General Election

[Rudy T]

Just watched Ruth Davidson. They she probably remove May now and stick her at the helm they'd probably revive their campaign.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

Angus Robertson MP and Foreign Secretary has a beeeeeeeeyoooooootiful ring to it.

More likely to be Angus Robertson spending more time with his family after June 8th.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

Just watched Ruth Davidson. They she probably remove May now and stick her at the helm they'd probably revive their campaign.

 

I dont know why they haven't parachuted her in. She did pretty well tonight.

[Space Mackerel]

More likely to be Angus Robertson spending more time with his family after June 8th.

Here's Trapper (Tory, Nu Labour, Old Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP) John with his words of wisdom from Twatter again.

[Ulysses]

More likely to be Angus Robertson spending more time with his family after June 8th.

 

If the kind of Tory gain being predicted by the opinion polls were to hold up Robertson would be in trouble - but the polls would need to, let's just say meet the best expectations of the Conservatives.

 

But Moray will be one to watch.

[Maroon Sailor]

If the kind of Tory gain being predicted by the opinion polls were to hold up Robertson would be in trouble - but the polls would need to, let's just say meet the best expectations of the Conservatives.

 

But Moray will be one to watch.

Robertson will probably survive

 

He is getting a lot of air time lately whereas Douglas Ross is not getting a look in.

[Ulysses]

Robertson will probably survive

 

He is getting a lot of air time lately whereas Douglas Ross is not getting a look in.

 

True, and the latest polls look less promising for the Conservatives.

[deesidejambo]

True, and the latest polls look less promising for the Conservatives.

I wouldn't ignore the possibility of localised tactical voting though.

[Maroon Sailor]

I'll be happy if the SNP only lose 2 seats if they are Moray and Edinburgh South West

[luckydug]

I wouldn't ignore the possibility of localised tactical voting though.

 

You say that at every election though.

[gowestjambo]

Yes I do want them to use their income tax power, after all they moaned like feck for it to be dissolved to the Scottish Assembly, why won't they use local income tax the benefit of the country. They've got plenty of powers but fail to use them, can you advice me why, genuine question?

 

For the avoidance of doubt.

 

You are happy that a Millionaire gets treated the same as someone on ?30k and gets:-

 

Free prescriptions

Free eye tests

Free dental checks

Pays the same council tax (band specific and could actually pay less)

 

SNP - Tartan Tories in all but name.

 

A Millionaire should be treated better than someone on ?30k - after all he contributes far more in Income Tax, NI Contributions, spends more money locally and probably pays a higher Council Tax rate.

 

What is the obsession with taxing the rich? The top 3,000 pay more than the bottom 9,000,000..................

[gowestjambo]

Angus Robertson MP and Foreign Secretary has a beeeeeeeeyoooooootiful ring to it.

 

Really? There has NEVER been one successful Socialist government anywhere in the world.

 

They always do well until they run out of other peoples money.

[AlphonseCapone]

Really? There has NEVER been one successful Socialist government anywhere in the world.

 

They always do well until they run out of other peoples money.

 

What's your measure of success?

[Rudolf's Mate]

Starting to agree with some that the supposed 15pt lead by Tories might have been way off the mark. If it wasn't then feck me!

[AlphonseCapone]

Looks my area will be a straight fight between Tories and SNP so SNP vote for me, sorry Jeremy.

[doctor jambo]

What's your measure of success?

NOt having the economy collapsing completely with essentials like medication, energy and food running out?

Those are what has happened in every country run as Corbyn would like

Remember when everyone was lionising Venezuela and Chavez?

[Pans Jambo]

A Millionaire should be treated better than someone on ?30k - after all he contributes far more in Income Tax, NI Contributions, spends more money locally and probably pays a higher Council Tax rate.

 

What is the obsession with taxing the rich? The top 3,000 pay more than the bottom 9,000,000..................

Simply because millionaires can afford to pay more but someone on say ?25k with a mortgage, wife, 2 kids, car etc. is 'just surviving' and so should be almost taken out of paying tax all together if the rich and the multinationals pay their fare share.

 

Don't forget that one of the biggest drivers in the economy is not the 3,000 that you refer to but the millions who pay tax, VAT, mortgages, buy fuel, pay their council tax, spend on food, clothing, restaurants, holidays, etc. etc. That is what keeps the economy going. Not a multi millionaire buying a Ferrari.

 

People who pay less SHOULD pay a lot less tax than they currently do so they can save and spend more.

 

What difference does it make if you earn over ?250K P/A and you have to pay another ?1000 - ?2000 more a month on income tax than currently?

[Boris]

NOt having the economy collapsing completely with essentials like medication, energy and food running out?

Those are what has happened in every country run as Corbyn would like

Remember when everyone was lionising Venezuela and Chavez?

 

You have Corbyn down as some sort of Castro type character.  Far from it.

 

But you bash on.

[Sraman]

Eh no!

All I have to worry about in this election is a decade old policy from a Scotland only election that wasn't enacted to my skewed view of socialism. I mean, it's not as if there are any bigger issues at stake in this General Election that could possibly outweigh this devolved issue, is there? No! Why can't you see that Alex Salmond should have stripped the wealthy of all their money so that people on ?30k pa can live in big houses without paying the going rate of tax for living in a big house. It's so unfair.

 

 

Nice piece of selective quoting there.

[Pans Jambo]

NOt having the economy collapsing completely with essentials like medication, energy and food running out?

Those are what has happened in every country run as Corbyn would like

Remember when everyone was lionising Venezuela and Chavez?

Folk say a socialist type society just doesn't work and maybe that's true however; IMO, I believe it's not been ALLOWED to work by big businesses and politicians who do everything they can to collapse this type of society due to the fact that the greedy barstewards cant buy a fleet of bentley's and super yachts in a 'share your wealth' type economy.

 

As long as the poor are poor and the rich stay rich (or even richer) then the powers that be will be happy.

 

Not sure why medication, energy and food would run out in a first world country such as Britain though.

[AlphonseCapone]

NOt having the economy collapsing completely with essentials like medication, energy and food running out?

Those are what has happened in every country run as Corbyn would like

Remember when everyone was lionising Venezuela and Chavez?

This country won't run out of medication, energy or food regardless of who is elected and which policies are implemented. The reason that many of those things have happened in "socialist" countries is that they've been as corrupt as they come.

 

Countries like Germany and the Netherlands have nationalised transportation and do better than us. Nationalisation can work.

 

We are more likely to look like the Socialist Scandinavian countries or Canada than Venezuela.

[reaths17]

A Millionaire should be treated better than someone on ?30k - after all he contributes far more in Income Tax, NI Contributions, spends more money locally and probably pays a higher Council Tax rate.

 

What is the obsession with taxing the rich? The top 3,000 pay more than the bottom 9,000,000..................

how did the rich man get his riches ? did he work harder than the poorer person and create more profit ? did he pay more tax ? or did he use avoidance measures unavailable to all but for the right amount doable.

 

profit created margins compared to profit sharing margins are enormously weighted towards the top. if your at the top your being remunerated accordingly with your wage providing you are really that clever and didn't just get the job through the old boys clubs.

bonuses for the top are disgracefully shared among the elite a situation that is unavailable to the hard working lower rated in society

[Sraman]

NOt having the economy collapsing completely with essentials like medication, energy and food running out?

Those are what has happened in every country run as Corbyn would like

Remember when everyone was lionising Venezuela and Chavez?

 

No I can't remember that. I do, however, remember the champion of Conservatism and big business dismissing climate change (I think that was yesterday). If we all follow him (like Teresa seems so desperate to do) we won't have a planet left so no need for medication, energy and food. Yay conservatism!!

[gowestjambo]

What's your measure of success?

 

 

One that has not run up a huge national debt for others who follow have to pay.

[Guest]

This country won't run out of medication, energy or food regardless of who is elected and which policies are implemented. The reason that many of those things have happened in "socialist" countries is that they've been as corrupt as they come.

 

Countries like Germany and the Netherlands have nationalised transportation and do better than us. Nationalisation can work.

 

We are more likely to look like the Socialist Scandinavian countries or Canada than Venezuela.

The examples you give isn't really socialism though. Without getting into semantics they all operate on the principals of free market. They have some socialist policies not that different from the uk.

 

The reason nationalisation has worked in these countries is they are operated as a business as such. Something the previous nationalised industries failed to do. Though a huge variety of other reasons.

 

Socialism not working because of corruption I kind of agree with. However, that the reason truly socialist society will never work because of human nature. Power corrupts and all that jazz, whilst we are inherently selfish creatures for a good number of evolutionary reasons. That doesnt change whether it's socialist, capitalist or communist.

 

Free markets are essential for economic reasons. Pretty much every country that has tried the socialist exporenent have failed. I can't think of one has succeeded in the long term.

 

Like most things it's about balance.

[gowestjambo]

Simply because millionaires can afford to pay more but someone on say ?25k with a mortgage, wife, 2 kids, car etc. is 'just surviving' and so should be almost taken out of paying tax all together if the rich and the multinationals pay their fare share.

 

Don't forget that one of the biggest drivers in the economy is not the 3,000 that you refer to but the millions who pay tax, VAT, mortgages, buy fuel, pay their council tax, spend on food, clothing, restaurants, holidays, etc. etc. That is what keeps the economy going. Not a multi millionaire buying a Ferrari.

 

People who pay less SHOULD pay a lot less tax than they currently do so they can save and spend more.

 

What difference does it make if you earn over ?250K P/A and you have to pay another ?1000 - ?2000 more a month on income tax than currently?

 

So hard working people who EARN every penny, should subsidise the lower paid? How long do you think that plan would last?

 

I am not suggesting that everyone does not contribute to the economy. But if you over tax the wealth creators - they will move elsewhere or find ways to avoid paying tax.

My point was the top 3,000 pay a sum equal to the bottom 9 million. Socialist governments think they know how to spend tax payers money better than the individuals do. And we all know how well Governments and Local Authorities are at balancing the books.

 

It is simply the politics of envy to suggest wealth creators should pay more.

[gowestjambo]

how did the rich man get his riches ? did he work harder than the poorer person and create more profit ? did he pay more tax ? or did he use avoidance measures unavailable to all but for the right amount doable.

 

profit created margins compared to profit sharing margins are enormously weighted towards the top. if your at the top your being remunerated accordingly with your wage providing you are really that clever and didn't just get the job through the old boys clubs.

bonuses for the top are disgracefully shared among the elite a situation that is unavailable to the hard working lower rated in society

 

So Bill Gates, Richard Branson and all other Entrepreneurs just happened to become rich by chance? There are opportunities if people want to look for them. Governments do not have any money. They have tax payers money. The majority of which is contributed by large business and their employees. 

 

I am not suggesting the situation is perfect, and we should not allow Tax Evasion. However, if companies do not produce profits - where is the money to come from? 

[Boris]

I don't think Labour's Manifesto is as far left as some on here are scaremongering about.

 

It is an attempt at radical change, but it is not some sort of Communist Soviet Republic that is being proposed. 

 

Quite.

[reaths17]

So Bill Gates, Richard Branson and all other Entrepreneurs just happened to become rich by chance? There are opportunities if people want to look for them. Governments do not have any money. They have tax payers money. The majority of which is contributed by large business and their employees. 

 

I am not suggesting the situation is perfect, and we should not allow Tax Evasion. However, if companies do not produce profits - where is the money to come from? 

I never said that, what I said was, what contribution the worker/boss did and was it commensurate with the sharing of profit.

 

I see there's a host of self made people lost their tax evasion scheme(700mils worth) today in the papers, there will be many others still at it.

[AlphonseCapone]

The examples you give isn't really socialism though. Without getting into semantics they all operate on the principals of free market. They have some socialist policies not that different from the uk.

 

The reason nationalisation has worked in these countries is they are operated as a business as such. Something the previous nationalised industries failed to do. Though a huge variety of other reasons.

 

Socialism not working because of corruption I kind of agree with. However, that the reason truly socialist society will never work because of human nature. Power corrupts and all that jazz, whilst we are inherently selfish creatures for a good number of evolutionary reasons. That doesnt change whether it's socialist, capitalist or communist.

 

Free markets are essential for economic reasons. Pretty much every country that has tried the socialist exporenent have failed. I can't think of one has succeeded in the long term.

 

Like most things it's about balance.

 

You are right and in my mind this is the Socialism of the future. Our current economic model works well in many ways but it has led to a large gap between the top and the bottom, even the middle are being squeezed now. I don't have a problem with all capitalism but I don't believe in a completely free market, there needs to be some regulation. We should have, and when I say we I mean the State, the powers to make sure that when vast sums of wealth are generated by business in this country that some of it goes back into improving society for all. I know this is the essence of tax (tax avoidance is another huge issue), but I would support some form of tax on profits above a specific level that goes directly into programmes aimed at those in the lowest socio-economic categories.

 

I personally don't believe any one individual should be allowed to accumulate wealth over a specific threshold as it is obscene that some people have more money than they can spend while others starve but I appreciate that limiting an individual's wealth isn't a popular concept. But there can be a balance between the market and Socialism, for example, take owning property. Some people own a lot of property and some people own none, and some even can't rent. In a free market economy, an individual with the money to do it is free to own as much property as they wish. But this creates the social imbalance in favour of those whom already have an advantage. So why not limit the number of properties that someone can own, or have a legal percentage that the State, through councils, own. Or even more simple, though not as good, rent controls. So not necessarily getting rid of the Porsche (free market), more like giving it a speed limit.

 

Linked to above, I agree that nationalisation should be the State providing competition and not having a monopoly on an industry. A state owned energy company that lowers prices, forcing other energy companies to think about their own pricing structures or lose customers. It should be possible because a State owned organisation should aim to run at close to a neutral budget, and not driven by endless amounts of profit, so this should give it wider margins than a private company. 

 

Apologies my post got a bit long, it was more difficult than I thought to explain what I was trying to and I am still not sure I have very clearly. But your last sentence is correct, balance. Balance between a market that allows innovation, success and reward but still looks after and helps those who are in most need. And a distinction in terms between Socialism in terms of the economy and Socialism in terms of people would be useful as not everyone means the same thing when they say Socialism.

[Pans Jambo]

So hard working people who EARN every penny, should subsidise the lower paid? How long do you think that plan would last?

 

I am not suggesting that everyone does not contribute to the economy. But if you over tax the wealth creators - they will move elsewhere or find ways to avoid paying tax.

My point was the top 3,000 pay a sum equal to the bottom 9 million. Socialist governments think they know how to spend tax payers money better than the individuals do. And we all know how well Governments and Local Authorities are at balancing the books.

 

It is simply the politics of envy to suggest wealth creators should pay more.

Its the usual phrases though... 'wealth creators'. If you are paid millions then you are not creating wealth for anyone other than yourself.

 

Where would the 'wealth creators' go? I have heard this repeatedly and I dont buy it.

 

The fact is (& you said it yourself), there,s 3,000 people getting paid MORE than 9,000,000 people. Does that sound like the wealthy cant afford to pay a bit more so society can benefit?

 

If they are earning that much then I would suggest that they SHOULD pay (broadest shoulders and all that). 

 

This does not translate into a subsidy for the lower paid. It means that the 'wealth creators' should take a slightly less salary and pay their staff slightly more THEN pay their share of the tax that reflects their millions of wealth.

 

Folk are wiping their arses with ?50 notes whilst other seek pay day loans to buy food.

 

Thats the issue with 'Wealth creators'. Its greed. Not need.

[doctor jambo]

So hard working people who EARN every penny, should subsidise the lower paid? How long do you think that plan would last?

 

I am not suggesting that everyone does not contribute to the economy. But if you over tax the wealth creators - they will move elsewhere or find ways to avoid paying tax.

My point was the top 3,000 pay a sum equal to the bottom 9 million. Socialist governments think they know how to spend tax payers money better than the individuals do. And we all know how well Governments and Local Authorities are at balancing the books.

 

It is simply the politics of envy to suggest wealth creators should pay more.

To an extent the higher earners SHOULD subsidise the lower wages.

At least until everyone gets paid fairly and can live on what they earn.

However, the increased taxation argument is not a great one

Every pound I earn gets spent, pretty much, and that money goes to someone else. has VAT and so on and so forth.

The more the government takes off me, the less  I spend

The less I spend the less money other folks have.

YOu drop my tax bill by ?20000 and it will all get spent and thus support jobs, manufacturing and so on, and the govt will get a whack of it through VAT etc anyway

Government are wasteful with YOUR money

They forget whose it is

Trams, HS2, Scottish Parliament Building, Millenium Dome, West Hams new stadium,- there's billions right there- never mind trident, PFI, foreign aid increases - including to India etc

its madness I tell you- billions wasted on grand gestures and political legacies

[Don Dan]

As soon as everyone gets the Labours living wage the prices will go up to cover the cost to employers. That will fuel inflation. There needs to be a productivity out put to match higher costs. How can that happen if everyone is working flat out.

[Don Dan]

Or alternatively Companies could just make less profit.

and go bust.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gowestjambo]

Its the usual phrases though... 'wealth creators'. If you are paid millions then you are not creating wealth for anyone other than yourself.

 

Where would the 'wealth creators' go? I have heard this repeatedly and I dont buy it.

 

The fact is (& you said it yourself), there,s 3,000 people getting paid MORE than 9,000,000 people. Does that sound like the wealthy cant afford to pay a bit more so society can benefit?

 

If they are earning that much then I would suggest that they SHOULD pay (broadest shoulders and all that). 

 

This does not translate into a subsidy for the lower paid. It means that the 'wealth creators' should take a slightly less salary and pay their staff slightly more THEN pay their share of the tax that reflects their millions of wealth.

 

Folk are wiping their arses with ?50 notes whilst other seek pay day loans to buy food.

 

Thats the issue with 'Wealth creators'. Its greed. Not need.

 

People are paid what they are worth - money is earned - no one is handed money for doing nothing.

 

Wealth Creators should take less and pay employees more- I dont know what world you live  in but competitiveness is required for companies to succeed over others. Paying people more just for the sake of it would never work. I suggest if you want that type of world then you need to go to North Korea.

[Don Dan]

So it is Ok for these companies to make money by paying their employees a wage that they cannot live on?

That's an ideological stance.

 

If you pay more to make a product or provide a service you need to cover the costs to reflect that. You do that by charging more for the product or service. It a basic business model that allows business to survive.

If the EEC have to pay their council employees more (the Labour living wage) they have to pass that cost onto rate payers or reduce services which in turn would mean less employees.

Someone has to cover the cost of higher wages.

If Labour get in just watch what happens.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pans Jambo]

As soon as everyone gets the Labours living wage the prices will go up to cover the cost to employers. That will fuel inflation. There needs to be a productivity out put to match higher costs. How can that happen if everyone is working flat out.

Why is it good that its a race to the bottom though? Less pay = profitable company.

 

Instead of the CEO getting ?12Million P/A why not take ?4Million P/A instead. I am sure the ?8Million will be gratefully received by the workers in the trenches.

 

Also, Why not a little less profit. Take a step back and ask why large corporations really need to make more & more & more profit EVERY year? Shareholders?

 

They have even started to call it a loss FFS! e.g. Big Baws Company Ltd. made ?750 Million pre-tax profit in year one. In the next year they made ?725 Million pre-tax profit.

 

So thats a ?25 Million pound loss.

 

Naw, its no, you have just made ?725 Million pound profit. Pisses me off the greedy barstewards!

 

I appreciate the above example may not be relevant to a small independent coffee shop owner but if he adds 10p or so to a cup of coffee and the same to his cakes and biscuits thats the rise in salary paid for. Everyone will be paid more anyway so they will be able to afford the extra 10p on a cup.

[Don Dan]

So is protecting Shareholders profit.

 

The Conservatives are in and we can already see what is happening.

Not every company has shareholders. However shareholders use their money or in some cases other monies from say pension funds to back a company. There needs to be a return on that investment to make it worth while investing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pans Jambo]

Not every company has shareholders. However shareholders use their money or in some cases other monies from say pension funds to back a company. There needs to be a return on that investment to make it worth while investing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct but PROFIT is PROFIT. slightly less profit to pay for a decent working wage for fellow human beings should not be an issue.

[manaliveits105]

So what's the Krankies response to the channel4 fact file ? - as usual nothing

[Don Dan]

Correct but PROFIT is PROFIT. slightly less profit to pay for a decent working wage for fellow human beings should not be an issue.

.

 

 

But enough profit to make it worthwhile. Tell me how much do you consider to be the correct profit that should be taken to allow a business to survive, further invest and give a reasonable return to investors? 5% 10% 50% 300%

Do you work out the profit based on the investments or costs or future viability.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boris]

and go bust.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Company that makes profit goes bust?

[doctor jambo]

Correct but PROFIT is PROFIT. slightly less profit to pay for a decent working wage for fellow human beings should not be an issue.

 I agree pans

I would be supportive of a measure that stated any company paying BELOW living wage would have the benefits the govt pays to their staff reimbursed from gross profits each year

that way we, the tax payer stop subsidising the likes of Tesco and Amazon that COULD pay higher wages but don't, whist also allowing smaller companies/ low profit companies to continue

Brexit will also allow us to tax British profits in Britain and stop them being off -shored

[Don Dan]

Company that makes profit goes bust?

Very true and I've been on the wrong end of that and lost out financially. Generally it's bad management or in some cases wilful actions.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boris]

.

 

 

But enough profit to make it worthwhile. Tell me how much do you consider to be the correct profit that should be taken to allow a business to survive, further invest and give a reasonable return to investors? 5% 10% 50% 300%

Do you work out the profit based on the investments or costs or future viability.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

once the business takes out operating costs and r&D, what's left is what i would define as profit.

[gowestjambo]

So it is Ok for these companies to make money by paying their employees a wage that they cannot live on?

 

These people could could improve their skills and get a better job. Why is it always someone else's fault?

 

People need to be responsible for their own lives - not expecting hand outs or be paid more than their worth.

 

There is no cap on anyone becoming better or working harder.

[gowestjambo]

 I agree pans

I would be supportive of a measure that stated any company paying BELOW living wage would have the benefits the govt pays to their staff reimbursed from gross profits each year

that way we, the tax payer stop subsidising the likes of Tesco and Amazon that COULD pay higher wages but don't, whist also allowing smaller companies/ low profit companies to continue

Brexit will also allow us to tax British profits in Britain and stop them being off -shored

 

So in this brave new world you would decide what profits companies would make. I agree with clamping down on Tax evasion, but companies earning profits means higher Corporation Tax for the Government.

[Taffin]

People are paid what they are worth - money is earned - no one is handed money for doing nothing.

 

Wealth Creators should take less and pay employees more- I dont know what world you live  in but competitiveness is required for companies to succeed over others. Paying people more just for the sake of it would never work. I suggest if you want that type of world then you need to go to North Korea.

 

 

Nonsense. I don't believe you have ever worked in a large corporation if you truly believe that. Often the 'wealth creators' as you like to call them are the frontline staff or lower paid roles; it isn't always the high earners and it almost certainly isn't the shareholders whom in your mind would appear to be the most valuable as they earn the most.

[Guest]

You are right and in my mind this is the Socialism of the future. Our current economic model works well in many ways but it has led to a large gap between the top and the bottom, even the middle are being squeezed now. I don't have a problem with all capitalism but I don't believe in a completely free market, there needs to be some regulation. We should have, and when I say we I mean the State, the powers to make sure that when vast sums of wealth are generated by business in this country that some of it goes back into improving society for all. I know this is the essence of tax (tax avoidance is another huge issue), but I would support some form of tax on profits above a specific level that goes directly into programmes aimed at those in the lowest socio-economic categories.

 

I personally don't believe any one individual should be allowed to accumulate wealth over a specific threshold as it is obscene that some people have more money than they can spend while others starve but I appreciate that limiting an individual's wealth isn't a popular concept. But there can be a balance between the market and Socialism, for example, take owning property. Some people own a lot of property and some people own none, and some even can't rent. In a free market economy, an individual with the money to do it is free to own as much property as they wish. But this creates the social imbalance in favour of those whom already have an advantage. So why not limit the number of properties that someone can own, or have a legal percentage that the State, through councils, own. Or even more simple, though not as good, rent controls. So not necessarily getting rid of the Porsche (free market), more like giving it a speed limit.

 

Linked to above, I agree that nationalisation should be the State providing competition and not having a monopoly on an industry. A state owned energy company that lowers prices, forcing other energy companies to think about their own pricing structures or lose customers. It should be possible because a State owned organisation should aim to run at close to a neutral budget, and not driven by endless amounts of profit, so this should give it wider margins than a private company.

 

Apologies my post got a bit long, it was more difficult than I thought to explain what I was trying to and I am still not sure I have very clearly. But your last sentence is correct, balance. Balance between a market that allows innovation, success and reward but still looks after and helps those who are in most need. And a distinction in terms between Socialism in terms of the economy and Socialism in terms of people would be useful as not everyone means the same thing when they say Socialism.

I wasnt going to respond to this as it's a bit of semantics and you say your struggling to convey your thoughts.

 

However, your not really arguing for socialism in any shape or form IMO. The things that you are suggesting are just more left leaning policies. You even concede nationalised industries should not be a monopoly. That's blows any theory of socialism out the water.

 

The fundamental principal of socialism is ownership by collective (whatever shape that takes) controls production, distribution something your not argueung that. On the basis this is the fundamental principal and relates to economics it becomes impossible to separate socialism from economics.

 

Your way more a caring capitalist (Copyright me) than a socialist! Though I guess that me being a pedant. You can call yourself what you want it's just a label.

 

Socialism has tried to create, relatively successfully, a narrative where anything that is for the people is socialism in name it's really not. Socialism has been tried and failed (unless Im missing something), it's a nice ideology which will never work in practice due to human nature. Therefore, the proponents have tried to claim any success that works as socialism. It's not . Socialism truley a 'busted flush' to steal a socialist poster phrase!

 

On your suggestions I think their bonkers for a variety of reasons. I get what your trying to do but long term they wouldn't work for many of the reasons socialism doesn't work.

[AlphonseCapone]

I wasnt going to respond to this as it's a bit of semantics and you say your struggling to convey your thoughts.

 

However, your not really arguing for socialism in any shape or form IMO. The things that you are suggesting are just more left leaning policies. You even concede nationalised industries should not be a monopoly. That's blows any theory of socialism out the water.

 

The fundamental principal of socialism is ownership by collective (whatever shape that takes) controls production, distribution something your not argueung that. On the basis this is the fundamental principal and relates to economics it becomes impossible to separate socialism from economics.

 

Your way more a caring capitalist (Copyright me) than a socialist! Though I guess that me being a pedant. You can call yourself what you want it's just a label.

 

Socialism has tried to create, relatively successfully, a narrative where anything that is for the people is socialism in name it's really not. Socialism has been tried and failed (unless Im missing something), it's a nice ideology which will never work in practice due to human nature. Therefore, the proponents have tried to claim any success that works as socialism. It's not . Socialism truley a 'busted flush' to steal a socialist poster phrase!

 

On your suggestions I think their bonkers for a variety of reasons. I get what your trying to do but long term they wouldn't work for many of the reasons socialism doesn't work.

 

Maybe.

 

Based on your definition I don't really get the difference between communism and socialism then. I'm sure Boris can help with that if he is around!

 

Caring Capitalists could catch on

 

The free market economy also doesn't work, unless you ignore the millions who get left behind because of it. Sure, it works for a lot of people but why are we settling for that rather than looking at alternatives that work for all?