What Industries Services should be Nationalised?

[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...shire-15970418

C3................

[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.

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.

[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/commentisf...s-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/commentisf...s-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?

[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?

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?

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.