it does little benefit to most of society.Ok, but a wealth tax is a very different beast from a higher rate income tax.

Do we have any wealth taxes in this country? The old "domestic rates" were a wealth tax of sorts, because, if I remember correctly, they didn't apply to rented properties - although they will no doubt have fed into the rent that was charged for such properties.

[orkneycadian]

I think Tesco should be nationalised. Then, it could be run in a manner that supports the rest of the countries industries, instead of ripping the heart out of them.

[John Little]

Ok, but a wealth tax is a very different beast from a higher rate income tax.

Do we have any wealth taxes in this country? The old "domestic rates" were a wealth tax of sorts, because, if I remember correctly, they didn't apply to rented properties - although they will no doubt have fed into the rent for such properties.

Yes - a wealth tax would be a different beast. I've posted this before;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/15/deficit-crisis-tax-the-rich

but it's useful to consider.

Being radical in this case means stepping outside the either/or bracket of high tax/low tax.

If you take an Adam Smith kind of stance and look at 'Wealth' as a national resource, then it looks more like other resources like 'oil' or 'coal' or 'gold' etc. If it is a national resource then is it tolerable to continue to have a relatively small proportion of people hoarding something which could be used to do good.

How far do we take the concept of 'earned' wealth? If a person has £7,500,000,000 in the bank, how many yachts, houses, suits etc do you need? In a world with diminishing resources and a growing population, is it sustainable to continue this model for organising our economies?

If we are to maintain standards of civilisation and services and even Democracy, how much sense does it make to have such an enormous gap twixt rich and poor? One that continues to grow.

The only wealth tax that we have right now that I can think of is Capital Gains.

[secrets in symmetry]

Yes, but Capital Gains tax is only paid when you realise your profit by selling something. Rates were paid according to the value of your house while you still possessed it, although you still had to pay rates on a house that was mortgaged to the hilt.

The Guardian article is interesting, most especially for the numbers in it, but also because it was written more than a year ago. Its economic predictions were correct, although this wasn't difficult to get right - unless you are J-George Osborne and his cronies.

[ducati]

Yes - a wealth tax would be a different beast. I've posted this before;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/15/deficit-crisis-tax-the-rich

but it's useful to consider.

Being radical in this case means stepping outside the either/or bracket of high tax/low tax.

If you take an Adam Smith kind of stance and look at 'Wealth' as a national resource, then it looks more like other resources like 'oil' or 'coal' or 'gold' etc. If it is a national resource then is it tolerable to continue to have a relatively small proportion of people hoarding something which could be used to do good.

How far do we take the concept of 'earned' wealth? If a person has £7,500,000,000 in the bank, how many yachts, houses, suits etc do you need? In a world with diminishing resources and a growing population, is it sustainable to continue this model for organising our economies?

If we are to maintain standards of civilisation and services and even Democracy, how much sense does it make to have such an enormous gap twixt rich and poor? One that continues to grow.

The only wealth tax that we have right now that I can think of is Capital Gains.

So, are you suggesting people that pay 50% on their personal income and capital gains tax on shares, properties, businesss sold and suchlike, should be taxed again on what they have already been taxed on? :confused

[gleeber]

So, are you suggesting people that pay 50% on their personal income and capital gains tax on shares, properties, businesss sold and suchlike, should be taxed again on what they have already been taxed on? :confused
Why not?
Redistribution of wealth is a cornerstone of left wing philosophy. It creates debate and is an excellent deterent to right wing greed.
The more you take out the more you put in.

[John Little]

So, are you suggesting people that pay 50% on their personal income and capital gains tax on shares, properties, businesss sold and suchlike, should be taxed again on what they have already been taxed on? :confused

I do not think you are listening to me - listen vairy carefully - I shall say zis only once.

First of all I don't go for a bi-polar world of Left or Right.

If people want convenient labels to hang their beliefs on, then fine but I find too much of the right wing world view plain selfish, and the left wing view plain looney. I prefer to borrow from both.

But most of all I prefer to be a visitor from another planet observing it without earthling political values. What would such a visitor see?

I doubt that he would see as you do - that the wealthy had paid their share of tax and are therefore on the side of the angels.

Why are the wealthy wealthy?

I tell you squarely that it's not because they work harder than you do, or are cleverer than you or prettier than you.

They are wealthy because there is a world economic system in place, put there by people, which allows them to accrue vast wealth. Laws which used to regulate the market have been swept away since the 80s and price controls are rudimentary. Exploitation is rife across the world economy where large corporations can buy up vast quantities of commodities and on such a scale that they control the prices. It happens in this country too where supermarkets dictate the prices they pay to farmers.
The tax system allows loopholes to the rich to avoid paying billions. Corporations avoid tax wholesale.

But above all, control the system allows the rich to make such vast profits that even after paying tax they are still hoovering up vast amounts of money.

I ask again - how many houses can you have? How many suits can you own and how much caviar can you eat? And is the present system tenable in a world where millions live in poverty, on the breadline and unemployed and without sufficient resource or hope?

World governments are missing out on one of their duties. To regulate the market.

This is nothing new - the US had the most regulated stock market in the world from the 1930s until the 1980s when Reagan swept much of the control away. They had an incredibly prosperous 50 years before Raygun took charge. Incidentally any historian could have pointed to the Republican government of Warren Harding and predicted what would happen next.
Boom - then Bust.

I would take it a stage further - it is clear that a far stricter regulation of the world's markets is necessary - even the blindest of blinkered people can see that. But I think we need a great world financial conference, something in the Bretton Wood/Dumbarton Oaks style, and that governments should stop shirking their duty and bring in world price controls; regulating the range of prices paid on commodities- and this to be done not for the good of the few but for the good of the many.

The present world economic system is selfish madness. It has failed.

We need a better model - and if that means freeing up the billions of dead capital tied up in the accounts of those who have played the system for their own ends and funnelled such obscene amounts of money into their own pockets where it ceases to work for the good of the majority, then I think the alien visitor would say go for it.


What people have put in place to benefit the few can be changed by people. It does not have to be the way it is and it is not written in tablets of stone that it should be.
I think Philo's wealth tax is a winner.

[ducati]

I do not think you are listening to me - listen vairy carefully - I shall say zis only once.

First of all I don't go for a bi-polar world of Left or Right.

If people want convenient labels to hang their beliefs on, then fine but I find too much of the right wing world view plain selfish, and the left wing view plain looney. I prefer to borrow from both.

But most of all I prefer to be a visitor from another planet observing it without earthling political values. What would such a visitor see?

I doubt that he would see as you do - that the wealthy had paid their share of tax and are therefore on the side of the angels.

Why are the wealthy wealthy?

I tell you squarely that it's not because they work harder than you do, or are cleverer than you or prettier than you.

They are wealthy because there is a world economic system in place, put there by people, which allows them to accrue vast wealth. Laws which used to regulate the market have been swept away since the 80s and price controls are rudimentary. Exploitation is rife across the world economy where large corporations can buy up vast quantities of commodities and on such a scale that they control the prices. It happens in this country too where supermarkets dictate the prices they pay to farmers.
The tax system allows loopholes to the rich to avoid paying billions. Corporations avoid tax wholesale.

But above all, control the system allows the rich to make such vast profits that even after paying tax they are still hoovering up vast amounts of money.

I ask again - how many houses can you have? How many suits can you own and how much caviar can you eat? And is the present system tenable in a world where millions live in poverty, on the breadline and unemployed and without sufficient resource or hope?

World governments are missing out on one of their duties. To regulate the market.

This is nothing new - the US had the most regulated stock market in the world from the 1930s until the 1980s when Reagan swept much of the control away. They had an incredibly prosperous 50 years before Raygun took charge. Incidentally any historian could have pointed to the Republican government of Warren Harding and predicted what would happen next.
Boom - then Bust.

I would take it a stage further - it is clear that a far stricter regulation of the world's markets is necessary - even the blindest of blinkered people can see that. But I think we need a great world financial conference, something in the Bretton Wood/Dumbarton Oaks style, and that governments should stop shirking their duty and bring in world price controls; regulating the range of prices paid on commodities- and this to be done not for the good of the few but for the good of the many.

The present world economic system is selfish madness. It has failed.

We need a better model - and if that means freeing up the billions of dead capital tied up in the accounts of those who have played the system for their own ends and funnelled such obscene amounts of money into their own pockets where it ceases to work for the good of the majority, then I think the alien visitor would say go for it.


What people have put in place to benefit the few can be changed by people. It does not have to be the way it is and it is not written in tablets of stone that it should be.
I think Philo's wealth tax is a winner.

OK. Fair enough!

[weezer 316]

Because they could see the way Maggie Thatcher had promoted the "me first" society to the extent that UK wide nobody much cares about anyone but themselves anymore....and re-nationalising industries which were handing dividends to Joe Punter, who immediately became middle class because he owned shares in the 'leccy etc PLUS was able to buy his council house for sweeties would guarantee they would never be re-elected...bar maybe in Scotland.

The problem with the Nationalised industries before they were sold off was never the nationalisation concept (though i do like John Little's Co-operative one)...but the problem was, has always been...and still is...the rank incompetence of successive governments.........who have never been able to control their quangos, themselves and anything remotely connected to the money we hand to them on a plate.....and which they think is theirs to waste.

If there had been sensible controlling oversight of the Nationalised Industries from the start, they would have worked....but there wasn't and, not discouraged by governments, they got into the "Government (as in the taxpayer) has a magic pocket which never empties.....so we don't have to watch our spending" mode. Heck, there is not yet, in 2011 sensible controlling oversight of anything at al for which the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill....but there are certainly lots of "committees" "quangos", "commisions" etc accomplishing not a lot at very great expense......and.because we have this magic never emptying pocket the numbers of useless, incompetent oversight authorites are increasing exponentially to give "jobs for the well academically qualified, but commonsense lacking" boys.

About time the "political classes were all put against a wall and shot.because they trash everything they touch.

Always the govt fault eh! Never the average punter in the street who wants more than hes willing to pay for. Always.

Just awful

[Phill]

I just spent an age writing a response to this thread (it does take me a while, one finger typing and all). It said, repeatedly, "Autosaved"! Then when I came to post I had to log in, and I did, and my response was gone.

So. I must be right but I woz censored by THEM.