The Lemon Fool

Both the left and right assume migration and printing is the way to grow the economy. A falsity as that's just a short term fix, mid/longer term (exponential function) liability

The return on gold does not depend on the fulfillment of some material condition. It is an ideological problem. It presupposes only one thing: the abandonment of the illusion that increasing the quantity of money creates prosperity.

Ludwig von Mises

The Tories have transitioned to being more Labour, than is the present Labour party. Fundamentally little difference if you vote either way. Either way and promoting individuals to work hard, save and prosper ... is dead. Instead preferring to drive away the 1% that pay a third of the tax take to instead leave the remainder having to pay 50% more in taxes to fill that hole. LT/KK were the last Tory hope - who looked to double or even treble that number, to leave the rest having to pay ... no taxes.

Gilgongo wrote:Back to current political reality, as far as I know I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on the elected UK left wing (John McDonnell, Caroline Lucas, et. al.) who would advocate for anything much more than rent controls, higher taxes, and the abolition of some property-related tax breaks.

Labour's 2019 manifesto contained two major attacks on property rights:

1) a pledge to seize 10% of any business with over 250 employees. In addition to the confiscation of shares, this would deter any business from hiring employee 251 and encourage business with over 250 employees to consider reducing their workforce.

2) nationalising a swathe of businesses (energy, water, rail, post office, etc.) at below market value (seizure with no compensation was not ruled out).

The Shadow Chancellor in 2019, John McDonnell, is a big fan of Chairman Mao and what he did in China (at least 65 million murdered, abolition of private property).

SalvorHardin wrote:The Shadow Chancellor in 2019, John McDonnell, is a big fan of Chairman Mao and what he did in China (at least 65 million murdered, abolition of private property).

Well, that would solve the housing problem at a stroke, for a start.

SalvorHardin wrote:The Shadow Chancellor in 2019, John McDonnell, is a big fan of Chairman Mao and what he did in China (at least 65 million murdered, abolition of private property).

Now there's a quick fix to all of the UK's problems, murder 65 million of the population and there'd be no need for private property anyway along with the NHS backlog being eliminated overnight. SKS might triumph where BJ/RS failed (Covid). Putin keeps offering one of his Satan2's that might be used as a example to others case. A single ICBM that splits into 10+ separate powerful nuke missiles on nearing the UK with each hitting separate cities. Blow up a bunch of northerly EU islands as a example case and challenge others to respond against Russian might. As I recall and Lab would rather reduce the counter to that rather than maintain/upgrade it (such as improvements to a single missile that releases multiple viruses into the global jet stream that assures mutual (global) destruction/extinction) and in so doing increase the likelihood/possibility.

1nvest wrote:

SalvorHardin wrote:The Shadow Chancellor in 2019, John McDonnell, is a big fan of Chairman Mao and what he did in China (at least 65 million murdered, abolition of private property).

Now there's a quick fix to all of the UK's problems, murder 65 million of the population and there'd be no need for private property anyway along with the NHS backlog being eliminated overnight. SKS might triumph where BJ/RS failed (Covid). Putin keeps offering one of his Satan2's that might be used as a example to others case. A single ICBM that splits into 10+ separate powerful nuke missiles on nearing the UK with each hitting separate cities. Blow up a bunch of northerly EU islands as a example case and challenge others to respond against Russian might. As I recall and Lab would rather reduce the counter to that rather than maintain/upgrade it (such as improvements to a single missile that releases multiple viruses into the global jet stream that assures mutual (global) destruction/extinction) and in so doing increase the likelihood/possibility.

Now you're talking!

XFool wrote:Now you're talking!

Lab to adopt Outhere brothers - boom boom boom - as the parties 2024 election campaign song

1nvest wrote:

XFool wrote:Now you're talking!

Lab to adopt Outhere brothers - boom boom boom - as the parties 2024 election campaign song

Levelling up didn't work for the Tories, so Labour are looking at the complete opposite - levelling down.

1nvest wrote: Levelling up didn't work for the Tories, so Labour are looking at the complete opposite - levelling down.

As Quentin Crisp put it: "Never keep up with the Joneses, drag them down to your level."

Lootman wrote:

JohnB wrote:Tax is not about what YOU get back its what you can afford to contribute to society's overall needs.

But if the voters cannot see any result or benefit from the taxes they pay, then they might seek to avoid or evade paying those taxes. Or vote to have them changed.

"Because you have the money" seems inadequate and unconvincing as a means of persuasion.

A simple solution - for all those who pay a substantial amount of tax, there will be a list of public premises on which you could have a plaque placed indicating that this was purchased by your generosity - the higher the tax paid, the more important the premises you could choose. If you want to increase the size and importance of the premises you could select, you would be encouraged to pay additional tax to step up a level. Mind you , I would imagine getting a whole hospital named after you might cost a bit. And think of all your posh friends getting into competition to see who gets the biggest boast. A much better game than simply buying the latest and most expensive Rolls.

In a country with a long established but relatively stable progressive tax system, has it crossed anyone's mind that your top line is a fabrication accounting for this and a PR exercise to kid the poor.

Everything downstream of this is a better indication.
Things like pension arbitrage from high rate to low rate or even zero if you earn enough to stop early.
The 7 year rule.
Electric car BIK.
Subtle but grindinlyg effective stuff like once a nice, middle class family own a house in each generation, earnings can just be managed efficiently whereas the poor are trapped on a hamster wheel of rent and debt.

The helicopter view is correct, rich people are systemically advantaged and progress despite the existence of our current progressive tax system because a lot of the progressive part isn't true.

W.

SalvorHardin wrote:1) a pledge to seize 10% of any business with over 250 employees. In addition to the confiscation of shares, this would deter any business from hiring employee 251 and encourage business with over 250 employees to consider reducing their workforce.

The actual pledge was "Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund.". The 250 number did not apply to that as far I can see. I would add that I've done pretty well from preferred shares and RSUs I've been given in my career! Not sure what percentage that accounted for overall in those companies though.

SalvorHardin wrote:2) nationalising a swathe of businesses (energy, water, rail, post office, etc.) at below market value (seizure with no compensation was not ruled out).

Indeed, at least half of Britons appear to support that policy as of Sept 2022 (and Conservative voters tend to be in favour). But we are rapidly veering off topic.

Gilgongo wrote:Indeed, at least half of Britons appear to support that policy as of Sept 2022 (and Conservative voters tend to be in favour).

The curious thing about those businesses is that they are so closely regulated by the state that I fail to see what difference it would make if they were entirely public owned. Apart from the fact that money for investment would have to compete with handouts for the feckless in the annual budget negotiations.

Nimrod103 wrote:The curious thing about those businesses is that they are so closely regulated by the state that I fail to see what difference it would make if they were entirely public owned. Apart from the fact that money for investment would have to compete with handouts for the feckless in the annual budget negotiations.

Agreed, although I think the term you are reaching for in the second part of your assessment is "wages". But since (as far as I know!) nobody is calling for such industries to be free at point of use, then as you rightly imply, little would change beyond the money currently going to shareholders being redirected to investment. And there would seem to be quite a bit of fat in there for that, perhaps.

Wuffle wrote:The helicopter view is correct, rich people are systemically advantaged and progress despite the existence of our current progressive tax system because a lot of the progressive part isn't true.

A further smokescreen added by the fact that all practical mainstream political debate essentially boils down to whether taxation is a bad thing or not. So those who subscribe to the former view will vote for cuts in the hope it will benefit them, when the chances are very high for them that (even in the short term quite often) it will do no such thing. And meanwhile, they're left wondering why they're having to pay for prescriptions. It's a funny ol' worl.

Gilgongo wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:The curious thing about those businesses is that they are so closely regulated by the state that I fail to see what difference it would make if they were entirely public owned. Apart from the fact that money for investment would have to compete with handouts for the feckless in the annual budget negotiations.

Agreed, although I think the term you are reaching for in the second part of your assessment is "wages". But since (as far as I know!) nobody is calling for such industries to be free at point of use, then as you rightly imply, little would change beyond the money currently going to shareholders being redirected to investment. And there would seem to be quite a bit of fat in there for that, perhaps.

I'm not sure what the cost of a monthly season ticket has to do with the economics of running railways in Europe. All of them AIUI are heavily subsidised, whereas successive UK governments have been trying to get the level of subsidy down. Having London train drivers on £68,000 year before overtime doesn't help with keeping control of costs. Edit to add, obviously the cost of a season ticket from Luton is not too high, otherwise nobody would travel that route.
The money that has been going to shareholders in all these industries, is in payment for private investment, which would otherwise have to come from the state and be raised out of general taxation. Seeing as most of the UK population never go anywhere near a train, I guess they would complain at paying for a service they don't use.

Gilgongo wrote:The actual pledge was[/url] "Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund.". The 250 number did not apply to that as far I can see.

The manifesto specifies "large companies". The Companies Act 2006 defines a large company as a company with more than 250 employees. From the Labour manifesto:

"...by requiring large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs)."

As to nationalisation at below market value or without payment being popular with voters, the government that promises to take from Peter to give to Paul can generally count on the support of Paul.

I suspect that many of those who support nationalisation weren't around (or weren't paying attention) when these businesses were publicly owned - they were inefficient, hugely overmanned and frequently indifferent (often hostile) when it came to customer service.

SalvorHardin wrote:I suspect that many of those who support nationalisation weren't around (or weren't paying attention) when these businesses were publicly owned - they were inefficient, hugely overmanned and frequently indifferent (often hostile) when it came to customer service.

Worryingly true.

On another forum I use almost everyone posting on the politics board seems not to remember this. Calls for nationalisation as a fix for the woes of the Post Office, railways, water companies, electricity and gas are both shrill and near-universal.

There is a widespread groundswell of support for nationalisation AFAICS. Most if not all of the politicians nowadays are too young to remember what it was like when the government ran it all to massive public discontent, which Mrs Thatcher tapped into so successfully.

Mike4 wrote:

SalvorHardin wrote:I suspect that many of those who support nationalisation weren't around (or weren't paying attention) when these businesses were publicly owned - they were inefficient, hugely overmanned and frequently indifferent (often hostile) when it came to customer service.

Worryingly true.

On another forum I use almost everyone posting on the politics board seems not to remember this. Calls for nationalisation as a fix for the woes of the Post Office, railways, water companies, electricity and gas are both shrill and near-universal.

There is a widespread groundswell of support for nationalisation AFAICS. Most if not all of the politicians nowadays are too young to remember what it was like when the government ran it all to massive public discontent, which Mrs Thatcher tapped into so successfully.

Perhaps they're grateful that without the romantic candle lit dinners (power strikes) at home (staying in due to refuge piles in the streets and bodies uncollected due to strikes) - that they might otherwise have never been born.

The failures in the likes of private water/sewage are more a case of being down to the state, regulatory bodies not doing their job, permitting under-spending and breaking of laws without penalty, larger dividends and bonuses than otherwise might have been paid instead being used to offset the water/sewage/rail ...etc. in other countries (their benefit, UK cost).

I see that public servants are contemplating strikes due to being asked to go into the office two days/week rather than remaining as home workers full time. Whilst 40 minute + call waiting times to get through to public servants ... are increasing.

If anything we need the complete opposite. Sack public servants so they lose their pensions, as per the private sector. And instate more private like alternatives, that actually do some work and earn their wage rather than reading/posting social media. End the inefficiencies of where for instance it takes four days of a motorway closure to knock one bridge crossing down. A day to put out bollards, another day to assess, half a day to do the work and clear up, another day to remove the bollards. To where instead its all planned out and done in a single six hour overnight session.

8000 Councillors, with offices filled with support staff that are largely working from home, often not even bothering to answer phone calls. A NHS with three with clipboards following each front line staff member around measuring/reporting their time and motion ...etc. ... is all abuse of the taxpayers purse.

If the inefficient public sector that is around the same size as the private sector were halved, then the 33/67 balance would see costs to the private sector/public substantially more sustainable and viable. Whilst the productivity of the public sector could actually increase despite the size having been halved.

The plethora of bankrupt councils could be a good start ... dismissed and declared bankrupt, loss of pensions, re-form a more efficient replacement. Level the terms to be fairer, same as how if your private sector company goes belly up you also lose your occupational pension along with it.

1nvest wrote:Perhaps they're grateful that without the romantic candle lit dinners (power strikes) at home (staying in due to refuge piles in the streets and bodies uncollected due to strikes) - that they might otherwise have never been born.

The failures in the likes of private water/sewage are more a case of being down to the state, regulatory bodies not doing their job, permitting under-spending and breaking of laws without penalty, larger dividends and bonuses than otherwise might have been paid instead being used to offset the water/sewage/rail ...etc. in other countries (their benefit, UK cost).

I see that public servants are contemplating strikes due to being asked to go into the office two days/week rather than remaining as home workers full time. Whilst 40 minute + call waiting times to get through to public servants ... are increasing.

If anything we need the complete opposite. Sack public servants so they lose their pensions, as per the private sector. And instate more private like alternatives, that actually do some work and earn their wage rather than reading/posting social media. End the inefficiencies of where for instance it takes four days of a motorway closure to knock one bridge crossing down. A day to put out bollards, another day to assess, half a day to do the work and clear up, another day to remove the bollards. To where instead its all planned out and done in a single six hour overnight session.

8000 Councillors, with offices filled with support staff that are largely working from home, often not even bothering to answer phone calls. A NHS with three with clipboards following each front line staff member around measuring/reporting their time and motion ...etc. ... is all abuse of the taxpayers purse.

If the inefficient public sector that is around the same size as the private sector were halved, then the 33/67 balance would see costs to the private sector/public substantially more sustainable and viable. Whilst the productivity of the public sector could actually increase despite the size having been halved.

The plethora of bankrupt councils could be a good start ... dismissed and declared bankrupt, loss of pensions, re-form a more efficient replacement. Level the terms to be fairer, same as how if your private sector company goes belly up you also lose your occupational pension along with it.

Can we take it that, with thinking prejudices such as the above, you worked in the "private" sector?

Mike4 wrote:

SalvorHardin wrote:I suspect that many of those who support nationalisation weren't around (or weren't paying attention) when these businesses were publicly owned - they were inefficient, hugely overmanned and frequently indifferent (often hostile) when it came to customer service.

Worryingly true.

On another forum I use almost everyone posting on the politics board seems not to remember this. Calls for nationalisation as a fix for the woes of the Post Office, railways, water companies, electricity and gas are both shrill and near-universal.

There is a widespread groundswell of support for nationalisation AFAICS. Most if not all of the politicians nowadays are too young to remember what it was like when the government ran it all to massive public discontent, which Mrs Thatcher tapped into so successfully.

And to muddy the water I'd say that we don't have a clear distinction between private and nationalised industries, there's much grey area in the middle. The railways may be in private ownership but relying on subsidies they don't have fully private funding. We have private suppliers of energy which are in reality just administrators as they don't own the hardware or energy which we receive.