Thatcher

Mr. Charts

Legendary member
7,364 1,181
Of course, the true representatives of the People such as Labour politicos, Heroic Leaders of the Union Movement and so on have to be exempt from confiscation as the masses demand they and only they truly deserve to inherit the fruits of labour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liquid validity

Liquid validity

Senior member
2,422 692
What would be fair then in terms of wealth distribution?
I personally don't think its even possible.
Anyone who benefits from any type of economic model will think its good.
Anyone who does not benefit will think its unfair.
Trading, business and life is a zero sum game.
Its an inescapable fact.
That is mirrored in nature.
That does not mean I believe in zero social safety net,
just not a p!ss takers charter.
So what do you do (genuine safety net aside), turn survival of the
fittest on its head and feed on the fittest?

Ignore the fact that wealth creation is a zero sum game and take
money from the richest, they will just up sticks or not bother.
Then there are no jobs.
That said, system abuse is probably more of a problem than the system itself.

Its a conundrum that will never be solved.
Witness the historical phases of wealth distribution throughout
mankind's economic history.
Vibrant excess and revolution / war are the extremes.

There is no magic answer, its dynamic, and largely based
on tolerance or lack of it at a political, business and labour pool level.
There will always be an imbalance in favour of someone.
Shifting sand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shakone

bbmac

Veteren member
3,584 787
In an ideal world wealth should be evenly distributed among the population. Of course this isn't going to happen and even if everyone had an equal start (which they don't) some will always do better than others in a capitalist based economy - and that's the way it is. Add to this that wealth/capital attracts interest and with it you can invest to gain more wealth and the old saying ' money goes to money ' demonstrates this will always be the case under this model. What we can do though is level the playing field a bit though;

1. Increase the taxation of assets on the wealthy we have traditionally taxed income and spending not assets) as it is really only the wealthy who have assets. Specifically and as an eg (there are others:)

Tax 2nd homes at 100% of their value per annum - this will discourage the buying of 2nd homes and the resultant rise in value of homes that has priced so many out of the market.

2. Use a simplified tax system to redistribute wealth....specifically and as a couple of eg's (there are others;)

a. Take everyone earning less than £15k pa out of tax altogether paid for by the above

b. Encourage the conversion/setting up of ltd liability status worker's cooperatives as opposed to the traditional ltd company or plc entity.

G/L





What would be fair then in terms of wealth distribution?
 

Atilla

Legendary member
18,915 2,643
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I also respect everyone's opinion.
Opinion passed off as fact is just plain ridiculous though.

Kinnock was not a serious contender.
He lost the 87 and 92 elections, they were not close run either:
United Kingdom general election, 1987 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United Kingdom general election, 1992 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't get much more black and white than that.
MrC sums it up:


Atilla, just to be clear in case you haven't read all my posts in this thread,
I'm no staunch supporter of anyone.
Don't confuse fact with your opinion.
All I am saying is that if Kinnock was a viable serious contender,
he wouldn't have lost 2 general elections would he.

He was not a realistic alternative for most voters.
He obviously was for you, and you are in the minority with that view.

I think he was a viable candidate and the fact he ran makes him so too. Fact he didn't get elected is now history.

I'm confused how you can think a person who led and reformed the labour party and challenged Thatcher twice was not viable? On the contrary this very point makes him so.

You should reflect on what you are trying to say with your words - and I say this sincerely.

Perhaps it is the play on words we disagree on but fact is he and John Smith did a good job on the labour party.

It was John Smith's budget proposal before the election that picked up on some tax increase adn we saw the double whopper bomb adverts by Saatchi and Saatchi as well as papers bashing the labour party that swung it for the Tories imo. People were sick of all the cuts in services however.

Anyhow, getting tired of all this and you can interpret it anyhow you want. (y)


I will not be surprised if the devolving of investment banking from banks too big to fail is implemented coupled with some re-nationalisation of utilities in due course. One lives in hope one day some bright spark will re-introduce some manufacturing back into this country again. Even opening a coal mine might become reality. Watch this space. It may even be coaled The Thatcher Mine in honour of the rusting old lady. (y)
 

pboyles

Legendary member
8,072 1,301
In an ideal world wealth should be evenly distributed among the population. Of course this isn't going to happen and even if everyone had an equal start (which they don't) some will always do better than others in a capitalist based economy - and that's the way it is. Add to this that wealth/capital attracts interest and with it you can invest to gain more wealth and the old saying ' money goes to money ' demonstrates this will always be the case under this model. What we can do though is level the playing field a bit though;

1. Increase the taxation of assets on the wealthy we have traditionally taxed income and spending not assets) as it is really only the wealthy who have assets. Specifically and as an eg (there are others:)

Tax 2nd homes at 100% of their value per annum - this will discourage the buying of 2nd homes and the resultant rise in value of homes that has priced so many out of the market.

2. Use a simplified tax system to redistribute wealth....specifically and as a couple of eg's (there are others;)

a. Take everyone earning less than £15k pa out of tax altogether paid for by the above

b. Encourage the conversion/setting up of ltd liability status worker's cooperatives as opposed to the traditional ltd company or plc entity.

G/L

Can we all get a Trabant each?
 

Liquid validity

Senior member
2,422 692
I think he was a viable candidate and the fact he ran makes him so too. Fact he didn't get elected is now history.

I'm confused how you can think a person who led and reformed the labour party and challenged Thatcher twice was not viable? On the contrary this very point makes him so.
Not viable as PM in voters eyes, although I did make that point several pages ago :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atilla

neil

Legendary member
5,167 745
Of course, the true representatives of the People such as Labour politicos, Heroic Leaders of the Union Movement and so on have to be exempt from confiscation as the masses demand they and only they truly deserve to inherit the fruits of labour.

Yep - you have to be a card carrying member to avoid the food rationing restrictions in the USSR etc.:)
 

Trader333

Moderator
8,492 881
1. Increase the taxation of assets on the wealthy we have traditionally taxed income and spending not assets) as it is really only the wealthy who have assets. Specifically and as an eg (there are others
This presumes the assets are immediately liquid when most are not.

Tax 2nd homes at 100% of their value per annum - this will discourage the buying of 2nd homes and the resultant rise in value of homes that has priced so many out of the market.
This would just become the easiest tax dodge in history in my view by buying the home under the name of someone else or even under a company name. It would do nothing to discourage buying of second homes.

2. Use a simplified tax system to redistribute wealth....specifically and as a couple of eg's (there are others

a. Take everyone earning less than £15k pa out of tax altogether paid for by the above

b. Encourage the conversion/setting up of ltd liability status worker's cooperatives as opposed to the traditional ltd company or plc entity.
I agree with this.
 

neil

Legendary member
5,167 745
This presumes the assets are immediately liquid when most are not.



This would just become the easiest tax dodge in history in my view by buying the home under the name of someone else or even under a company name. It would do nothing to discourage buying of second homes.



I agree with this.
Some would suggest burning down second homes but I cannot condone such an action myself:eek:
 

bbmac

Veteren member
3,584 787
This presumes the assets are immediately liquid when most are not.

It doesn't matter whether the asset (s) is liquid or not - if the owner of the asset does not have the liquid funds to pay the tax - he has to sell the asset - thus redistributing and driving prices down...that is the point.

This would just become the easiest tax dodge in history in my view by buying the home under the name of someone else or even under a company name. It would do nothing to discourage buying of second homes.
[/I]

It's very easy - close any loopholes by having a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for anyone caught trying to avoid it by such measures. The aim of this particular policy is not really to raise revenue but to prevent the speculative/unreasonably accumulative buying of homes and it's effects n prices. This along with other measures already mentioned in this thread and others will see house prices return to affordable levels for the many not just the few and stabilise them.

The other more radical policy that I favour in addition is for the govt to embark on a house building policy of up to 5 million (the current waiting list for social housing) new homes (or as demand requires) which will be sold at cost on a 50 year term to those in need (average building cost of a 3 bed semi is £90k)...the govt will sell or rent the homes to those in need over a 50 year term and any equity built to total equity (ie ownership) up by the owner can be willed on death or sold back to the govt at any time at the same price adjusted only for inflation. This building programme will be financed by long term borrowing of £500billion - the cost of which will be met by those taking up the homes. The effect of this govt controlled housing stock will be to give the choice of home ownership or affordable rents to the many and this will in course drive down demand for purchase/rent of the privately owned housing stock too.


G/L
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atilla

Trader333

Moderator
8,492 881
bbm,

The prisons are already too full and as any law comes in to tax people, those affected also use the law to get around it and that will never change in my view. How would you factor in foreigners owing property ? what about those who buy to let ? how are you going to send them to prison unless you change the UK to a state similar to North Korea. Also if you stopped second home ownership in the UK then people would just go abroad to purchase and the money with it. It is never as simple as so many people think it is without changing the entire culture to one of that bordering on a police state.

The single biggest factor affecting prices rises now being seen in London is Russian, Greek and Chinese purchases so would you make it illegal for anyone outside the UK to own property in the UK ?
 

bbmac

Veteren member
3,584 787
Mate, your assertion about needing close on to a police state to do it is nonsense....where there is a will there is a way. I am part of a think tank that has this costed and thought through (as well as the wider implications) although we haven't published yet.

I am relaxed about people buying 2nd homes elsewhere if they want one. I live in Central London - and to a large extent you are right. ..We won't have to ban anyone from abroad from owning a 2nd home in our country as the100% tax on 2nd homes and 100% tax for non domiciles buying homes here will discourage the practice anyway. As for buy to let - no that would not be allowed in the new 'not for profit' market I have described, but of course in the current private housing stock market - it goes on and would continue.

The aim of the policy is 2 fold;

1. To provide secure inter generational rental/ownership of 'not for profit' govt owned/sold/controlled housing stock to a large section that cannot afford the current private housing stock

2. To dampen down demand in the private housing market (both for rental and purchase) so that rental and prices fall there too and stay stable as the above described ' not for profit market' will have entirely stable prices and would act as an alternative choice to the private housing market.

Let's get homes back to what they used to be - places of shelter - for people to live in and be secure. I mentioned earlier in this thread - serious problems require serious solutions ....and this is one.

G/L

bbm,

The prisons are already too full and as any law comes in to tax people, those affected also use the law to get around it and that will never change in my view. How would you factor in foreigners owing property ? what about those who buy to let ? how are you going to send them to prison unless you change the UK to a state similar to North Korea. Also if you stopped second home ownership in the UK then people would just go abroad to purchase and the money with it. It is never as simple as so many people think it is without changing the entire culture to one of that bordering on a police state.

The single biggest factor affecting prices rises now being seen in London is Russian, Greek and Chinese purchases so would you make it illegal for anyone outside the UK to own property in the UK ?